Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 101 to 110 of 110
  1. #101  
    Originally posted by yardie

    That is two out of how many?
    My point was that France and Germany have no doubt coerced many to their side of the issue.


    This is horrible I agree. But goverments have been starting wars to get people's minds of the economy for centuries. The U.S has reached a point of no return. If Saddam shows that he is totally disarmed, they stull have to go to war.

    Israel, thanks to billions of dollars of U.S taxpayer's money, is and will always be the dominant player in the mideast/North Africa region.
    The "bad economy = war" shtick is getting a little tired. Not only is it demeaning, it doesn't make sense. Your second comment also is insulting.

    Can you think of a valid reason for the US not to pour billions of dollars into Israel? They are our allies after all. Of course we will support them, that's what allies do. If you think that's why they're the dominant player because of the US I don't think that you have studied history. They happen to be the dominant players because they've managed to kick booty whenever they've been attacked by their neighbors. they have managed to steer their own course, sometimes in concert with the US wishes, sometimes not.

    What exactly is Saddam going to try again and with what? Saddam has nothing to be a threat to anyone. He was severely weakened during the Guld War, and has remained that way thanks to the tight sanctions that have been imposed on him. If Saddam was a great threat, the U.S wouldn't be so anxious to take him on. Americans don't like to see their sons and daughters coming home in body bags -- especially for a war that a lot of them do not understand.
    Saddam has constantly said he plans to destroy Israel. He has started his own biological and nuclear weapons programs. He has persecuted (that means killed) people living in his borders based on their ethnicity. He has started (unprovoked) wars with several of his neighbors. He has harbored and aided known terrorists.

    He has not weakened at all in his weapons programs. I notice that despite the dire sanctions put upon his country they still regularly built new monuments to him. His people may have suffered from the sanctions, but he never has.

    He is a threat. We want to stop him from being a greater threat.
    You may believe what you will about the US, but I can tell you that despite our reluctance to send our brothers, sisters, daughters and sons to a war that they might die in - we do so KNOWING what they're there for. We are not a bunch of ignorant know-nothings. We just have strong resolve when it comes to issues like this.

    As I said before, your challenge lies in trying to make a Saddam led Iraq appear harmless. You haven't done so. You can't do it. His past actions and present actions will always disprove your assertion.

    Interesting that you bring up Libya. Isn't it one of the countries that is opposed to the U.S invasion?
    Gee whiz, is that a surprise? After all he still is our enemy and his country is next door. That doesn't change what he said about Saddam being a nutjob and dangerous to boot.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  2. #102  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Is this so? Didn't North Korea made a deal with Clinton after being bribed in 1994? Didn't they just renegade on that deal? I think Bobby Mike;s arguement is more plausible than the one you are presenting. The U.S. is afraid of North Korea because it has nukes ot can use. Which begs the question: if Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was so dangerous, why is the U.S so anxious to invade?
    Saddam has been developing those weapons. We know North Korea already possesses them.

    That's two different situations. We would like to keep Iraq from being more like North Korea
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  3. #103  
    Arfe other nations supporting the U.S are other goverments? BUg difference. The U.S is the only country that has majority citizen support for a war on Iraq.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    When you say "international backing" you should be saying unanimous or unilateral backing since there are nations that do support the US on this. I consider your ignoring them arrogant.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  4. #104  
    KCannon,

    Most, not all Americans are good people. I have dealt with some nasty Americans over the years. Adding to this, racism is still imbedded in America especially the South.

    I agree that a country should decide its own fate. I do not agree that a country should be able to invade any other country it wants on a whim. The U.S has yet to prove that Iraq is a threat to it..and I think this is where the opposition to the war lies. The question on everyone's mind is where is the threat? The Kuwaiti war had a lot more support.


    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    Okay. So we agree that force should be the last option...now, how do we decide when force is needed?

    You can't just take a "yes/no" vote from each country and if the majority says "yes" then you go.

    I understand that the problem is that a lot of people don't trust W. But the point that Canadians are "good people" applies to Americans, too. We are mostly a "good" people.

    Although society and the world have greatly advanced, scientifically, socially, politically, the fact remains that a Country should be able to decide it's own course of action. Sure, it'd be nicer if every Country agreed, but that is just not possible. Nor is demanding that a Country hold back b/c not all other Countries agree reasonable/feasible.

    Honestly, I still believe the basic problem is that we don't agree on when force is necessary. Y'all don't think there is evidence that Saddam needs to be taken out, ergo y'all do not believe force is necessary. We do, ergo, we do.

    Again, okay. So we agree that force should be the last option...now, how do we decide when force is needed?
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  5. #105  

    My point was that France and Germany have no doubt coerced many to their side of the issue.

    The "bad economy = war" shtick is getting a little tired. Not only is it demeaning, it doesn't make sense. Your second comment also is insulting.


    Comments tend to be tired and demeaning when it hits a nerve. You cannot handle the truth ?


    Can you think of a valid reason for the US not to pour billions of dollars into Israel? They are our allies after all. Of course we will support them, that's what allies do. If you think that's why they're the dominant player because of the US I don't think that you have studied history. They happen to be the dominant players because they've managed to kick booty whenever they've been attacked by their neighbors. they have managed to steer their own course, sometimes in concert with the US wishes, sometimes not.


    Well do you honestly think that they are dominant now because they kicked booty in the past? There are lots of other countries that "kicked booty" in the past and is not dominant today. Their doiminance is being maintained by billions of dollars in U.S aid.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  6. #106  
    Originally posted by yardie

    Comments tend to be tired and demeaning when it hits a nerve.
    Boy that's a great defense. Argument by definition. Dismissing stuff offhand. In academic circles support is usually needed....
  7. #107  
    Originally posted by yardie
    KCannon,

    Most, not all Americans are good people.
    oh, agreed. not every American is good. not every Israeli is good. not every Russian, Canadian, German, Englishman is good. i was responding to the "Canadians are a good people."

    As a general statement (typed with trepidation) I would assert that Americans, Canadians, French, English, etc, citizens look more askance at murderous dictators than some other countries.

    I have dealt with some nasty Americans over the years.
    hmm. yes, you probably have. actually, i have, too. (probably more than you given that I live here) and i am truly sorry for those Americans who act-out to the embarassment of my country.

    Adding to this, racism is still imbedded in America especially the South.
    yep, we've got some nasty bigots 'round these parts. we've got some nice folks, too. (dare I say--like me? )

    I agree that a country should decide its own fate. I do not agree that a country should be able to invade any other country it wants on a whim.

    I don't agree that the course of action embarked upon was on a "whim".

    The U.S has yet to prove that Iraq is a threat to it..and I think this is where the opposition to the war lies. The question on everyone's mind is where is the threat?
    I honestly believe this goes back to a BobbyMike point, maybe in another thread, can't remember. (Deal with Iraq before it *becomes* North Korea.)

    The threat may not literally be for this evening, tomorrow, or next week, maybe not until 2005, but the threat is definitely there. And I also think the threat is for more than just the United States. Blatenly flaunting his disobedience to the UN resolutions should have earned more for Saddam than a blind eye and a deaf ear for lo these eleven years.

    The Kuwaiti war had a lot more support.
    So did storming the beaches of Normandy. I just think the difference is the timing, the willingness to be extremely unpopular now to do a better good for tomorrow.


    Personally, these discussions on this board have made me very aware of the the "other side." Unfortunately, some actions by the "other side" (for example the booing during the American anthem during the hockey game) have awakened the isolationist in me that I don't really like. I find that I equate this situation to the times leading up to WWII. Country, under sanctions caused by previous misdeeds, becomes lead by horrible dictator. When do other nations step in to stop the dictator prior to WWIII?
  8. #108  
    K.Cannon,

    I think people do, think and say irrational things when passions are high. I would not read much into the booing of the American anthem at the hocky game in Montreal. That being said, I would prefer an isolationist U.S. A over an interventionist U.S.A. I bet there would be less hatred towards the U.S if/when this happens.

    In terms of flaunting UN resolutions, other countries have done -- Israel comes to mind -- and all they got was a slapped on the wrist and billions of dollars more in American money (not an invasion).

    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    oh, agreed. not every American is good. not every Israeli is good. not every Russian, Canadian, German, Englishman is good. i was responding to the "Canadians are a good people."

    As a general statement (typed with trepidation) I would assert that Americans, Canadians, French, English, etc, citizens look more askance at murderous dictators than some other countries.


    hmm. yes, you probably have. actually, i have, too. (probably more than you given that I live here) and i am truly sorry for those Americans who act-out to the embarassment of my country.


    yep, we've got some nasty bigots 'round these parts. we've got some nice folks, too. (dare I say--like me? )


    I don't agree that the course of action embarked upon was on a "whim".


    I honestly believe this goes back to a BobbyMike point, maybe in another thread, can't remember. (Deal with Iraq before it *becomes* North Korea.)

    The threat may not literally be for this evening, tomorrow, or next week, maybe not until 2005, but the threat is definitely there. And I also think the threat is for more than just the United States. Blatenly flaunting his disobedience to the UN resolutions should have earned more for Saddam than a blind eye and a deaf ear for lo these eleven years.

    [/b]So did storming the beaches of Normandy. I just think the difference is the timing, the willingness to be extremely unpopular now to do a better good for tomorrow.


    Personally, these discussions on this board have made me very aware of the the "other side." Unfortunately, some actions by the "other side" (for example the booing during the American anthem during the hockey game) have awakened the isolationist in me that I don't really like. I find that I equate this situation to the times leading up to WWII. Country, under sanctions caused by previous misdeeds, becomes lead by horrible dictator. When do other nations step in to stop the dictator prior to WWIII? [/B]
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  9. #109  
    Originally posted by yardie


    Comments tend to be tired and demeaning when it hits a nerve. You cannot handle the truth ?

    Actually I can. It's when people lie and slur others (or myself) that I get testy. Most people in the world don't have an "anti-war" attitude on this as it is getting clearer and clearer. A very vocal minority is trying to shout down, or punch down, any opposition.

    Originally posted by yardie
    Well do you honestly think that they are dominant now because they kicked booty in the past? There are lots of other countries that "kicked booty" in the past and is not dominant today. Their doiminance is being maintained by billions of dollars in U.S aid.
    They did quite well without our "billions" in the past. Their dominance is being maintained by their will. Lots of countries have larger economies than Israel (Canada, France to name two) and they have lost much "dominance".
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  10. #110  
    Originally posted by yardie
    K.Cannon,

    I think people do, think and say irrational things when passions are high. I would not read much into the booing of the American anthem at the hocky game in Montreal. That being said, I would prefer an isolationist U.S. A over an interventionist U.S.A. I bet there would be less hatred towards the U.S if/when this happens.

    In terms of flaunting UN resolutions, other countries have done -- Israel comes to mind -- and all they got was a slapped on the wrist and billions of dollars more in American money (not an invasion).

    I'm sure Saddam would have preferred an isolationist USA too. I know Hitler would have preferred it.

    The problem with that is that no country can be isolationist. the world is too open for that.

    You might like to know that we (the USA) doesn't really care if people hate or like us. That is up to the other fellow. We try to do what's right, not what what's popular. This time we just happen to be doing what's right, and what the majority wants. Unfortunately for some people, they can't deal with that and are having a temper tantrum
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456

Posting Permissions