Quote Originally Posted by mkemse View Post
you do not invade a country due to the oppresion of others, like we always do, you negotiate, talk you your enemies if need be and use diplomatic efforts first, we have never even attempted to use diplomace in Iraq or any of it's neighbors, as they have said "There are times when you MUST talk to your enemies, we did with Russia years ago, we should have before we invaded, if all elese fails and every concievable effort has been made to rsolve the issue has failed, then and only then (unless you are attacked which Iraq has not done, they have neer attacked the USA) then you CONSIDER other options
if we did invade a country JUST for human rights oppersion the United States would have to invade virutaly every country on earth, not all but most
The US has to stop policing the world, Afghanistan is different Al Quida is based there, the Taliban is based there, they attacked on on 911, this has nothing to do with 911 and ever agency in the United States has said countless time that neither Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with 911
I'm sorry but there's a couple of holes in this post.

1) After the first Iraq war, about 10 years of negotiations followed where Saddam proved without a doubt that he just laughs at the suffering of his people. And since he made the people of Iraq suffer all the sanctions while his life-style was unimpaired I don't see how any more negotiations could have helped. 10 years of negotiations is a long time.

2) USA doesn't have to police the world on their own. The other democratic nations are more than willing to help out. The problem with Iraq was that USA wanted to dictate all the terms for how the post-war should be run. With France and Germany being as pompously blown up about their national pride as USA, (especially France) it wasn't hard to see where it would fail. This is all down to diplomacy and letting the sulky kid in the corner get their way for the good of the group. This is the realities of international diplomacy. Either you kiss everybodies ass, or you're on your own. With Germany and France out of the picture, getting the UN to come around is dead in the water. Having the UN on-board I think is vital for image reasons.

I think the democracies of the world should get together and police the world. It will make the world a better and safer place for one. I think it's very dangerous letting the dictatorships opress their people and invade others as they please. I also think it's very dangerous having one nation as a wild gun, (USA) just firing wildly at anything that they concieve is a problem. Negotiation and concensus between the democratic nations before taking action I believe is very important. The problem with USA's aproach is that it pisses everybody off. Not only do they waste enormous sums of money on their police actions. They aren't making any friends in the process, which should be a major goal, right?

3) How do you know Al Qaeda exists at all? As far as I know there's not been a shred of evidence that it's one organisation at all. I think it's more likely just something militant Islamists say they represent when they do their shit, in order to get more press and to give the impression of belonging to something larger.

The guy who blew up the bomb in London was Jamaican. I doubt you could find any ties to Saudi Arabia. He got no training or money from any external source. It was just one guy who was inspired to do it by one imam.

The guys who blew up the Madrid bombs where Maroccan, and the guy who suplied them with bombs was Spanish. It doesn't really give the impression of being very organised, does it?

As far as stoping Al Qaeda, I'm sure the Afghanistan invasion was a waste of money. But it did topple the Taleban, and that must be worth something. They where total cunts.