Cha Cha Cha Changes...

Real Life Events.

Go off topic and I will break you!

Moderator: Dictators in Training

Postby xaoshaen » Mon May 23, 2005 4:20 pm

Gidan wrote:So why exactly did we goto war again?

Our intel (wront, right, doctored... it doesn't matter) said Iraq had WoMD. Even though we can not find them on any inspections, what do we do? We steamroll into the county. Why exactly would saddam not use them if he had them? We were so certain (based on intel) that they had them yet were in no fear of them actually using them?


Weapons of Mass Destruction are hardly the only the threat a rogue regime poses to the security of the United States. Currently, the most essential conditions for dealing harm to a percieved enemy are political will and hostile intent, as mentioned previously. Hussein met both of those conditions as indictated by his willingness to engage US forces participating in lawful patrols.

If you don't think we were concerned about Saddam using chemical and biological agents, you must not have followed the actual war. MOPP4 was the presumed operating condition. One of the major concerns going into Iraq was how long soldiers would be able to prosecute an engargement in MOPP4 conditions in the desert.

Sounds to me like the gov't just wanted saddam out of there and a new democracy (because its our job to dicatate world polotics to other countries). Is it not possible we did this simply becasue we thought it would make trade with them easier?


What's this? Governments act in their own best interests? Are we birthing a bold new age of realpolitik? Or could this be the historical norm? If we'd simply wanted to secure cheaper oil, there are vastly easier ways of doing it. Do you know what percentage fo US oil came from Iraq? How about, say, South America. Specifically a South American country in political turmoil, where we did not intervene, despite an opportunity tailormade to insert a puppet government of our choosing?
xaoshaen
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:00 am

Postby mofish » Mon May 23, 2005 4:21 pm

I used to be a libertarian, until I realized that powerful interests like corporations, conservative religious groups etc would never, ever care about the public welfare, only their own agendas, and that the libertarian/objectivist ideal that a pure free-market, ultra-weak government, and a complete indulgence in self would somehow help us achieve some mystical utopia and serve the public interest was utter bullshit. That is when I realized I had been following a misguided path. I now realize that government needs some muscle, and sometimes is our only defense.
You were right Tikker. We suck.
mofish
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:53 pm

Postby KILL » Mon May 23, 2005 4:33 pm

xaoshaen wrote:
KILL wrote:haha, yeah. thats exactly what Iraq did.

fucking tosser


Iraq clearly demonstrated hostile intentions towards the US.



They did?


Excluding the Gulf War, or any incident when we werent literally taunting them, what did I miss?
KILL
NT Disciple
NT Disciple
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 8:46 pm

Postby Gidan » Mon May 23, 2005 4:33 pm

Slightly off but I found this rather amusing

Questions and Answers about Foreign Policy (and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq)

(c) 2003 anarchie bunker

Permission is freely granted to copy, print, and distribute this material by any means, so long as the author is given proper credit and so long as this statement is included in any and all copies made for distribution.

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.

Reference Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
http://develnet.org/ThisAndThat/DaddyWh ... AttackIraq
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
User avatar
Gidan
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:01 am

Postby Lyion » Mon May 23, 2005 4:52 pm

mofish wrote:I used to be a libertarian, until I realized that powerful interests like corporations, conservative religious groups etc would never, ever care about the public welfare, only their own agendas, and that the libertarian/objectivist ideal that a pure free-market, ultra-weak government, and a complete indulgence in self would somehow help us achieve some mystical utopia and serve the public interest was utter bullshit. That is when I realized I had been following a misguided path. I now realize that government needs some muscle, and sometimes is our only defense.


I concur, as I do not follow a purely libertarian mindset.

However, the trick is where do you draw the line, and how much should the government control and redistribute?

I'm more of a Federalist with more things being handled at the state level.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
C. S. Lewis
User avatar
Lyion
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby Arlos » Mon May 23, 2005 6:12 pm

The recent British documents showed that we were in no way afraid of an imminent attack from Iraq, and that the war there was planned long before. (See: comments about fixing the intelligence to the policy, instead of visa versa) You want further proof how fucked up the whole planning was, just go look at pre-war, where Wolfowitz was out there saying this wouldn't cost the US taxpayer 1 dollar. How many hundreds of billions are we up to now? Why is no one held accountable for that?

And it IS a war for oil. No, not oil to make gas cheaper for the average citizen, this was never about that. Just take a look at the profits the big oil companies have made since we went to war, and you'll see the real beneficiaries. All of them are making RECORD profits, with the numbers continuing to do nothing but skyrocket.

Also, like it or not, the US has a LONG history of puppeteering and imperialism, just look at our record of propping up dictators JUST like Saddam, including Saddam HIMSELF. It's not even been 30 years since the US was hardcore in support of the Shah in Iran, who had torture chambers and secret police just as bad as Saddam's, and that's living memory for a lot of people. So, when we go off with another imperialist war with a country that had NOT attacked us....

If we wanted Saddam out, Bush Sr. should've supported the uprisings after the first Gulf war. We promised them support, they rebelled, we refused to live up to the promise, they got slaughtered. Now his son's in there, and you wonder that people don't trust us? HAH.

-Arlos
User avatar
Arlos
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:39 pm

Postby Lyion » Mon May 23, 2005 6:20 pm

*sigh*

1. Internal British documents showing one field officers opinion are not facts regarding our knowledge or beliefs. Thats a very poor argument, Arlos.

2. It is not a war for oil. We've discussed and disproven this. We do not control Iraqs Oil. OPEC is not much different than before.

3. Your arguments against the Shah are invalid. Take a drive down to San Jose and talk to one of the millions of Iranians who lived during the Shahs time. Being someone who has been to Iran, I can firmly refute your saying the Shah had 'torture' chambers or anything resembling the current revolutionary guard. Iran pre IRI was very different than what you are falsely portraying.

4. Bush Sr did exactly what he wanted to in the first Gulf War. Nice posturing and very partisan attacks ignoring the time from 1992 to 2000.

You nicely ignore the domino effect of democracy spreading like wildfire in your partisan posturing and attacks on GW. The fact is the Iraq war will probably be the cornerstone of the spread of freedom in many parts of the middle east and ensure the safety of the US for many years to come.

Feel free to ignore facts and attack the evil, bad GOP, though.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
C. S. Lewis
User avatar
Lyion
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby Narrock » Mon May 23, 2005 7:19 pm

Arlos wrote:The recent British documents showed that we were in no way afraid of an imminent attack from Iraq, and that the war there was planned long before. (See: comments about fixing the intelligence to the policy, instead of visa versa) You want further proof how fucked up the whole planning was, just go look at pre-war, where Wolfowitz was out there saying this wouldn't cost the US taxpayer 1 dollar. How many hundreds of billions are we up to now? Why is no one held accountable for that?

And it IS a war for oil. No, not oil to make gas cheaper for the average citizen, this was never about that. Just take a look at the profits the big oil companies have made since we went to war, and you'll see the real beneficiaries. All of them are making RECORD profits, with the numbers continuing to do nothing but skyrocket.

Also, like it or not, the US has a LONG history of puppeteering and imperialism, just look at our record of propping up dictators JUST like Saddam, including Saddam HIMSELF. It's not even been 30 years since the US was hardcore in support of the Shah in Iran, who had torture chambers and secret police just as bad as Saddam's, and that's living memory for a lot of people. So, when we go off with another imperialist war with a country that had NOT attacked us....

If we wanted Saddam out, Bush Sr. should've supported the uprisings after the first Gulf war. We promised them support, they rebelled, we refused to live up to the promise, they got slaughtered. Now his son's in there, and you wonder that people don't trust us? HAH.

-Arlos


Not mentioning any names out of respect for CA rules, but it's quite obvious that leftists have a Knowledge Deflector Shield permanently affixed to their heads, and only buy into the propaganda machine their political party spits out.
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
Narrock
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 16679
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Postby Narrock » Mon May 23, 2005 7:20 pm

Lyion wrote:*sigh*

1. Internal British documents showing one field officers opinion are not facts regarding our knowledge or beliefs. Thats a very poor argument, Arlos.

2. It is not a war for oil. We've discussed and disproven this. We do not control Iraqs Oil. OPEC is not much different than before.

3. Your arguments against the Shah are invalid. Take a drive down to San Jose and talk to one of the millions of Iranians who lived during the Shahs time. Being someone who has been to Iran, I can firmly refute your saying the Shah had 'torture' chambers or anything resembling the current revolutionary guard. Iran pre IRI was very different than what you are falsely portraying.

4. Bush Sr did exactly what he wanted to in the first Gulf War. Nice posturing and very partisan attacks ignoring the time from 1992 to 2000.

You nicely ignore the domino effect of democracy spreading like wildfire in your partisan posturing and attacks on GW. The fact is the Iraq war will probably be the cornerstone of the spread of freedom in many parts of the middle east and ensure the safety of the US for many years to come.

Feel free to ignore facts and attack the evil, bad GOP, though.


It'll never sink in Lyion. I applaude you for your efforts though.
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
Narrock
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 16679
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Postby Scoota McGee » Tue May 24, 2005 1:10 am

I think maybe people see troops in Iraq only as a reason to hate President Bush. If you like President Bush you're fine with troops being there.

By way of observation I'd like to point out that the people who seem to be upset the President Bush has involved US Troops in Iraq appear to be fine with US Troops still being in the Balkans. We still have several thousand troops in the Balkans after President Clinton involved the US in that region... Where is the outrage at that? In fact my company is still making money from that all these years later.
"Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage."

-Dr. Walter Williams
User avatar
Scoota McGee
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:19 pm
Location: Dubai, U.A.E.

Re: Cha Cha Cha Changes...

Postby Martrae » Tue May 24, 2005 5:36 am

Long-ass article wrote:Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.


QFE and cuz I know it got lost
Inside each person lives two wolves. One is loyal, kind, respectful, humble and open to the mystery of life. The other is greedy, jealous, hateful, afraid and blind to the wonders of life. They are in battle for your spirit. The one who wins is the one you feed.
User avatar
Martrae
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 11962
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:46 am
Location: Georgia

Postby Ganzo » Tue May 24, 2005 6:00 am

Scoota McGee wrote:I think maybe people see troops in Iraq only as a reason to hate President Bush. If you like President Bush you're fine with troops being there.

By way of observation I'd like to point out that the people who seem to be upset the President Bush has involved US Troops in Iraq appear to be fine with US Troops still being in the Balkans. We still have several thousand troops in the Balkans after President Clinton involved the US in that region... Where is the outrage at that? In fact my company is still making money from that all these years later.
In that war democrasts were bombing civilians so it's ok
גם זה יעבור

Narrock wrote:Yup, I ... was just trolling.

Narrock wrote:I wikipedia'd everything first.
User avatar
Ganzo
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:05 pm

Postby Diekan » Tue May 24, 2005 7:35 pm

Jr. wanted to go into Iraq BEFORE he was ever sworn in as President. He USED 911 as an excuse, why is that so hard to see and understand? Iraq posed NO imminent threat to the US at the time of the attacks, nor did they pose any imminent threat directly before OR after the attacks either.

The war was / is a sham, period. Whatever the real motivations of Dubya, you can bet your NT ass it had LITTLE to do with “freedom for the Iraqi people” or “security for the US.”

Bush's excuses for going into Iraq changed as often as I change condoms while banging whatever little Latin honey I am with for the week. Yet, we seem to have forgotten that, haven't we?

I participated in and was in full support of Desert Storm. I believe we had the right intentions (although I am sure there was an underlying agenda we [the public] weren't aware of). Nonetheless, Desert Storm had a tangible and very believable purpose.

I support our troops 110%, with the exception of the morons that delve into the ridiculous and violate the rules of engagement, or the human rights of our prisoners. However, I am STILL against this war.

As dumb as Dubya clearly is, I am absolutely surprised that reasonably intelligent people are falling for his lines of bullshit.

The only real winners in this mess are Americas corporations. Why is that so hard to see? Why is it so hard to draw the conclusion that Bush's intentions have little to do with American security?

Are we supposed to sit back now and say, “well yeah we were lied to, we don't really believe Bush went into Iraq for the right reasons, but hell, we're there now... so let's just forget the past and move forward?” Fuck that. He needs to be thoroughly investigated and impeached. But, THAT will never happen because the country has its head so far up it's “reality TV watching, AOL using asses” it doesn't see the problem.
User avatar
Diekan
NT Deity
NT Deity
 
Posts: 5736
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:14 am

Postby Lyion » Tue May 24, 2005 8:11 pm

Yes, the spreading wing of Freedom in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Possibly Syria, and other countries in a regious that is a hotspot for terrorism and national security concerns is a travesty. What a complete shame. What utter bullshit.

The problem is this war was done EXACTLY for security purposes, and was necessary sooner or later. Its already unfolding as an amazing changing force in the region and I'm amazed at those with a reasonable intellect are still blinded by partisan hatred. How sad.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
C. S. Lewis
User avatar
Lyion
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby labbats » Tue May 24, 2005 8:21 pm

lyion wrote:Yes, the spreading wing of Freedom in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Possibly Syria, and other countries in a regious that is a hotspot for terrorism and national security concerns is a travesty. What a complete shame. What utter bullshit.

The problem is this war was done EXACTLY for security purposes, and was necessary sooner or later. Its already unfolding as an amazing changing force in the region and I'm amazed at those with a reasonable intellect are still blinded by partisan hatred. How sad.


I agree. As do most intelligent people who can grasp a concept.

I understand being 20 and hating the government and bemoaning its treachery. But when you turn 30, you appreciate it. I voted liberal when I was 18 too, but reality isn't Ralph Nader. Sorry.
labbats
Mr. Ed
Mr. Ed
 
Posts: 3597
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:21 am

Postby Gidan » Tue May 24, 2005 10:49 pm

lyion wrote:Yes, the spreading wing of Freedom in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Possibly Syria, and other countries in a regious that is a hotspot for terrorism and national security concerns is a travesty. What a complete shame. What utter bullshit.


Speading freedom as we see it. What would happen if say China had done what we did and then imposed a communist gov't. Would we be thinking how great it was, how necessary it was?
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
User avatar
Gidan
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:01 am

Postby Scoota McGee » Wed May 25, 2005 1:24 am

Diekan wrote:...The only real winners in this mess are Americas corporations. Why is that so hard to see? Why is it so hard to draw the conclusion that Bush's intentions have little to do with American security?


Not saying otherwise. However, the same corporations that are making money on President Bush's war in Iraq made money... and are in fact still making money off of President Clinton's war in the Balkans. My question is, why don't people who rant and rail about President Bush ever mention this?
"Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage."

-Dr. Walter Williams
User avatar
Scoota McGee
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:19 pm
Location: Dubai, U.A.E.

Postby Lyion » Wed May 25, 2005 5:12 am

Gidan wrote:
lyion wrote:Yes, the spreading wing of Freedom in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Possibly Syria, and other countries in a regious that is a hotspot for terrorism and national security concerns is a travesty. What a complete shame. What utter bullshit.


Speading freedom as we see it. What would happen if say China had done what we did and then imposed a communist gov't. Would we be thinking how great it was, how necessary it was?


You mean the inverse like crushing a free state, like Taiwan? Unfortunately that situation is very much real and we might see what happens if diplomacy fails.

In regards to the Middle East and China, we've already seen firsthand what happens when you try to impose communisim on Islamic Countries, when Russia tried it with Afghanistan.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
C. S. Lewis
User avatar
Lyion
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby Ganzo » Wed May 25, 2005 5:46 am

lyion wrote:
Gidan wrote:
lyion wrote:Yes, the spreading wing of Freedom in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Possibly Syria, and other countries in a regious that is a hotspot for terrorism and national security concerns is a travesty. What a complete shame. What utter bullshit.


Speading freedom as we see it. What would happen if say China had done what we did and then imposed a communist gov't. Would we be thinking how great it was, how necessary it was?


You mean the inverse like crushing a free state, like Taiwan? Unfortunately that situation is very much real and we might see what happens if diplomacy fails.

In regards to the Middle East and China, we've already seen firsthand what happens when you try to impose communisim on Islamic Countries, when Russia tried it with Afghanistan.
Come on, Russia would have had no problem installing comunism there like it did in 7 other islamic countries before, if US stayed out.
גם זה יעבור

Narrock wrote:Yup, I ... was just trolling.

Narrock wrote:I wikipedia'd everything first.
User avatar
Ganzo
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:05 pm

Postby Diabolik » Wed May 25, 2005 8:19 am

Mindia wrote:Yes Kizzy, and if given the opportunity I would love to SPIT in your face right now, you fucking PIG.
User avatar
Diabolik
NT Bixie
NT Bixie
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:18 am
Location: Yo momma house

Postby Tossica » Wed May 25, 2005 8:28 am

Holy shit. That was brilliant.
User avatar
Tossica
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm

Postby Lyion » Wed May 25, 2005 8:36 am

Ganzo wrote:
In regards to the Middle East and China, we've already seen firsthand what happens when you try to impose communisim on Islamic Countries, when Russia tried it with Afghanistan.


Come on, Russia would have had no problem installing comunism there like it did in 7 other islamic countries before, if US stayed out.


We had very little to do with the Mujahadeen kicking Soviet Ass.. Well, except for Rambo.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
C. S. Lewis
User avatar
Lyion
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby veeneedefeesh » Wed May 25, 2005 12:19 pm

xaoshaen wrote:Korea is a particularly bad example. Initiating military hostilities with the North Koreans would be a much trickier proposition than in Iraq. The North Korean army is vastly better supplied and trained than their Iraqi equivalents and don't suffer from the systematic problems Arab militaries do.


Korea is a PERFECT example because we KNOW they are making nukes, they have came out and admited it. But it is a different story? So basically what you are saying is that it is ok to pre-emptively invade another country IF AND ONLY IF there is no possibility that you might loose? What a pussy stance. Bush went after Iraq for his own agenda, it had nothing to do with danger, it had nothing to do with percived threat (except possibly to his father whom Saddam had personally threatened), it definately didnt have anything to do with WMDs, nor did it have anything to do with his "connections" to Bin Laden....who still btw hasnt been found even tho he has to have periodic kidney dialysis and is probably sitting in a hospital of his own choosing at least once a month. If after almost 4 years we havent found that hospital then we deserve to be bombed because we are terminally stupid.

I am not sure what your point is here. Korea is just as big a threat as Saddam ever was, Korea actually HAS and freely admits that it has a nuclear program, AND has basically told the UN and specifically the US to go fuck themselves, but because they have a real military and actually might be able to put up a real fight then that is a different story...could it be that there isnt any oil in Korea? naaaa the Chimp in Chief wouldnt send our boys off to die for oil and $$$ in his personal coffers, it's just that Korea might actually do something other than surrender in droves, great argument there buddy, dont forget to pull your head out of your ass BEFORE you try to eat.
A man can only live twice, once when he is born, and once when he has looked death in the eye~~~~Japanese Proverb

<img src="http://www.namelesstavern.org/phpBB2/album_pic.php?pic_id=730">
User avatar
veeneedefeesh
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:02 pm

Postby Ganzo » Wed May 25, 2005 12:44 pm

veeneedefeesh wrote:
Korea is a PERFECT example because we KNOW they are making nukes, they have came out and admited it. But it is a different story? So basically what you are saying is that it is ok to pre-emptively invade another country IF AND ONLY IF there is no possibility that you might loose? What a pussy stance.
Thats a kindergarden way to view politics. War that you have a chance to lose is only initiated by ether insane dictators, or when all other options have been exhausted.
גם זה יעבור

Narrock wrote:Yup, I ... was just trolling.

Narrock wrote:I wikipedia'd everything first.
User avatar
Ganzo
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:05 pm

Postby Lyion » Wed May 25, 2005 12:52 pm

We've already established Korea is a pawn of China, who already possesses Nuclear capabilities and is a country we are trying to forment Democracy from the inside.

Apples and oranges.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
C. S. Lewis
User avatar
Lyion
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: Ohio

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

cron