You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CNN in Iraq -- new report
- Thread starter Babak
- Start date
Quote from Babak:
What does the UN charter have to do with this? How does it abrogate each nation's sovereign authority to defend itself?
Babak I was referring to hapaboy's idiotic statement about the US having to "pick and choose" its fights.
As far as I know, when you're being attacked, your only choice is to either defend yourself or to surrender.
So, I can only take it to mean that hapa thinks America has to "pick and choose" which future threats -- no matter, apparently, how remote that threat is (as in the case of Iraq) -- to eliminate; which prompted my saying that it doesn't have the right to do that.
You follow? Or are you going to pull another msfe on me?
why doesn't America have that right alfonso, to eliminate it's enemies, and to eliminate those who wish us ill?
if someone expressed their desire to kill me or to hurt me, I would call the police, and they would neutralize the other person in some way. Thats the way it works in America.
i don't see why its any different with foreign affairs... except that there are no police. The dictators or governments of Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc, wish us ill, and have supported terrorism against us.
We are doing the policing ourselves, and we are neutralizing the enemy.
anyway, please explain to me alfonso, why doesn't America have that right, to eliminate it's enemies, and to eliminate those who wish us ill?
Or you can say Iraq's evil dictator was not our enemy, and he didn't wish us ill/threaten us/support terrorism.
if someone expressed their desire to kill me or to hurt me, I would call the police, and they would neutralize the other person in some way. Thats the way it works in America.
i don't see why its any different with foreign affairs... except that there are no police. The dictators or governments of Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc, wish us ill, and have supported terrorism against us.
We are doing the policing ourselves, and we are neutralizing the enemy.
anyway, please explain to me alfonso, why doesn't America have that right, to eliminate it's enemies, and to eliminate those who wish us ill?
Or you can say Iraq's evil dictator was not our enemy, and he didn't wish us ill/threaten us/support terrorism.
Quote from alfonso:
So, I can only take it to mean that hapa thinks America has to "pick and choose" which future threats -- no matter, apparently, how remote that threat is (as in the case of Iraq) -- to eliminate; which prompted my saying that it doesn't have the right to do that.
Oye Alfonso. Which of the Three Amigos are you, again?Quote from alfonso:
I was referring to hapaboy's idiotic statement about the US having to "pick and choose" its fights.
As far as I know, when you're being attacked, your only choice is to either defend yourself or to surrender.
So, I can only take it to mean that hapa thinks America has to "pick and choose" which future threats -- no matter, apparently, how remote that threat is (as in the case of Iraq) -- to eliminate; which prompted my saying that it doesn't have the right to do that.
If any of your synapses were to fire on a consistent basis, you'd realize from reading my entire post that the point I was making was that the conflicts we enter into are those that pose direct threats to our national security,and not, for example, solely because a situation exists where a dictator is brutalizing his own people.
Sheesh, if we were to invade every country that had a psycho in charge we'd have to attack at least half the world. And like I said, idiots like you who say we're hypocrites for not doing so would immediately call us imperialist scum if we even tried.
Now, as to you saying that we don't have the right to do protect ourselves? Bullshit. We have every right to, and will continue to do so, much to your dismay I'm sure.
But you know what, Alfonso? I could care less how you or anyone else feels about my government's decisions on how to protect its people from the horrific threats that exist today. This is especially true in cases like Iraq, where millions have been freed from the yoke of tyranny in the process.
Stop your whinin' and do something to help Argentina, which becomes a bigger basket case by the day.....
Quote from hapaboy:
Oye Alfonso. Which of the Three Amigos are you, again?
If any of your synapses were to fire on a consistent basis, you'd realize from reading my entire post that the point I was making was that the conflicts we enter into are those that pose direct threats to our national security,and not, for example, solely because a situation exists where a dictator is brutalizing his own people.
Sheesh, if we were to invade every country that had a psycho in charge we'd have to attack at least half the world. And like I said, idiots like you who say we're hypocrites for not doing so would immediately call us imperialist scum if we even tried.
Now, as to you saying that we don't have the right to do protect ourselves? Bullshit. We have every right to, and will continue to do so, much to your dismay I'm sure.
But you know what, Alfonso? I could care less how you or anyone else feels about my government's decisions on how to protect its people from the horrific threats that exist today. This is especially true in cases like Iraq, where millions have been freed from the yoke of tyranny in the process.
Stop your whinin' and do something to help Argentina, which becomes a bigger basket case by the day.....
A "direct threat" to your national security huh?
Well then, either the attack on Iraq had nothing to do with that criterion (afterall, where, for the love of God, has the US ever managed to show a link between Iraq and threatened US national security? Apart from the hapaboys of the world's wild imaginations) or your definition of "direct threat" is so all-encompassing that anyone who dares utter a syllable against America becomes a candidate for elimination.
Now, the problem with the latter definition (or a close relative of it), which is what you appear to be advocating, is are you prepared to extend the same right to other nations? Hmmm?
Because if you are, I can tell you that China has a much better case for bombing the living crap out of America than America did for bombing Iraq.
Of course you don't actually intend for the whole world to have this right do you hapaboy. Oh no. This is just for America. Afterall, America is the greatest nation in history, we're so good, we're so free, no one could possibly ever do better than us blah blah (ad nauseam, believe me), that's why we can do whatever the hell we want. That, buddy boy, is exactly what it comes down to.
And hapaboy, as I've said on many occasions, whatever the problems in Argentina, they are problem for -- wait for it -- Argentines. America's problems have a nasty habit of becoming the world's problems. I'm not sure if you can see the difference, but look hard, it's there.
Alfonso, why do you even bother to get up in the morning?
Want an illustration of a powerful imagination? How about someone who actually believes that a person like SH is as harmful as a newborn babe? Look in the mirror, Alf.
Oh sure. I totally imagined Hussein's actions over the past couple of decades. I imagined him attacking three of his regional neighbors. I imagined him using chemical weapons on his own people. I imagined him aggressively pursuing the production of nuclear weapons (the Israelis, by the way, "imagined" so to the point that they decided to bomb his reactor). I imagined all the links to terrorism that have been revealed thus far. I imagined that Saddam Hussein is a narcissistic megalomaniac. I imagined his repeated statements of vitriol against my country. For me to imagine that SH would ever use nukes against my country, Israel, or as blackmail to hold the global economy hostage - how could I ever come to that conclusion?Quote from alfonso:
A "direct threat" to your national security huh?
Well then, either the attack on Iraq had nothing to do with that criterion (afterall, where, for the love of God, has the US ever managed to show a link between Iraq and threatened US national security? Apart from the hapaboys of the world's wild imaginations)
Want an illustration of a powerful imagination? How about someone who actually believes that a person like SH is as harmful as a newborn babe? Look in the mirror, Alf.
Please. Grow up. "Anyone who dares utter a threat against America becomes a candidate for elimination"?!? Fool. Retard. By this rationale we would have already attacked N. Korea a long time ago, not to mention most of the Middle East, large swathes of Europe, and significant portions of Africa. Not only is your argument very imaginative, but patently absurd.or your definition of "direct threat" is so all-encompassing that anyone who dares utter a syllable against America becomes a candidate for elimination.
Now, the problem with the latter definition (or a close relative of it), which is what you appear to be advocating, is are you prepared to extend the same right to other nations? Hmmm?
Because if you are, I can tell you that China has a much better case for bombing the living crap out of America than America did for bombing Iraq.
Whether you realize it or not, your sarcastic comments are actually very accurate. Greatest nation on earth? Check. No one could possibly do better than us? Well, a superior model has yet to emerge. So check on that. We can do whatever the hell we want? Obviously. But we do not. We show amazing restraint, actually.After all, America is the greatest nation in history, we're so good, we're so free, no one could possibly ever do better than us blah blah (ad nauseam, believe me), that's why we can do whatever the hell we want. That, buddy boy, is exactly what it comes down to.
Yeah, you're right. Just think of all the "problems" we cause by helping countries like yours with various types of aid and support. Our "problems" and the actions we have taken to solve them have, for the most part, benefitted the world far more than harmed it. Of course you disagree, but if Jesus Himself appeared at your doorstep in Buenos Aires to offer you salvation, you'd first ask to see His stamped entry visa.And hapaboy, as I've said on many occasions, whatever the problems in Argentina, they are problem for -- wait for it -- Argentines. America's problems have a nasty habit of becoming the world's problems. I'm not sure if you can see the difference, but look hard, it's there.
Quote from hapaboy:
Alfonso, why do you even bother to get up in the morning?
Oh sure. I totally imagined Hussein's actions over the past couple of decades. I imagined him attacking three of his regional neighbors. I imagined him using chemical weapons on his own people. I imagined him aggressively pursuing the production of nuclear weapons (the Israelis, by the way, "imagined" so to the point that they decided to bomb his reactor). I imagined all the links to terrorism that have been revealed thus far. I imagined that Saddam Hussein is a narcissistic megalomaniac. I imagined his repeated statements of vitriol against my country. For me to imagine that SH would ever use nukes against my country, Israel, or as blackmail to hold the global economy hostage - how could I ever come to that conclusion?
Want an illustration of a powerful imagination? How about someone who actually believes that a person like SH is as harmful as a newborn babe? Look in the mirror, Alf.
Please. Grow up. "Anyone who dares utter a threat against America becomes a candidate for elimination"?!? Fool. Retard. By this rationale we would have already attacked N. Korea a long time ago, not to mention most of the Middle East, large swathes of Europe, and significant portions of Africa. Not only is your argument very imaginative, but patently absurd.
Whether you realize it or not, your sarcastic comments are actually very accurate. Greatest nation on earth? Check. No one could possibly do better than us? Well, a superior model has yet to emerge. So check on that. We can do whatever the hell we want? Obviously. But we do not. We show amazing restraint, actually.
Yeah, you're right. Just think of all the "problems" we cause by helping countries like yours with various types of aid and support. Our "problems" and the actions we have taken to solve them have, for the most part, benefitted the world far more than harmed it. Of course you disagree, but if Jesus Himself appeared at your doorstep in Buenos Aires to offer you salvation, you'd first ask to see His stamped entry visa.
Ok hapa. I'm getting tired of our little sparring match. Just like Kymar, you are stuck in your little "goodies" vs "baddies" comic book world. You guys truly do oversimplify things.
Just in short,
The threat to the US truly is imagined. If you can't understand that by now than you are an even greater idiot/fool/mental defective than I took you for.
Simple facts like that not one of his neighbors considered him enough of a threat to even diplomatically support this attack, let alone lend military support to it, obviously elude you.
Re America's "greatness". You love your country. Good luck to you. Perhaps one day you will grow up enough to understand that there are many, many people who do not share your view that it's the "greatest". Your views are so ethnocentric it's scary. The fact is that there are competing models out there; very "successful" (though probably not by your 1 dimensional standards) models. Don't just make a hasty, patriotic, canned reply to this hapa, actually do some thinking, you could really use the experience.
Re The "problems". Hapa, the US providing aid to other countries isn't really an example of what I said, ie, "the US's problems have a habit of becoming the world's problems". Sure, the US has done some good things, no denying that. But you seem to think that excuses all the suffering -- and fucking hell, has there ever been a lot of it. Christ man, do some reading you ignoramous -- that its meddling in nations' affairs has caused. But why should it excuse it? I see no reason whatsoever. You know, the two activities (providing aid, support etc and destructive meddling) don't go hand in hand.
Perhaps if you put yourself in the shoes of those on the receiving end of US foreing policy you might see things somewhat differently.
In any case, I'm done with talking about this with you guys. The beginning of the attack stirred me up -- I had really thought the idea of unilateral action was US brinksmanship at its very best -- so I got involved here. In reality, there are far better uses of my time. Good luck to you all.
>>Get on the first flight over to Damascus and hop a camel to Baghdad and help out msfe! Teach them some German efficiency and order!<<
I would think Msfe that a collection on this site will go a long way towards raising ample money for you to give some humanitarian aid to those unfortunate Iraqi people.
I for one would contribute provided we can provide you with a nice wintercoat (and you agreeing to wear it) with a slogan written on the back which says "I was anti the US coming to help you."
freealways
I would think Msfe that a collection on this site will go a long way towards raising ample money for you to give some humanitarian aid to those unfortunate Iraqi people.
I for one would contribute provided we can provide you with a nice wintercoat (and you agreeing to wear it) with a slogan written on the back which says "I was anti the US coming to help you."
freealways
I note, Alfonso, that you do a bit of picking and choosing yourself too.
I didn't notice you say : "Nor the fucking right Babak, you ignorant, arrogant."
I cannot help thinking that people who swear like this have in all likelyhood had the wrong kind of upbringing at home. Too bad that some of us have endure being subjected to dysfunctional parents.
freealways
I didn't notice you say : "Nor the fucking right Babak, you ignorant, arrogant."
I cannot help thinking that people who swear like this have in all likelyhood had the wrong kind of upbringing at home. Too bad that some of us have endure being subjected to dysfunctional parents.
freealways