Sass Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 If you really believe that, please contact your local mental ins!@#$%^&*ution and get checked-in. Ha, ya know what, I'm going to play the other side of this too.... Maybe that is how it will go, and ya know what, there's not a !@#$%^&* thing you can do about it. Hopefully the whole world will bow down to America really soon. gg. See how ignorant that is? Equal to your posts.
Dav Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 The problem with the US is it believs that all nations should be democratic. When it comes down to it some nations are happy as they are or it will be more benifitial to leave them. Thanks to the neo-conservativs for that one. Russia is the prefect example, the cold war was a waste of time. The fall of communism came from within. In the case of iraq, it may have been under the dictatorship of saddam (we all agree not a good thing) however the current problems werent there.
Sass Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 Dav, ugh. I'm not even going to respond. Everything you said is just conjecture. There is no historical validity to any of it. Please study. Thanks.
MasterDrake Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 The problem with the US is it believs that all nations should be democratic. When it comes down to it some nations are happy as they are or it will be more benifitial to leave them. Thanks to the neo-conservativs for that one. Russia is the prefect example, the cold war was a waste of time. The fall of communism came from within. In the case of iraq, it may have been under the dictatorship of saddam (we all agree not a good thing) however the current problems werent there.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Or you just didn't here about the current problems
Paine Posted February 4, 2005 Author Report Posted February 4, 2005 The problem with the US is it believs that all nations should be democratic. When it comes down to it some nations are happy as they are or it will be more benifitial to leave them. Thanks to the neo-conservativs for that one. Russia is the prefect example, the cold war was a waste of time. The fall of communism came from within. In the case of iraq, it may have been under the dictatorship of saddam (we all agree not a good thing) however the current problems werent there.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Or you just didn't here about the current problems<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hear*
A Soldier Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 Dav, ugh. I'm not even going to respond. Everything you said is just conjecture. There is no historical validity to any of it. Please study. Thanks.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>not trying to say he's right or anything, but instead of trying to make everyone who does not agree with you look stupid, why don't you back your claims with facts instead of insults?
Sass Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 The problem with the US is it believs that all nations should be democratic. When it comes down to it some nations are happy as they are or it will be more benifitial to leave them. THE USA DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT ALL NATIONS SHOULD BE DEMOCRATIC. WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THAT STATEMENT? BECAUSE WE WENT TO IRAQ AND OUSTED SADDAM AND REPLACED IT WITH A SYSTEM OF ELECTED OFFICIALS? OK, I SUPPOSE THAT YOU WILL SAY THAT WE WERE IN BOSNIA FOR DEMOCRACY, AND PANAMA, SOMALIA, FIGHTING FOR KUWAIT IN 1991, SUDAN, ETC. THE US DOES HAVE A TRUE AND TRIED SYSTEM OF DEMOCRACY, DUE PROCESS FOR CRIMINALS, AND MANY OTHER SYSTEMS IN PLACE. HOWEVER, WHEN WE SEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN AID TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES EVERYWHERE DO WE SAY, HERE'S OUR MONEY FROM THE SWEAT OF OUR BACKS, YOU GET IT ONLY IF YOU TURN TO DEMOCRACY? I SUPPOSE THAT WE SHOULD BEGIN BY FORCING OUR NEIGHBORS CANADA AND MEXICO TO ABANDON THEIR WAYS AND FOLLOW US. THIS IS PRECISELY WHY I SAID YOU STATED CONJECTURE. Thanks to the neo-conservativs for that one. DEMOCRACY WAS A PART OF THIS COUNTRY FROM THE VERY START, IT WASN'T JUST INVENTED AS YOU SEEM TO CLAIM, BY A SINGLE GROUP. IT IS THIS VERY FUNDAMENTAL PART OF OUR SYSTEM THAT BOTH WINGS OF GOVERNMENT AGREE WITH. THERE IS NOTHING BUT IRRELEVANCE TO DAV'S STATEMENT THERE. Russia is the prefect example, the cold war was a waste of time. The fall of communism came from within. A WASTE OF TIME???? HOW CAN YOU PUT THE RESOLVE OF NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST IN A BUCKET CALLED WASTE OF TIME. I'LL assume THAT YOUR POINT HERE IS THAT THE USSR BUILT IT'S massive WEAPONS CACHE IN RESPONSE TO US NUCLEAR THREAT THUS STARTING THE COLD WAR. IF THAT WAS THE CASE, WHICH IT WASN'T, YOUR ARGUMENT OF BEING A WASTE OF TIME IS PREDICATED ON THE FACT THAT YOU DIDN'T EVEN EXIST THEN AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE CIR!@#$%^&*STANCES WERE THAT LED TO THAT ERA. MORE CONJECTURE. In the case of iraq, it may have been under the dictatorship of saddam (we all agree not a good thing) however the current problems werent there. THIS IS THE MOST IGNORANT STATEMENT OF ALL HERE. YES, THE PROBLEMS CHANGED SINCE THE US OUSTED SADDAM, BUT THE PROBLEMS BETWEEN SHIITE AND SUNNI MUSLIMS IN IRAQ EXISTED SINCE LONG LONG BEFORE YOUR PRESENCE IN THIS WORLD DAV. IF YOU LOOK UP HISTORY, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE US BACKED SADDAM HUSSEIN AGAINST THE AYATOLLA OF IRAN IN THE LATE 70'S. FOLLOWING THAT, SADDAM HUSSEIN WENT NORTH AND ANNIHILATED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KURDS LIVING IN IRAQ. HE DID THIS FOR MORE THAN 25 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOOK INTO THE EYES OF A SHIITE MUSLIM AND PERHAPS YOU WILL PONDER WHAT LIFE WAS LIKE LIVING UNDER THE RULE OF SADDAM. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANTED DUDE. IS THAT WHAT YOU CALLED ME OUT FOR? NOW I NOT ONLY TOLD YOU ONCE THAT HIS CRAP IS NOTHING BUT CONJECTURE, YOU MADE ME MAKE AN !@#$%^&* OF HIS POSTING.
A Soldier Posted February 5, 2005 Report Posted February 5, 2005 IS THAT WHAT YOU WANTED DUDE. IS THAT WHAT YOU CALLED ME OUT FOR? NOW I NOT ONLY TOLD YOU ONCE THAT HIS CRAP IS NOTHING BUT CONJECTURE, YOU MADE ME MAKE AN !@#$%^&* OF HIS POSTING.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>geese... and you're running for mod of this section? His first point about democracy could be debated, if we exclude the neo-conservative part, which I do not agree on. The US has been promoting democracy for a long while now. It's cool, personnally, I don't think authoritarian regimes are the best out there. The problem is how you are promoting it, simply put. Source:http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/
Sass Posted February 5, 2005 Report Posted February 5, 2005 Sorry for the caps. I was a posting angry. I'll try to refrain from doing that. my bad.
Dav Posted February 5, 2005 Report Posted February 5, 2005 My neo conservatibe point seems to have been misunderstood, im afraid i cant quote the name of the do!@#$%^&*entary i am soursing infomation from byt the jist of it is as followes. In an attempt to unify the american people by giving the nation a world purpose the neo-conservatives aided in the fabrication of the threat posed by russia to the US. This fabricated information later lead to the cold war being started and history unfolding. The view of the neo-conservative movemt (as it was stated) is that america needs a common purpose to prevent its people regressive back to primitaive beings, this purpose is to spread democrocy across the globe and allow everyone to live in peace. The means to achieve this did not have to be based upon fact, as long as everone believed what was going on to be true their unified support will be with their nation. This may prehaps be exadurated slightly (after all this do!@#$%^&*entary was rather anti-america) but issues of incorect information do exist. Where are the WMDs? and so you may want to steap back and see what else the government has lied to you about. I know america was and always will be a democrocy, that doesnt mean its government cannot be influenced by other small and influential groups of people. THIS IS THE MOST IGNORANT STATEMENT OF ALL HERE. YES, THE PROBLEMS CHANGED SINCE THE US OUSTED SADDAM, BUT THE PROBLEMS BETWEEN SHIITE AND SUNNI MUSLIMS IN IRAQ EXISTED SINCE LONG LONG BEFORE YOUR PRESENCE IN THIS WORLD DAV. IF YOU LOOK UP HISTORY, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE US BACKED SADDAM HUSSEIN AGAINST THE AYATOLLA OF IRAN IN THE LATE 70'S. FOLLOWING THAT, SADDAM HUSSEIN WENT NORTH AND ANNIHILATED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KURDS LIVING IN IRAQ. HE DID THIS FOR MORE THAN 25 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOOK INTO THE EYES OF A SHIITE MUSLIM AND PERHAPS YOU WILL PONDER WHAT LIFE WAS LIKE LIVING UNDER THE RULE OF SADDAM. I dont say removal of saddam is a bad thing, my argument is with the way the US had gone about things. Forstly you might want to add the anti america factor there, it does have some contribution to the violance. Its my personal opinion that the removal of saddam should have been done with UN backing, it may have taken longer but the UNs resorces are extencive. War may have been inevitable we dont know. In think going on the premice of WMDs when weapons inspectore were allowed free acces and iraq was fully compliant and nothing was found unjust. Prehaps it would have been better to negociate or support another political group to rise and overthrow saddam to hold the infrastructure in place. It can be said for cirtian what would have happend in this case but i feel that njot all options were explored and thus problems of violance may have been avoidable. Just to add, it has be often argued the job should have been completed the first time round so we wouldnt be in this mess now.
Sass Posted February 5, 2005 Report Posted February 5, 2005 Dav, was the cold war started by neo-conservatives? Are these just people from America? Could you look up NATO, post WWII communist bloc militaristic buildup in the Eastern European sector, Berlin, and some factual history. Sighting that one source is one thing, but how about going against multiple sources and looking for reasons why the cold war started. No we don't know what would have happened if we did nothing other than we can assume that Saddam would have continued killing Kurds in the north, and building up forces and testing the no fly zone against Kuwait. Yes the CIA missed the ball on WMDs, but the US didn't miss the ball in preventing Saddam from acquiring them. If you read the events leading up to the US decision to hit Iraq, you will see that negotiations no longer worked, Saddam continued to make excuses. The goal of Operation Desert Storm was accomplished in full. Removing Saddam from Kuwait. Perhaps you are suggesting that we should have killed him 15 years ago? Isn't that completely contrary to what you just said...negotiate? The truth of the matter is that neither you nor I would know what Saddam would have done had he remained in power, but we do know that he had a history of tyranny against Kurds, Kuwaities, Israelites, and even his own people and that he had intention of killing anything that didn't agree with him and his sons.
Paine Posted February 5, 2005 Author Report Posted February 5, 2005 Light hearted Joke to none-stop flamefest in one easy step.
Dav Posted February 5, 2005 Report Posted February 5, 2005 Dav, was the cold war started by neo-conservatives? Are these just people from America? Could you look up NATO, post WWII communist bloc militaristic buildup in the Eastern European sector, Berlin, and some factual history. Sighting that one source is one thing, but how about going against multiple sources and looking for reasons why the cold war started. No we don't know what would have happened if we did nothing other than we can assume that Saddam would have continued killing Kurds in the north, and building up forces and testing the no fly zone against Kuwait. Yes the CIA missed the ball on WMDs, but the US didn't miss the ball in preventing Saddam from acquiring them. If you read the events leading up to the US decision to hit Iraq, you will see that negotiations no longer worked, Saddam continued to make excuses. The goal of Operation Desert Storm was accomplished in full. Removing Saddam from Kuwait. Perhaps you are suggesting that we should have killed him 15 years ago? Isn't that completely contrary to what you just said...negotiate? The truth of the matter is that neither you nor I would know what Saddam would have done had he remained in power, but we do know that he had a history of tyranny against Kurds, Kuwaities, Israelites, and even his own people and that he had intention of killing anything that didn't agree with him and his sons.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> My point of negotiation was refering to now. In the 1st gulf war saddam was clearly in the wrong and thus removal was justified. This time round negotiation would have worked better seeing as no direct threat was being posed to anyone. Alot can change in 15years, what was right then may not be now.
Sass Posted February 7, 2005 Report Posted February 7, 2005 Dav I urge you, please refer to a respected historical do!@#$%^&*ent and go back to events leading up to the time that US decided to take action against Saddam in Iraq. I'm not going to outline it for you because it is a well known fact that Saddam was trying to buy time.
MonteZuma Posted February 7, 2005 Report Posted February 7, 2005 Dav I urge you, please refer to a respected historical do!@#$%^&*ent and go back to events leading up to the time that US decided to take action against Saddam in Iraq. I'm not going to outline it for you because it is a well known fact that Saddam was trying to buy time.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>So? The threat from Saddam had already been contained. We had all the time in the world.
Dav Posted February 7, 2005 Report Posted February 7, 2005 thats the point im tring to make, i am not saying removal of saddam is a bad thing, i just dont think the reasoning was valid and the timing was right. Alot of problems could have been avoided and alot of lives saved in my view if the war never began and saddam was removed by diffrent means. Before you call this "america bashing" i am also "bashing" my government as well, many people in the UK didnt support the action of blair to go to war but he did anyway.
Aileron Posted February 7, 2005 Report Posted February 7, 2005 You are right, the timing was not right. We should have done it 12 years earlier under the justification "He tried to invade Kuwait".
Dav Posted February 7, 2005 Report Posted February 7, 2005 plus in the process they got most of the way there, iraq was on its knees and the perfect opprtunity was thrown away.
MonteZuma Posted February 7, 2005 Report Posted February 7, 2005 Perhaps. But the reason they didn't advance at that time was because they were afraid of the mess that Iraq would be in afterwards, and in particular the power vacuum that would be left. Bush1 thought that it wasn't worth it. He might still be proven right - if he hasn't already.
Dav Posted February 7, 2005 Report Posted February 7, 2005 true there would have been a mess, prehaps just as bad as this one but at that time saddam was breaking international law and did pose a threat to his neiboughrs
Bajan Posted March 5, 2005 Report Posted March 5, 2005 The Internet has become a popular communication tool with the help of Tim Berners-Lee "The Creator of the Internet" responisble for HTML and the first basic web protocols....A British man....But it almost seems like Americans stole HTML and changed the dialect to American English color="#FFFFFF" instead of colour I think americans are being a litttle too hypocritcal, you guys rip on the british just as much as the british on americans, you guys call us stupid but go insane if the world calls you stupid. I mean, you guys got to choose over a !@#$%^&* (Kerry) and a Turd (Bush), just coincidence that you have 2 idiots running for president? i guess thats my "Two Pence".
Recommended Posts