5th May 2003, 8:21 AM
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.