+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Den of the Philociraptor (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=43)
+--- Thread: Liberal or Conservative Test (/showthread.php?tid=601)
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 2nd May 2003
We didn't start any of them... except Vietnam, but as I said both parties are guilty of THAT one.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Dark Lord Neo - 2nd May 2003
Quote:Originally posted by Weltall
If that's true, explain why every time America engaged itself in a major war in the 20th century, we were being led by a Democratic president.
I'll asume your talking about the United States since America doesn't have a president.
Just because the US had a left wing president doesn't mean everyone else involved was liberal. We all know that Hitler who basicly started the war was very conservative
Liberal or Conservative Test - OB1 - 2nd May 2003
Over here in the U.S. we call it America, Canada-boy.
:p
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 2nd May 2003
Yeah, saying US doesn't equal America is pretty silly...
And Weltall, nice to see that you ignore all of the points you can't really counter and just say one thing that really isn't accurate. :)
Liberal or Conservative Test - Weltall - 2nd May 2003
Both parties are not responsible for Vietnam. Our prescence there under Eisenhower was neglible at the very best, and on top of that, he refused to aid France when they requested our help in keeping the Vietnamese under their control. The true start to Nam began with Kennedy's exponential escalation of the number of advisors, and completed with Johnson sending the rest of our guys in there, with incompetent leadership and no true goal, to say nothing of a lack of experience in the conditions. And while Nixon's idea of expanding the war was hardly brilliant (If Watergate proved anything, it was that Richard Nixon was an idiot), but regardless, he DID get us out of the hell Johnson created.
Twist it however you like. Vietnam is, by an extraordinary length, the largest, most destructive and most painful fuckup in the history of the United States of America, and that can be almost totally attributed to the stupidity of a single liberal president.
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 3rd May 2003
Given the situation in the world at the time I very much doubt that ANY president could have avoided a war there. US policy, on all sides, was 'containment' of communism. So we had to stop it from spreading. So no president would just let a nation fall. Eisenhower sent in 'advisors'. Kennedy sent in more... continuing Eisenhower's policy. Then Johnson sent in the army. Since the war had really started years earlier, there wasn't a whole lot he could do -- let the communists win and be crucified at home or send in more troops as the Vietcong resisted harder. Do you honestly think any president would have been able to say "lets let the commies win" and survive in his political life? I sure hope not!
Oh, and Nixon only came up with a 'plan' after years of those annoying constituents protesting finally got to him enough for him to make one up on the spot -- retreat. Not during the campaign... no way...
Oh, and its not DRAMATICALLY longer than our next longest war. Or do you forget that little war called the "American Revolution"?
Liberal or Conservative Test - Nintendarse - 3rd May 2003
Quote:[Vietnam]can be almost totally attributed to the stupidity of a single liberal president.
I'd agree that LBJ's actions were stupid, but I think it's more relevant to the present if we take a look at what was the view behind the Vietnam War. Why would we go into Vietnam? First, the leaders of our country let all of the "good and evil" rhetoric go to their heads. They did not separate the simple polar message they were giving to the public with the reality that the world is never that simple. As a result, the United States was willing to back a brutal, corrupt dictator in South Korea in the face of what we perceived to be a bigger threat: the spread of communism. Yet we made a big miscalculation: Ho Chi Minh, while Communist, was more about nationalism than anything else. So we put our power behind a crumbling government that held none of our values except the hatred of Communism...yet the people of Vietnam cared less about Communism and more about nationalism and the corruptness of the South Vietnamese government. The world was playing chess while we were playing checkers, and we lost because of it.
So what are the lessons that we have forgotten to learn in the present day? The saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," is not useful nor accurate. In the same vein, "If you're not with us, you're against us," is also inaccurate. While it is acceptable to simplify the world to convince the public, it is dangerous to take that rhetoric seriously.
Liberal or Conservative Test - alien space marine - 3rd May 2003
Keep your freinds close and your enemies even closer.
Vietnam was the biggest waste in human life ever.
Sideing with Saddam hussein during the iran and iraq war is another regretable error.
Liberal or Conservative Test - CartoonDevil - 3rd May 2003
Quote:Originally posted by Weltall
I got a 34 out of 40. That would make me intelligent. And a conservative, but there's no need to be redundant.
HAHAHA! Well said!
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 3rd May 2003
Quote:HAHAHA! Well said!
We've already established that him saying that stuff was quite stupid.
Quote:While it is acceptable to simplify the world to convince the public, it is dangerous to take that rhetoric seriously.
See: Bush Jr.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Dark Lord Neo - 3rd May 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Yeah, saying US doesn't equal America is pretty silly...
Actually as far as Europeans are conserned and South Americans America should apply to both North and SOuth America, not just the US. In south America people from the United States are frequently refered to as United Statsians while Americans refers to everyone on the two continents, the same goes for America, when they use it they are refering to North and South America.
Quote:Originally posted by Weltall
Our prescence there under Eisenhower was neglible at the very best, and on top of that, he refused to aid France when they requested our help in keeping the Vietnamese under their control..
So it's okay for the US to not help France with their pointless wars but it's not okay for France to later refuse to help the US.
Liberal or Conservative Test - N-Man - 3rd May 2003
Thing with "United Statesians" is that, honestly, it sounds like crap. "Estadunidense" in Spanish can pass, but in any other language it just sounds like you've got such a bone to pick with the US you're going to unnecessary lengths to minimize them as much as possible.
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 3rd May 2003
Its the United States of AMERICA. Hence 'American'. Hard to understand?
Liberal or Conservative Test - Dark Lord Neo - 3rd May 2003
I wish there was another word to refer to them as
Well there are other words that the rest of the world tends to use to refer to them but they shouldn't be said here
Liberal or Conservative Test - Nintendarse - 3rd May 2003
Quote:So it's okay for the US to not help France with their pointless wars but it's not okay for France to later refuse to help the US
Point well made, but Weltall is sure to point out that France's interests were imperial, while our interests in Iraq were security interests. That is, if we believe Saddam Hussein was a clear and present danger to the United States. And if you don't believe that, it was for liberty reasons. And if you remember that the US has SUPPORTED brutal, corrupt dictators (like Saddam) in the past without since apologizing for such actions, it's because the president wants to finish what his Daddy started...which is, after all, such a just cause. </sarcasm>
To make myself clear, I believe that the war on Iraq has done a lot of good for the world. And I'm glad it happened. It has freed a nation from a terrible, brutal, corrupt dictator. It has opened a window of opportunity for peace in the Middle East. But was the United States in an ethical position to justify such a war? No.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Dark Jaguar - 3rd May 2003
The answer is simple. Rename the continents!
Liberal or Conservative Test - Dark Lord Neo - 3rd May 2003
Where are Sadam's weapons of mass destruction that he US was so sure he had?
I still think the US just wanted oil
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 3rd May 2003
It seems quite clear that Sadaam and his scientists weren't lying when they said "we have no WMD"... sure they WANTED them, but the sanctions and inspections WORKED! They kept him from getting any! So naturally we attack and say the sanctions and inspections failed...
It is clearer than ever that its about finishing Daddy's war and getting some nice oil for his buddies who gave so much money to the campaign.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Great Rumbler - 3rd May 2003
Do you really think finding the WMD is as easy as walking into a facility and gathering up what's lying around? They've got to search for it! The Iraqis weren't sitting around on their hands thinking about food.
Quote:It is clearer than ever that its about finishing Daddy's war and getting some nice oil for his buddies who gave so much money to the campaign.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Dark Jaguar - 3rd May 2003
That is a pretty big country you know. Most of the land is completely barren of humanity, I'm talking planet wide here. Just get lost in some woods and see how easy it is to find a road. They criss cross our country sure, but think of the hundreds of miles between the roads out there. It's easy for someone to think we've pretty much built something everywhere you can go because your entire life, everyone you have been, there's at least been a road under you, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE YOU CAN TRAVEL ON.
Anyway, my point is this. Give the weapons inspectors more time before getting hasty! Yes I am fully aware how hilariously ironic my statement is. Think about that.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Great Rumbler - 3rd May 2003
It should be pointed out that there are miles and miles of underground tunnels in Iraq and you can bet there there are a lot of tunnels we still haven't found yet.
It should also be considered that some weapons were sent off to to Iraq's neighbors in a last-ditch effort to discredit the U.S.
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 3rd May 2003
Quote:Anyway, my point is this. Give the weapons inspectors more time before getting hasty! Yes I am fully aware how hilariously ironic my statement is. Think about that.
Ironic? Try hypocritical...when it was the UN we had to end it NOW but when its the US we can take our time? Uhh...
Quote:
What? Is there another reason with a shred of proof behind it? I didn't think so.
Liberal or Conservative Test - alien space marine - 3rd May 2003
Quote:Originally posted by Dark Lord Neo
Where are Sadam's weapons of mass destruction that he US was so sure he had?
I still think the US just wanted oil
70 billion dollars is alot money for some oil , If it really was their intention they would just send Saddam a blank check like the french.
They've got documents and pretty open admitence to saddams support of terrorism.Hammas,Hezbollah, Al'qeada ect...
Can you honnestly call the U.S evil for removing a man that has sent some of his people to be tortured repeatedly for simpily looking at him the wrong way.
Udday his oldest son sent a lawyer to 20 years in jail for defending a man who insaulted his girl frieind.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Fittisize - 3rd May 2003
Colin Mochrie: Liberal or Conservative?
Quote:Hello. I'm Anthony St. George on location here in Washington.
On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry. I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron, but it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all, it's not like you actually elected him.
I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you, doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own. It would be like if, well, say you had ten times the television audeince we did and you flood our market with great shows, cheaper than we could produce. I know you'd never do that.
I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defence I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours. As word of apology, please accept all of our NHL teams which, one by one, are going out of business and moving to your fine country.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you want to have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.
I'm sorry we burnt down your White House during the War of 1812. I see you've rebuilt it! It's very nice.
I'm sorry for Alan Thicke, Shania Twain, Celine Dion, Loverboy, that song from Seriff that ends with a really high-pitched long note. Your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer, but we feel your pain.
And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this. Because we've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.
For 22 minutes, I'm Anthony St. George, and I'm sorry.
Btw, I got 14 on the test.
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 3rd May 2003
The whole Middle East supports Hezbollah, Arabic Jihad, Hamas, etc... I don't see us going to war with Egypt and Saudi Arabia...
Him doing bad things to his people doesn't make it legal for us to go in and get rid of him. It makes it legal to dislike him, and to do all legal acts to stop him, but not to attack without legal backing. Unliateralism is a very dangerous policy that will do nothing but bad for the future of the world.
As for the price tag, I doubt Bush is smart enough to think of it that way... and anyway I bet for him its worth any price to redeem his father and get a good war that'll hopefully drag him through the next election.
Because remember, this war on terror will never end, conveniently enough...
Liberal or Conservative Test - Weltall - 3rd May 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
It seems quite clear that Sadaam and his scientists weren't lying when they said "we have no WMD"... sure they WANTED them, but the sanctions and inspections WORKED! They kept him from getting any! So naturally we attack and say the sanctions and inspections failed...
It is clearer than ever that its about finishing Daddy's war and getting some nice oil for his buddies who gave so much money to the campaign.
Okay, why on earth would Bush want to finish Daddy's war when it was Bush Sr.'s own decision NOT to finish Saddam! Tell me how you divine that? Why would Bush want to fight this war to finish what his father started when his own father CHOSE NOT TO FINISH IT WHEN HE VERY WELL COULD HAVE?
And oil? Well, I stated why conservative was synonymous with intelligent, and oil for blood is a reason liberal is antonymous with intelligent. Not a shred of proof can be offered to prove this war is for oil, yet ABF and his ilk retread that same stupid phrase every single time.
If oil was really so ravenously demanded by the administration, Bush would have most definitely pushed MUCH harder to drill in ANWR, as that solution would be so much cheaper and safer for us than to start a war and fight an entire country to get theirs.
So, to summarize, it wasn't oil, and I dare someone to prove otherwise. Of course, I know challenging ABF to prove his words is a futile effort. But I gotta try.
Quote:Ironic? Try hypocritical...when it was the UN we had to end it NOW but when its the US we can take our time? Uhh...
Well, the UN had to end it now because the UN had twelve years to find this shit and failed miserably. We haven't even had twelve weeks. Be fair.
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 3rd May 2003
Quote:Okay, why on earth would Bush want to finish Daddy's war when it was Bush Sr.'s own decision NOT to finish Saddam! Tell me how you divine that? Why would Bush want to fight this war to finish what his father started when his own father CHOSE NOT TO FINISH IT WHEN HE VERY WELL COULD HAVE?
Bush Sr. could have, sure. But he listened to the sane voices in his administration which said "the international community does not support any action beyond what we have done" and "doing any more would make us look very bad in the eyes of the world" and didn't go to Baghdad. Bush Jr., on the other hand, has as his main advisors the people on the opposite side -- the ones telling Bush Sr. to go kill Sadaam. They are his closest advisiors. So he did what his father wisely didn't and went in there.
And look what we got! Exactly what the people who told Sr. not to knew would happen 12 years ago -- an angry world who hates us in our unilateral use of force.
You know why I blame oil and his father's legacy? Because I can't think of a better reason that makes a shred of sense. None.
Terrorism? We know he supported Palestinian groups, sure, but so do a LOT of Middle Eastern nations we are friends with. Nothing special there. And as the administration admitted, the Al Quida ties are more wishful thinking than fact... sure there are a few, very minor things they've found, but nothing that is any more than the rest of the middle east is doing... not nearly as bad as Pakistan for instance... or Syria, or Saudi Arabia... but 9/11 gave him a VERY convenient excuse on which to activate this plan he thought he wouldn't be able to do.
... anything else? I can't think of any.
Quote:So, to summarize, it wasn't oil, and I dare someone to prove otherwise. Of course, I know challenging ABF to prove his words is a futile effort. But I gotta try.
ANWR has a VERY small oil reserve. Iraq has the second largest after Saudi Arabia. I'd say that'd give it priority. Plus, Bush saw his chance to finally take out Sadaam (a task he'd wanted to do but doubted he'd be able to from day one) after 9/11... after all Sadaam MUST be supporting Bin Laden! Of course we still have no evidence of direct support of Al Quaida from the Iraqi governmentt... but, I must admit, Bush always carefully didn't say "Sadaam Supports Bin Laden". Because he knew he didn't have any proof for it.
Quote:Well, the UN had to end it now because the UN had twelve years to find this shit and failed miserably. We haven't even had twelve weeks. Be fair.
Okay. We can start by noting that those 12 years of inspections and sanctions did, over time, actually work at their task and force Sadaam to either disarm or bury his weapons so well that neither he or anyone else could use them for a long time.
And that the administration ignored that fact and attacked on a fallacious basis. The inspections they are carrying out are proving that... if they do find anything it'd be very well buried and not anywhere that Sadaam could have ever used while the inspections and sanctions were going on.
I'd call that successful until forced to stop.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Weltall - 3rd May 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
[B]Bush Sr. could have, sure. But he listened to the sane voices in his administration which said "the international community does not support any action beyond what we have done" and "doing any more would make us look very bad in the eyes of the world" and didn't go to Baghdad. Bush Jr., on the other hand, has as his main advisors the people on the opposite side -- the ones telling Bush Sr. to go kill Sadaam. They are his closest advisiors. So he did what his father wisely didn't and went in there.
And look what we got! Exactly what the people who told Sr. not to knew would happen 12 years ago -- an angry world who hates us in our unilateral use of force.
Bush Sr. SHOULD have finished off Saddam! It would have saved so much trouble in the long run! Tell me, if Senior thought it was wise not to continue, what stake could Junior have that was so great and so pressing that he plots for ten years to accede to the presidency just on the off-chance he could finish the task his father decided NOT to finish? Do you realize just how retarded your scenario sounds?
And yes, look what we have now! We have a world who isn't happy with us. And exactly what consequence is it having on us? Now that so many people around the world are mad at us, what sort of dire consequences have resulted? NOTHING. Terrorism? Nothing yet. And Al-Qaeda started with the WTC attack just two years after Bush Sr. decided NOT to destroy Saddam. They already hated us. So fucking what? They gonna hate us more now? Whoopdy doo.
Really, I know you like to paint us in as bad a light as possible, but there are really no huge repercussions that have resulted or will result from this war that will harm us. The nations that got mad at us have mostly calmed down, because they remember that they need the United States more than the United States needs them. As long as that fact remains, there's really nothing anyone can do about what policies we enact. That's a fringe benefit of being the world's only superpower.
Quote:You know why I blame oil and his father's legacy? Because I can't think of a better reason that makes a shred of sense. None.
That doesn't surprise me in the least.
Quote:Terrorism? We know he supported Palestinian groups, sure, but so do a LOT of Middle Eastern nations we are friends with. Nothing special there. And as the administration admitted, the Al Quida ties are more wishful thinking than fact... sure there are a few, very minor things they've found, but nothing that is any more than the rest of the middle east is doing... not nearly as bad as Pakistan for instance... or Syria, or Saudi Arabia... but 9/11 gave him a VERY convenient excuse on which to activate this plan he thought he wouldn't be able to do.
There was most definitely official terrorist support coming from Iraq, but that wasn't the reason we went to war with them, their ties to terror had little to do with it. It's pretty obvious that while official terrorist support is sketchy, there was definitely a lot of passive terrorist support going on, that happens all over the Middle East. But as I said, their terror ties were not the reason we fought them just now.
Quote:ANWR has a VERY small oil reserve. Iraq has the second largest after Saudi Arabia. I'd say that'd give it priority. Plus, Bush saw his chance to finally take out Sadaam (a task he'd wanted to do but doubted he'd be able to from day one) after 9/11... after all Sadaam MUST be supporting Bin Laden! Of course we still have no evidence of direct support of Al Quaida from the Iraqi governmentt... but, I must admit, Bush always carefully didn't say "Sadaam Supports Bin Laden". Because he knew he didn't have any proof for it.
If ANWR has very little oil, why fight so hard to deny drilling? There are many places in America that can yield small amounts of oil, why would this one be a special case? As I said, that aside, there's no way waging a 70 billion dollar war (to say nothing of the billions and billions more for reconstruction) could possibly lead to profit from oil sales, not without years and years of uninterrupted and completely exclusive sales to America, and that will certainly not happen. If oil money was so desperately sought, why not just raise domestic prices? Our society depends on the automobile so heavily that there's no way we could do anything about that except pay more.
Quote:Okay. We can start by noting that those 12 years of inspections and sanctions did, over time, actually work at their task and force Sadaam to either disarm or bury his weapons so well that neither he or anyone else could use them for a long time.
And that the administration ignored that fact and attacked on a fallacious basis. The inspections they are carrying out are proving that... if they do find anything it'd be very well buried and not anywhere that Sadaam could have ever used while the inspections and sanctions were going on.
I'd call that successful until forced to stop.
Oh, give me a damn break. Saddam hid his weapons so well that it would take too long for him to find them himself and use them? Do you think before you type?
Those twelve years gave him plenty of time to make secret all his weapons. If he was disarming as you claim, why, oh why, did he kick inspectors out for four years? Why kick them out if you have nothing to hide from them?
I personally think the moment the UN inspectors were ejected was the moment we should have gone to war with Iraq. Would have made a perfect pretext.
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 4th May 2003
Quote:Bush Sr. SHOULD have finished off Saddam! It would have saved so much trouble in the long run! Tell me, if Senior thought it was wise not to continue, what stake could Junior have that was so great and so pressing that he plots for ten years to accede to the presidency just on the off-chance he could finish the task his father decided NOT to finish? Do you realize just how retarded your scenario sounds?
And yes, look what we have now! We have a world who isn't happy with us. And exactly what consequence is it having on us? Now that so many people around the world are mad at us, what sort of dire consequences have resulted? NOTHING. Terrorism? Nothing yet. And Al-Qaeda started with the WTC attack just two years after Bush Sr. decided NOT to destroy Saddam. They already hated us. So fucking what? They gonna hate us more now? Whoopdy doo.
Really, I know you like to paint us in as bad a light as possible, but there are really no huge repercussions that have resulted or will result from this war that will harm us. The nations that got mad at us have mostly calmed down, because they remember that they need the United States more than the United States needs them. As long as that fact remains, there's really nothing anyone can do about what policies we enact. That's a fringe benefit of being the world's only superpower.
Why did Bush Jr. go in? Because of what I explained in my last post! He listened to, and agreed with, the people who Bush Sr. disagreed with -- the Republican Hawks. It really is that simple.
I remember in a PBS documentary on this they mentioned a 1991 early version of a report that advocated attacking Iraq and deposing Sadaam (written by Wolfowicz). When it was revealed to the public it set off such a firestorm both here and abroad that the group was forced to rewrite it and get rid of any mention of a attack anytime soon... but Bush Jr. obviously dug up the report and changed a few lines for the difference in years, and used it as a war plan. Just brilliant.
Oh, and I just can't understand why you can possibly so insult the international community. Sure, we're more powerful than anyone, but size isn't the only thing that matters... world opinion is a VERY important aspect of world politics these days. You seem to think that people will change their mind and like us because we are more powerful. It just doesn't work that way. Their hatred will grow deeper... and it WILL cause problems. Not just increased terrorism. Also stuff like votes going against us in the UN more often. Nations refusing to cooperate with whatever we want to do. Anti-american governments being voted into office. Et cetera. While you will slight the impact of those things, I won't. I don't understand why conservatives think that the world is irrelevant, but if you open your eyes and look at it its pretty clear that in this day and age world opinion is a vital part of world politics and what happens in the future. And people like you and this administration couldn't care less... and it makes for very scary times.
Quote:There was most definitely official terrorist support coming from Iraq, but that wasn't the reason we went to war with them, their ties to terror had little to do with it. It's pretty obvious that while official terrorist support is sketchy, there was definitely a lot of passive terrorist support going on, that happens all over the Middle East. But as I said, their terror ties were not the reason we fought them just now.
Fine. So what's your reason you think its okay? I'm sure it'll have nothing to do with international law or what is legal, that's for sure.
Quote:If ANWR has very little oil, why fight so hard to deny drilling? There are many places in America that can yield small amounts of oil, why would this one be a special case? As I said, that aside, there's no way waging a 70 billion dollar war (to say nothing of the billions and billions more for reconstruction) could possibly lead to profit from oil sales, not without years and years of uninterrupted and completely exclusive sales to America, and that will certainly not happen. If oil money was so desperately sought, why not just raise domestic prices? Our society depends on the automobile so heavily that there's no way we could do anything about that except pay more.
Uhh... why fight to deny drilling? TO PROTECT THE WILDLIFE!!! I thought you knew that...
Oh, and the reason isn't for oil directly... its for being able to give the oil companies huge rebuilding contracts in Iraq. That's the prize. And a very rich one at that...
Quote:Oh, give me a damn break. Saddam hid his weapons so well that it would take too long for him to find them himself and use them? Do you think before you type?
Those twelve years gave him plenty of time to make secret all his weapons. If he was disarming as you claim, why, oh why, did he kick inspectors out for four years? Why kick them out if you have nothing to hide from them?
I personally think the moment the UN inspectors were ejected was the moment we should have gone to war with Iraq. Would have made a perfect pretext.
No, I don't mean he couldn't find them. I mean that because of the inspections he had to destroy almost all of them and any that are left he could never use because inspectors would find those just like how in the past they found some chemical/biological weapons facilities.
And the sanctions kept him from getting anything new.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Weltall - 4th May 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Why did Bush Jr. go in? Because of what I explained in my last post! He listened to, and agreed with, the people who Bush Sr. disagreed with -- the Republican Hawks. It really is that simple.
I remember in a PBS documentary on this they mentioned a 1991 early version of a report that advocated attacking Iraq and deposing Sadaam (written by Wolfowicz). When it was revealed to the public it set off such a firestorm both here and abroad that the group was forced to rewrite it and get rid of any mention of a attack anytime soon... but Bush Jr. obviously dug up the report and changed a few lines for the difference in years, and used it as a war plan. Just brilliant.
Funny, in your earlier posts, this war was Bush wanting to finish what his father started, and get revenge for the attempt on his father's life. Now all of a sudden it wasn't Bush and the motives are no longer personal, now all of a sudden he was just the willing pawn of his evil advisors.
It keeps getting funnier each time. Please, do continue.
Quote:Oh, and I just can't understand why you can possibly so insult the international community. Sure, we're more powerful than anyone, but size isn't the only thing that matters... world opinion is a VERY important aspect of world politics these days. You seem to think that people will change their mind and like us because we are more powerful. It just doesn't work that way. Their hatred will grow deeper... and it WILL cause problems. Not just increased terrorism. Also stuff like votes going against us in the UN more often. Nations refusing to cooperate with whatever we want to do. Anti-american governments being voted into office. Et cetera. While you will slight the impact of those things, I won't. I don't understand why conservatives think that the world is irrelevant, but if you open your eyes and look at it its pretty clear that in this day and age world opinion is a vital part of world politics and what happens in the future. And people like you and this administration couldn't care less... and it makes for very scary times
But you have no basis for this. We are the power of the world, in every aspect. We, for the most part, do not need other nations to prosper, as we are more than capable of producing much of what we need ourselves. What you keep refusing to acknowledge is the fact that the relationship between the U.S. and the rest of the world is hardly a dichotomy. We do not depend on other nations for much that is extremely important. However, other nations DO depend on us for a lot. There are more than a few nations that exist only because we help them to financially. There will be effects of what we are doing, but nothing catastrophic, If other nations refuse to cooperate with us, so be it. The hugely successful war that we fought with little help proves just how much we actually need other countries to support us.
What I'm trying to say is that this nation is in a place in the world where it does not require the favorable opinion of the world to do what needs to be done. Would it be nice if they agreed with us more? Sure. But necessary? Absolutely not.
Again, keep in mind: The rest of the world needs us more than we need them.
Quote:Fine. So what's your reason you think its okay? I'm sure it'll have nothing to do with international law or what is legal, that's for sure.
The weapons that we'll be finding.
Quote:Uhh... why fight to deny drilling? TO PROTECT THE WILDLIFE!!! I thought you knew that...
I meant, a good reason.
Quote:Oh, and the reason isn't for oil directly... its for being able to give the oil companies huge rebuilding contracts in Iraq. That's the prize. And a very rich one at that...
Huh? What could stake could oil companies have in reconstruction beyond oil-related facilities? Let me guess, there's a huge right-wing consipiracy to turn Iraq into a huge consolidated refinery. Or maybe a nation of gas-stations? You mean to tell me that the oil companies are also going to oversee the reconstruction of infrastructure and physical damage? How is that even possible?
:S
Again, think before you type. You keep changing your story, and it gets more ridiculous each time.
Quote:No, I don't mean he couldn't find them. I mean that because of the inspections he had to destroy almost all of them and any that are left he could never use because inspectors would find those just like how in the past they found some chemical/biological weapons facilities.
And the sanctions kept him from getting anything new.
Answer my question: Why kick the inspectors out for four years if you have nothing to hide?
Liberal or Conservative Test - alien space marine - 4th May 2003
The reason Bin ladin hates the west has alot more to do with history then U.S foreign policy.
When the brittish destroyed the ottoman empire and divided it into Iraq and Iran , it marked the end of the islamic empire , Bin ladin and his brood feel the west has conquered and enslaved the arab nations because of what happen in 1918.
Bin ladin is trying to prove his point of attacking the west strongest nation the United states.
Another factor is Isreal and pretty well modern cultural influeinces that alienate Muslime extremist.
fianlly,
If bush is keen on finnishing the middle east conflict once and for all by pressing hard military pressure I think would gladly support it.
Arafat only has Iraq and afghanistan to look at if he doesnt comply with stoping terrorism.
Bush may also be abled to get Isreal to honnor the original 1949 agreement and give back some land to the palestinians.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Nintendarse - 4th May 2003
Weltall, please take the time to read my posts. You have continually dodged all of the good points that I have made in the Debate forum. It's frustrating.
Quote:But you have no basis for this. We are the power of the world, in every aspect. We, for the most part, do not need other nations to prosper, as we are more than capable of producing much of what we need ourselves. What you keep refusing to acknowledge is the fact that the relationship between the U.S. and the rest of the world is hardly a dichotomy. We do not depend on other nations for much that is extremely important. However, other nations DO depend on us for a lot. There are more than a few nations that exist only because we help them to financially. There will be effects of what we are doing, but nothing catastrophic, If other nations refuse to cooperate with us, so be it. The hugely successful war that we fought with little help proves just how much we actually need other countries to support us.
What I'm trying to say is that this nation is in a place in the world where it does not require the favorable opinion of the world to do what needs to be done. Would it be nice if they agreed with us more? Sure. But necessary? Absolutely not.
Again, keep in mind: The rest of the world needs us more than we need them.
What do you see as the United States' role in the world?
Should we be the police, the enforcer of international law, the instrument of justice?
Should we be self-focused, only acting in situations that threaten our interests, only enforcing law when it benefits us, making friends that benefit us and dumping friends that threaten us?
Should we be the parent, the entity that helps the world to grow through a mixture of discipline and kindness? And as a father, should we determine what the world should look like?
Should we be selfless, unwilling to take the spoils of our power, acting for higher principles?
Should we be a friend, a supporting person that has limited power in forming the world, but shares his opinion?
We have tried to be all of these in the recent past, and so we are a convoluted entity. We are the corrupt policeman who acts as the judge, jury, and executioner. We are the selfish boy that veils his narcissism with the pretense of justice. We are the brutal father that is unwilling to listen to his child. We are the fallen angel. We are the deceptive friend. Where we try to be everything, we fail at everything.
So what is the United States, Weltall?
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 4th May 2003
Quote:Weltall, please take the time to read my posts. You have continually dodged all of the good points that I have made in the Debate forum. It's frustrating.
Weltall always dodges the best points. He has no answer so he just doesn't...
Quote:Funny, in your earlier posts, this war was Bush wanting to finish what his father started, and get revenge for the attempt on his father's life. Now all of a sudden it wasn't Bush and the motives are no longer personal, now all of a sudden he was just the willing pawn of his evil advisors.
It keeps getting funnier each time. Please, do continue.
Uhh... try READING what I say first. Becuase that just makes no sense whatsoever.
First, Bush is a moron. Not especially smart. He is controlled by his advisors because they are smarter than he is.
Second, he does want to make up for his father's mistake. While his father didn't do it for good reasons, Bush sees how he was tossed out of office and wants to right that "wrong".
There?
Quote:But you have no basis for this. We are the power of the world, in every aspect. We, for the most part, do not need other nations to prosper, as we are more than capable of producing much of what we need ourselves. What you keep refusing to acknowledge is the fact that the relationship between the U.S. and the rest of the world is hardly a dichotomy. We do not depend on other nations for much that is extremely important. However, other nations DO depend on us for a lot. There are more than a few nations that exist only because we help them to financially. There will be effects of what we are doing, but nothing catastrophic, If other nations refuse to cooperate with us, so be it. The hugely successful war that we fought with little help proves just how much we actually need other countries to support us.
What I'm trying to say is that this nation is in a place in the world where it does not require the favorable opinion of the world to do what needs to be done. Would it be nice if they agreed with us more? Sure. But necessary? Absolutely not.
Again, keep in mind: The rest of the world needs us more than we need them.
First read Nintendarse's post. It is very good.
Now, you seem to think that the US should act only in its own interests, rest of the world with us or not. And also that their opinion is irrelevant. You greatly underestimate the power of a international community nearly united against us, Weltall... they can do all kinds of things to hurt us. Some they are already doing. You will just brush it off with another 'they will do what we want because we are strong' but it just doesn't work that way! You will see in the future how badly you underestimated their strength... Oh, and we CANNOT live without them. You also greatly underestimate how much we rely on the international community in almost every way.
Quote:The weapons that we'll be finding.
They're with Bin Laden and Sadaam, right?
Quote:I meant, a good reason.
There can't be a better one.
Quote:Huh? What could stake could oil companies have in reconstruction beyond oil-related facilities? Let me guess, there's a huge right-wing consipiracy to turn Iraq into a huge consolidated refinery. Or maybe a nation of gas-stations? You mean to tell me that the oil companies are also going to oversee the reconstruction of infrastructure and physical damage? How is that even possible?
Again, think before you type. You keep changing your story, and it gets more ridiculous each time.
Why don't you start first? Because once again what you are saying has no relationship with the truth or what I said...
Gas companies will get HUGE rebuilding contracts from the US government. They will make a LOT of money off of them, rebuilding Iraq's ancient oil infrastructure and then getting money off of the oil. It also greatly decreases our need to rely on the Saudis... MUCH MUCH more than Anwar ever would.
I never said it was his prime motivation (though France, several other European nations, and the whole Middle East seems to think that)... but it is a major one. Bush helps business, business helps Bush... the tax cuts, which almost exculsively help the rich and businesses, are another example of that.
Quote:Answer my question: Why kick the inspectors out for four years if you have nothing to hide?
Because Sadaam hates us, and them, and doesn't want them there, weapons or not. As I'd expect from a evil antiamerican isolationist dictator.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Weltall - 4th May 2003
Quote:Originally posted by Nintendarse
Weltall, please take the time to read my posts. You have continually dodged all of the good points that I have made in the Debate forum. It's frustrating.
What do you see as the United States' role in the world?
Should we be the police, the enforcer of international law, the instrument of justice?
Should we be self-focused, only acting in situations that threaten our interests, only enforcing law when it benefits us, making friends that benefit us and dumping friends that threaten us?
Should we be the parent, the entity that helps the world to grow through a mixture of discipline and kindness? And as a father, should we determine what the world should look like?
Should we be selfless, unwilling to take the spoils of our power, acting for higher principles?
Should we be a friend, a supporting person that has limited power in forming the world, but shares his opinion?
We have tried to be all of these in the recent past, and so we are a convoluted entity. We are the corrupt policeman who acts as the judge, jury, and executioner. We are the selfish boy that veils his narcissism with the pretense of justice. We are the brutal father that is unwilling to listen to his child. We are the fallen angel. We are the deceptive friend. Where we try to be everything, we fail at everything.
So what is the United States, Weltall?
The United States is what the world should strive to be. And since you have an obviously negative opinion about America, let's think about things in relativity: We can be all that you say. We can be the guide, the friend, the police and the parent. There's no reason we can't do all that. A human being can. A man can be a cop, a father, a friend, etc. and can do all of them without compromising any. And it's extremely unfair to say we're failures at it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. True, we're not perfect, no one is. We've messed things up at times. But we have also done incredible good. The world is only as peaceful and stable as it is because of the United States. We created the world's most successful, most free, and most stable form of government, and it has taken hold in much of the world, casting out ancient monarchies and despots. We rid the world of fascism, and Communism is in it's definite late-stages. Right now you see people in Iraq protesting out presence. That alone speaks volumes of how much more free those people are. There was a reason Saddam never saw any protest marches, and it wasn't because he was loved. Even now, we send countless billions of dollars to countless foreign nations to help them operate and function. This nation has the capacity to change the world for the better, and I think that's exactly what we're doing.
And don't say I ignore your points, it's not true. I even agree with you at times.
Quote:Uhh... try READING what I say first. Becuase that just makes no sense whatsoever.
First, Bush is a moron. Not especially smart. He is controlled by his advisors because they are smarter than he is.
Second, he does want to make up for his father's mistake. While his father didn't do it for good reasons, Bush sees how he was tossed out of office and wants to right that "wrong".
There?
First, if he's such a moron, why do his popularity ratings keep going up? Why is it that almost everything he does ends up being a success? Why is it that a president who barely won an election suddenly enjoying the praise of over two-thirds of the people?
Second: That makes no sense. Bush Sr. was voted out of office because of the Gulf War? Sure, he didn't finish the job like he should have, but the war was still an incredible success. Bush Sr lost re-election because of Ross Perot. Remember that Clinton won the election with less than fifty percent of the vote. Had Perot not split the ticket, Bush would have been a lock. How that could possibly have caused Bush Jr. to be obsessed with taking out Saddam Hussein isn't something I can comprehend.
I said it would keep getting funnier, and I was right. First it was Bush's vendetta, then it was... ah hell, you keep changing it so much I don't even know what it is anymore. There's no rational way to explain how this could be an obsessive vendetta on Bush's part. But I know rationality is a foreign concept for you, so keep it up, laughter's good medicine.
Quote:First read Nintendarse's post. It is very good.
Now, you seem to think that the US should act only in its own interests, rest of the world with us or not. And also that their opinion is irrelevant. You greatly underestimate the power of a international community nearly united against us, Weltall... they can do all kinds of things to hurt us. Some they are already doing. You will just brush it off with another 'they will do what we want because we are strong' but it just doesn't work that way! You will see in the future how badly you underestimated their strength... Oh, and we CANNOT live without them. You also greatly underestimate how much we rely on the international community in almost every way.
I'll dissect this point by point...
Yes, I think we should put our interests above others. I think it is contingent to make our interests shared with others. But above all else, you have to look out for number one.
Okay, I greatly underestimate what the international community can do to us. They really can hurt us, you say. Some already do, you say.
How?
What is the international community doing to us that is hurting us so badly? How have they EVER been able to hurt us? The oil embargo of the 70's is about as bad as anything, and we were able to survive that with no problem. So what is it, Mr. Liberal? What dire consequences await us for going against the world? What important assets are we losing? I want you to tell me. You said I ignore good points, which is funny coming from someone who constantly does the same with me. So I want you now to tell me, how badly will this hurt us. And no silly vague answers. You said the repercussions would be severe, and that we need the international community as much as they need us. I'm asking you to prove it. Will you?
Of course not.
Moving right along...
Quote:They're with Bin Laden and Sadaam, right?
Time will tell. That's probably not a completely inaccurate prediction, assuming either one is still alive, and there's no convincing evidence that either are.
Quote:There can't be a better one.
Exactly. That is exactly why we should start drilling right away: There's no good reason not to.
Quote:Why don't you start first? Because once again what you are saying has no relationship with the truth or what I said...
Gas companies will get HUGE rebuilding contracts from the US government. They will make a LOT of money off of them, rebuilding Iraq's ancient oil infrastructure and then getting money off of the oil. It also greatly decreases our need to rely on the Saudis... MUCH MUCH more than Anwar ever would.
You do realize that reconstruction usually costs a lot of money, don' you? It's the effects of reconstruction that bring in benefit, and that takes many years.
Quote:I never said it was his prime motivation (though France, several other European nations, and the whole Middle East seems to think that)... but it is a major one. Bush helps business, business helps Bush... the tax cuts, which almost exculsively help the rich and businesses, are another example of that.
And then oil prices go way down, and everyone who owns and operates a car or heater ends up benefiting, a vast majority of them poor or middle class. Wow, such a terrible tragedy. I weep tears of blood :(
You never said it was his prime motivation? Hah. If I had a few hours to look through old posts I'm sure I could disprove that.
Quote: Because Sadaam hates us, and them, and doesn't want them there, weapons or not. As I'd expect from a evil antiamerican isolationist dictator.
That's shallow, baseless, and just plain bullshit. And you know it. You won't kick out weapons inspectors for such a vague reason. You're going to do it because you don't want them to see something... or somethings.
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 4th May 2003
Quote:The United States is what the world should strive to be. And since you have an obviously negative opinion about America, let's think about things in relativity: We can be all that you say. We can be the guide, the friend, the police and the parent. There's no reason we can't do all that. A human being can. A man can be a cop, a father, a friend, etc. and can do all of them without compromising any. And it's extremely unfair to say we're failures at it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. True, we're not perfect, no one is. We've messed things up at times. But we have also done incredible good. The world is only as peaceful and stable as it is because of the United States. We created the world's most successful, most free, and most stable form of government, and it has taken hold in much of the world, casting out ancient monarchies and despots. We rid the world of fascism, and Communism is in it's definite late-stages. Right now you see people in Iraq protesting out presence. That alone speaks volumes of how much more free those people are. There was a reason Saddam never saw any protest marches, and it wasn't because he was loved. Even now, we send countless billions of dollars to countless foreign nations to help them operate and function. This nation has the capacity to change the world for the better, and I think that's exactly what we're doing.
First, we spend less of our GDP on foreign aid then any other developed nation in the world.
Second, we defeated communism all right... by propping up dozens of brutal dictatorships and reigns of terrror all over the world...
And third, if we do what you want we will not be any of the things that Nintendarse said. Except the brutal agressor forcing our will on everyone. We cannot do what Bush is doing and be any of those things in any effective manner.
Quote:First, if he's such a moron, why do his popularity ratings keep going up? Why is it that almost everything he does ends up being a success? Why is it that a president who barely won an election suddenly enjoying the praise of over two-thirds of the people?
Because of 9/11 and the war, of course... you know that. When things like that happen I'd certainly expect most people to fall behind the president in some fashion... its human nature...
What should be more important for 2004 is the other numbers: how about the one that only 49% approve of his handling of the economy (and 47% disapprove)? That says something... and its dropping...
Quote:Second: That makes no sense. Bush Sr. was voted out of office because of the Gulf War? Sure, he didn't finish the job like he should have, but the war was still an incredible success. Bush Sr lost re-election because of Ross Perot. Remember that Clinton won the election with less than fifty percent of the vote. Had Perot not split the ticket, Bush would have been a lock. How that could possibly have caused Bush Jr. to be obsessed with taking out Saddam Hussein isn't something I can comprehend.
Bush Sr. mostly lost because of the economy, for sure... but not defeating Sadaam hurt him and left a black mark on his record by the opinion of the hawks and many conservatives.
Quote:I'll dissect this point by point...
Yes, I think we should put our interests above others. I think it is contingent to make our interests shared with others. But above all else, you have to look out for number one.
Okay, I greatly underestimate what the international community can do to us. They really can hurt us, you say. Some already do, you say.
How?
What is the international community doing to us that is hurting us so badly? How have they EVER been able to hurt us? The oil embargo of the 70's is about as bad as anything, and we were able to survive that with no problem. So what is it, Mr. Liberal? What dire consequences await us for going against the world? What important assets are we losing? I want you to tell me. You said I ignore good points, which is funny coming from someone who constantly does the same with me. So I want you now to tell me, how badly will this hurt us. And no silly vague answers. You said the repercussions would be severe, and that we need the international community as much as they need us. I'm asking you to prove it. Will you?
Of course not.
I don't go into detail because I know you'd just ignore it and the time would be wasted.
Also, what can they do? Well, in some issues they do rely on us. Small, third or second world nations will, for sure, continue to suck up to whatever US government is in office to get more foreign aid. The governments of eastern and central europe did that for this war. But unlike you, I CARE what the rest of the world feels about us. I think that it MATTERS that most of the world hates us. You don't. Sure, what they can do is limited -- voting against us in the UN, voting us off UN commisions we should be on, not exactly agreeing with everything the US wants... and if we cut this off soon the damage won't be too bad. But if we don't, and let their dislike simmer for a long time... it will get progressively worse.
As I said, this a long term thing... and its not just about economic impact. I, unlike you, think that the public opinion of the world about us is relevant.
Quote:Exactly. That is exactly why we should start drilling right away: There's no good reason not to.
The wildlife of Anwar is far, far more important than a few barrels of oil.
Quote:You do realize that reconstruction usually costs a lot of money, don' you? It's the effects of reconstruction that bring in benefit, and that takes many years.
Sure. And it'll be a VERY hard thing for us to pay with this budget crisis and NO ONE ELSE TO SHARE THE BILL WITH (remember the first Gulf War? And how we had a REAL alliance on our side that PAID for almost ALL of the war?) Remember now? How we have ALMOST NO ONE helping to foot the bill? Hmm... great "cooalition of the willing". AKA "list of nations that aren't completely against our policy". If this was WWII, that "cooalition" would have Switzerland in it...
Quote:And then oil prices go way down, and everyone who owns and operates a car or heater ends up benefiting, a vast majority of them poor or middle class. Wow, such a terrible tragedy. I weep tears of blood
You never said it was his prime motivation? Hah. If I had a few hours to look through old posts I'm sure I could disprove that.
I'm trying to find good motivations, but there are so few that its pretty hard...
Quote:That's shallow, baseless, and just plain bullshit. And you know it. You won't kick out weapons inspectors for such a vague reason. You're going to do it because you don't want them to see something... or somethings.
No, I think he did hate us and the inspectors that much... its very, very clear that after kicking them out he didn't restart his weapons program, so the only motivations I can see are anger, time (to delay, as usual, and to give time to get rid of or hide deeper whatever small amounts of weapons he had left)
Dictators aren't exactly rational all the time, you know... and when in a tough situation they do what will help them survive and become more stable in rule. In Sadaam's case, he made it standing against the US and UN and hoping to build Arab support behind him so he would be able to stay in power indefinitely. It failed, of course.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Weltall - 4th May 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
First, we spend less of our GDP on foreign aid then any other developed nation in the world.
Got any proof of that? It sounds incredibly unlikely. Only because our GDP is the highest could I give even the slightest benefit of the doubt to it.
Quote:Second, we defeated communism all right... by propping up dozens of brutal dictatorships and reigns of terrror all over the world...
Like Eastern Europe, and Russia? All ruled by brutal dictators today, are they? Hah. Communism collapsed not because of how we fought it, but because we used our economy to eliminate the USSR, and when that happened, the Communist Bloc overthrew communism. What you state happened in a small percentage of cases. It happened in China, South Vietnam, and...?
Quote:And third, if we do what you want we will not be any of the things that Nintendarse said. Except the brutal agressor forcing our will on everyone. We cannot do what Bush is doing and be any of those things in any effective manner.
Children often think of their parents as brutal dictators when discipline is dispensed. When they later wise up and mature, they see that is not the case.
Quote:Because of 9/11 and the war, of course... you know that. When things like that happen I'd certainly expect most people to fall behind the president in some fashion... its human nature...
Then why didn't that help LBJ? He had a war, but people didn't support him because he screwed it up badly. People won't support you just because, there has to be a reason, you'll get support as a president only if you do things right. And that speaks for itself.
Quote:What should be more important for 2004 is the other numbers: how about the one that only 49% approve of his handling of the economy (and 47% disapprove)? That says something... and its dropping...When they realize how the Democrats have tried to shoot down his economic policies, they'll realize who was really to blame.
Quote:Bush Sr. mostly lost because of the economy, for sure... but not defeating Sadaam hurt him and left a black mark on his record by the opinion of the hawks and many conservatives.And you mean to tell me that those who voted for Perot would have instead voted for Clinton had Perot not ran? You know that is hardly true.
Quote:I don't go into detail because I know you'd just ignore it and the time would be wasted.
COP OUT!
Hollow words when you realize I pick your posts apart sometimes down to individual sentences. You're not refusing because I might ignore it. You're refusing because you're making shit up and you can't find a single bit of factual data to back it up.
Quote:Also, what can they do? Well, in some issues they do rely on us. Small, third or second world nations will, for sure, continue to suck up to whatever US government is in office to get more foreign aid. The governments of eastern and central europe did that for this war. But unlike you, I CARE what the rest of the world feels about us. I think that it MATTERS that most of the world hates us. You don't. Sure, what they can do is limited -- voting against us in the UN, voting us off UN commisions we should be on, not exactly agreeing with everything the US wants... and if we cut this off soon the damage won't be too bad. But if we don't, and let their dislike simmer for a long time... it will get progressively worse.
As I said, this a long term thing... and its not just about economic impact. I, unlike you, think that the public opinion of the world about us is relevant.
Wait a second. First it was our doom to go against the world at large, now suddenly it's not. Funny how things happen.
Things will not get progressively worse. While we control the world's economy, the nations of the world have few options. They can go against us, and suffer economic disaster, they can cooperate and share the wealth, or they can try to form an opposing economic bastion, which as Europe has shown decisively, it cannot be done.
Again, if you can stop being a pansy, tell me what is so dire that we have to listen to everyone else. What you said so far is "sure, nothing economic can happen... but we really ought to listen to them!" My question is WHY. What can they do that will harm us for not listening? Is there anything? Terrorism will not make us change our mind, it will make us fight back, harder than anyone can dare to defend against. No one can sanction us economically as it would be their own funerals. The idea of another nation staging a military strike against us is simply incomprehensible. So what can they do? You say the consequences are great, but you won't (or can't) say what they are?
Now stop copping out and answer me. Your elitist refusal to debate with me is very annoying. If you have no point to make, don't try.
Quote:The wildlife of Anwar is far, far more important than a few barrels of oil.Maybe to you, but cheaper gas is more important for a person like me, who lives on $800 a month, than the off chance some seals might die if we drill for oil.
Quote:Sure. And it'll be a VERY hard thing for us to pay with this budget crisis and NO ONE ELSE TO SHARE THE BILL WITH (remember the first Gulf War? And how we had a REAL alliance on our side that PAID for almost ALL of the war?) Remember now? How we have ALMOST NO ONE helping to foot the bill? Hmm... great "cooalition of the willing". AKA "list of nations that aren't completely against our policy". If this was WWII, that "cooalition" would have Switzerland in it...
You must be delusional. Again, you claim that the coalition (and therefore not America) paid for most of the war. That sounds very unlikely to me and I don't believe it. Feel free to settle me with some sort of factual data proving this.
And anyway, you're deviating from the point: how are the Oil companies supposed to make a killing off of this if the government stands to lose?
Ding dong.
Quote:I'm trying to find good motivations, but there are so few that its pretty hard...25 million free Iraqis would be a good start.
Quote:No, I think he did hate us and the inspectors that much... its very, very clear that after kicking them out he didn't restart his weapons program, so the only motivations I can see are anger, time (to delay, as usual, and to give time to get rid of or hide deeper whatever small amounts of weapons he had left)
Dictators aren't exactly rational all the time, you know... and when in a tough situation they do what will help them survive and become more stable in rule. In Sadaam's case, he made it standing against the US and UN and hoping to build Arab support behind him so he would be able to stay in power indefinitely. It failed, of course. [/B]
That made no sense whatsoever, except the part where you admitted he was hiding the weapons. He's certainly not going to kick out inspectors so he can get RID of them. And while dictators are not the most rational people, Saddam was not a stupid man, and would not risk his sovereignty with that move unless he had a really good damn reason to do it, as by rights we could have gone to war with him THEN.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Geno - 5th May 2003
If Bush is willing to kill Iraqis over oil, I'm sure he'd be more than willing to kill wildlife over oil. This was not about oil.
Not even I can say for sure what the real, absolute, prime reason is behind Bush's war, but that doesn't change the good that Bush did.
The world may not always agree with a certain country, but does that make the world right? Not always.
Saddam was an evil tyrant, and whatever the reason may have been that we went to war with him, I'm glad he's gone. Sure, we may have given him that power, but the point of history is to learn from past mistakes. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Realizing that Saddam could not handle that power, we did the right thing by getting rid of him.
And before you start thinking I'm a conservative, I'd just like to remind you that I scored a 19 on that test. That makes me slightly more liberal than conservative... slightly.
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 5th May 2003
Quote:Got any proof of that? It sounds incredibly unlikely. Only because our GDP is the highest could I give even the slightest benefit of the doubt to it.
Looking it up would take too long... and I read it in the newspaper a while ago. But we are in the low group percentwise.
Quote:Like Eastern Europe, and Russia? All ruled by brutal dictators today, are they? Hah. Communism collapsed not because of how we fought it, but because we used our economy to eliminate the USSR, and when that happened, the Communist Bloc overthrew communism. What you state happened in a small percentage of cases. It happened in China, South Vietnam, and...?
Uhh... you are SERIOUSLY saying that we didn't prop up dozens of cruel dictators just because they were anti-communist? Do you remember ANY cold war era history at all? Come ON!
Quote:Children often think of their parents as brutal dictators when discipline is dispensed. When they later wise up and mature, they see that is not the case.
The rest of the world aren't children.
Quote:Then why didn't that help LBJ? He had a war, but people didn't support him because he screwed it up badly. People won't support you just because, there has to be a reason, you'll get support as a president only if you do things right. And that speaks for itself.
It did help him, for a few years. It took a while before the war protests got up to full strength... any president who is leading a failing war will be in trouble. For Vietnam it also hurt Nixon for years before he decided to leave...
Quote:When they realize how the Democrats have tried to shoot down his economic policies, they'll realize who was really to blame.
They should be able to realize that anyone shooting down such an absurd and ridiculous tax cut for the top 1% businessmen is doing a great favor for the nation.
Quote:And you mean to tell me that those who voted for Perot would have instead voted for Clinton had Perot not ran? You know that is hardly true.
Yes, without Perot it would have been a LOT closer, sure... just like how without Nader Gore would have won in '00. So? The fact remains that Perot was there... and the economy was the main reason Clinton won it.
Quote:COP OUT!
Hollow words when you realize I pick your posts apart sometimes down to individual sentences. You're not refusing because I might ignore it. You're refusing because you're making shit up and you can't find a single bit of factual data to back it up.
I answered it anyway. Well, except for the "find links to facts" thing.
Quote:Wait a second. First it was our doom to go against the world at large, now suddenly it's not. Funny how things happen.
Things will not get progressively worse. While we control the world's economy, the nations of the world have few options. They can go against us, and suffer economic disaster, they can cooperate and share the wealth, or they can try to form an opposing economic bastion, which as Europe has shown decisively, it cannot be done.
Again, if you can stop being a pansy, tell me what is so dire that we have to listen to everyone else. What you said so far is "sure, nothing economic can happen... but we really ought to listen to them!" My question is WHY. What can they do that will harm us for not listening? Is there anything? Terrorism will not make us change our mind, it will make us fight back, harder than anyone can dare to defend against. No one can sanction us economically as it would be their own funerals. The idea of another nation staging a military strike against us is simply incomprehensible. So what can they do? You say the consequences are great, but you won't (or can't) say what they are?
Now stop copping out and answer me. Your elitist refusal to debate with me is very annoying. If you have no point to make, don't try.
Look, I know that the US is the most powerful nation. That we are vital to the global economy and have more power (militarially or economically) then most of the world together. But exactly as I said, I CARE WHAT THEY THINK. Not necessarially "I think they will greatly hurt us", though if this lasts long they will, just IT IS BAD TO BE HATED BY EVERYONE. I just don't see how you can disagree there...
As Howard Dean said a while back, empires inevitablty fall... we won't have absolute power forever and it'd be a waste for the history books to say "they used force to dominate, ignoring world opinion". Because it's a waste of our potential.
Quote:Maybe to you, but cheaper gas is more important for a person like me, who lives on $800 a month, than the off chance some seals might die if we drill for oil.
Well boo hoo I'm SO sad that we have gas prices 4 times lower than Europe.... yet we still need them cheaper...
Quote:You must be delusional. Again, you claim that the coalition (and therefore not America) paid for most of the war. That sounds very unlikely to me and I don't believe it. Feel free to settle me with some sort of factual data proving this.
And anyway, you're deviating from the point: how are the Oil companies supposed to make a killing off of this if the government stands to lose?
Ding dong.
They did. I've read so in multiple places... the world paid for almost all the bill for the last war. And almost none of this war's bill.
Its off this point, but its a very good one on its own...
Oh, and I don't think that oil is is MAIN reason. But it is in the top three. Oh, and why can't oil companies get rich off it while the government has to pay off a huge debt?
Quote:25 million free Iraqis would be a good start.
You know as well as I do that that's a PR side effect of the action...
Quote:That made no sense whatsoever, except the part where you admitted he was hiding the weapons. He's certainly not going to kick out inspectors so he can get RID of them. And while dictators are not the most rational people, Saddam was not a stupid man, and would not risk his sovereignty with that move unless he had a really good damn reason to do it, as by rights we could have gone to war with him THEN.
Sure he had some weapons... he DID after all have some chem/bio plants that the inspectors found over the years, and those weapons he didn't use in the Iran-Iraq or Gulf Wars... but did he have new weapons? It is clear now that he really didn't. And that lots of the ones he had have been destroyed. And nuclear ones? Don't be absurd. He was nowhere NEAR getting them.
Quote:Saddam was an evil tyrant, and whatever the reason may have been that we went to war with him, I'm glad he's gone. Sure, we may have given him that power, but the point of history is to learn from past mistakes. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Realizing that Saddam could not handle that power, we did the right thing by getting rid of him.
Sure, he was evil. Sure, Iraq and the world is better off without him. But, uh... that has nothing to do with why I and many others objected, as I explained in length many times.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Geno - 5th May 2003
Quote:Sure, he was evil. Sure, Iraq and the world is better off without him. But, uh... that has nothing to do with why I and many others objected, as I explained in length many times.
Well, it's my reason for supporting the war. I'll admit I didn't support it at first, but I'm glad now that we got rid of him. If you didn't support the war, that's fine, I'm sure you had your reasons, even if I don't agree with them.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Dark Jaguar - 5th May 2003
I think I remember you said that it doesn't make it LEGAL for us to attack another country. Um, there aren't any laws above national law, so what are you talking about? What "world wide laws" are being broken? Is there an actual king of the world making these laws?
Liberal or Conservative Test - Geno - 5th May 2003
It's like they say: all's fair in love and war.
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 5th May 2003
Uh, DJ, ever heard of "international law"? Sure, its not like we can be punished for breaking it or anything -- we're too strong --, but its unethical and (as I've said so many times) makes the world angry that we do things without their sanction...
Liberal or Conservative Test - alien space marine - 5th May 2003
when it comes down to Oil prices it has less do with oil supplies but greedy corporate slime.
right now in canada we have it average 70 cents a letre , But a local gas station had her gas prices at 50 cents a letre 20 cents less then everyone else.
She said their no reason for the high prices the oil prices world wide are not any higher then they were 3 years ago.
Its price goudging to force consumers into paying unreasonbly high prices for pretrol fuel. Irving ,exxon,Shell, Texaco all ripping the shit out of everyone.
I think its time we found a alternative power source , Hydrogen fuel cells and solar power , wind power.
both of which are enviromentaly freindly.
Its very wreckless to ruin the enviroment for only a few years of power supply only for the same problem to reappear somtime later.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Nintendarse - 5th May 2003
Weltall-We have definitely had different upbringings, but I'd like to clarify that I believe the United States has done immense good in its short history. I am proud to be American. I am proud of all the progress we have made in the last 226 and 3/4 years. But progress inherently means that, at some point, we had skewed or confused views on some subjects. I may disagree with Rumsfeld, but I unconditionally support our troops.
But back to our difference in education: My history teachers have always taught their students to look at history with a critical eye. That's probably why I remember all of the mistakes of our foreign policy. In fact, I've been taught in quite a pessimistic way: a focus on what should have been done. "We should have entered WWII earlier", "We shouldn't have made Japanese internment camps", "We shouldn't have misdiagnosed Vietnam as we did", etc. For that, I apologize.
But if there is ever a consistent pattern in history, it is that narcissism does not make a better world. In my education of history, I have found narcissism behind Napoleon, Hitler, fundamentalist religious groups, racism, "divine right" kings, imperialism, and several other movements that, in the light of history, are looked down upon.
I think it is when this narcissism seeps into our foreign policy that we make mistakes that we wish we could take back.
"The United States is what the world should strive to be."-Weltall
Replace "The United States" with "France," and you practically have a quote of French foreign policy in 1803 (Napoleon). I think it's okay for the French to be proud of French accomplishments, but I think we can agree that France crossed the line when it forced other countries to conform to the Napoleonic model.
Or maybe replace "The United States" with, "Great Britain," and you have a quote of the foreign policy of imperialist Great Britain.
And, might I add, if you change "The United States" to "Germany," you've practically quoted Hitler.
My point is that saying "we" are superior to "them" usually leads to bad foreign policy. Because when we (humans) act on this assumption, we assume silly things like, "Their opinions aren't worth as much as ours!" or "Their way of doing things is backward!" or "We should take advantage of them because we can!" or, the worst of all, "Their lives are insignificant!"
And the only way we can assume that "we" are superior to "them" is through narcissism. Because, if you think about it, you had the equal chance of being born into "we" or "them." And you had no control in the matter. So the person you think you are superior to could have easily been yourself. And how would you like it if "they" thought "they" were superior to "us"? Is that something you would feel is justified? I try not to assume that I'm superior to anything. It's an extension of the "Golden Rule," and I think it makes sense.
Quote: Weltall:
Like Eastern Europe, and Russia? All ruled by brutal dictators today, are they? Hah. Communism collapsed not because of how we fought it, but because we used our economy to eliminate the USSR, and when that happened, the Communist Bloc overthrew communism. What you state happened in a small percentage of cases. It happened in China, South Vietnam, and...?
I think ABF's talking about the period DURING the Cold War. In Asia, Africa, and South America, and Central America, we supported (set up "puppet governments" for) any anti-Communist regime, even if it was brutal, violent, undemocratic, and descriminatory. Here are some off the top of my head: Afghanistan, Guatemala, Indonesia, Angola and Nicaragua. I'm 99% sure there were more.
Quote:Posted by Weltall:
We can be all that you say. We can be the guide, the friend, the police and the parent. There's no reason we can't do all that. A human being can. A man can be a cop, a father, a friend, etc. and can do all of them without compromising any. And it's extremely unfair to say we're failures at it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. True, we're not perfect, no one is. We've messed things up at times. But we have also done incredible good. The world is only as peaceful and stable as it is because of the United States. We created the world's most successful, most free, and most stable form of government, and it has taken hold in much of the world, casting out ancient monarchies and despots. We rid the world of fascism, and Communism is in it's definite late-stages. Right now you see people in Iraq protesting out presence. That alone speaks volumes of how much more free those people are.
While I agree that my assessment of our foreign policy was overly pessimistic, I still think that we struggle to define our role in the international community. Clearly, in the most recent war, we were the judge, jury, and executioner. I think it's dangerous for one (non-God) entity to have that power. I also think that taking a "father" role is a latent form of narcissism for the reasons listed above.
I'd also like to point out that just because the United States is currently the world's superpower does not mean that its form of government is superior to all others. We've been a superpower for about 50 years and the world's lone superpower for only about 14 years. In the whole view of history, that's insignificant. The Chinese culture held the title for at least 600 years, the Arab culture for several centuries, and the Roman empire for almost a thousand years. Going by the logic, "The world's current most powerful form of government is superior to all others," a person living in 1939 might say, "Fascism is superior to all other forms of government. While Democracies bicker and weakly allow atrocities to occur, fascist dictators get things done. Judging by the current course of things, Democracy is on its last legs."
I'm a little confused on your last comment. Would you be willing to accept a theocracy in Iraq if the majority of Iraqi's voted for a theocracy?
I agree with you on a couple of points, Weltall:
1.) ABF has to back up his claims. It's not enough to say, "I'm too lazy"
2.) A president won't be supported forever simply because he is the president. There's a time aspect in there. I mean, at the beginning of the Vietnam War, LBJ had a solid majority. Slowly but surely, the majority slipped away. I actually did a project on that last year so I'll see if I can find the Gallup Poll...found. According to the March 10, 1968 NY Times, here are the results:
"In view of the developments since we entered the fighting in Vietnam, do you think the United States made a mistake sending troops to fight in Vietnam?"
.....................Yes (%)..No(%)...No Opinion (%)
March '68.......49...........41.............10
Feb. '68..........46..........42..............12
Dec. '67.........45...........46...............9
Oct. '67..........46...........44.............10
July '67...........41..........48..............11
May '67...........37..........50..............13
Feb. '67..........32..........52..............16
Nov. '66..........31..........51..............18
Sept. '66.........35..........48..............17
May '66...........36..........49..............15
March '66........25..........59..............16
August '65......24..........61..............15
That's a pretty convincing trend right there.
Quote:Geno:
The world may not always agree with a certain country, but does that make the world right? Not always.
True, but I believe that taking the duty of judge, jury, and executioner is inherently wrong. While I agree with the ends (deposing a terrible dictator that may threaten our national security), I am troubled by the means. There needs to be some international force stronger than the UN that has no national ties, makes legislature, enforces international law, and acts in the best interest of humanity. Sadly, I think this will not happen until:
a.) the most powerful nation in the world is willing to give up some of its powers, just as states had to give up some of their powers to form the United States.
and
b.) there is a clear and present danger that requires the cooperation of previously warring nations.
P.S. Thanks Weltall for reading my posts. I guess it's just the nature of the forums to focus on points of disagreement.
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 5th May 2003
Quote:My point is that saying "we" are superior to "them" usually leads to bad foreign policy. Because when we (humans) act on this assumption, we assume silly things like, "Their opinions aren't worth as much as ours!" or "Their way of doing things is backward!" or "We should take advantage of them because we can!" or, the worst of all, "Their lives are insignificant!"
And the only way we can assume that "we" are superior to "them" is through narcissism. Because, if you think about it, you had the equal chance of being born into "we" or "them." And you had no control in the matter. So the person you think you are superior to could have easily been yourself. And how would you like it if "they" thought "they" were superior to "us"? Is that something you would feel is justified? I try not to assume that I'm superior to anything. It's an extension of the "Golden Rule," and I think it makes sense.
Exactly as I said.... but worded better. :) Sure, it won't hurt in the short term... but might doesn't make right and in the long term it'll come back to haunt you... it did for Rome, France, Britain... we WILL be next if we continue to act without caring about what anyone else thinks. Not for a long time... but it'll happen.
Quote:I think ABF's talking about the period DURING the Cold War. In Asia, Africa, and South America, and Central America, we supported (set up "puppet governments" for) any anti-Communist regime, even if it was brutal, violent, undemocratic, and descriminatory. Here are some off the top of my head: Afghanistan, Guatemala, Indonesia, Angola and Nicaragua. I'm 99% sure there were more.
Dozens. Panama, El Salvador, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Grenada, Haiti... there are many more... and pretty much all of those regimes we held up were brutal, murdering dictators who were at least as bad as Sadaam (who of course is one of them).
Quote:True, but I believe that taking the duty of judge, jury, and executioner is inherently wrong. While I agree with the ends (deposing a terrible dictator that may threaten our national security), I am troubled by the means. There needs to be some international force stronger than the UN that has no national ties, makes legislature, enforces international law, and acts in the best interest of humanity. Sadly, I think this will not happen until:
a.) the most powerful nation in the world is willing to give up some of its powers, just as states had to give up some of their powers to form the United States.
and
b.) there is a clear and present danger that requires the cooperation of previously warring nations.
All it does is prove we are no better than any other empire before us... which means nothing good based on what we know about empires...
Oh, and we won't have true international law that is backed by LAW and not just convention and agreements that are a bit too flexible until governments agree on that... and that won't happen anytime soon. Not with so many people strongly opposed to even the thought that we might *gasp* give up some soverignty to a bigger orgianization... and unlike when we were states, its gone on for so long that the groups will never agree. Not at the rate we're going... its really too bad too. We desperately need a more powerful world organization...
Liberal or Conservative Test - N-Man - 5th May 2003
Quotes jumbled. Late. Sorry. ABF and Nintendarse. Alternating. Somehow. I think. *sleeps*
Quote:There needs to be some international force stronger than the UN that has no national ties, makes legislature, enforces international law, and acts in the best interest of humanity.
Oh fer God's sakes, no. Look, I really appreciate how you'd enjoy yet another layer of bureaucracy to steal your money and tell you how to live, but nut-uh, not gonna happen, not in my lifetime.
Quote:Exactly as I said.... but worded better. Sure, it won't hurt in the short term... but might doesn't make right and in the long term it'll come back to haunt you... it did for Rome, France, Britain... we WILL be next if we continue to act without caring about what anyone else thinks. Not for a long time... but it'll happen.
With all due respect, that is an idiotic statement. How did "it" come back to haunt Rome? All peoples the Romans conquered were submitted and assimilated, might did indeed make right for them. In fact, they were defeated by those against whom they failed to use might and instead tried to be buddy-buddy with: Germans and Sassanid Persians. The British Empire was dismembered with the greatest caution because the people who ran it understood that it was not the right way, and Britain still has amicable relations with most of its former possessions. I do not recall anything blowing up in the face of the British, perhaps you could enlighten me. The French did face the Algerian crisis, but one case hardly makes a majority, and doesn't make up very good evidence for you to say you "WILL be next".
Quote:I think it's okay for the French to be proud of French accomplishments, but I think we can agree that France crossed the line when it forced other countries to conform to the Napoleonic model.
I think I'll agree to say precisely the contrary that you did, my good man. The French have no business being proud of French accomplishments unless they took part in them firsthand.
On the contrary, Napoleon was a great man, sir. France has had many great leaders throughout the ages, and Napoleon Buonaparte was perhaps the greatest. He was a man not afraid to take to arms and fight an enemy often much more powerful than himself, for both his own glory and the institution of better government for mankind; two entirely valid and just purposes. It is outright insulting to the human mind to claim that Napoleon had no "right" to impose his code of laws on a decayed society based on exploitation of the largest part of the population. When men are scared, when men don't know any better, when men rot in that kind of social state, it is up to the better ones among them to make a stand and lead them against those who oppress them. I would like to add that in Quebec, Napoleonic Code is still law.
Quote:My point is that saying "we" are superior to "them" usually leads to bad foreign policy. Because when we (humans) act on this assumption, we assume silly things like, "Their opinions aren't worth as much as ours!" or "Their way of doing things is backward!" or "We should take advantage of them because we can!" or, the worst of all, "Their lives are insignificant!"
And the only way we can assume that "we" are superior to "them" is through narcissism. Because, if you think about it, you had the equal chance of being born into "we" or "them." And you had no control in the matter. So the person you think you are superior to could have easily been yourself. And how would you like it if "they" thought "they" were superior to "us"? Is that something you would feel is justified? I try not to assume that I'm superior to anything. It's an extension of the "Golden Rule," and I think it makes sense.
I think it doesn't. You're not even examining the ideas at hand here, you're just assuming no idea is superior. According to you, the human race has made no progress whatsoever in its mode of government over the past HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of YEARS *clears throat*. Dude, if you want us to go live in caves and pick the lice out of each other's hair, just say it.
Some ideas are superior. Some societies are unfortunate enough to not have said ideas. Take the lead, and show them.
This isn't justifying people like Hitler and whatever other evil beings you listed in there, but it's not because those people tried to impose their will on others. It's because their ideas were clearly inferior, and even more clear after mankind experimented with them and demonstrated their inferiority.
Quote:"Fascism is superior to all other forms of government. While Democracies bicker and weakly allow atrocities to occur, fascist dictators get things done. Judging by the current course of things, Democracy is on its last legs."
And this would be correct and right, if it weren't an outright lie. If fascist dictators really would get things done, and not allow or cause atrocities to occur, and allow freedom also (I kinda value that personally), would Fascism not be superior to all other forms of government? I believe it would, but that statement is a lie, thus it isn't.
I will also add that the United States of America, if you consider them an empire, are unlike any other empire that ever existed. The Romans, the Chinese, none even neared the amount of influence the USA has on the planet. There may be *one* that comes close... that is, it comes close if you agree to remove three and a half continents from the face of the Earth, and that is the empire of the Great Khan, who styled himself Conqueror of the Universe. He barely came close to the amount of influence and power America has, and remained united for perhaps a century. The United States will be here much longer than that.
Liberal or Conservative Test - Dark Jaguar - 5th May 2003
Did you pay attention when you played Starcraft? A world government is doomed to evil and mass genicide!
You point out our nation's support of regimes we now condemn, but why exactly is that a valid argument, at all? Are you THAT afraid of being viewed as a hipocrit? Worrying about that pretty much guerentees that you will never ever change your mind on anything, because then you have to say "I once believed this, so if I change my mind, I'm a hypocrit". It's OKAY to change your views on what is right and wrong!
Liberal or Conservative Test - Weltall - 5th May 2003
There's too much to reply to!
First, ABF, since that will be the easiest.
Quote:Looking it up would take too long... and I read it in the newspaper a while ago. But we are in the low group percentwise.
Well, how about from now on, if you're thinking of posting something you can't readily prove, don't post it, because then you're just reaching.
Quote:Uhh... you are SERIOUSLY saying that we didn't prop up dozens of cruel dictators just because they were anti-communist? Do you remember ANY cold war era history at all? Come ON!
Yes, I am saying that we didn't prop up DOZENS. There were a few, granted. But what I am saying is that much of former Communista made the transition from Communism to Democracy without the need for that. Again, see Eastern Europe and other remnants of the USSR, South Korea, etc.
Quote:The rest of the world aren't children.Most of it is. Much of the world is undeveloped, and ruled by sometimes ancient forms of government, those that are even stable. The world has much to learn from our success.
Quote:It did help him, for a few years. It took a while before the war protests got up to full strength... any president who is leading a failing war will be in trouble. For Vietnam it also hurt Nixon for years before he decided to leave...
Well, that's the point I was making. But the Nam war never helped LBJ, as it turned sharply against him once it was discovered that his administration was lying to the public about how successful the war was. But you're right, it didn't get really bad until after the Tet Offensive.
Quote:They should be able to realize that anyone shooting down such an absurd and ridiculous tax cut for the top 1% businessmen is doing a great favor for the nation.
They won't care about that when they realize that *gasp* the tax cut includes mostly everyone!
Hate to break it to you, but your Robin Hood mentality is shared by few. Most people don't hate the rich for being rich. A smart person wouldn't, anyway. They would instead use their resources to acquire similar wealth. That's what fuels a capitalistic society. Even regular people wouldn't mind the tax burden on businesses lightened, since starting a small business is a popular thing.
See, in contrast to your views, most people don't want the rich hurt for their benefit. They'd rather become rich themselves.
Quote:Yes, without Perot it would have been a LOT closer, sure... just like how without Nader Gore would have won in '00. So? The fact remains that Perot was there... and the economy was the main reason Clinton won it.
And he did nothing to fix it, and with his tax increases actually did more to harm it. He was just lucky that he happened to be President during the Internet Boom, just as it's Bush's own bad luck to accede the presidency at the end of it.
Quote:I answered it anyway. Well, except for the "find links to facts" thing.
Yeah, but that was the most important part.
Quote:Look, I know that the US is the most powerful nation. That we are vital to the global economy and have more power (militarially or economically) then most of the world together. But exactly as I said, I CARE WHAT THEY THINK. Not necessarially "I think they will greatly hurt us", though if this lasts long they will, just IT IS BAD TO BE HATED BY EVERYONE. I just don't see how you can disagree there...
Of course it's bad to be disliked by everyone else. But if they can't do anything but dislike us, I won't lose sleep over it. Seriously, I only care what other people think if there's a chance that it can affect me. As it stands, they can throw a temper tantrum and they'll get over it.
Quote:As Howard Dean said a while back, empires inevitablty fall... we won't have absolute power forever and it'd be a waste for the history books to say "they used force to dominate, ignoring world opinion". Because it's a waste of our potential.
It would also be wrong, because we don't dominate with force. We dominate with our economic prowress, and money can often supercede military might. That we also happen to have the best military in the history of the world is irrelevant, as we never use it to even half of it's true capacity. If we did, it's likely we COULD dominate the world militarily.
And the great empires of the world fell for that reason: They tried to dominate militarily, and overextended themselves. It's safe to say we're not anywhere close to that, nor are we even approaching it.
Quote:Well boo hoo I'm SO sad that we have gas prices 4 times lower than Europe.... yet we still need them cheaper...
Well, there's that itty bitty fact that Americans rely on the automobile to an exponentially greater extent than Europeans do whcih results in their astronomical gas prices. But keep in mind that oil doesn't just make automotive gas.
Quote:They did. I've read so in multiple places... the world paid for almost all the bill for the last war. And almost none of this war's bill.
Its off this point, but its a very good one on its own...
Oh, and I don't think that oil is is MAIN reason. But it is in the top three. Oh, and why can't oil companies get rich off it while the government has to pay off a huge debt?
Well, as I've never seen that before, I'd like a source for it. Considering that the US funds almost all of the UN military force, I find that incredibly unlikely.
Why can't they get rich? Two reasons. This new source of oil won't start some petroleum-consumption orgy, and if anything will drive prices much lower. The financial gains will be long-term, when we have a large, stable source of oil. It's not so much about getting rich quick, but making sure we don't have an oil crisis down the line. Even if on the off chance this war was for oil, eliminating the chance that middle-eastern nations could inflict an oil shortage on us is definitely worth it.
Quote:You know as well as I do that that's a PR side effect of the action...
Oh, I see. So what you're saying is that we wouldn't mind Saddam being in power if he gave his oil fields to us? Even if that was true, does it in any way lessen the effect of it? Are they any less free today because that wasn't the main objective?
Quote:Sure he had some weapons... he DID after all have some chem/bio plants that the inspectors found over the years, and those weapons he didn't use in the Iran-Iraq or Gulf Wars... but did he have new weapons? It is clear now that he really didn't. And that lots of the ones he had have been destroyed. And nuclear ones? Don't be absurd. He was nowhere NEAR getting them.
If he had destroyed them, why didn't he prove it? Why refuse the demand of proof? Why kick out inspectors? It doesn't make sense for anyone to RAISE suspicions while all the while doing what is asked of you.
I'll tackle what Nintendarse said later, this has already taken me an hour... though I'd pretty much be echoing what N-Man said, there are a few points I want to touch on later.
Liberal or Conservative Test - A Black Falcon - 5th May 2003
Going to answer Nintendarse, Weltall? His posts are honestly better than mine on the issues he covers...
Quote:Oh fer God's sakes, no. Look, I really appreciate how you'd enjoy yet another layer of bureaucracy to steal your money and tell you how to live, but nut-uh, not gonna happen, not in my lifetime.
Well unlike conservatives I actually trust the government to do some good things and think that it'd be a better world with a true world government.
Quote:With all due respect, that is an idiotic statement. How did "it" come back to haunt Rome? All peoples the Romans conquered were submitted and assimilated, might did indeed make right for them. In fact, they were defeated by those against whom they failed to use might and instead tried to be buddy-buddy with: Germans and Sassanid Persians. The British Empire was dismembered with the greatest caution because the people who ran it understood that it was not the right way, and Britain still has amicable relations with most of its former possessions. I do not recall anything blowing up in the face of the British, perhaps you could enlighten me. The French did face the Algerian crisis, but one case hardly makes a majority, and doesn't make up very good evidence for you to say you "WILL be next".
Rome used force to dominate the world as best they could. They didn't try to change anybody out of their territory, really... those were just the barbarians... and not worth their time. What small inroads they tried in Germany they quicklyl abandoned. Rome held together because of the might of its armies... and died when they became weak and dilluted because of decay and overstretching... they didn't try to slowly get the 'barbarians' to see the goodness of some Roman way nearly enough. They did halfhearted efforts that they gave up on... and were destroyed in the end because of it.
What I meant was that the US is at the point where we are the one power. Sure, there are not barbarians out there with big armies to kill us. But, if we alienate the world enough, in some number of generations in the future some group will come along and defeat us like every other group that dominated by using force.
And make no mistake about it -- if we act uniaterally and do things without international sanction it IS using force. No matter how much you sugar coat it... its force. Pure and simple. Exactly as we did to Iraq.
And in the end its things like that that will help give people in future generations reasons to want to get rid of us when we weaken...
But if we involve the international community and make a true world power of great nations acting in concert we could stop that... for a long time, at least. We were progressing on that path until we got this ... president ...
Quote:I think I'll agree to say precisely the contrary that you did, my good man. The French have no business being proud of French accomplishments unless they took part in them firsthand.
On the contrary, Napoleon was a great man, sir. France has had many great leaders throughout the ages, and Napoleon Buonaparte was perhaps the greatest. He was a man not afraid to take to arms and fight an enemy often much more powerful than himself, for both his own glory and the institution of better government for mankind; two entirely valid and just purposes. It is outright insulting to the human mind to claim that Napoleon had no "right" to impose his code of laws on a decayed society based on exploitation of the largest part of the population. When men are scared, when men don't know any better, when men rot in that kind of social state, it is up to the better ones among them to make a stand and lead them against those who oppress them. I would like to add that in Quebec, Napoleonic Code is still law.
So its bad to be proud of your history? Uhhhhhhh.....
Oh, and Napoleon a great man? NO. Sure, he wasn't brutal like many dictators, but he did try to essentially conquer the world for his greater glory... "betterment of mankind"? No way! Essentially all he wanted was money, power, and land... look, sure, the governments of Europe weren't perfect but Napolen wouldn't have been much of any better! All he'd do is put relatives in charge... like he did in Spain...
And Napoleon didn't let off on oppression and wasn't some liberal. He was conservative...
Quote:I think it doesn't. You're not even examining the ideas at hand here, you're just assuming no idea is superior. According to you, the human race has made no progress whatsoever in its mode of government over the past HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of YEARS *clears throat*. Dude, if you want us to go live in caves and pick the lice out of each other's hair, just say it.
Some ideas are superior. Some societies are unfortunate enough to not have said ideas. Take the lead, and show them.
This isn't justifying people like Hitler and whatever other evil beings you listed in there, but it's not because those people tried to impose their will on others. It's because their ideas were clearly inferior, and even more clear after mankind experimented with them and demonstrated their inferiority.
You just don't get the point at all, do you? Its funny... he says something (that I understand) then people like you and Weltall go off in some other direction that seems to have no connection with what I just read...
Uh, his point was that what you said is both arrogant and wrong. He is right. Sure, some ideas are better... and it'd be great if every nation could be a democracy. But look what you get when unprepared nations become democracies... *looks at Africa*
Yeah, civil war, dictators, "elections" with troops ready to assure the victor, etc. Oh, and he is also correct that it is stupid to think that "they" any stupider than we are. "they" aren't... they're just in a more unfortunate situation. Looking down on them and "telling them what is right" like a parent insults them. Yes, teach them... but not in a condecending, 'i know best' fashion and not just by yourself. Having others around to agree on what to do and to help teach them is clearly the best way to be successful...
"they have sad ideas and we must help them see the light" is neither a productive nor a successful policy... as many empires over the years learned. It just leads to unrest and the hatred of the people of those nations being dominated and "taught". See: British Empire, esp. India.
Quote:And this would be correct and right, if it weren't an outright lie. If fascist dictators really would get things done, and not allow or cause atrocities to occur, and allow freedom also (I kinda value that personally), would Fascism not be superior to all other forms of government? I believe it would, but that statement is a lie, thus it isn't.
I will also add that the United States of America, if you consider them an empire, are unlike any other empire that ever existed. The Romans, the Chinese, none even neared the amount of influence the USA has on the planet. There may be *one* that comes close... that is, it comes close if you agree to remove three and a half continents from the face of the Earth, and that is the empire of the Great Khan, who styled himself Conqueror of the Universe. He barely came close to the amount of influence and power America has, and remained united for perhaps a century. The United States will be here much longer than that
First, the point isn't whether it is true now -- its whether the same person, in that situation, could have said that with as much conviction as Weltall did and sounded right. They could have. Just like Weltall now proclaiming that WE KNOW BEST.
Yes, we are more powerful than any empire in the history of the world. Even Ghengis Khan didn't conquer EVERYTHING... he failed to take Japan or Africa... or Europe, though that was just a time issue, not a issue of Europe being stronger. But that really isn't the point here. Every empire inevitably falls as it rises... by force. We rose to empire by destroying our opponent and taking primacy in the world about 10 years ago. So? Every empire rose to heights... then fell...
Oh, and at its height the British Empire controlled more total land area than Ghenghis (well, mostly Canada, but still...) and had 1/4 or so of the world's population in its control... but then it dissolved as its controlled states realized that the British DIDN'T know best after all...
If we follow that path, as we are so far, I see a world full of hate for us just waiting for the time we are weak enough to topple. Same as the Romans and British. That just isn't a good vision for the future of the world!
Liberal or Conservative Test - Darunia - 6th May 2003
Liberals suck. Period.
----Barry