4th May 2003, 10:55 PM
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.
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR