Page 30 of 46 FirstFirst ... 20252627282930313233343540 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 914
  1. #581  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    So if you do not hate America can you name 5 things positive that America has done for the world?
    1) Beat the Germans

    2) Beat the Japaneese

    3) Form the nation of Panama to build a canal

    4) Take in the tired, the poor, etc.... to form a great nation.

    I need to think about #5
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  2. #582  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Sorry my mistake....did not see your answers inside the quote.

    So if you do not hate America can you name 5 things positive that America has done for the world?

    If you do not support terrorists, can you admit that purposely targeting and killing innocent men, women, and children for any reason, no matter who it is done by, is wrong?
    1. Gone to the Moon.
    2. Led the technology revolution, including piles of inventions.
    3. Civil rights movement.
    4. Provided a balance to the Soviet Union.
    5. Made the Internet open, instead of closed.
    6. Provided an example of the democratic process working for a sustained period of time, with no royalty involved.
    7. Some very good movies and TV programs.
    8. A lot of music I like.

    I'm sure there is a whole lot more. I dont hate America. I enjoy its culture, and benefit from its inventions and services. I just wished they were closer to the ideal they portray, especially fairness.

    Regarding terrorism, I support it as a last alternative. Against overwhelming odds, it is the last alternative.

    Surur
  3. #583  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    1) Beat the Germans

    2) Beat the Japaneese

    3) Form the nation of Panama to build a canal

    4) Take in the tired, the poor, etc.... to form a great nation.

    I need to think about #5
    I realize 5 is a challenge . The problem with Surur is the first two were already shot down by Surur as negative examples of the USA interfering in the world.

    I am sure he would say that the Panama Canal was bad, but it split a nation, litterally.....ugh...groan... ..sorry....but I could see it coming!
  4. #584  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    If you do not support terrorists, can you admit that purposely targeting and killing innocent men, women, and children for any reason, no matter who it is done by, is wrong?
    Hobbes, you've asked this question 6 different ways, and he's ducked it every time. I'm afraid you're just wasting your time by asking it again and again.

    You won't get a reply, and by not getting an answer, you're getting the answer you're looking for.
    I'm back!
  5. #585  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    And to what would you attribute the problems in this area of the world during the 3000 years prior to America's existence?
    God of course!

    Surur
  6. #586  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    1. Gone to the Moon.
    2. Led the technology revolution, including piles of inventions.
    3. Civil rights movement.
    4. Provided a balance to the Soviet Union.
    5. Made the Internet open, instead of closed.
    6. Provided an example of the democratic process working for a sustained period of time, with no royalty involved.
    7. Some very good movies and TV programs.
    8. A lot of music I like.

    I'm sure there is a whole lot more. I dont hate America. I enjoy its culture, and benefit from its inventions and services. I just wished they were closer to the ideal they portray, especially fairness.
    Good see some balance, but it has not shown in any post besides this one. You do realize that #5 is because HEAVY interferring in the world, don't you. And that #6 is what we are trying to establish right now in Iraq, right? And I bet if you ask any woman in Afg should say that #3 was a huge benefit in her country, but again we meddled so I am not sure that is a positive or negative.

    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Regarding terrorism, I support it as a last alternative. Against overwhelming odds, it is the last alternative.
    Isn't this why you blasted USA for WWI and WWII, for using us as a last resort and to overcome overwhelming odds...so I am still not sure where you stand besides playing the part for the situation at hand to prove the point at the moment.
  7. #587  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    God of course!

    Surur
    So it's God's fault - which one?
  8. #588  
    I didn't blast America for entering WW 1 & 2 late. I just made it clear that they did. Some people obviously think that America goes charging in any time their friends are in trouble. I provided evidence that they did not. Thats all.

    Surur
  9. #589  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Hobbes, you've asked this question 6 different ways, and he's ducked it every time. I'm afraid you're just wasting your time by asking it again and again.

    You won't get a reply, and by not getting an answer, you're getting the answer you're looking for.
    Ya I know....I realized that after the 3rd time, but the more he obviously avoids it, the more pathetic his arguments are.
  10. #590  
    When we were liberating europe, blacks at home had to sit in the back of the bus.

    The US has changes a lot, mostly for the better. But the government is broken and their world policy sucks!!!

    Cuba would be much better off if there was no trade embargo... and I would be able to get my Cuban cigars cheaper!!!
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  11. #591  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    So it's God's fault - which one?
    There is regional conflicts everywhere, including the middle east. America for some reason feel they have to intervene from afar. 100 years ago this was NOT their policy.

    Surur
  12. #592  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    There is regional conflicts everywhere, including the middle east. America for some reason feel they have to intervene from afar. 100 years ago this was NOT their policy.

    Surur
    So let me get this straight. If you believe your quote, would you prefer America divest itself of all responsibility associated with World affairs?
  13. #593  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    I didn't blast America for entering WW 1 & 2 late. I just made it clear that they did. Some people obviously think that America goes charging in any time their friends are in trouble. I provided evidence that they did not. Thats all.

    Surur
    My mistake. My misunderstanding. I just couldn't get it straight with your other quotes...... ......

    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Please! You KNOW you staid out of the WW II for two years, and WW I 3 years later, and on both occasions only when American interest was affected (Pearl Harbour in one, and the sinking of an American ship in another).

    Or maybe you dont know these things?

    Surur
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Again, read what you wrote yourself. You only intervene when your own interests is served, not when people are pleading for your help. America is NOT noble. Thats just propaganda.....

    Let me repeat again - America is NOT Noble. They only act in their own self-interest.

    Surur
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    How does it make them better? And if they are no better, are they fit to wield the power they wield in their own self-interest?

    Whats worse is that they are no better than anyone else, and act that way, but due to their power their actions have global consequences (e.g. ignoring the Kyoto treaty). Also they pretend to be better than anyone else, which is hypocritical, which I find irksome.

    Surur
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Well, you tend to wait until if affects your bottom line.

    Surur
  14. #594  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    I didn't blast America for entering WW 1 & 2 late. I just made it clear that they did. Some people obviously think that America goes charging in any time their friends are in trouble. I provided evidence that they did not. Thats all.

    Surur

    Here I go, blurring the line between sides for Amerca's defence. I think America was not in a position to enter the war early. US had to stop making cars and homes to build an army.

    How many Americans would give up there tahoes and esclades to free the people or Iraq? Not many.

    On the other side, there are many Middle eastern people that are happy to see Americans solders.

    I think Iraq was a mistake, but now Iran is a problem. Are the Amercan citizens ready to give up more young solders and money and fuel and recources to go fight there? Probably

    We can't nuke Iran, they have oil. So we go fight Iran and make greater sacrafices and spread our resources even thinner. What do you think North Korea is going to do to South Korea? China to Taiwan?

    America is a great and powerful nation, and so was the Roman empire. America will not be here forever and ever 'till the end of time.
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  15. #595  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    There is regional conflicts everywhere, including the middle east. America for some reason feel they have to intervene from afar. 100 years ago this was NOT their policy.

    Surur
    You can thank Emperor Hirohito for that.
    I'm back!
  16. #596  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    So let me get this straight. If you believe your quote, would you prefer America divest itself of all responsibility associated with World affairs?
    Thats a difficult question. Such a lot has been built on the long standing support of America, that a lot of countries would fall like a house of cards without them. I'm thinking Israel, South Korea and Taiwan. That does not seem fair.

    How about America stops interfering any further, and slowly withdraws over 5-10 years. I'm sure the South Korean army is already pretty strong, and maybe Taiwan would be better just integrating with China, like Hong Kong did. 80% of the jews in Israel are immigrants, so I'm sure a good 50% would leave without American support. Also if Israel were weaned of support from America they are much more likely to make a lasting peace with their neighbours.

    Surur
  17. #597  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    My mistake. My misunderstanding. I just couldn't get it straight with your other quotes...... ......
    I dont see where I'm blasting anyone. I just stated it as a fact. Am I supposed to judge America based on the outcome, or their original motivations and intentions? Do you deny they went to war based on their own self-interest? Did you even read that very long post about WW 1?

    Surur
  18. #598  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Thats a difficult question. Such a lot has been built on the long standing support of America, that a lot of countries would fall like a house of cards without them. I'm thinking Israel, South Korea and Taiwan. That does not seem fair.

    How about America stops interfering any further, and slowly withdraws over 5-10 years. I'm sure the South Korean army is already pretty strong, and maybe Taiwan would be better just integrating with China, like Hong Kong did. 80% of the jews in Israel are immigrants, so I'm sure a good 50% would leave without American support. Also if Israel were weaned of support from America they are much more likely to make a lasting peace with their neighbours.

    Surur
    Pretty reasonable statement. But let me ask, since the conflict in the Middle East has been around seemingly since time bagan (I know, exaggeration), and many of the countries don't believe Israel should exist in spite of it being set up by the UN, do you really think eliminating America's influence in the area as a deterrent would least to better relations between the parties? ( I would actually put South Korea in the same position as the North, I believe, would be much more aggressive without a US presence)
  19. #599  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Pretty reasonable statement. But let me ask, since the conflict in the Middle East has been around seemingly since time bagan (I know, exaggeration), and many of the countries don't believe Israel should exist in spite of it being set up by the UN, do you really think eliminating America's influence in the area as a deterrent would least to better relations between the parties? ( I would actually put South Korea in the same position as the North, I believe, would be much more aggressive without a US presence)
    South Korea has a population of 45 million. North Korea 22 million. South Korea spends $20 billion on the military annually. North Korea spends $5 billion. South Korea has compulsory military service between the ages of 20 and 30 for two years. I'm sure they will be able to take care of their own defense.

    Regarding Israel. Its a very difficult problem, but you know demographics will take care of it eventually, when the Arabs outbreed the Jews and Israel becomes less popular as a immigration target.. They will have take care of the problem sooner or later.

    Surur
  20. #600  
    Meant his flip-side views on US motives in the Middle east and Israeli - Arabic conflict.

    Still,most,not all. I am yet to comment..and doubt that I will. It grows old very quickly and most of the time, lead no where.

    Now excuse me, I have to go help a prince fight a lizard for a mirror of light.


    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I am actually surprised at this. He is purposing several ideals that you previously posted with an opposing view.

    Surur has justified and reasoned the acts and methods of Terrorist killing innocent people with more than a dozens reasons...er...excuses....of why the terrorist should be forgiven, ignored, or sympathized with, all of which do not justify actively targeting innocent people with the sole intend to purposely kill innocent civilians.

    If you support the view that EVERYTHING the USA does is bad and evil, which is what Surur is promoting, then you are right, you do not have to know and be able to speak about politics with an unbiased view of the situation of when it happened.

Posting Permissions