Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem
They were? Why were they a national security risk? But more to the point, who gets to decide what represents a national security risk? I mean, in my mind, killing a country's leader and then setting up your own only to face hatred from that entire country 10-20 years down the line is kind of, you know, a self-fulfilling prophecy of a security risk. But to be honest, I don't even buy into that security risk garbage: it's unethical.
|
Funny, that sounds like Iraq to me, only they were a "global" risk, what with having weapons that every other powerful country has tucked away in some bunker somewhere. Wonder if that means you were against it?
Quote:
How would you feel if China, Russia, Mexico, Canada - pick a country of your choice, came in and assassinated high-profile members of our government? Would you welcome them as liberators? Hell, almost everyone hates Bush at this point - you'd think that the assassin country would be welcomed as liberators, right? Would you welcome them as liberators?
As much as I dislike Bush, I wouldn't welcome a foreign country who offed him and a good portion of the government as liberators. I wouldn't trust them, nor anyone that they installed into the government. So tell me, why should someone in another country feel any different than you (I presume) and I would, simply because it's America that's doing the killing and installing?
|
slight detour from the event you guys were on, but i still applied the q to Blair at the time when he was tag teaming with Bush. The only thing i'd not like is the fact that the assassinators snuck in, past security and completed it, which would mean that we're vunerable to further invasion.
The citizens could only feel liberation if they were severly suppressed, else people may feel other things (slight gratitude perhaps?)
The only thing Bush wise that stopped me having a grudge against pretzels, was that I was told that Cheney would be 10 times worse, so it was better to have the puppet as the leader.
As for having that country of the assassinators, deciding who gets to rule the country you're in, naturally it'd reek of mistrust. But the thing is the West has a more established democratic system than let's say Iraq, so for a foreign country to try to instill new people of power would be difficult, (short of already having links with people in the inside) than a country who's now implementing this system for the first time, I'd think. I'm sure we'd have politicians (even in the opposing parties) who could already take up the posts.
(I know you were just setting an example to someone else, but I went along with it, thinking of how it might work in this present day)