VP Read this First

[Boogski]

Originally posted by voltaires_priest


How like a US Republican - so quick to invest other people's blood, sweat and tears.



V

You mean Republicans like Woodrow Wilson (WW1), Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman (WW2 & Korean conflict)?

Oops! My bad. Those chaps were Democrats.

[voltaires_priest]

Originally posted by Boogski
You mean Republicans like Woodrow Wilson (WW1), Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman (WW2 & Korean conflict)?

Oops! My bad. Those chaps were Democrats.

Woodrow Wilson - set up League of Nations.

Roosevelt and Truman - Instrumental players in setting up UN.

George "Dubya" Bush - Pally with right-wing wackos who want to abolish UN


WW1 - US intervention to stop direct military threat in Western Europe

WW2 - US intervention following attack by Japan, in war against Fascism

Iraq War - US invasion of Iraq two years after attack on US by, errr, Saudi-led terrorists, in war for, err, oil contracts.


Yes, they were Democrats and he's a Republican



V

[Boogski]

Originally posted by voltaires_priest

Woodrow Wilson - set up League of Nations.

Roosevelt and Truman - Instrumental players in setting up UN.

George "Dubya" Bush - Pally with right-wing wackos who want to abolish UN


WW1 - US intervention to stop direct military threat in Western Europe

WW2 - US intervention following attack by Japan, in war against Fascism

Iraq War - US invasion of Iraq two years after attack on US by, errr, Saudi-led terrorists, in war for, err, oil contracts.


Yes, they were Democrats and he's a Republican



V

My point being that the vast majority of American "blood, sweat and tears" has been shed fighting what some might consider to be other people's battles (except for the American Civil war), especially concerning WW1. And if WW2 was largely a war against fascism then what's the beef with taking out Saddam? Wasn't he a fascist dictator? The only good fascist is a dead (or at least incarcerated) one, wouldn't you agree?

Hey! Read your arguments in the 'democracy' thread over at Algeria.com. Good stuff, mate. Conspiracy theorists. Gotta love 'em.

[voltaires_priest]

Originally posted by Boogski

My point being that the vast majority of American "blood, sweat and tears" has been shed fighting what some might consider to be other people's battles (except for the American Civil war), especially concerning WW1. And if WW2 was largely a war against fascism then what's the beef with taking out Saddam? Wasn't he a fascist dictator? The only good fascist is a dead (or at least incarcerated) one, wouldn't you agree?

Hey! Read your arguments in the 'democracy' thread over at Algeria.com. Good stuff, mate. Conspiracy theorists. Gotta love 'em.

My beefs are manifold . Firstly, Hitler was a clear and present threat to national security in the US and UK, Saddam wasn't. Secondly, the war on Iraq wasn't really primarily motivated by pro-democratic tendencies, otherwise dozens of regimes worldwide would have been targeted prior. Thirdly, Hitler was replaced by a CDU centre-right democratic government and Marshall Aid, whereas Saddam has been replaced by a government dominated by SCIRI and a society racked with rising terrorism.

Other than that, they're the same

On the other bit, I just love the old conspiracy theories - after all, if people can't find a rational reason for the world being the way it is, they have to invent a fairy story to explain it. And there's plently of invention in that thread on conspiracy theories



V