If the United States saw what the United States is doing in the United States, the United States would invade the United States to liberate Americans from the tyranny of the American regime.
| +96 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 24 | 1d | |
| +45 | Interviews Are So Fake | 28 | 56m | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 21 | 2h | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 1d | |
| +24 | Non-Competes Banned | 23 | 3s | |
| How do I become Sigma | 14 | 42m | ||
| +19 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 1d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 2d | |
| +17 | ADHD ! | 4 | 52m | |
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 1d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
I wish the US federal government was destroyed. It's rude to tease.
Bro can we plz get these dusty old boomers out of office? Canada come “bring stability” to our nation if you know what I mean
And arrest people for getting together for NYE?
Especially since the United States has so much oil
This is such an awful take it barely warrants a response, but even so, I feel obligated because the other teenagers on this site probably like this kind of "edgy" post.
First off, what happened yesterday is what conservatives the world over want, not just in the United States - a regressive autocracy in which rights are enshrined for the few against the many. All that matters is who those rights go to in each case.
Second, look at the places the US intervenes in - nothing comparable in terms of civil rights abuses as in Iraq or Afghanistan. Cynicism from Americans shouldn't obscure how bad conditions were in those places, and the fact that the US will not intervene similarly in other regimes like Pakistan shouldn't diminish the value of liberating Iraqi's from Saddam's thumb.
You are delusional. Liberating Iraq lol. Start another thread and I will demolish you.
Lets do it right here.
According to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, an exception on the prohibition of force is allowed when responding to violence or to prevent the escalation of a situation. In both cases, Saddam Hussein was in clear violation of the UN Charter, as hardly a day went by where Iraqi military forces weren't actively shooting at UN personnel enforcing the No Fly Zone. In fact, there was a standing bounty for allied pilots.
I will freely admit that this is a bit of a post facto defense, but paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly, affirms that states have a positive responsibility to their respective populations - in other words, that committing genocide against a group is not protected nor sanctioned by international law. Saddam Hussein was unquestionably guilty of genocide, both against the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds living within Iraqi borders. Those paragraphs also apply to humanitarian law, which is another area in which Mr Hussein was guilty.
Or how about safeguarding terrorists? While I know of no specific code which prohibits it, I think we would all agree that a nation state which harbors known terrorists is committing a grave sin - and we know that Abu Nidal spent months in Baghdad under Saddam's surveillance before being killed a few months before the allied invasion.
Or non-proliferation. While we didn't find WMDs in Iraq, the Iraq Survey Group (and Saddam himself) stated that his intention was to maintain the ability to restart a weapons program once sanctions were lifted. In other words, he was conspiring to re-acquire WMDs and was merely waiting for the chance to get the necessary materiel.
Moreover, the original invasion of Iraq and deposition of Saddam was only halted on the conditions laid down by the victorious UN powers, one of which was regular inspections - which Saddam was no longer complying with by 2003.
The Bush Administration made a lot of errors, and one of them was a failure to contextualize the war. Saddam Hussein and his regime were an active, ongoing threat, who we knew and know were ready to wage war on their neighbors the moment he got the chance. The only thing stopping this, or his pursuit of WMDs, was an active allied military presence in Iraq itself! Saying "he has nukes, or will soon" is an easy, dumbed down way for a very dumb POTUS to sell his very dumb electorate on a very poorly planned war. It's harder to reduce to a Fox or CNN soundbite the many ethical and geopolitical reasons it was a moral and sensible liberation. And it was a liberation.
Congratulations, you just proved you have no sense of humor.
Also can you like even try to be more concise? This ain't the 1800s anymore.
Anyone who isn't interested in a well reasoned argument, isn't someone I'm interested in debating with. I believe what I do because I've tried to do some basic research on the subject and reach a conclusion with an open mind. If you aren't interested in approaching a subject in the same manner, that's your business, but you're a poorer and dumber person for it.
Amet qui perspiciatis autem culpa. Et at quia ratione ratione. Rerum nihil laboriosam culpa nihil deserunt aut.
Id ut voluptas officiis est ad. Exercitationem non esse officiis nesciunt ex ut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...