WAR ? What is good for...

Look at this rubbish:

America rebuilt that country after World War II and protected the majority of Germans from the Soviet Union. We have spent trillions over there and now, when we need them, the Germans are not there for us. This is a very vivid lesson that generosity does not always swing both ways.

Bill O’Reilly: A friendly reminder

Yes. We are not there for our allies, cause we dont jump if you want us to. During the time of yours cold war, when you protected us from the evil of communism, we lived on your killing-fields-of-cold-war. And we’ve learned. We’ve learned thar war is not the answer to everything. Believe me America, you need the advice of the european people, because you are acting like an elephant at tiffany’s.

The US needs to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime because he’s a bad man, sure, because he may conceivably be connected with Al-Qaeda, because he’s developing weapons of mass destruction, because a friendly Iraq would alter the balance of power in the Middle East, sure, because of all of that. But the US needs to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime mainly because the West needs to humiliate the Arab world, and dispel the Islamic millennial fantasy.

Nick Denton

That’s your opinion? Really? Maybe you are right. Destroying Saddam Husseins Regime may be a affordable thing to aim to. But right now your government is planning to kill the people of Iraq and everyone who’s somehow linked to them. This doesn’t hurt Saddam, eye! He is not the man thinking of his folks when he is making descisions. We are just mentioning that there are more lifes then this one of Saddam. Does this make the germans friends of terrorism? Or is this just the humanity you have installed here and want to install in Afghanistan and Iraq. Think of it twice.

I don’t have photographs I can cite which show Saddam with a big grin on his face standing next to something on the ground which has the words “Atomic weapon” written on it in Arabic. But real proof isn’t possible in this situation until long after the fact. By the time we have proof, it will be too late. There are really only two ways to acquire real proof: invade the place and look around without the Iraqi government impeding us in any way, or wait until a weapon goes off somewhere. Given that we’re trying to decide whether to invade, and trying to prevent such a detonation, we must act before proof exists. […] On the other hand, if we’re incorrectly pessimistic, it means we’ll fight a war that probably wasn’t necessary. That’s certainly very bad for whatever nation we attack, but the cost to us of such an outcome is much lower than the effects of having one of our cities nuked.

Steven den Beste

Let me tell you: this kind of mathematical thinking about killing people is one of the biggest faults people can make. And do you really believe that tomorrow one of the cities in the heart of the USA will be nuked?

Maybe you really believe this. Maybe you should think twice. Please.