A scenario I thought about Bin Laden.

[Al Swearegen]

One thing I was wondering is at what point is invading another country pre-emptively in respect to what they may or may not do to another country or for different ideals, a good thing.
If for example there is a civil war between two ethnic divisions in a country, ought that be a good enough reason to invade? If there is an uprising against a leader, ought that too be a good enough reason to invade? If there is Weapons of Mass Destruction intel that gets proved incorrect, is that good enough reason to stay once invaded?

I am not trying to be a smart-arse and The Americans, Australians and Brits all have had a hand at such acts. I say at what point is it better simply allowing a country to sort out its own problems as bad as they may be or as different as we may view things from them?

[bodie]

i think the reason folks interfere in other folks shit is not always clear - although they usually claim it is to prevent
some kind of 'suffering' to the people!

The chances of us getting involved, i think, boils down to wether or not oil is involved

[Al Swearegen]

i think the reason folks interfere in other folks shit is not always clear - although they usually claim it is to prevent
some kind of 'suffering' to the people!

The chances of us getting involved, i think, boils down to wether or not oil is involved

I know that the soldiers going into Iraq were of the understanding that hey were liberating the citizens and they were upset at the way they were received by the citizens, who were rather displeased at the attempts and had not felt a resounding need for liberation as it turned out.

[TheoK]

Too bad they hanged Saddam. If they don't appreciate democracy, they shouldn't have it.

[Osensitive1]

The chances of us getting involved, i think, boils down to wether or not oil is involved

Yes. Does seem that way anymore.

I know that the soldiers going into Iraq were of the understanding that hey were liberating the citizens and they were upset at the way they were received by the citizens, who were rather displeased at the attempts and had not felt a resounding need for liberation as it turned out.

You mean like how many of the women don't mind their status in their society? Baffles me too, but do agree the minding of own business is an option which deserves consideration; not like we don't have our own problems to worry.

[Al Swearegen]

The chances of us getting involved, i think, boils down to wether or not oil is involved

Yes. Does seem that way anymore.

I know that the soldiers going into Iraq were of the understanding that hey were liberating the citizens and they were upset at the way they were received by the citizens, who were rather displeased at the attempts and had not felt a resounding need for liberation as it turned out.

You mean like how many of the women don't mind their status in their society? Baffles me too, but do agree the minding of own business is an option which deserves consideration; not like we don't have our own problems to worry.

Not sure exactly what the point about women in their society has to do in context with what I wrote or if in fact there was a point there at all. Do you mean it in terms of different cultures having different perceptions and us overlaying our social and moral mores is inherently wrong? If so I agree.

[bodie]

Have to ask...anybody know what the UN is there for?
i mean what do they do?

[Al Swearegen]

Have to ask...anybody know what the UN is there for?
i mean what do they do?

Cheer-leading? 

[Osensitive1]

Not sure exactly what the point about women in their society has to do in context with what I wrote or if in fact there was a point there at all.

Maybe just misunderstood you.

[bodie]

they have a lot of meetings  

and i think jack meant she was baffled by the attitude of the iraqi women
as they had been downtrodden by their previous iraqi regime

[Osensitive1]

Not sure exactly what the point about women in their society has to do in context with what I wrote or if in fact there was a point there at all.

Maybe just misunderstood you.

Oh, see you edited your post. There's quite a bit of western opinion on what 'should be' in middle eastern society, so yes maybe on a similar track after all.

[Al Swearegen]

Not sure exactly what the point about women in their society has to do in context with what I wrote or if in fact there was a point there at all.

Maybe just misunderstood you.

Oh, see you edited your post. There's quite a bit of western opinion on what 'should be' in middle eastern society, so yes maybe on a similar track after all.

Yes Jack I am 5:03am and not thinking too well. I think I see what you mean. It made no sense at first read.
I think we all have an expectation of how things should be and what is good and bad and right and wrong. As a society we have an expectation that if it works for us that it can work for others. We can fix it. I think that this is a dangerous mentality and in the same situation we would be offended at someone doing the same with us.

[Callaway]

One thing I was wondering is at what point is invading another country pre-emptively in respect to what they may or may not do to another country or for different ideals, a good thing.
If for example there is a civil war between two ethnic divisions in a country, ought that be a good enough reason to invade? If there is an uprising against a leader, ought that too be a good enough reason to invade? If there is Weapons of Mass Destruction intel that gets proved incorrect, is that good enough reason to stay once invaded?

I am not trying to be a smart-arse and The Americans, Australians and Brits all have had a hand at such acts. I say at what point is it better simply allowing a country to sort out its own problems as bad as they may be or as different as we may view things from them?

The Weapons of Mass Destruction intel was actually eventually proven correct.

Iraq had 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake uranium, which was discovered, guarded, and quietly shipped to Canada in 2008 in a top secret mission so as not to alert people who might want to steal it.

[TheoK]

I also want uranium. Imagine all the fun I could do with it. 

[Al Swearegen]

One thing I was wondering is at what point is invading another country pre-emptively in respect to what they may or may not do to another country or for different ideals, a good thing.
If for example there is a civil war between two ethnic divisions in a country, ought that be a good enough reason to invade? If there is an uprising against a leader, ought that too be a good enough reason to invade? If there is Weapons of Mass Destruction intel that gets proved incorrect, is that good enough reason to stay once invaded?

I am not trying to be a smart-arse and The Americans, Australians and Brits all have had a hand at such acts. I say at what point is it better simply allowing a country to sort out its own problems as bad as they may be or as different as we may view things from them?

The Weapons of Mass Destruction intel was actually eventually proven correct.

Iraq had 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake uranium, which was discovered, guarded, and quietly shipped to Canada in 2008 in a top secret mission so as not to alert people who might want to steal it.

How many weapons of mass destruction did they have? The quote you referenced IF it can be believed mentions they have uranium. (So does Australia) How many weapons of mass destruction do they have. (How many too does America have? Why are weapons of mass destruction ok with Amercian but not other countries? This one has me beat?)