Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 163
  1. #21  
    Well there is still no evidence that IRAQ had anything to do with the world center event. The U.S tried very hard to find evidence linking Saddam and came up short.

    The stability issue is taken out of context. KRAMUSER was arguing that having Saddam in power wil de-stabilize the region. I was argueing that you will get the reverse. Removing Saddam will not only de-stabilize Iraq, but the region as well.

    Originally posted by Toby
    [B]I'm thinking probably because he's not providing money and intelligence to terrorists who are attacking their countries.[B]That says something about the stability of their 'regimes', doesn't it?[B]It is?If they could bribe Saddam and keep him in line, they'd probably do that too.
  2. #22  
    There are radicals who would argue that the U.S. is a rogue state, and that they are the threat to world peace. One can easily see where they are coming from when you look at the U.S's pass involvement in other copuntries (Venezuela being the most recent example). They have even carved up the world into domains -- Northcom, Eurocom etc. They also shun global initiatives -- Kyoto, World Court etc, and go into a childish tantrum when they can't get their way at the U.N.


    Originally posted by treopolis


    Finally, I think the US government has no rights to condemn terrorism in such a broad way like they are doing right now. They had their shares in that buisness as well. Look at South America were the US military and intelligence has helped underground groups to plan and execute all kinds of actions that are no less brutal than the terroristic acts they want to stop so bad now. And wasn't even Bin Laden on the payroll of the CIA at one point in history? Didn't he learn what he does now from the best: the US military? He's just a pissed employee getting back at the company that laid him off.



    anderas,
    osnabrueck,
    germany
  3. #23  
    Originally posted by treopolis
    ...Yes, and get aquainted to it because it's gonna happen sooner or later. Which leads us to the enviromental topic where the US is also going against the rest of the world ...
    Depends on how you look at it (take a look at land area that has been set aside in national and state parks in the US vs. the rest of the world). Not to mention that, for all the complaining about our oil consumption, no one seems to have a problem buying our products (military and commercial), eating our food, and asking for our aid (again, commercial and military), all of which require - you guessed it - oil.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  4. #24  
    Sorry to dissapoint you. The US Senat wanted to pass a law to allow just that. In the end a milder version was passed authorizing "the use of any means necessary, including force, to secure the release of Americans or other "allied persons" from ICC detention" until the end of the 2002 fical year. To me that sounds like a Marines team going in to get out "your boys". A fast search pointed me to the Human Rights Watch web page.
    One thing everyone learns eventually is that the weirdest things in the world get through one or the other house of Congress. Think of the political suicide it would be to sign such a stupid act into law. I maintain that nothing of the sort would ever happen.

    Yes, and get aquainted to it because it's gonna happen sooner or later. Which leads us to the enviromental topic where the US is also going against the rest of the world (Rio!)...
    There is quite a difference between something we can prevent (morons setting ablaze oil wells) and something we cannot. To say we shouldn't do anything to stop the former because of the latter is very short-sighted.

    I know and I love it. Thanks to WoldCom and even the Bush administration. I read in a newspaper the otehr day that a lot of arabic investors are pulling out their money from the US stock exchange because they fear that the might lose it once the war starts.
    Yeah, but the euro is still 10-15% below where it was created. Unless these arabic investors are from Iraq or countries openly hostile to the US, I bet they have little to fear.
  5. #25  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Well there is still no evidence that IRAQ had anything to do with the world center event. The U.S tried very hard to find evidence linking Saddam and came up short.

    The stability issue is taken out of context. KRAMUSER was arguing that having Saddam in power wil de-stabilize the region. I was argueing that you will get the reverse. Removing Saddam will not only de-stabilize Iraq, but the region as well.

    Thanks for butchering my name.

    On the subject, though, it is very clear that Iraq supports terrorism. Acts such as paying the families of suicide bombers is clearly one example. Any state sponsorship of civilian killing needs to be stopped. Simple as that.
  6. #26  
    Originally posted by MIKE STH
    HAHAHAHAHA!

    A "GORE IN 2004" and he is saying it's dumb?!?!?!
    http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...onary&va=irony
  7. #27  
    Originally posted by Toby
    You consider him the foremost expert, and yet you can't even remember his name, and additionally expect anyone to buy that you're accurately relaying what he thinks?
    Fine, it is *definitely* Scott Ridder. Sheesh, why don't you actually respond to the heart of the matter instead of picking at the edges.

    [b]
    Personally I consider Ted Nugent the foremost expert on US relations with Iraq, and I'm sure his policy would be "make the sand glow".
    That's because TN is a complete moron. Charismatic and funny, though. I like him.
  8. #28  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Well there is still no evidence that IRAQ had anything to do with the world center event.
    What does that matter if there is evidence that they finance and provide intelligence to the group behind it?
    The U.S tried very hard to find evidence linking Saddam and came up short.
    I don't think the WTC thing has anything to do with why Saddam might be targetted.
    The stability issue is taken out of context. KRAMUSER was arguing that having Saddam in power wil de-stabilize the region. I was argueing that you will get the reverse. Removing Saddam will not only de-stabilize Iraq, but the region as well.
    No, you missed my point. I'm saying that if removing a dictator like Saddam will destabilize the region, then the region's not very stable to being with.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #29  
    Originally posted by septimus
    Fine, it is *definitely* Scott Ridder.
    You have a link substantiating that? I'm not going to just take your word for it at this point.
    Sheesh, why don't you actually respond to the heart of the matter instead of picking at the edges.
    Sheesh, the heart of the matter is that Saddam is a bad leader who deserves to be taken out. Whether the Bushies convince anyone to do it or not, that's the heart of the matter. Economic sanctions are useless. UN inspections got nowhere. Anyone who thinks that Saddam has changed his spots is a fool. I say make him a Hiroshima of one (not literally for the slow-witted), and make Iraq into the next Japan. They know all about capitalism already (those bazaars are the very epitome of it), so it should be pretty easy.
    That's because TN is a complete moron. Charismatic and funny, though. I like him.
    Yes, going by your choice for President in 2004, I can see the trend.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #30  
    Well it certainly looks like Tony Blair is no longer on your side...along with the rest of the world...I think that was soooo funny..good ol' Dicky daring to compare Dubya to Winston Chruchhill....in front of the British nonetheless....hah! you republicans deserve it.
    Alex.
    Goodbye my lovely Treo
    HELLO TG50
  11. #31  
    Oh sorry KRAMSAUER.. no offence intended.

    But, do you know that the U.S. is one of the biggest supporters od terrorism in the world? I must have admit that they have toned down since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    Originally posted by KRamsauer


    Thanks for butchering my name.

    On the subject, though, it is very clear that Iraq supports terrorism. Acts such as paying the families of suicide bombers is clearly one example. Any state sponsorship of civilian killing needs to be stopped. Simple as that.
  12. #32  
    Originally posted by tantousha
    Well it certainly looks like Tony Blair is no longer on your side...along with the rest of the world...I think that was soooo funny..good ol' Dicky daring to compare Dubya to Winston Chruchhill....in front of the British nonetheless....hah! you republicans deserve it.
    Alex.
    From a 9/1 AP article: "On Saturday Blair stressed that he had not decided whether military action was the way to ensure Saddam readmitted United Nations weapons inspectors and did not maintain weapons of mass destruction." If I'm not mistaken that is the exact stance that Bush has taken. Sounds like they are on the same to me: from a 9/1 Reuters article, quoting the US Undersecretary of State: "``President Bush has said on a number of occasions that he is a patient man, that he wants to consult with his friends, allies and Congress,'' Grossman said. "The President has not yet reached a decision on the way to overthrow Saddam Hussein. He will listen to his allies.''"

    As for your "Hah! You Republicans deserve it," don't you think that's kind of childish? We are talking about a war here.
  13. #33  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Oh sorry KRAMSAUER.. no offence intended.

    But, do you know that the U.S. is one of the biggest supporters od terrorism in the world? I must have admit that they have toned down since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    Could you elaborate? I personally don't know of any instances where the US has killed civilians in peacetime (I believe a case could've be made for putting Truman on trial for the dropping of the A-bomb). However, even if past leaders have made mistakes, that is no reason to allow evil to succeed now. To disallow progress seems silly to me.
  14. #34  
    What I mean is that the U.S have (still funding?) terrorist groups in the past....all in the name of "regime change". They messed around a lot in South America.

    You all should keep in mind that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom. A lot of the changes that took place over the last several hundred years were brought about by what we in the West would define today as "terrorism."


    Originally posted by KRamsauer


    Could you elaborate? I personally don't know of any instances where the US has killed civilians in peacetime (I believe a case could've be made for putting Truman on trial for the dropping of the A-bomb). However, even if past leaders have made mistakes, that is no reason to allow evil to succeed now. To disallow progress seems silly to me.
  15. #35  
    Originally posted by yardie
    What I mean is that the U.S have (still funding?) terrorist groups in the past....all in the name of "regime change". They messed around a lot in South America.

    You all should keep in mind that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom. A lot of the changes that took place over the last several hundred years were brought about by what we in the West would define today as "terrorism."


    I'm not doubting you, but could you give me one example of the US having supported the widescale slaughter of innocent civilians going about their daily lives. I'm not referring to masacres here and there which are the result of rogue soldiers/commanders, but rather a policy which favored the killing of civilians over other choices.
  16. #36  
    KRAMSauer. ReadTHIS
  17. #37  
    Originally posted by yardie
    KRAMSauer. ReadTHIS
    I read it and I agree that vigilent policework is a good idea. I disagree with the author's implicit contention that it is justified to kill civilians. I further disagree that if we were to just sit back hope really really hard, the problem would go away. Furthermore, there is a huge difference between domestics (McVeigh and all parties cities in the linked article) and international terrorism. Obviously it doesn't make sense to invade your own country, policework would be better. However, in the present situation, I doubt we could just send more policemen overseas where they have no authority. Force must be used.

    In direct response to my earlier contention, there is no mention of the US gov't supporting terrorism in that article. I am still awaiting evidence (I'm curious, having a feeling you may be correct).

    I think articles such as this are painfully shallow because they see part of a solution and through either pollyannic wishing or shear ignorance, assume it is the whole solution: "Better airport security - not a pre-emptive invasion of Afghanistan - would have spared the World Trade Center and Pentagon from attack." Of course better airport security is good, but it doesn't compare to eliminating the source of the violence.

    In my personal opinion the foreign policy of the US could stand to gain by loosing its grip on both purse-strings and trade restrictions. The farm subsidies are a horrible idea (still not as bad as Europe's, though), tremendously hurting both Americans and poor farmers across the world. It is a shame the developed world (remember, Europe is a bigger offender than the US in this regard, though perhaps taking scale and idolization into account, an American policy change would bring more relief) doesn't see the opportunity that lies in simply opening up trade. A Marshall-like plan, involving a few billion dollars to rebuild Israel and a to-be-created Palistinian (sp?) state would do great good. One problem is that many people in this world would want to kill us for spoiling their religious motherland.
  18. #38  
    Well you Americans are talking about a war...sure canada will be affected but not as direct as you guys will..so yeah..you guys are talking about war. Personally I think that if you guys want the Arabs to start liking you than you should stop shooting at them, let them be. There is a lot of support for Saddam in the Middle East so all the bombing is going to do is cause more hatred towards America and therefore more terroist attacks. I'm not saying I am against the Afghanistan attacks, sure, it was a direct retaliation for a bad thing and showed the terroists not to mess with America, but now a war is just going to come across as trying to pick a fight with them, your challenging them for more attacks.
    Alex.
    Goodbye my lovely Treo
    HELLO TG50
  19. #39  
    Personally I think that if you guys want the Arabs to start liking you than you should stop shooting at them, let them be.
    I think the problem is tha tpeople generalize too much. The administration has no problem with the vast majority of countries around the world, and that includes Arab countries. The problems we have is when something that is happening in other countries can kill Americans. I for one and going to wait for the case to be made instead of whining about it.
  20. #40  
    Originally posted by Toby
    You have a link substantiating that? I'm not going to just take your word for it at this point.

    oh for the love of... google
    Sheesh, the heart of the matter is that Saddam is a bad leader who deserves to be taken out.
    the heart of the matter is that we've got a whole group of islamic terrorists with WMDs that we need to contain before we aggravate them further by invading a country they may consider an ally without serious international support.
    Whether the Bushies convince anyone to do it or not, that's the heart of the matter.
    Actually, international support would help keep the other instable nations in the region from, uh, causing MORE problems.
    Economic sanctions are useless.
    exactly.
    UN inspections got nowhere.
    Because we didn't give them proper teeth. if we brought "Restart inspections with some seriousness" to the international community, it would get done. Instead, we brought "Let's invade Iraq again and fulfill the destiny of my father"
    Anyone who thinks that Saddam has changed his spots is a fool. I say make him a Hiroshima of one (not literally for the slow-witted), and make Iraq into the next Japan. They know all about capitalism already (those bazaars are the very epitome of it), so it should be pretty easy.

    Yep, but invade? we need to be smarter about this.

    Yes, going by your choice for President in 2004, I can see the trend.
    Dude, did you see the post about irony? Lord. Gore isn't a complete numbnuts and all, but the avatar is a joke. Changing it in a second - maybe then it will be clear.
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions