crap, sorry Brad

I trust democracies more than I trust dictatorships. No democracy has ever gone on a warmongering rampage across the globe. By contrast the record for dictators is not very reassuring.

It's a pity that some people would fear the United States, whose government is elected every few years more than they fear the potentialities of a nuclear armed dictator in Iraq who has a long history of invading his neighbors and using every weapon, no matter how banned and cruel, as part of his effort.

OMG Frogboy! And you say MY scenario is unlikely!
But the worse thing is that I think you actually believe it. No wonder yo're for attacking Iraq. OMG!

No, Frogboy, we'll see Guatemala invading Japan before your scenario happens. You waaaay over estimate Iraq's military power, and economy. Even Syria (the most dangerous country the middle east has ever known) was never that powerful. Your scenario is more likly to apply to some extent to North Korea. Much richer, much more militarely powerful.

Seriously. My hypothetic scenario is much more likely. Maybe not all of it, but the part about the Kurds, the Shia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran. That's extremely likely. The part about North Korea, is just a maybe. It's just something a mademad like Kim would do if given the right conditions.

Brad, Hitler was elected.
Of course, I do not compare Bush to Hitler, not at all. But I was just saying that even in a democracy you don't know what can happen.

paxx: "somehow" elected ... the voting at this time can not really be called democratic, as the radical parties had rather big militias that took influence in the voting process. also the NSDAP did not get the absolute majority, but also needed a smaller national-conservative party (DNVP) to elect Hitler as chancellor.

i still love this thought by R. A. Wilson


Perils of Cocaine Abuse

Two recent political leaders allegedly had this nefarious habit.

Both came to power after dubious elections, by non-electorial and irregular methods.

Both nations immediately experienced attacks on famous public buildings.

Both blamed an ethnic minority before forensics had any evidence.

Both led "witch-hunts" against the accused minority.

Both suspended civil liberties "temporarily."

Both put the citizenry under surveillance.

Both maintained secret and clandestine governments.

Both launched wars against most of the world.

One had a funny mustache. Can you name the other one?

I'm pretty comfortable with the scenario I provided. It is a scenario that is similar to others that have been presented by foreign policy experts.

If you find my scenario unlikely, perhaps you could start by asserting where you think it's wrong?

That Iraq would invade another country? They've done that twice in recent years.

That France and Russia would argue that the sanctions should just be lifted and the inspectors removed despite Iraqi obstruction? That happened throughout the 90s.

That Iraq is trying to obtain nuclear weapons? That's already a documented fact.

Also, you apparently are not familiar with how Hitler got into power or at the very least not familiar with US electoral politics. The Nazi party never received a majority of votes in Germany and they had no constitution like ours to protect them from abuses by their leaders. Hitler wasn't elected Chancelor of Germany. He was appointed it. And as someone else mentioned, the different radical parties had out of control militias that could intimidate the legislature.

But what you say is illustrative of the left's views. They tend to have a blind eye to the horrible behavior of dictators because their dislike, their distrust of Bush blinds out everything else. There is, in the view of the radical left, no evil deed that Bush is incapable of while at the same time Saddam is seen as a victim by them. As Moshi's post shows above in that article, there is no deed that the left can fail to IMAGINE Bush capable of doing either.

That's why the left is so impotent right now. Most people aren't that into this sort of thing but they have enough common sense to see a spade for a spade.

They can see a series of events in which Iraq, nuclear armed, once again moves on its strategy to dominate the middle east. But there is no credible series of events that leads to a WW3 due to US intervention in Iraq.

Ironically, no one seems to have the same concern about the French, who are currently, at this very moment, unilaterally involved in the Ivory Coast.

"Expert" ... one who knows more and more about less and less.
"Foreign Policy Expert" .... no such animal.
The 'Nuclear Cataclysm' outlined by Frogboy will never happen, operational plans are already in place, and have been for several years, to 'remove' any of the possible instigators of this type of action well ahead of the first tangible sign of a move in this direction. >

"There is, in the view of the radical left, no evil deed that Bush is incapable of while at the same time Saddam is seen as a victim by them"

Having many, many friends among the radical left - I have to say, uhm.. no? Not a single one of them sees Hussein as a victem - they may see the Iraqi /populace/ as victims, yes, but I've not met a single one who believes that Hussein is a victim, or that he should even be in power.

Just my experience though - oh, wait, I know intelligent left-wingers though - they do exist, ya know - just like intelligent conservatives.

Do you make the distinction between radical left and just liberal? Perhaps you missed Susan Surandan's advertisement which basically states what I said.

Where was the outry over attacking Serbia? You know, the country that was the flashpoint of World War I? No one had a problem with regime change there.

So Wombat, where was this fail safe system you speak of with regards to North Korea? Is there some system in which France and Germany somehow disarm Iraq? Or is the system you envision one in which the United States is the lackey of France and Germany? To bloody itself as their command? If the US leaves Iraq alone, who precisely is going to ensure that Iraq doesn't arm itself with nuclear weapons?

Brad...'aliens' HAVE invaded...many a time.
They invaded what is now the USA, decimating 500-odd Nations.
They invaded Terra Australis, decimating the oldest existing civilization.

Etc, etc....

And besides, you yourself said you wear a tinfoil hat.....[I'm sure it's not as a fashion statement]...

I always thought of 'radical left' as Socialism, and 'radical right' as fascism......so most 'socially acceptable' political parties tended to be in the middle ground, only 'slightly' left or 'slightly' right.

Trouble is, that makes 'em 'slightly' socialist or 'slightly' fascist...

In reality, I despise Politics almost as much as I despise the creatures that thrive amongst its effluvium....[Politicians].

Whether they are the insignificant little fish in Local Council or egotistical self delusional rulers of a country [either as individuals - dictator, or as a collective - Party]....none have ever demonstrated genuine selflessness and clear transparent motive for a common good.

Grrr....'none HAS'.....

Hello?
North Korea are a minor blip on the threat board.
It's population are starving, the Armed Forces are in a state of extreme disarray and what the country wants is the US (or UN if you like)to lift sanctions so they can actually get on with their lives.
Susan Sarandon ..... you are joking!
An fine actor (nearly called her 'actress' oops!) but an authority on anything??
Serbia, is this 1914 or 1990 you refer to?
The origins of the Great War are far more complex than a crazed Nationalist shooting a member of a decaying Royal Family.
The recent Balkan conflict was a result of long standing 'tribal' faction fighting centuries old, allied to the loss of one Josef Broz aka 'Tito' several years previous who 'united' the factions ..... albeit unwillingly.
You misunderstand the concept of 'removing' the problem, one removes the source, without resorting to open warfare or impotant diplomacy ..... QED.

Yes, actually, I make a /huge/ distinction between radical left and simply liberal. Most of my own views tend to cause me to fall towards the liberal side of the fence - but at the same time, I make my own decisions on issues instead of blindly following any form of party-line, so while I tend towards liberalism, I also tend towards a moderate form of liberalism - since we humans, are so concerned with pigeonholing and classifying everything.

Hrm - I'm rambling again aren't I? Sorry, I tend to do that. Oh! Yes, hard-left versus merely liberals. Well, considering many of them are hard-core socialists who consider the Democratic party to be 'too conservative' in their views - I'll leave that decision up to you.

(Gads, sorry for my typing in all of my posts tonight - I am /so/ not feeling good tonight, and typing on this stupid notebook keyboard is even more of a pain than usual.)

But the democratic party IS too conservative.

Heck, both the liberal party and the conservative party in in Canada are more "left" than any of the two parties in the US, and STILL and find them both too conservative.

But no, still, I don't consider myself a communist. A humanist at the most.

Okay, here's a litmus test:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID60/32263.html

Are these people liberal, or part of the "radical left"?

Phooey's Predictions:

The U.S. and it's allies will free the people of Iraq from a repressive totalitarian dictatorship.

Bin Laden is dead and Al Queda will crumble apart.

North Korea's government will collapse under it's own weight.

Here's a link to a little more light hearted look at the world situations

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/bennyhill.htm

Soooo - I'm reading through said link, and first, I need to say that I'm surprised - the spelling and grammar useage is better than you see on most web forums (Wincustomize excepted, of course.) - but that's beside the point.

The best classification I can come up with, I'm afraid is: Paranoid Conspiracy-Theorists.

Please, never send me a link to that site again. ^.^

That link would be Frogboy's... it took me awhile to force my way through parts of that.

Intellectual nincompoops. Very scary.

Wake UP People!

Yeah, I'd love to hug trees all day..ummm, but now I hug my kids and wonder what future they might have. Times are scary...to say the least! Let the "powers that be" control what happends, and let's kick some ass!

Yes, boss....

I didn't hear THIS http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/012803-SOTU.asp version of the State Of The Union address.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I'll supprt attacking Iraq ONLY if backup up by the UN. I will never support anybody or any country that takes justice in his own hands.
The fact that this country is more powerful than all the other countries in the world does not make it more right. If anything, it's just scary. It just gives the signal that the US does what they want, when they want. Who could stop them if they were going to invade France, England or Germany?