Quote from skeptic123:
1. Stop lying. We are not destroing every other nation. We are not after Britain, China, Spain, Argentina, we are not even after France. We are destroying a regime which started major wars before, illegaly develops WMD now and thus threatens the humanity. You may or may not agree with what we do, but "US destoying every nation" is total BS. It is exactly the sh&t the anti-war movement is so full of.
2. Every country does what it believes is right. We are not granting priveleges. And if a country is threatened it may and does resort to whatever measures it finds applicable regardless of what we think about it. And it is unlikely to ask UN's permission either.
3. Another lie, we do not control other nations. Not a single one of them. And no, we cannot use example of other 200 countries. They are not under attack. We are.
4. If you find out that someone wants to kill your kids - it is your right to wait until your kids are dead and then retaliate. We will prevent and make sure that our kids do not get killed.
5. Who cares about your opinion anyway. Mind your own business in your third world rathole. You are safe there until you get your next military junta. And if you are indeed from Argentina - hope you will learn some lessons from your Folklend Island disgrace.
1. You misunderstood me. I wasn't implying that it is America's goal to destroy every other nation.
I was replying to your point that you America should have attacked Afghanistan in 2000 because it was a cause for concern.
Half in jest, I suggested that perhaps America could simply destroy the rest of the world and thus have no further fear of attack from anyone.
The point being that I detest the idea of attacking another country on the hunch that they've got a problem with you.
2. Yes, you're not physically standing there granting privileges, but what I am saying is that you act as those there are two sets of rules; one for America and one for the rest of the world.
Eg, It's okay for America to attack Afghanistan for harboring terrorists, but it's not okay for Serbia to disband terrorist networks operating within it's own borders, ie Kosovo?
Any country would be totally justified in attacking another on the pretext of suspecting terrorist activities. Is that the kind of world you want to see?
No, hence the two sets of rules.
3. Seek to control. Seek to exert (strong) influence.
America has never done this?
I'm starting laugh.
3a. Wow! America is "under attack" huh? Geez, I could have sworn Iraq was the one being invaded, but you never know.
FACT: Iraq has never attacked America.
Links to the attacks that DID occur are, at this point in time, pure conjecture. And I suspect they are nothing more than fantasies invented by the current adminstration, playing off the public's emotional attachement to the events of 9.11 in an attempt to hoodwink them into inadvertently supporting the administrations geopolitical goals in the Middle East (via an invasion of Iraq.)
4. I'm still waiting for this evidence that shows Iraq had imminent plans to attack America or provide the means for other forces to do so. Still waiting.
Interestingly, Iraq had these alleged WOMD for the past 12 years or so, right? I'm curious as to why a regime allegedly hell bent on attacking America failed to supply but one terrorist organization with those same stated goals even ONE TIME during this period.
5. Well, YOU cared enough to respond. Unfortunately, it seems you had very little to say apart from trying to insult my origins.
I'm sorry, but I really fail to see how my coming from a "third world rathole" (2nd world would be a better description) has any bearing WHATSOEVER on the points I am making.
And what lessons, from the Falklands, am I supposed to have learnt? Don't fuck with the British Empire?
