Saddam to Swing

Urbane Guerrilla · 01-08-2007, 01:45 AM

"Imaginary threat" is an interestingly head-in-the-sand way to describe an Iraq that first attacked Iran, and then some years later attacked Kuwait. Real peaceable, real quiet, and a really good global village citizen, wasn't ol' Saddam? Just what would have sufficiently demonstrated his bad character if it were up to you? It's this sort of absurdity that makes the antiwar crowd such a lot of dopes. You can't figure out when force is actually called for -- demanding, or purporting to demand, an impossible, indeed nonhuman, standard of, uh, proof. It doesn't look like getting raped bent over your own rider mowers would suffice. Talks? Not that much negotion goes on during rapes, IMHO.

My position has a more elegant simplicity to it.

What you fail to recognize, and what by contrast I appreciate fully, is that we took Iraq out happily before Saddam could build himself into either the Emperor of Oil, or some new edition of Nebuchadnezzar -- the none-too-smart still try and follow the imperial paradigm, as they don't understand nor respect the virtues of free trade and a world economy so based. Saddam, whose career most resembled that of a Mafioso who made Godfather, crossed with a Soviet-style purge or two, should be entered among those none-too-brights.

Keep in mind: the whole of the human world's political troubles spring from the un-democracies. Democracies not only are more easily richer, they behave better too. The less a country is a democracy, the worse it behaves, as a rule -- and for a clear example, we may look to Saddam's Iraq and the last, er, election. A dog-and-pony show that everyone went along with that they might survive, par for the course for an un-democracy. I don't think you have personal experience of such a social order, or I'd hardly have to work this hard to persuade you.

The answer to your rhetorical question is EVERYBODY who isn't a democracy needs our boots or someone's all over them -- make them tired of being anything but a democratic republic, or a republican democracy.

Kitsune · 01-08-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The answer to your rhetorical question is EVERYBODY who isn't a democracy needs our boots or someone's all over them -- make them tired of being anything but a democratic republic, or a republican democracy.

Your idea that we can change attitudes and fix everything with bombs and boots in other countries hasn't held water for decades and I'm at a complete loss in understanding how anyone in this day could think sticking our hand into the hornet's nest that is the middle east could result in anything other than a disaster.

Your own government doesn't even agree with you, anymore.

This isn't the cold war or a campaign in Europe. We're not fighting communism with an arms race and we're not liberating the oppressed from Nazi invasion. We're not even fighting a physical army.

Don't understand how this works? Here's a simple simulation.

01-08-2007, 01:45 AM	#1
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	"Imaginary threat" is an interestingly head-in-the-sand way to describe an Iraq that first attacked Iran, and then some years later attacked Kuwait. Real peaceable, real quiet, and a really good global village citizen, wasn't ol' Saddam? Just what would have sufficiently demonstrated his bad character if it were up to you? It's this sort of absurdity that makes the antiwar crowd such a lot of dopes. You can't figure out when force is actually called for -- demanding, or purporting to demand, an impossible, indeed nonhuman, standard of, uh, proof. It doesn't look like getting raped bent over your own rider mowers would suffice. Talks? Not that much negotion goes on during rapes, IMHO. My position has a more elegant simplicity to it. What you fail to recognize, and what by contrast I appreciate fully, is that we took Iraq out happily before Saddam could build himself into either the Emperor of Oil, or some new edition of Nebuchadnezzar -- the none-too-smart still try and follow the imperial paradigm, as they don't understand nor respect the virtues of free trade and a world economy so based. Saddam, whose career most resembled that of a Mafioso who made Godfather, crossed with a Soviet-style purge or two, should be entered among those none-too-brights. Keep in mind: the whole of the human world's political troubles spring from the un-democracies. Democracies not only are more easily richer, they behave better too. The less a country is a democracy, the worse it behaves, as a rule -- and for a clear example, we may look to Saddam's Iraq and the last, er, election. A dog-and-pony show that everyone went along with that they might survive, par for the course for an un-democracy. I don't think you have personal experience of such a social order, or I'd hardly have to work this hard to persuade you. The answer to your rhetorical question is EVERYBODY who isn't a democracy needs our boots or someone's all over them -- make them tired of being anything but a democratic republic, or a republican democracy. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course. Last edited by Urbane Guerrilla; 01-08-2007 at 01:52 AM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)