Originally Posted by ItalianGuy4US

I'm sorry if i sounded a bit rude.

I'm not sure I got all of what AlexKall said but it's just that I believe that the european public opinion is naive and selfish: europe itself does not know what the word responsibility is all about to the extent that they take democracy for granted, make it fashionable by covering it with the peace flags all over, and then believing that's enough for freedom to last.
I mean democracy should be armed, in order to survive, that's just the point I guess.

Well put (although several European nations, your own included, have taken what I believe to be the right side in this conflict).

Don't take the "keep it civil" to heart, you'll see them everywhere on here, given the international nature of these forums, we have to ensure that everyone is equally respected so as to avoid pissing contests, if you'll pardon the expression.


And Snauhi, just because Saddam may have not been a direct threat to yourself, does that mean that you do not have the duty to do everything in your power to aid those who cannot help themselves? Protesting those who are willing to sacrifice their own lives for the liberty of people they have never met accomplishes nothing good.

Originally Posted by ItalianGuy4US

I'm sorry if i sounded a bit rude.

I'm not sure I got all of what AlexKall said but it's just that I believe that the european public opinion is naive and selfish: europe itself does not know what the word responsibility is all about to the extent that they take democracy for granted, make it fashionable by covering it with the peace flags all over, and then believing that's enough for freedom to last.
I mean democracy should be armed, in order to survive, that's just the point I guess.

What democracy isn't armed? Spain sure is
Wait, what country is not armed?

I believe he meant (correct me if I'm wrong, ItalianGuy, I'd hate to put words in your mouth) that a democracy should be willing to use force to defend it's way of life.

I believe he meant (correct me if I'm wrong, ItalianGuy, I'd hate to put words in your mouth) that a democracy should be willing to use force to defend it's way of life.

Absolutely Redneck

All I want to know is when the new Spanish Government will hold their formal surrender ceremony to the terrorists (Al Queda and ETA) - not to mention when the Hondurans will. I know that Spain is still supporting NATO efforts in Afganistan, but how long will it be before they pull out there too?

Thanks goodness the Poles, Brits, Italians, etc. are still supporting efforts in Iraq . Contrary to some people's opinions, there are parts of Europe that do actively support counter terrorism efforts and the efforts in Ir 8) aq, so all is not lost - not even close.

Italian guy: responsability? how is it what some guy is going in he's backyard your business?

Was Saddam a threat for democracy in europe?

Yo, Jtf2:

Italian guy: responsability? how is it what some guy is going in he's backyard your business?

The problem was that Sadam did not, and was not going to, stay in HIS own backyard. Leaving aside the fact that he was a murderous, money filtching bozo, he also invaded 2 other countries, bombarded others with SCUD missiles and was ready to do it again at any time. A threat to one country can rapidly become a threat to all. Do you think that Nazi Germany would have started WW II if the French or British Governments had stood up to him in 1934?

Pollux:

Was Saddam a threat for democracy in europe?

Yes, for the reasons given above (although their homegrown idiots may be a larger threat).

Originally Posted by Jtf2

Italian guy: responsability? how is it what some guy is going in he's backyard your business?

How is it NOT? This is, to be blunt, an entirely undefensible position. It denotes a wholly self-centered and selfish attitude that I am extremely glad is not shared by my own government (along with those of our allies in this). There is a saying that goes (roughly) "defending liberty anywhere means defending liberty everywhere," we cannot sit idly by while people less fortunate than ourselves suffer under tyranny and expect our own freedom to remain unchallenged (by, say, a massive terrorist attack on our home soil).

What about the multiple countries in africa where people are being murdered for ethnic reasons? I mean the US has not attempted to do anything is this area very seriously.

Ever hear of Liberia?
And Somalia (granted, a certain someone decided it would be best to cut and run there before we accomplished anything, but we did send troops there)?

Be realistic, though, we can only do so much, but at least we are doing what we can (besides military operations, look at the billions we send overseas in foreign aid every year, along with the manpower and resources we expend delivering that aid and providing other assistance to foreign nations). Along with this, the military option (as you can see with all the ya-hoos moaning today) needs more justification than just "we think we should get boots on the ground and help these people" (too many people would rather look the other way than face any chance of being asked to sacrifice anything themselves to help anyone else), so those nations we will enter first will always be those that have the ability to present a direct threat to ourselves as well as their own civilians.