How about "not being an opressive dictatorial state"...
Sorry, that's not in the Charter. The UN would have been "NATO" if we hadn't allowed the Soviet Union in. (and we even made them a permanent Security Council member.)
Offer no means? I, who have studied diplomacy and military tactics for my entire life, offer no means of removing Saddam Hussein? I want him gone, but educated as I am, I offer no means? Are trying to make a point, ac, or are you mongering? I have never claimed to have any means. My stance in this issue is to not bomb cities till the government has no choice but to surrender, as in Bosnia, to not kill civillians, and if war is to come, be so prepared for it that innocents don't die. You and your countrymen can be as cynic as you want, but there is no excuse for the loss of a human life, ceirtainly not thosuands, and not when they could have been avoided.
not when they could have been avoided
Here is where I ask you to offer means. How shall we avoid war, and still remove Saddam?
Do you understand that (in Afghanistan, say) there were more people dying yearly due to the Taliban in power than died because of our invasion? Do you understand that I believe the same thing about Iraq? That if the US invades Iraq in January 2003, there will be fewer deaths that year (and subsequent years) than if we do not?
I cannot believe that you are so immersed in logic that you do not recognize a rhetorical question when its stuffed up your nose. Seeker meant that some nations have proven themselves worthy, and I asked on what basis they were so much more worthy than others, and if that worthieness was based on the standard of the US.
Don't tell me, tell Seeker!
I'm pretty sure he read my reply. His reasoning was wrong, and the caricature of his reasoning you offered was wrong. I was only describing the situation correctly.
The reason Iraq is in trouble isn't a document. Its about keeping face, of continuing the War on Terror, of oil, and of public appearence. We are very selective about who the bad guys are. If they are allied with us, or if attacking them isn't cost-effective, then they're good. When there's no profit in keeping them, and nothing to stop them from being removed, they're bad. Look at post-war Sovjet. Stalin was in no way better than Hitler when it came to genocide, yet he arose a hero, until the East-berlin incident.
Indeed. This explains why Castro is such good buddies with the US. No, that isn't right... It explains why the US is preparing to invade Cuba in an ... No... that isn't right...
I thought the reason the Soviet Union of Stalin 'arose a hero' was because the international Left was full of garbage about what tyranny is. (I still think that, by the way.)
http://www.hrw.org/us/index.php
I've been there, read (much of) that. Much of what is there has nothing to do with international treaties. (Human rights watch doesn't like the US death penalty... makes aero sad 
) As I said, feel free to get specific. I'm prepared to discuss any issue you like, but I'm not willing to rebut mutiple HRW reports 
"Well I'm in business, the business of kicking your a$$, and let me tell you...business is boomin'. I'm open for business, the business of givin' you the business...
Soylent Green is my kind of people.
