April 8, 200917 yr Any nation, in any war, should have the right to NOT choose sides. What their reasons are are up to them. But a country should have the right to enter or not enter into armed conflict without fear of reprisal. Nope, can't do it with terror. You have to make a stand. That doesn't mean that you have to enter into an armed conflict.
April 8, 200917 yr I'm not sure I understand that. Can't you just say, "We will stand with you when you are right. We will disagree with you when we think you are wrong."? :confused: No. You have to make a stand on terror. You can't say we're going to remain neutral. I think of it like racism or in the past, slavery. Those who "remained neutral" helped these atrocities to happen.
April 8, 200917 yr There is arrogance in the just that thought. America wants to steer the ship, but wants to be exempt from being guided herself. "We" feel we have the right to tell the rest of the world what they ought and ought not do, what policy to support, what form of government is appropriate, what human rights policies are to be maintained. But, when guilty of human rights violations (torture of suspects) or dealing with foreign policy, we feel we are somehow justified in ignoring the "world view". We tell other nations to adhere to UN policies, yet eschew the same policies for ourselves. That is arrogance. We, as Americans, are ALL guilty of it. We've decided OUR was is THE way, and seek to ensure all adhere, even if by force. Americans don't want to steer "the" ship. We want to steer "our" ship. That's not ignorance, that's fulfilling your own destiny. This one world order is crap. Toss the UN and all the rest of the agreements with the world. Form a hegemony with your closest friends and nations that want to be your friend. Be neutral to the rest and let them take care of their own problems.
April 8, 200917 yr Nope, can't do it with terror. You have to make a stand. That doesn't mean that you have to enter into an armed conflict. Why exactly is a stand necessary, where intentional attacks by sub-national groups on civilians are concerned? Looking for a rationale on this one, nothing more behind the question.
April 8, 200917 yr No. You have to make a stand on terror. You can't say we're going to remain neutral. I think of it like racism or in the past, slavery. Those who "remained neutral" helped these atrocities to happen. Which countries (that are our allies) did not offer support after 9/11? That was a terror attack. We chose to go to Iraq and fight a war and call it part of the war on terror. Without a doubt, atrocities were occurring in Iraq under the old regime. However, why chose Iraq and not other countries were other atrocities are occurring? As a result, why should our allies choose to "liberate" the country that we choose, while we ignore others?
April 8, 200917 yr Americans don't want to steer "the" ship. We want to steer "our" ship. That's not ignorance, that's fulfilling your own destiny. This one world order is crap. Toss the UN and all the rest of the agreements with the world. Form a hegemony with your closest friends and nations that want to be your friend. Be neutral to the rest and let them take care of their own problems. How does the war in Iraq factor into steering our own ship?
April 8, 200917 yr No. You have to make a stand on terror. You can't say we're going to remain neutral. I think of it like racism or in the past, slavery. Those who "remained neutral" helped these atrocities to happen. Maybe we're on different wavelengths 75. I absolutely agree. We all must take a stand against terrorists who use that tactic to destory the innocent. Just because a nation refuses to stand by us and our decision to invade Iraq is not "remaining neutral," it's saying they don't believe that is the place or method they will choose to "combat terror." Different thing altogether.
April 8, 200917 yr How does the war in Iraq factor into steering our own ship? Never agreed with Iraq invasion. It was a stupid Bush/Rumsfeld blunder.
April 8, 200917 yr Never agreed with Iraq invasion. It was a stupid Bush/Rumsfeld blunder. I agree. So, if you and I can come to that conclusion, surely we would have no problem with other governments making their own decisions as to whether or not they want to participate in our actions/blunders.
April 9, 200917 yr Which countries (that are our allies) did not offer support after 9/11? That was a terror attack. We chose to go to Iraq and fight a war and call it part of the war on terror. Without a doubt, atrocities were occurring in Iraq under the old regime. However, why chose Iraq and not other countries were other atrocities are occurring? As a result, why should our allies choose to "liberate" the country that we choose, while we ignore others? Don't know why you're getting off track when I specifically said the war on terror. If you go back to the original quote mentioned it was concerning the war on terror, not Iraq. It was right after 911 when Bush said you're either with us or against us. He was right.
April 9, 200917 yr Why exactly is a stand necessary, where intentional attacks by sub-national groups on civilians are concerned? Looking for a rationale on this one, nothing more behind the question. Because to not make a stand emboldens terrorists. To not make a stand could give them safe haven. Because at it's roots it is simply evil.
April 9, 200917 yr Maybe we're on different wavelengths 75. I absolutely agree. We all must take a stand against terrorists who use that tactic to destory the innocent. Just because a nation refuses to stand by us and our decision to invade Iraq is not "remaining neutral," it's saying they don't believe that is the place or method they will choose to "combat terror." Different thing altogether. Again, the quote was to the war on terror, not directed towards the Iraq war.
April 9, 200917 yr Why are so many people confusing when the quote was made? The quote was made weeks after 9-11 and had nothing to do with the Iraq war.
April 9, 200917 yr Don't know why you're getting off track when I specifically said the war on terror. If you go back to the original quote mentioned it was concerning the war on terror, not Iraq. It was right after 911 when Bush said you're either with us or against us. He was right. 1) I thought that the Iraqi War was part of the War on Terror? 2) 9/11 and "you're either for us or against us" was used to sell us on Iraq. Not all of us bought it.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.