IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL (isn't it?)
- Thread starter hapaboy
- Start date
I hope we have cooler heads on the helm..
If we are to just attack anyone we feel threaten us, and we have already indicated to the world that we want to start preempt wars/invasion, then by the same reasoning:
Most of the rest of the world is threatened by our actions and declared intentions.
We are the only superpower on this planet but not the only one with WMD's.
These are some other nations that have WMD's / working on them, have facilities to produce and some are selling them.
United States
Russia / USSR
United Kingdom
France
China
India
Pakistan
Israel
Iran
Iraq
North Korea
Algeria
Chechnya
Cuba
Libya
Serbia
Sudan
Syria
Argentina
Australia
Belarus
Brazil
Egypt
Japan
Kazakhstan
South Africa
Taiwan
Romania
Ukraine
click on link for more info on each nation/programs etc
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/index.html
Then shouldn't they attack us using the same reasoning? I read these threads and there is an obvious (at least in words) hatred against every nation that is opposing our views and intended actions. I'd bet many people overseas have similar emotions against us.
Of course, many of the above nations are our "allies/friends" now but what about tomorrow? If we follow the same reasoning, the possibility that maybe something is going to happen in the future, then should we just nuke em all first before they do it? USSR used to be our worst enemy and now they are with us, at least for now. Shouldn't we attack them before they change their minds?
How about North Korea? they declared nukes and delivery systems to the western United States and they threaten to use them and that is now. Shouldn't we be invading them RIGHT NOW? Saddam, of course he is despot and can be vilified even worst than what he has been so far. So can be all the rest out there. Is he a threat? Sure he is, like 90% of the rest of the nations out there, if one uses the same standards. Heck, most of the chems and bios we think he has can be synthesized at just about any well equipped lab in our own Universities. The Anthrax sent to senate had a DNA ID from our West Virginia military biolabs.
Now we are trying to bribe Turkey with 25-30 billion so they let out troops in. LOL Maybe we should just bribe Iraq, 1 bill to saddam 29 bill to iraqi people and keep them in our pockets. (remember that he used to be a friend 15 years back during the Iran-Iraq war). Save our economy 2 bill a day. Bring our people back and re-enforce our homeland, instead of cutting back in police and other emergency services in our cities.
Just some thoughts, I'm sure some may disagree. This whole situation is a big mess, has caused a lot of angst, and divisions, not only between US and our allies, but even within our people here in the states.
Good posts folks!
I just hope cool heads prevail....
Josh
max401, as noted, just some general thoughts on this thread, WMD's...tagging from the last post in line... etc. Nothing personal against you or anyone else. I am not aware of any specific format we need to follow when replying in the chitchat area.. If you find the posts offensive or out of line, please use the ignore functions.
Again nothing personal, your posts along with everyone else's here are much appreciated.
peace
Josh
Again nothing personal, your posts along with everyone else's here are much appreciated.
peace
Josh
Personal? Please, explain how an anonymous message board can be "personal?" I submit that it can not. I merely pointed out the observation that you bothered to reply to an inane post as if it was somehow a majority opinion. Like the pundit Les Kinsolving used to say: " I'll defend your right to say whatever you want, even if you are completely wrong."
Madison
Your whole approach to an argument is to raise a RED HERRING, like Lincoln killing 250,000, (now that's really coming out of left field). What are you talking about?
Civil War casualties?
Being from the South and a descendant of a CSA Veteran, I Don't even take that stance, you have got to be kidding.
Did Roosevelt kill 300,000 in World War II?
You sound like someone with a very poor understanding of American History.
Did you learn American History from a school in the Arab World?
In Baghdad perhaps?
You also argue that the Chinese are just as bad.
Last time I checked, the Chinese had not attacked or Invaded another country recently, although I have no love for the Chinese.
Let me ask you this:
Name a current Dictator who has done the following and if there is more than one, I might go along with you on military action after IRAQ.
1. Has gassed his own people and killed them in the last 20 years.
2. Has Invaded two neighbors in the last 20 years.
3. Has defied UN sanctions and continued to develop WMD in the last 10 years and has borders with 3 countries that don't care if he exports the WMD out of his country.
But the below is plenty of reason for the United States to go after Saddam notwithstanding the above reasons.
IRAQs Intelligence Agency was in contact with Mohammed ATTA the lead Hijacker Sept 11th, in Prague prior to the action against the US.
In all your Liberal Arguments, you fail.
You fail to make a point that has any logical basis.
America and the 18 European Nations that support the use of force to disarm Iraq will act probably within the next few weeks.
END GAME coming soon.
Your whole approach to an argument is to raise a RED HERRING, like Lincoln killing 250,000, (now that's really coming out of left field). What are you talking about?
Civil War casualties?
Being from the South and a descendant of a CSA Veteran, I Don't even take that stance, you have got to be kidding.
Did Roosevelt kill 300,000 in World War II?
You sound like someone with a very poor understanding of American History.
Did you learn American History from a school in the Arab World?
In Baghdad perhaps?
You also argue that the Chinese are just as bad.
Last time I checked, the Chinese had not attacked or Invaded another country recently, although I have no love for the Chinese.
Let me ask you this:
Name a current Dictator who has done the following and if there is more than one, I might go along with you on military action after IRAQ.
1. Has gassed his own people and killed them in the last 20 years.
2. Has Invaded two neighbors in the last 20 years.
3. Has defied UN sanctions and continued to develop WMD in the last 10 years and has borders with 3 countries that don't care if he exports the WMD out of his country.
But the below is plenty of reason for the United States to go after Saddam notwithstanding the above reasons.
IRAQs Intelligence Agency was in contact with Mohammed ATTA the lead Hijacker Sept 11th, in Prague prior to the action against the US.
In all your Liberal Arguments, you fail.
You fail to make a point that has any logical basis.
America and the 18 European Nations that support the use of force to disarm Iraq will act probably within the next few weeks.
END GAME coming soon.
Oh boy...where do i start....
1. Look to my previous post ...already been answered.
2. nobody cares about Castro because he can only offer sugar not oil. ( good luck with your caddilac dealership )
3" Castro dirt poor"...u dont know if you really think this statement is true......( Frobes paints a different picture. I would say theY underestimated his real net worth , but they have him at close to 10billion yes with a B)
The name of the game should be to Contain within the box....
El SEZ "The name of the game should be to Contain within the box...."
Unfortunately, there is no way to do that with IRAQ.
They have borders with other countries that help them get WMD out of the country.
In the case of IRAQ it may have already happened.
And how do you contain Launchable Missiles in a BOX?
By the way this action needs to be gotten out of the way in the next few weeks, or it will be delayed, and guess what the uncertainty will do to the market, makes it very difficult for us the Traders.
Unfortunately, there is no way to do that with IRAQ.
They have borders with other countries that help them get WMD out of the country.
In the case of IRAQ it may have already happened.
And how do you contain Launchable Missiles in a BOX?
By the way this action needs to be gotten out of the way in the next few weeks, or it will be delayed, and guess what the uncertainty will do to the market, makes it very difficult for us the Traders.
the left has no logic behind any of its arguments, its all emotion. All they can do is change the subject or spout slogans. Its real easy to say "no war!" , unfortunately that doesn't solve a damn thing.
Sounds familiar????
Fifty years ago, the classical liberal author and journalist Garet Garrett published a collection of essays called The People's Pottage (1953). In the midst of the Korean War, he tried to persuade the American people that the United States was on a new course that conflicted with the original conception of the nation. Its constitutional safeguards for the preservation of freedom were being threatened and undermined by the role the government was assuming around the world.
The specific danger was reflected in the title of one of the essays in the volume, "The Rise of Empire." Garrett summarized what he considered the requisite signs of the emerging American Empire.
First, the executive power of the government becomes increasingly dominant. The traditional institutional restraints and balances on the three branches of government are weakened, with more and more discretionary power and authority shifting to the office of the president. Congress plays an increasingly subservient role, with lawmaking and regulatory decision-making transferred to bureaus and departments under the executive's control.
Second, domestic-policy issues become increasingly subordinate to foreig-policy matters. Out of the ashes of the Second World War, Garrett argued, the United States had taken on the status and position of a global policeman responsible for the "the peace of the world." To fulfill this task, all other matters become of secondary importance. Threats and military actions around the globe place the American people more and more in harm's way. And in the middle of the inevitable crises that come with global military commitments, "sacrifices" of freedom at home are required to ensure "national survival" in the face of unending dangers on every continent where U.S. forces stand at the ready.
Third, Empire threatens to result in the ascendancy of the military mind over the civilian mind. Civil society places the dignity and privacy of the individual at the center of social affairs. Commerce and trade are the peaceful and voluntary means and methods by which people interact for mutual improvement of their lives. The military mind, on the other hand, imposes hierarchy and control over all those under the direction of the commander in chief. The successful pursuit of the "mission" always takes precedence over the individual and his life. And Empire, by necessity, places increasing importance on military prowess and presence at the expense of civilian life and its network of noncoercive, market relationships.
Fourth, Empire creates a system of satellite nations. As Garrett explained it, "From the point of view of Empire the one fact common to all satellites is that their security is deemed vital to the security of the Empire.... The Empire, in its superior strength, assumes responsibility for the security and the well being of the satellite nation, and the satellite nation undertakes to stand with its back to the Empire and face the common enemy."
Fifth, Empire brings with it both arrogance and fear among the imperial people.As the citizens of the nation that takes on the role of "master of the world," the people increasingly consider themselves all-powerful and superior to those over whom their government has assumed guardianship. More and more on the tongue of the citizens and their political spokesmen are references to "our" superior values, as well as "our" power and importance in all things in the world. Yet at the same time, Empire brings fear. Enemies and threats are now all around the people of the Empire, creating fears of attack and destruction from any corner of the world. Even the "friends" among other nations create suspicion and doubt about their loyalty and dependability in moments of crisis.
And, finally, Empire creates the illusion that a nation is a prisoner of history. The language of Empire contains such phases and ideas as "it is our time to maintain the peace of the world," or "it is our responsibility to save civilization and serve mankind." There emerges a sense and an attitude of inevitability, that "if not us, then who?" Empire becomes the burden we, the imperial people, not only must bear but from which we have no escape. "Destiny" has marked us for duty and greatness.
An empire in everything bu
more: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0304b.asp
Friggin accurate description on the current state of the nation's affairs. Don't care for extreme leftist views too much, but he does bring up few good points.
keymar just for you no exclamations or capitals
Fifty years ago, the classical liberal author and journalist Garet Garrett published a collection of essays called The People's Pottage (1953). In the midst of the Korean War, he tried to persuade the American people that the United States was on a new course that conflicted with the original conception of the nation. Its constitutional safeguards for the preservation of freedom were being threatened and undermined by the role the government was assuming around the world.
The specific danger was reflected in the title of one of the essays in the volume, "The Rise of Empire." Garrett summarized what he considered the requisite signs of the emerging American Empire.
First, the executive power of the government becomes increasingly dominant. The traditional institutional restraints and balances on the three branches of government are weakened, with more and more discretionary power and authority shifting to the office of the president. Congress plays an increasingly subservient role, with lawmaking and regulatory decision-making transferred to bureaus and departments under the executive's control.
Second, domestic-policy issues become increasingly subordinate to foreig-policy matters. Out of the ashes of the Second World War, Garrett argued, the United States had taken on the status and position of a global policeman responsible for the "the peace of the world." To fulfill this task, all other matters become of secondary importance. Threats and military actions around the globe place the American people more and more in harm's way. And in the middle of the inevitable crises that come with global military commitments, "sacrifices" of freedom at home are required to ensure "national survival" in the face of unending dangers on every continent where U.S. forces stand at the ready.
Third, Empire threatens to result in the ascendancy of the military mind over the civilian mind. Civil society places the dignity and privacy of the individual at the center of social affairs. Commerce and trade are the peaceful and voluntary means and methods by which people interact for mutual improvement of their lives. The military mind, on the other hand, imposes hierarchy and control over all those under the direction of the commander in chief. The successful pursuit of the "mission" always takes precedence over the individual and his life. And Empire, by necessity, places increasing importance on military prowess and presence at the expense of civilian life and its network of noncoercive, market relationships.
Fourth, Empire creates a system of satellite nations. As Garrett explained it, "From the point of view of Empire the one fact common to all satellites is that their security is deemed vital to the security of the Empire.... The Empire, in its superior strength, assumes responsibility for the security and the well being of the satellite nation, and the satellite nation undertakes to stand with its back to the Empire and face the common enemy."
Fifth, Empire brings with it both arrogance and fear among the imperial people.As the citizens of the nation that takes on the role of "master of the world," the people increasingly consider themselves all-powerful and superior to those over whom their government has assumed guardianship. More and more on the tongue of the citizens and their political spokesmen are references to "our" superior values, as well as "our" power and importance in all things in the world. Yet at the same time, Empire brings fear. Enemies and threats are now all around the people of the Empire, creating fears of attack and destruction from any corner of the world. Even the "friends" among other nations create suspicion and doubt about their loyalty and dependability in moments of crisis.
And, finally, Empire creates the illusion that a nation is a prisoner of history. The language of Empire contains such phases and ideas as "it is our time to maintain the peace of the world," or "it is our responsibility to save civilization and serve mankind." There emerges a sense and an attitude of inevitability, that "if not us, then who?" Empire becomes the burden we, the imperial people, not only must bear but from which we have no escape. "Destiny" has marked us for duty and greatness.
An empire in everything bu
more: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0304b.asp
Friggin accurate description on the current state of the nation's affairs. Don't care for extreme leftist views too much, but he does bring up few good points.
keymar just for you no exclamations or capitals