I was going to reply to this, but Mr. doctor, Mr. Fabulous, and Mr. psx-dude have pretty much said my part.
You are a failure as an American. As you well know, Irishland is a foreign country, like Japan or Vermont. You should proudly drink HOMELAND BEER, such as might be found in Wisconsin.
Let’s not argue about beer. We all know that American beer, except maybe Sam Adams, isn’t all that great. Canadian beer is good, Irish beer is nice, but nothing beats Dutch beer. Mmmm…such tasty lagers. They always have such a pleasant bite to them. Delicious.
And I agree that guns can be had without much incident, like in Sweden or Switzerland, or even Canada. But there’s a different culture surrounding guns in those other places. There must be some reason why there are so many gun related murders in this country, and so few comparatively in Canada or the nations of Europe. We can’t pretend that we’re different from these other cultures, and inherently better, because that probably isn’t the case, if they have as many guns, and far fewer gun deaths.
I’m no sociologist or anything, but I’m guessing it has something to do with the culture of violence that we just sort of come to accept. We were founded on violence, we watch, play, and worship violence, and even if all you watch is the local nightly news, all you see is stories about ghastly murders and sensational axe murderors. It’s certainly happenstance, but why is it center stage, and is it news?
Oh, and gotta love cameras on the front lines showing us all those great mangled Iraqi corpses…
Plus, we’re not all intensely bright as a nation. 100 years ago, we would have been all over these Iraq shenanigans, but now, even though the media has gotten supposedly bigger and better, we’re willing to forgive and forget the mistakes…evidently just for shits and giggles. The war is sold as a preventative action so we don’t get blown up by al Qaeda by Weapons of Mass Destructions provided by Iraq, but as it turns out…there was nothing really going on. Even Bush had to admit it…well after the fact. But we forgive him (well not me…that’s why I’m supporting Dean).
Why? Stupidity is my guess, or maybe just ignorance. Regardless…stupid people aren’t the ones who should be waving guns around. If we don’t understand the consequences of our actions (using a firearm/attacking another nation preemptively), we really shouldn’t be doing it in the first place…
I don’t know…maybe it’s something in the Budweiser. Anheuser-Busch is one of the largest contributors to the GOP, so they must be evil…
I blame telly-vision.
I think it’s right to say that the reason we have so many more gun deaths per year than those other countries is a difference of culture, but I think it’s irresponsible to claim that Americans are stupid or ignorant because of that. There are plenty of good Americans who own guns and use them prudently. The fact that others do not is not a reason to get rid of guns, but to get rid of those people. We are the freest nation on Earth, and we have to be prepared for people to abuse that freedom. That’s the reason why Lieberman’s stance on videogames is so intolerable to begin with. The freedoms of the Bill of Rights are just more important than the amount of public safety that is compromised tangentially through the exercise of those rights.
As for the war in Iraq, I have no idea what you’re even talking about. 100 years ago, we would have trusted our government to do the right thing in nearly all situations. And the attack on the WTC would have had us looking all over the place for someone to blame.
We did have someone to blame, and that’s why we flattened Afgainistainapojhhigpowdghpoj or however you spell the name of that fuckmook of a country.
Find me, if you will, an argument that I have made without the benefit of evidence.
When you are finished with that, I suggest that you work on your reading comprehension. My complaint was not that arguments for the Left don’t include evidence, and I will be the first to agree that political discourse is often lacking anything approaching an actual fact coming from either side. Broadly speaking, nearly no arguments include evidence. So I wasn’t complaining that the Left in particular won’t provide evidence. What I was commenting on was the reality that, were the Right to provide evidence (and I think that they should), the Left would simply ignore it and continue spouting whatever insanity has most recently struck them. And, in fact, the gun debate provides an excellent example (or “evidence”) of this pattern. The facts on this issue are clear: more guns, in a given area, do in fact lead to less crime. This has been reiterated by commentators on the Right for years, and for years the Left has been ignoring them, as well as painting anyone who advocates less restrictive gun laws as a “gun-nut.” I’m actually pretty sure that the Left doesn’t even bother to listen to the facts in this debate, as the only pro-gun argument they seem to be aware of is the Second Amendment.
Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. I’ve always said, it’s not the NRA member Republican guy who owns 20,000 guns who scares me…it’s the poor criminal who owns one. But there’s got to be a reason why that NRA member wants to own all those guns, or why that criminal thinks he needs to turn to murder to improve his life.
And I’m not entirely sure that we can get rid of those people who plan on using guns in a negative way. There might be a way of cutting down on the flow of illegal guns into bad hands, though. Like gun show laws, which the NRA seems to hate more than Ralph Nader himself.
Plus there’s always something like Columbine or that Arkansas elementary school that complicates matters. How are you going to see that coming? And that’s certainly a cultural validation (at least from their perspective) for the use of guns. They think it’s going to solve all their problems.
Not to mention accidents, and kids who stumble upon dad’s gun and start shooting up their friends and family, purely by accident.
I think if the NRA was more willing to educate people properly on the use, storage, and consequences of gun violence. Or heck, even train them how to use and maintain guns properly, we could cut down on unneccessary foolishness. But instead, all they can seem to do is piss and moan about gun locks, and laws that say: no cyanide tipped bullets that pierce body armor.
And Zach’s right, we blamed Afghanistan, and by God showed them what for. Then, before we were done fighting, or even setting up a halfway workable government there, we packed up and started attacking a country that had absolutely nothing to do with September 11th, for completely spurrious reasons of “they COULD be terrorists, and they COULD attack us at any time, and they COULD have weapons of mass destruction.”
Then the mission somehow took on a human face, and nobody seemed to notice. And some still just assumed that Saddam Hussein personally flew those planes into the WTC. You’d think with all the liberal media around, someone would clue them in, but…nah.
Also, two more beefs with the Bush administration. First with Saudi Arabia. There was a senate intelligence report months ago that investigated September 11th and discovered that one country, over all others, was responsible for the attacks. AAAAND, that this country’s ruling family had actual financial and ideological ties to the terrorists who hijacked the planes (none of whom were from Iraq). Every mention of this country in the report was blacked out, so nobody in the public or in the rest of the senate would know who was really behind the attacks. Why the fuck did we attack Iraq then?? WHY?? I want an explanation that fits in with the war on terrorism, and it better have some fucking evidence to back it…since people are now dying 10 at a time over there! If we have evidence against Saudi Arabia and we let them go, yet we have nothing on Iraq, and we blow them to pieces…that speaks of either complete idiocy or criminal misdirection.
Second: just let the 9-11 Investigative panel look at the records, and take notes, for Christ’s sake. If you really knew that the attacks were going to happen, then people are going to find out sooner or later…and by keeping them under wraps like this, all you’re doing is fostering suspiscion. There are some 3,000 families who are pretty rightfully curious as to why their loved ones are now dead by cause of airplane attack.
Gaah! Again: why I’m voting Dean (or whoever isn’t Bush).
And gun control laws don’t prevent criminals from obtaining guns. You’ll note that criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law.
But there’s got to be a reason why that NRA member wants to own all those guns
There are probably several different such reasons. For instance, for hunting, for protection of home and family, for pleasure. I like buying lots and lots of books. I don’t see the problem with a member of the NRA (such membership indicating affinity for guns) wanting to own guns. As long as he doesn’t kill people with them (and as long as I don’t kill people with books), this is not a problem.
or why that criminal thinks he needs to turn to murder to improve his life.
Oh please. It seems to clear to me that a substantial number of murders are not performed for anything approaching a good reason. People kill each other for foolish reasons like adultery all the time. Or over drugs. Or to get money. None of these are good reasons for killing people and it’s inexcusable for us to treat them as such.
And I’m not entirely sure that we can get rid of those people who plan on using guns in a negative way.
Clearly not preemptively, no.
There might be a way of cutting down on the flow of illegal guns into bad hands, though. Like gun show laws, which the NRA seems to hate more than Ralph Nader himself.
Do you honestly believe that gun shows are the problem? How many people actually obtain guns from gun shows and then use those guns to kill other people? Besides, if you make certain activities illegal at gun shows, then they will just be moved to a different level… like narcotic drugs have been.
Plus there’s always something like Columbine or that Arkansas elementary school that complicates matters. How are you going to see that coming? And that’s certainly a cultural validation (at least from their perspective) for the use of guns. They think it’s going to solve all their problems.
Who thinks it’s going to solve problems? Crazy people? You can’t honestly think that we should be responsible for maniacs who don’t listen to the reasons why it’s wrong for them to engage in mania.
Not to mention accidents, and kids who stumble upon dad’s gun and start shooting up their friends and family, purely by accident.
This is certainly a cultural issue. If we were more willing to accept that the Second Amendment has substantive legal meaning, we could get started building a culture that understands guns and these sorts of problems would decrease. I grew up in a home with guns and it was made very clear to me that I was not to touch them. When I was old enough, I was trained to fire them and to take care of them responsibly. This is the kind of thing that the NRA very much promotes, but no one actually bothers to pay attention to that fact.
I think if the NRA was more willing to educate people properly on the use, storage, and consequences of gun violence. Or heck, even train them how to use and maintain guns properly, we could cut down on unneccessary foolishness.
They do, in fact, do all of these things. But they don’t exactly have members travel around the country and force people to learn to use their guns properly.
But instead, all they can seem to do is piss and moan about gun locks, and laws that say: no cyanide tipped bullets that pierce body armor.
Anyone who owns a gun with the intent to use it in self-defense knows that gun locks are a spectacularly bad idea. As for assault weapons, which I’ll assume you’re referring to in that nonsensical bit at the end, there are perfectly good reasons to support the right of business owners in dangerous places to own assault rifles… unless you think rioters can be deterred by a 10-gauge.
And Zach’s right, we blamed Afghanistan, and by God showed them what for. Then, before we were done fighting, or even setting up a halfway workable government there
You’ll note that they’ll be deciding on the ratification of a constitution in the near future.
we packed up and started attacking a country that had absolutely nothing to do with September 11th
You’ll note that the Bush administration never said it did - that’s an invention of the Left.
for completely spurrious reasons of “they COULD be terrorists, and they COULD attack us at any time, and they COULD have weapons of mass destruction.”
I’m not sure how spurious those reasons are, considering the following:
- Saddam and his friends actually were terrorists, engaging in regular attacks on civilians.
- Iraq had no reasonable chance to attack us, but we have allies (see Israel) that he could have attacked at any time.
- At one point, Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction. He got them from the United States and used them against the Kurds. Then he decided to play games with the UN instead of allowing inspectors to do their jobs. So the president et al drew the only possible reasonable conclusion: he still had them.
Then the mission somehow took on a human face, and nobody seemed to notice.
Nobody? Who nobody? You? Me? The people of Iraq? Who hasn’t noticed?
And some still just assumed that Saddam Hussein personally flew those planes into the WTC. You’d think with all the liberal media around, someone would clue them in, but…nah.
That’s because the liberal media invented that “fact” to make the Bush administration look bad… even though they never said anything of the sort.
Saudi Arabia…
Look, you can talk about Saudi Arabia until the cows come home. I fully recognize that they fund the vast majority of terrorism and should be our number one enemy, but the problem is this: you don’t want an administration that would treat them as an enemy. You complain about how Iraq is not the major threat but Saudi Arabia is… and you still would complain just as loudly if we decided to do anything to deal with Saudi Arabia. This goes ditto for all the “liberals” who oppose the Iraq situation. You don’t want solutions - you just want something to whine about.
Wow, and some people think Americans are arrogant. I have no idea where they get that impression…
Notes something way back in the whatever
December 11, 1941: Germany declares war on the United States. This puts us at odds with militant fascist power in Europe, and militant imperialist power in the Pacific. I seem to recall something happening on September 2, 1945. Two wars at once, there.
LPFabulous is one of the coolest posters ever, needed to note that.
What’s most annoying is leftish attacks against entire groups for the personal positions of individuals in them. “Arrogant Americans” since some Americans show arrogance…is that a communist thing?
If you’re comparing WWII to the stupid piddly crap Iraq situation, you’re on crack.
In WWII the very safety of the free world was at stake…nothing was at stake here.
Granted.
But I don’t fear walking through Windsor at 2 am, yet I get the heeby jeebies walking through Detroit at any time. Why is that? There are slummy parts to Windsor (although nothing quite like Detroit), but there are also cops everywhere. I’m not going to pretend that gun laws are the end all to save us from crime in this country, because that’s retarded. But there must be some reason why gun violence crime rates are so much higher in this country than in other nations.
There are probably several different such reasons. For instance, for hunting, for protection of home and family, for pleasure. I like buying lots and lots of books. I don’t see the problem with a member of the NRA (such membership indicating affinity for guns) wanting to own guns. As long as he doesn’t kill people with them (and as long as I don’t kill people with books), this is not a problem.
Right, but books aren’t designed to kill things. Guns are. I understand that people like collecting guns, and to tell you the truth, I would love to collect WWII firearms, simply because they’d be really freaking cool to have (plus I’ve shot guns on numerous occassions, having a complete blast each time), but let’s not beat around the bush here. Guns are designed to kill. Handguns are specifically designed to kill humans (Desert Eagles are designed to kill 30 humans at a time). Liberals aren’t complaining about guns simply because they’re loud and scary, but because they actually kill people. A lot of people every year, in fact.
I agree, you have the right to protect yourself from a criminal, but not all criminals with guns are genocidal maniacs looking to shoot everything that moves. If some guy with a gun breaks into my house and decides he wants my Gamecube, I’m not going to grab my piece and get into a shootout with him. Shit, take it, and leave.
If they don’t have a gun, I’m just going to beat the shit out of them with a chair. I’m not going to shoot them in the spine. It takes a lot to kill a person, I think. And just breaking into my home/property to steal some material possession probably isn’t reason enough.
Oh please. It seems to clear to me that a substantial number of murders are not performed for anything approaching a good reason. People kill each other for foolish reasons like adultery all the time. Or over drugs. Or to get money. None of these are good reasons for killing people and it’s inexcusable for us to treat them as such.
Ok, agreed. But if some guy in Holland wants to score some drugs, he just walks into his local coffee bar and has a toke or…twelve. If some guy in the United States wants drugs, he has to shoot someone, take his money, go buy the drugs, get arrested, and spend the rest of his life rotting in prison.
This is a terrible example of what I’m trying to say, but again, there’s got to be some reason why our gun violence rates are so much higher in comparison to other countries.
Do you honestly believe that gun shows are the problem? How many people actually obtain guns from gun shows and then use those guns to kill other people? Besides, if you make certain activities illegal at gun shows, then they will just be moved to a different level… like narcotic drugs have been.
They’re certainly PART of the problem. You can go into a gun show, and buy a gun from some anarchist wackjob who’s stocking up against the UN Army which is going to invade his home and take his kerosene, no questions ask, then go shoot up your workplace or school or church, or whatever. Having no checks at all is silliness.
I don’t know about you, but I really don’t want crazy violent felons going in to buy a shitload of guns.
Who thinks it’s going to solve problems? Crazy people? You can’t honestly think that we should be responsible for maniacs who don’t listen to the reasons why it’s wrong for them to engage in mania.
I wouldn’t call the Columbine kids crazy people, and I especially wouldn’t call the elementary school kids crazy. They’re severely confused, and have been pushed to a point that they think going in and shooting classmates is going to solve something. There’s something here that needs to be understood. Why would the kids think this way? You can’t tell me kids in France or Germany or Italy or wherever aren’t picked on and tormented. So why don’t we hear of mass school shootings from these countries? I swear there’s like one or two school shootings a month in this country.
This is certainly a cultural issue. If we were more willing to accept that the Second Amendment has substantive legal meaning, we could get started building a culture that understands guns and these sorts of problems would decrease. I grew up in a home with guns and it was made very clear to me that I was not to touch them. When I was old enough, I was trained to fire them and to take care of them responsibly. This is the kind of thing that the NRA very much promotes, but no one actually bothers to pay attention to that fact.
Horseshit. I’ve seen the NRA instruction video for kids. It’s some gigantic gun toting eagle who does little more than spout vitrolic pro-gun propaganda, while also making some half-assed message about: Hey don’t touch daddy’s guns…UNLESS THE NEGROES COME! It makes gun ownership look fun…not dangerous. Plus he’s a giant eagle. I don’t listen to gigantic birds. They’re just here to peck out my eyes anyway…
Maybe we need institutional instruction apart from the NRA. Government sponsored gun safety courses that aren’t infused with: PROTECT YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, SO THE KING OF ENGLAND DOESN’T PUSH YOU AROUND propaganda.
Someone said earlier about people in Sweden having to do mandatory gun training. How about that? We have to take a test to drive a car…why shouldn’t we take tests to shoot a gun? I have to recertify to teach every 5 years. Why don’t gun owners prove they’re not complete fuckasses with their guns every few years?
And if I fuck up, and kill a bunch of people with my car, my auto is taken away from me. People who have accidents with guns…ehh, whatever. Just try harder next time…
Worse yet. If you’re drunk and you kill someone with your car, your ass is grass…automatically, by law. If you’re drunk, and you accidently shoot someone, there’s room for interpretation. IT’S THE SAME FUCKING CRIME!
Anyone who owns a gun with the intent to use it in self-defense knows that gun locks are a spectacularly bad idea. As for assault weapons, which I’ll assume you’re referring to in that nonsensical bit at the end, there are perfectly good reasons to support the right of business owners in dangerous places to own assault rifles… unless you think rioters can be deterred by a 10-gauge.
Yes, those daily riots are getting on my nerves.
And even if you have an M-60 at your disposal, what are you going to do? Mow down a group of 3,000 rioters? That’s insanity. That’s such a terrible example of why you should own assault rifles, that I’m going to laugh. Ha. There. By that anti-riot logic, I should have access to chemical debilatory foam, hundreds of gallons of pepper spray, tanks, razor wire perimeters, and fucking flamethrowers. Because you can’t just beat back a riot…you’ve got to fucking go scorched earth if you want to defend yourself from 10,000 crazy looting motherfuckers.
And gun locks: not for everyone. But maybe for those with curious three year olds? And if it’s one of those nifty combination locks, it takes two seconds to crack that fucker, and get down to brass tacks. But again…the idea that someone is going to break into your house just to start shooting people (unless you’re Sicilian) is pretty silly to begin with, so I think the point is moot.
You’ll note that they’ll be deciding on the ratification of a constitution in the near future.
This just in: The Taliban remnants in the south, and the al-Qaeda fuckasses who escaped to Pakistan really freaking care.
You’ll note that the Bush administration never said it did - that’s an invention of the Left.
They said they were an imminant threat to the United States, because they had connections to al-Qaeda. These statements were later retracted by several administration officials, because they were so ridiculously false.
I’m not sure how spurious those reasons are, considering the following:
- Saddam and his friends actually were terrorists, engaging in regular attacks on civilians.
In the 1980’s. It’s 2003. And those attacks were ignored by us back then. We only cared when Iraq took Kuwait.
- Iraq had no reasonable chance to attack us, but we have allies (see Israel) that he could have attacked at any time.
In 22 years of leadership, he never attacked Israel. Not once. Even after Israel blew up his nuclear plants (and saved a copious amount of asses, for sure). The idea that he’d suddenly just go batshit insane and launch an all out assault at Israel is…well, not likely. Iraq’d be wiped off the face of the earth in the blink of an eye…especially if all he could attack with was conventional forces that couldn’t hold on to the country for 3 weeks against an onslaught by the US.
- At one point, Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction. He got them from the United States and used them against the Kurds. Then he decided to play games with the UN instead of allowing inspectors to do their jobs. So the president et al drew the only possible reasonable conclusion: he still had them.
Right, he got them from us. So let’s stop giving out WMD’s. Also, North Korea has nukes and delivery vehicles. As does China.
MAD seemed to work for 40 years or so with the Soviet Union, why wouldn’t it work with Iraq?
It wouldn’t work with al-Qaeda, so I supported the president seeking out terrorist organizations and fucking up their shit. But Iraq is a nation run by a madman who likes to be alive, so he can subjugate more of his own people. Thus: he doesn’t want to die. Thus: he doesn’t want to attack us foolishly.
Same reason China and North Korea aren’t lobbing nukes at Japan or Taiwan nonstop.
And the Kurds thing: again, in the 1980’s. If we cared so much about it, why didn’t we stop it back then?
Nobody? Who nobody? You? Me? The people of Iraq? Who hasn’t noticed?
I read a poll that said 70% of people in the United States still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11th. So, look around you. 7 out of ever 10 people you see are morons.
That’s because the liberal media invented that “fact” to make the Bush administration look bad… even though they never said anything of the sort.
The Administration said Iraq was an imminent threat to United States security, and didn’t try to tell the public: “Hey, don’t get the wrong idea. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11, ok? We’re going after them for completely different reasons!”
Look, you can talk about Saudi Arabia until the cows come home. I fully recognize that they fund the vast majority of terrorism and should be our number one enemy, but the problem is this: you don’t want an administration that would treat them as an enemy. You complain about how Iraq is not the major threat but Saudi Arabia is… and you still would complain just as loudly if we decided to do anything to deal with Saudi Arabia. This goes ditto for all the “liberals” who oppose the Iraq situation. You don’t want solutions - you just want something to whine about.
I do enjoy whining, but everyone does… Conservatives did nothing but whine the entire 8 years of the Clinton presidency, Liberals 4 years: Bush; 8 years Reagan, Conservatives 4 years: Carter. Etc.
And you’re right, I wouldn’t want us to attack Saudi Arabia, but I certainly think it would make more sense for us to attack a nation that aided terrorists rather than one that’s just sort of always there and always pretty evil.
And talk about attacking their own civilians! Christ almighty!
Plus they supported the Taliban, are evil to their own people, and are such a bane to the peace process in Israel/Palestine that it makes me want to vomit.
Yet, we can’t be buddy-buddy with them enough…
I just don’t understand it.
As noted, there are myriad perfectly reasonable reasons to own a large number of guns. As for the criminal: the real issue is not why the criminal thinks that turning to murder will improve his life. This is trivial; if violating the rights of others did not provide an advantage then we would need no laws. The important question here is how laws can be structured such that attempting to commit criminal acts imposes very high costs, i.e., the person attempting the crime runs a credible risk of death or bodily harm or criminal prosecution with a severe sentence. Having an unarmed populace (making it illegal to carry guns) significantly lowers the chances of the first two occurences, and law enforcement in the U.S. is a joke, and this enforcement becomes especially impotent exactly in those areas where gun control is strictest (this happens not because one implies the other, of course, but because strict gun control and weak law enforcement happen to coincide under one umbrella political philosophy in the U.S.). Hence, a criminal pondering a crime in these areas knows that the victim will likely be unable to fight back, and no criminal penalties are likely. This is what needs to be changed if you want a lower crime rate without a massive cultural shift; but I would be careful if I where you, Trot, in asking for such a shift. Which political party do you think that most of these murderers support?
And I’m not entirely sure that we can get rid of those people who plan on using guns in a negative way. There might be a way of cutting down on the flow of illegal guns into bad hands, though. Like gun show laws, which the NRA seems to hate more than Ralph Nader himself.
Yeah, just like eliminating those drug trade shows totally rid this country of illegal drug usage.
I think if the NRA was more willing to educate people properly on the use, storage, and consequences of gun violence. Or heck, even train them how to use and maintain guns properly, we could cut down on unneccessary foolishness. But instead, all they can seem to do is piss and moan about gun locks, and laws that say: no cyanide tipped bullets that pierce body armor.
LPFab is right, I don’t know of an organization in America (besides, possibly, governmental organizations such as sheriff’s offices or polices officer’s associations) that is more vocal in their calls for responsible gun ownership.
Also, two more beefs with the Bush administration. First with Saudi Arabia. There was a senate intelligence report months ago that investigated September 11th and discovered that one country, over all others, was responsible for the attacks. AAAAND, that this country’s ruling family had actual financial and ideological ties to the terrorists who hijacked the planes (none of whom were from Iraq). Every mention of this country in the report was blacked out, so nobody in the public or in the rest of the senate would know who was really behind the attacks. Why the fuck did we attack Iraq then?? WHY?? I want an explanation that fits in with the war on terrorism, and it better have some fucking evidence to back it…since people are now dying 10 at a time over there! If we have evidence against Saudi Arabia and we let them go, yet we have nothing on Iraq, and we blow them to pieces…that speaks of either complete idiocy or criminal misdirection.
The fact is that Iraq was always a greater danger to the U.S. than was Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family, recently mugged by the reality that Jihad can’t be bought off forever with protection money, is starting to heavily crack down on terrorism - and, I suspect, will be rethinking their funding of these groups. Am I mad at Saudi Arabia? Hell, yes. Should they face punishment? Damn right. Does it need to be war? Of course not. The U.S. didn’t go to war with Afghanistan or with Iraq for revenge. The U.S. went to war with Afghanistan because they refused to stop providing sanctuary for terrorists, and were therefore a danger to every country targeted by such terrorists. The U.S. went to war with Iraq because there was credible (i.e., believed by intelligence services of every Security Council nation, as well as the U.S. Senate and, of course, former President Clinton) information that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that he would be willing to sell these weapons, and that he had contacts with terrorist groups. His willingness to sell should be obvious; the man was sleaze who thought that he could get away with anything, and tried. His ties to terrorist organizations are well documented. As for the weapons themselves, I have mentioned in earlier posts that hiding such weapons in a country the size of Iraq would be easy under the worst of circumstances, and this was hardly the worst of circumstances for Saddam. The U.S. has not yet found any weapons, but it would be idiotic in the extreme to assume that they therefore never existed. Of course it is a possibility that they never existed, but so what? The weapons were a reason for attacking Saddam; they are not an all-purpose reason. France has such weapons, but as France is the international equivalent of a senile, ranting old woman there is no real risk in France having such weapons. Saddam was a thug who killed thousands of his own people, was a danger to regional (and, given the region in question, international) stability, and was an all-around rat bastard. Therefore, in this case such a risk exists. If he didn’t want to get attacked, all he had to do was either prove he had no such weapons (actually, not even this much; just prove that what he admitted to having in the past was gone) or not be such a monster. He failed at both.
Trot, it is flatly disgusting to condemn the removal of Saddam. It actually makes me ill to think that some people could dislike George Bush so much that they think leaving the Iraqi people under the thumb of Saddam would have been the right thing to do. You should be ashamed of yourself. Leaving him in power would have been a continued insult to even the smallest shred of human decency. What kind of “social justice” is that?
Then why didn’t we declare war on Uganda? China? Laos? Cambodia? North Korea? Burma? And all the other places that treat their people like garbage?
I support Amnesty International, and I want human rights to be universal. But if we think we can just declare war on every “rat bastard” in the world to save their people is insane.
And we fucking left him in power for two freaking decades!!! George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan should be ashamed of themselves…, A) For supporting the fucker with arms and weapons that he could use to hurt his own people, and B) for not taking him out when they had the chance in the first Gulf War.
So get off your high horse.
Oh, and I’ve said before, the best thing about this whole debacle is that the Iraqi people don’t have to live under Saddam anymore. Now, when the Shi’ites stage a mass revolution and start blowing us up en masse…I’m going to question it based on cost-benefits…but regardless. Saddam was certainly a bad guy, and it’s good to see him gone.
You would all do well to remember this.
Anyway… Aaron, I don’t feel like taking your post point-by-point, so I’ll just try to hit the themes.
-
Gun violence in this country is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be. In a country with 280-plus million people, less than 10,000 gun deaths per year is less than terribly worrying. There are probably innumerable reasons why things are different in other countries (say, better in France, worse in Russia), but treating people as if they’re too stupid to possibly handle weapons without killing each other is foolish. You want to spread gun education? Then stop bitching at the NRA and JOIN IT. Try making a difference.
-
You know full well that I support drug legalization, so I don’t feel like I have to respond to anything you said about that.
-
I would call the Columbine kids crazy people. Crazy fucked-up motherfuckers. Maybe it was their parents’ faults, maybe it was public schools. Either way, they were seriously crazy.
-
The NRA instruction video? You’re ranting because you don’t care to respect the facts. The NRA is a perfectly upstanding organization that advocates for responsible gun ownership in all sorts of ways. Just because you’re insane and refuse to listen to a cartoon bird doesn’t make the cartoon bird any less effective. Seriously, do you feel the same way about Smokey the Bear and McGruff the Crime Dog? And maybe - just maybe - the NRA wouldn’t be so intent on spreading the message about protecting Second Amendment rights if they weren’t being violated so often.
-
It’s foolish to hold the Bush administration responsible for the policies of previous administrations. If Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton gave WMDs to Iraq, that’s not the current president’s problem. His problem is doing what he thinks is right. Also, you can’t hold the president responsible for NOT telling the American people that they’re morons. If they believe something the administration never said, it is not the administration’s job to apologize for misinformation spread by their political opponents. That’s just silly.
-
I agree with the doctor on one point. Some of your opinions about Iraq seem to be downright reprehensible. You say Saddam could be trusted not upset the international framework because he wanted to stay in power and keep oppressing his people. Isn’t that nice? “Leave him alone. He’s only a threat to people who have no conceivable way of defending themselves. Let’s join the rest of the international community in looking the other way.” Wow, you and France are such great people. And you wonder why people call you un-American. Disgusting.
ARG! There have got to be better ways to get rid of Saddam than by blowing up his country and pissing off everyone! I don’t know the better way, but then again, nobody’s paying me to think of it.
My guess it has something to do with: stop supporting these crazy fuckers in the first place.
And again, why aren’t we attacking all countries that have bad dictators??
I’m not the evil one! I like human rights!!
If war is what it takes, then so be it. “Our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” Nothing less will do.
Which is why I thought WWII was such a momentous and honorable undertaking. We were stopping pure fucking dark evil.
But don’t call me reprehensible for being against the Iraq war, and trying to tie that anti-war stance in with a pro-Saddam stance, because it’s just not true.
Call all those other administrations reprehensible for not declaring outright war on people who are evil in regards to human rights.
It’s a pretty long list…
And people like Gandhi seemed to find a way around violence to achieve their point. I think it’s tragic that everyone’s first thought is to violence to get what they want.
But you’re probably right. It probably is the only way, some of the time. I just wish it didn’t have to be.
Would you support these actions? Iraq was a special case for a lot of reasons, and maybe some of these other countries will get the message: the U.S. no longer takes the position that being a responsible member of the world community means doing whatever makes us the most popular.
I support Amnesty International, and I want human rights to be universal. But if we think we can just declare war on every “rat bastard” in the world to save their people is insane.
You would like human rights to be universal. But you aren’t willing to actually do anything about it, save ask France for permission to request, politely, that the leaders of these countries stop starving/torturing/killing their citizens.
And we fucking left him in power for two freaking decades!!! George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan should be ashamed of themselves…, A) For supporting the fucker with arms and weapons that he could use to hurt his own people, and B) for not taking him out when they had the chance in the first Gulf War.
“I” didn’t leave anyone in power. Reagan made a lot of foreign policy choices that hurt a lot of people. He also ended the rule of the communist party in the U.S.S.R., so I’m willing to give him a break. George Bush Sr. did the wrong thing, and I have long maintained that he should have finished that job (which, incidentally, would have put him at odds with the all-knowing U.N.). That man did nothing right for four years, and he isn’t high on my list of favorite President’s. Clinton wasn’t exactly going out of his way to put a stop to Saddam’s reign, of course; why haven’t you called him to task?
So get off your high horse.
I’m sorry, I just don’t understand this statement. I am not Reagen, and nor am I Bush Sr. I have long supported the removal of Saddam; I would have supported it under Clinton, and I supported it under the current President. I never left anyone in power, and nor have I suggested doing so.
Oh, and I’ve said before, the best thing about this whole debacle is that the Iraqi people don’t have to live under Saddam anymore. Now, when the Shi’ites stage a mass revolution and start blowing us up en masse…I’m going to question it based on cost-benefits…but regardless. Saddam was certainly a bad guy, and it’s good to see him gone.
Yes, it is good . . . and I believe you that you feel that way. However, inasmuch as you feel that U.S. action in Iraq was unjustified, it is obvious that you don’t think that their freedom was worth the cost. In other words, the U.S. should have left them exactly where they were, and that is exactly the attitude that I find so disgusting.