NationStates Jolt Archive

Gingrich, whose rabid militarism makes even bloodthirsty warmonger John McCain look like Martin Luther King, Jr. in comparison, has called for (http://jta.org/news/article/2009/05/03/1004875/gingrich-remove-iranian-regime) "regime change" in Iran (because remember, that worked so well in Iraq...not!).

Of course, the idiocy isn't limited to the GOP. Many Democrats are also buying into the "ZOMG teh Iranians r making n00kz!!!!!111" nonsense, even though all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously concurred that not only had Iran abandoned its WMD program, but it was several years away from being able to successfully develop nuclear weapons even if it wanted to.

Remember, when U.S. politicians say "Country first," they don't mean the U.S.

What a nutcase.

Gingrich is meaningless. His voice won't be heard by the President anyways, so we can simply point and laugh.

Gingrich is meaningless. His voice won't be heard by the President anyways, so we can simply point and laugh.

Well, Obama also buys the "Iran wants WMDs" bullshit, and he appointed a person who promised outright genocide if Israel was attacked, to his Cabinet.

Gingrich likened negotiations with the current Iranian regime to negotiating with Adolf Hitler, and called for "enforcing the disruption of gasoline supplies until the Iranian economy broke, the ayatollahs were ousted and a new regime was in place without a single shot fired." That earned thunderous applause.

The Georgia Republican also called for a military strike to destroy missiles in Iran and North Korea.

Political godwin?

I have a feeling that if Gingrich becomes Republican nominee in 2012, we'll get another 4 years of Obama.

Well, Obama also buys the "Iran wants WMDs" bullshit, and he appointed a person who promised outright genocide if Israel was attacked, to his Cabinet.

He is still the President, so Hillary's words mean jack. Besides, he won't pull off that kind of crap after he saw what it did to the GOP brand.

Gringrich was good at keeping spending down while he was Speaker. I say just make him that again.


Republican congress + Democratic Pres. = goody

He is still the President, so Hillary's words mean jack. Besides, he won't pull off that kind of crap after he saw what it did to the GOP brand.

As Obama told AIPAC, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything."

Firstly, Israel needs to defend itself.

Secondly, we need to dissolve Israel and the "Palestinian authority" or whatever, and replace them both with Gaddafi's "Isratine" idea.

Gringrich was good at keeping spending down while he was Speaker. I say just make him that again.


Republican congress + Democratic Pres. = goody

Gingrich isn't against spending per se; he's against spending by Democrats.

Gringrich was good at keeping spending down while he was Speaker. I say just make him that again.


Republican congress + Democratic Pres. = goody

Gotta love Gridlock.

Gingrich isn't against spending per se; he's against spending by Democrats.

And when a Democrat is President then...

(Puts two thumbs up)

Ayyyyyyyyyyy....

Gringrich was good at keeping spending down while he was Speaker. I say just make him that again.


Republican congress + Democratic Pres. = goody

Republican NOTHING + Democratic Pres + Further Left Congress = Good.

Republican NOTHING + Democratic Pres + Further Left Congress = Good.

Nope, because then they get to do whatever they want, and that usually means they'll go overboard, which is bad.

Republican NOTHING + Democratic Pres + Further Left Congress = Good.

No, thanks. The party we have now (Republicans = Democrats = no difference) is inflicting more than enough damage as is.

Nope, because then they get to do whatever they want, and that usually means they'll go overboard, which is bad.

This has been my point all along, but noo, some people here act like the Democrats can do no wrong.

Gotta love Gridlock.

I do. I just wish we had so much gridlock that the politicians would lose their minds and shoot themselves, and each other.

This has been my point all along, but noo, some people here act like the Democrats can do no wrong.

I don't think H2 is arguing that the Democrats are perfect, only that they're a lot better than the Republicans. In my opinion, they're equally odious.

I do. I just wish we had so much gridlock that the politicians would lose their minds and shoot themselves, and each other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZGaaqH2o6I Good times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZGaaqH2o6I Good times.

Why can't Congressmen fight from time to time? That'd make me watch C-Span.

Why can't Congressmen fight from time to time? That'd make me watch C-Span.
Nearest I could find - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlXKBribICs&feature=related :D

Nearest I could find - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlXKBribICs&feature=related :D

Hehe nice. :D

Why can't Congressmen fight from time to time? That'd make me watch C-Span.

Me, too. Especially if said fights were fatal.

Remember, when U.S. politicians say "Country first," they don't mean the U.S.I also blame the Jews for this.

I also blame the Jews for this.

I don't. I blame politicians.

Why can't Congressmen fight from time to time? That'd make me watch C-Span.

There was that Senator who was caned down after his insulted the honor of the South. Unfortunately, the caning hurt him pretty badly, to the point he had to take time off, and he was speaking out against slavery, so I can't really laugh at him for what happened. Much.

This has been my point all along, but noo, some people here act like the Democrats can do no wrong.

Oh, no. I'm not arguing that Democrats can do no wrong. I'm arguing that Republicans can do no right.

I don't. I blame politicians.I suppose I agree that political figures like Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are pretty despicable, but I wouldn't tar all politicians with the same brush: look at that great American, FDR, for example. :)

I suppose I agree that political figures like Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are pretty despicable, but I wouldn't tar all politicians with the same brush: look at that great American, FDR, for example. :)

Something tells me Ledgersia isn't a fan of FDR. Just a hunch. ;)

Oh, no. I'm not arguing that Democrats can do no wrong. I'm arguing that Republicans can do no right.

Yea, freeing the slave, Republicans never should've done that, and Southern Democrats were great at passing the Jim Crow Laws, yea....

H2, you need to realize that by the end of the day, whether they're R, D, or L, they're politicians which means that they all suck. Yes, this applies to Obama.

Something tells me Ledgersia isn't a fan of FDR. Just a hunch.Something tells me we're about to get a lecture on how FDR secretly planned Pearl Harbor while spying for Stalin and smoking crack.

I suppose I agree that political figures like Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are pretty despicable, but I wouldn't tar all politicians with the same brush: look at that great American, FDR, for example. :)

Ron Paul is horrible on some issues, especially immigration, but at least he's much less bloodthirsty than most politicians in Washington.

Something tells me we're about to get a lecture on how FDR secretly planned Pearl Harbor while spying for Stalin and smoking crack.

Crack wasn't around in 1941, I don't think. ;)

H2, you need to realize that by the end of the day, whether they're R, D, or L, they're politicians which means that they all suck. Yes, this applies to Obama.

Give this man a [insert desired prize here].

Yea, freeing the slave, Republicans never should've done that, and Southern Democrats were great at passing the Jim Crow Laws, yea....

That's it? Back then, REPUBLICANS were the liberal ones. Now, Republicans were the ones who started the mass murder in Iraq, tortured people and nearly made the US into a third-world country in eight short years, while calling anti-American whoever dared to disagree. I know LBJ was a Democrat, and I hope he's suffering wherever he is, but the fact remains that the Republicans nowadays can do nothing right.

Crack wasn't around in 1941, I don't think. ;)

Opium was.

That's it? Back then, REPUBLICANS were the liberal ones. Now, Republicans were the ones who started the mass murder in Iraq, tortured people and nearly made the US into a third-world country in eight short years, while calling anti-American whoever dared to disagree.

You do realize that in 2003, several Democrats did vote for the War in Iraq right? Remember John Kerry line about voting against it before he voted for it? So, don't act like the Democrats are innocent in this regard.

I also notice that you conveniently left out the second part of my post.

That's it? Back then, REPUBLICANS were the liberal ones. Now, Republicans were the ones who started the mass murder in Iraq, tortured people and nearly made the US into a third-world country in eight short years, while calling anti-American whoever dared to disagree. I know LBJ was a Democrat, and I hope he's suffering wherever he is, but the fact remains that the Republicans nowadays can do nothing right.

It's not just the Republicans who nearly made the U.S. a Third World country.

And while they were guilty of mass murder and torture, Democrats are guilty of the same things in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

You do realize that in 2003, several Democrats did vote for the War in Iraq right? Remember John Kerry line about voting against it before he voted for it? So, don't act like the Democrats are innocent in this regard.

I also notice that you conveniently left out the second part of my post.

Again, I'm not arguing Democrats are perfect, but they are certainly more desirable than the damned GOP.

Again, I'm not arguing Democrats are perfect, but they are certainly more desirable than the damned GOP.

*laughs* No, they are not. They honestly are not. The only difference between a D and R is how much shit they will spew. Whether it's R or D, by the end of the day, you're just going to get shit.

Again, I'm not arguing Democrats are perfect, but they are certainly more desirable than the damned GOP.

Not really.

*laughs* No, they are not. They honestly are not. The only difference between a D and R is how much shit they will spew. Whether it's R or D, by the end of the day, you're just going to get shit.

At least Obama stopped torture, and Bill Clinton created a surplus.

But on the whole, I agree with you.

At least Obama stopped torture, and Bill Clinton created a surplus.

But on the whole, I agree with you.

Which is why I wonder if tribes ever had this problem. Probably.

Which is why I wonder if tribes ever had this problem. Probably.

They did: The Proletariats (supposedly the party of helping the people) and the Optimates (supposedly the wealthy and patriotic party).

Yea, freeing the slave, Republicans never should've done that, and Southern Democrats were great at passing the Jim Crow Laws, yea....

H2, you need to realize that by the end of the day, whether they're R, D, or L, they're politicians which means that they all suck. Yes, this applies to Obama.
The Republicans don't really get to keep dining out on that forever, not when their answer to "What have you done for us lately?" is so abysmal.

Also, I think you need to realize that that pat, cookie-cutter "feh, all politicians are the same" thing just doesn't cut it when the two parties are so clearly and obviously NOT the same. The Dems are just as corrupt as they ever were. But the Reps are almost 100% MORE corrupt and MORE opposed to all traditional American positions than they ever were before Reagan (their downslide has been going on that long). That kind of shrug-it-off attitude really annoys me when it is so clear that only one of the two parties really poses a serious threat to civil liberties and international relations for the US.

Newt Gingrich is not some harmless old blowhard. He is skilled political player who had allied himself with the most radical elements of the Republican rightwing. He sincerely agrees with their idiotic views only partially. The rest of his support for them is nothing but a cynical bid to regain political influence and power for himself. I base that assertion on his record while he was in office. That man is toxic.

The Republicans don't really get to keep dining out on that forever, not when their answer to "What have you done for us lately?" is so abysmal.

Especially since most of major ones admire Ronald Reagan more than Abraham Lincoln.

As Obama told AIPAC, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything."

Firstly, Israel needs to defend itself.

Secondly, we need to dissolve Israel and the "Palestinian authority" or whatever, and replace them both with Gaddafi's "Isratine" idea.
We all know how fast Obama can change his mind... His promises aren't worth the teleprompter he reads them from.

I think if we tried to dissolve Israel, we might find out to what lengths they would go in order to defend themselves.

Lastly, Newt gives a good speech, but he is carrying a little too much baggage to be elected to any public office.

Gingrich isn't against spending per se; he's against spending by Democrats.

which is phase two of the equation is a democrat for president. Government runs best when the two sides prevent each other from spending.

Newt gives a good speech, but he is carrying a little too much baggage to be elected to any public office.

Newt is an idiot who should shut up, plain and simple.

It's not America's place to force regime change on other countries. The sooner America learns this, the better it is for America.

The other thing about the "all politicians are as bad" line is it reveals the aptness of this thread title. Of course pray to God - because that's all these people can do. They're never going to do anything in the real world to stop Gingrich: never going to support another politician, try to reform a party, work for local or community officers, run for office themselves, or in all probability vote at all. They'll sit inside and lecture us on how everyone else is terrible without doing a thing themselves. Perhaps it's meant to come across as hardened cynicism, but right now it just looks like squealing brattishness.

Newt is an idiot who should shut up, plain and simple.

It's not America's place to force regime change on other countries. The sooner America learns this, the better it is for America.

We shouldn't just stop regime changes. We should stop all meddling in foreign countries. We should interact with the world as much as possible, but not intervene at all. Trade, diplomatic relations, immigration, emigration, and cultural exchanges are fine. Meddling is not.

We shouldn't just stop regime changes. We should stop all meddling in foreign countries. We should interact with the world as much as possible, but not intervene at all. Trade, diplomatic relations, immigration, emigration, and cultural exchanges are fine. Meddling is not.

^^^GODS, this.

We shouldn't just stop regime changes. We should stop all meddling in foreign countries. We should interact with the world as much as possible, but not intervene at all. Trade, diplomatic relations, immigration, emigration, and cultural exchanges are fine. Meddling is not.

Some asshole will always being doing that, some "world power". The moment we stop, the vacuum will be filled, probably by China.

Some asshole will always being doing that, some "world power". The moment we stop, the vacuum will be filled, probably by China.

Let them have their "fun," then. And eventually, their empire will go the way of the dodo, just like ours will, no matter how much Obama, McCain, Hillary, Gingrich, etc. wish otherwise.

Republican NOTHING + Democratic Pres + Further Left Congress = Good.

So much for the concept of the public weal :rolleyes:

^^^GODS, this.

Then we'll be the only ninnies out there not meddling, and we'll be meddled with by everyone and their mother.

Let them have their "fun," then. And eventually, their empire will go the way of the dodo, just like ours will, no matter how much Obama, McCain, Hillary, Gingrich, etc. wish otherwise.

As depressing as it is, that is the fate of the planet for the foreseeable future. Some empire will always be bringing the "ideal society" to the rest of world.

Then we'll be the only ninnies out there not meddling, and we'll be meddled with by everyone and their mother.

Not really. I don't see anyone "meddling" with Costa Rica, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein, Turkmenistan, Bhutan, Andorra, or San Marino.

As depressing as it is, that is the fate of the planet for the foreseeable future. Some empire will always be bringing the "ideal society" to the rest of world.

True, but that doesn't mean it has to be us.

Then we'll be the only ninnies out there not meddling, and we'll be meddled with by everyone and their mother.

Last time Brazil meddled with the US - Never.

Last time the US meddled with Brazil - 1964. I'd gladly sacrifice LBJ's soul to revive the dead from the oppression this meddling supported.

True, but that doesn't mean it has to be us.

Whom would you prefer? The choice would have drastic effects on the whole world.

Last time Brazil meddled with the US - Never.

Last time the US meddled with Brazil - 1964. I'd gladly sacrifice LBJ's soul to revive the dead from the oppression this meddling supported.

Last time Brazil did anything good for the world- never

Last time US did something good for the world- Right now, killing people who would kill you, because you don't agree with them.

Last time Brazil meddled with the US - Never.

Don't forget, Jango Goulart was an evil, baby-eating, devil-worshipping commie who needed to be overthrown and replaced by a more compliant (to Washington) government. All in the name of freedom, you see.

The other thing about the "all politicians are as bad" line is it reveals the aptness of this thread title. Of course pray to God - because that's all these people can do. They're never going to do anything in the real world to stop Gingrich: never going to support another politician, try to reform a party, work for local or community officers, run for office themselves, or in all probability vote at all. They'll sit inside and lecture us on how everyone else is terrible without doing a thing themselves. Perhaps it's meant to come across as hardened cynicism, but right now it just looks like squealing brattishness.
Very true. To me it is a false maturity that gives nothing but an excuse for doing nothing, remaining neutral even when neutrality is a flaw of character.

Last time Brazil did anything good for the world- never

Wow. Epic fail.

Last time US did something good for the world- Right now, killing people who would kill you, because you don't agree with them.

Ah, you're one of those "They hate our freedoms" types.

Last time Brazil did anything good for the world- never

Last time US did something good for the world- Right now, killing people who would kill you, because you don't agree with them.
I don't want you to kill them for me, thanks. You can stop now. I'm perfectly capable of dealing with my own enemies.

Last time Brazil did anything good for the world- never

Last time US did something good for the world- Right now, killing people who would kill you, because you don't agree with them.

The first statement is a joke that has "didn't do the research" all over it.

The second statement would be true if the US stayed in Afghanistan - and if it was about "not agreeing". See, there's a reason the Palácio da Alvorada got no planes thrown at it: We don't screw with other countries because we know this tends to bite us in the ass years later.

Whom would you prefer? The choice would have drastic effects on the whole world.

Not us, that's for sure.

Don't forget, Jango Goulart was an evil, baby-eating, devil-worshipping commie who needed to be overthrown and replaced by a more compliant (to Washington) government. All in the name of freedom, you see.

I'm not saying what we did was right, far from it. We should have picked better people to led the coup. If we had put in people who would merely oppress communism, instead of opressing everybody, there wouldn't be an issue. Hindsight is 20/20.

The second statement would be true if the US stayed in Afghanistan - and if it was about "not agreeing". See, there's a reason the Palácio da Alvorada got no planes thrown at it: We don't screw with other countries because we know this tends to bite us in the ass years later.

No, H2, it's obviously because Brazil isn't free enough. If you guys had more freedom, the terrorists would hate and envy you guys, too, and you'd be getting attacked, also.

I'm not saying what we did was right, far from it. We should have picked better people to led the coup. If we had put in people who would merely oppress communism, instead of opressing everybody, there wouldn't be an issue. Hindsight is 20/20.

Goulart didn't oppress anyone. Nor did he pose a threat to the U.S., or to any other country, for that matter.

I'm not saying what we did was right, far from it. We should have picked better people to led the coup. If we had put in people who would merely oppress communism, instead of opressing everybody, there wouldn't be an issue. Hindsight is 20/20.

You should have "picked" nobody. There shouldn't have been a coup. And LBJ's soul should suffer, forever, for it.

No, H2, it's obviously because Brazil isn't free enough. If you guys had more freedom, the terrorists would hate and envy you guys, too, and you'd be getting attacked, also.

>.>

Oh, really? Why don't you take this statement and sh*gets shot*

The other thing about the "all politicians are as bad" line is it reveals the aptness of this thread title. Of course pray to God - because that's all these people can do. They're never going to do anything in the real world to stop Gingrich: never going to support another politician, try to reform a party, work for local or community officers, run for office themselves, or in all probability vote at all. They'll sit inside and lecture us on how everyone else is terrible without doing a thing themselves. Perhaps it's meant to come across as hardened cynicism, but right now it just looks like squealing brattishness.

"Do not give into evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it."

>.>

Oh, really? Why don't you take this statement and sh*gets shot*

Remember, they don't hate us for what we do. They hate us because we're free. Don't ever forget that!

Not us, that's for sure.

When the choice affects billions of this planet's inhabitants, it is important to think about.

The first statement is a joke that has "didn't do the research" all over it.

The second statement would be true if the US stayed in Afghanistan - and if it was about "not agreeing". See, there's a reason the Palácio da Alvorada got no planes thrown at it: We don't screw with other countries because we know this tends to bite us in the ass years later.


No, Palácio da Alvorada hasn't had plnes thrown at it, is because they never take a stand on anything ever. All they do is sit on a soapbox and yell. Much like you. People who don't take action are people without convictions. For a person with convictions, violence is inevitable. If you truely believe something, and want to change things, fight for your cause. Do not just sit there and complain if your not ready to take action.


Wow. Epic fail.

Ah, you're one of those "They hate our freedoms" types.

I know they don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we don't follow their particular set of beliefs.

The other thing about the "all politicians are as bad" line is it reveals the aptness of this thread title. Of course pray to God - because that's all these people can do. They're never going to do anything in the real world to stop Gingrich: never going to support another politician, try to reform a party, work for local or community officers, run for office themselves, or in all probability vote at all. They'll sit inside and lecture us on how everyone else is terrible without doing a thing themselves. Perhaps it's meant to come across as hardened cynicism, but right now it just looks like squealing brattishness.

I am doing something. I fully intend to rival the influence of these fellows.

Remember, they don't hate us for what we do. They hate us because we're free. Don't ever forget that!

>.>

Oh, yeah? Go f*gets shot*

...fish. Go Fish. *Dies*

I don't think the United States would invade Iran. The last thing America needs is another war. With that being said, there is a very good reason why the US does not want to have to risk letting Iran obtain nuclear weapons.

As far as the United States is concerned, Iran is a hostile and rogue nation that is a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran allegedly supports Hamas and Hezbollah. Which the United States government considers to be terrorist organizations. It also doesn't help that the government of Iran is openly anti-american and anti-western. Calling the USA the 'Great Satan.'

The United States still hasn't forgiven Iran for taking their embassy staff hostage and have ceased relations with Iran since 1979. The USA sees Iran as a national security threat which is why it vehemently opposes Iran having any nuclear technology.

When the choice affects billions of this planet's inhabitants, it is important to think about.

I'd prefer a country like Brazil. Brazil has a level-headed, rational, pragmatic foreign policy. Hell, President Lula had cordial relations with both the U.S. and Venezuela.

Not really. I don't see anyone "meddling" with

Then you're not paying close enough attention.

Costa Rica,

The US has deliberately meddled in Costa Rican affairs for decades, including basing US troops when dealing with a Latin American revolution or two.

Sweden,

The secret defense pact with the US?

Finland,

Until the collapse of the USSR, they were dominated by the Soviets.

Ireland,

Great Britain.


Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein,

Germany, being the obvious meddler. Most recently, there's the case of the German Finance minister is deliberately seeking to create pressure to force all of these states to adhere more closely to the sorts of banking and taxation laws that other states follow. Not just the Germans, though, but also several other large, developed democracies are deliberately applying pressure to these states to change their policies.

Turkmenistan,

The US, Russia, the UK, China, India, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkmenistan

Bhutan,

This one you might have a point on. But that's also because Bhutan is virtually completely cut off from the rest of the world.

Andorra

France, anyone?

, or San Marino.

Italy, anyone?

I'd prefer a country like Brazil. Brazil has a level-headed, rational, pragmatic foreign policy. Hell, President Lula had cordial relations with both the U.S. and Venezuela.

Not enough power. It would have to be someone like Russia, China, or a nation with similar capabilities.

I don't think the United States would invade Iran. The last thing America needs is another war. With that being said, there is a very good reason why the US does not want to have to risk letting Iran obtain nuclear weapons.

As far as the United States is concerned, Iran is a hostile and rogue nation that is a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran allegedly supports Hamas and Hezbollah. Which the United States government considers to be terrorist organizations. It also doesn't help that the government of Iran is openly anti-american and anti-western. Calling the USA the 'Great Satan.'

The United States still hasn't forgiven Iran for taking their embassy staff hostage and have ceased relations with Iran since 1979. The USA sees Iran as a national security threat which is why it vehemently opposes Iran having any nuclear technology.

Do you know why Iran hates the U.S.? Iranians have much better memories than we do. They haven't forgotten how we deposed the democratically-elected Mossadegh and re-instated the Shah, whose secret police were trained by the U.S., whose military was supplied by the U.S., and whose government was lavishly funded by the U.S.

Then you're not paying close enough attention.



The US has deliberately meddled in Costa Rican affairs for decades, including basing US troops when dealing with a Latin American revolution or two.



The secret defense pact with the US?



Until the collapse of the USSR, they were dominated by the Soviets.



Great Britain.




Germany, being the obvious meddler. Most recently, there's the case of the German Finance minister is deliberately seeking to create pressure to force all of these states to adhere more closely to the sorts of banking and taxation laws that other states follow. Not just the Germans, though, but also several other large, developed democracies are deliberately applying pressure to these states to change their policies.



The US, Russia, the UK, China, India, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkmenistan



This one you might have a point on. But that's also because Bhutan is virtually completely cut off from the rest of the world.



France, anyone?



Italy, anyone?

Ah, but how many terrorist attacks have there been in these countries?

Do you know why Iran hates the U.S.? Iranians have much better memories than we do. They haven't forgotten how we deposed the democratically-elected Mossadegh and re-instated the Shah, whose secret police were trained by the U.S., whose military was supplied by the U.S., and whose government was lavishly funded by the U.S.

How can they better memories? The vast majority of the population doesn't live long enough to remember it. Outside of those with power, who live like kings while the bast majority of their countrymen starve.

No, Palácio da Alvorada hasn't had plnes thrown at it, is because they never take a stand on anything ever. All they do is sit on a soapbox and yell. Much like you. People who don't take action are people without convictions. For a person with convictions, violence is inevitable. If you truely believe something, and want to change things, fight for your cause. Do not just sit there and complain if your not ready to take action.




I know they don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we don't follow their particular set of beliefs.

The funny thing about the two paragraphs here is this cognitive dissonance of yours. The bolded part might elucidate why is it that your statements are quite at odds with one another, but I'll be nice and spell it out: We don't follow their set of beliefs either, and they know it, and Palácio da Alvorada still stands. By the first of your sentences you admit it's not "because we don't follow their beliefs". And then you try to make an opposing claim in the second one.

It's sorta cute.

How can they better memories? The vast majority of the population doesn't live long enough to remember it. Outside of those with power, who live like kings while the bast majority of their countrymen starve.

Iranians' living standards don't exactly compare to those of, say, Norwegians, but Iran isn't exactly Burundi, either. They enjoy a medium standard of living. And Middle Easterners in general remember things much better than we do.

Ah, but how terrorist attacks have there been in these countries?

Given that foreign terrorist attacks are actually so rare as to be irrelevant, (the US has had two in my lifetime), I don't see how this really matters.

The funny thing about the two paragraphs here is this cognitive dissonance of yours. The bolded part might elucidate why is it that your statements are quite at odds with one another, but I'll be nice and spell it out: We don't follow their set of beliefs either, and they know it, and Palácio da Alvorada still stands. By the first of your sentences you admit it's not "because we don't follow their beliefs". And then you try to make an opposing claim in the second one.

It's sorta cute.

They haven't attacked you because most of them are so brainwashed, all they know is how to hate one country at a time. If they defeat america, and Western Europe falls under Shai law, they'll come for you next.

Given that foreign terrorist attacks are actually so rare as to be irrelevant, (the US has had two in my lifetime), I don't see how this really matters.

It very well does matter. Have you read any of Chalmers Johnson's books?

They haven't attacked you because most of them are so brainwashed, all they know is how to hate one country at a time. If they defeat america, and Western Europe falls under Shai law, they'll come for you next.

:tongue: There no way in Hell they can "defeat" the United States.

They haven't attacked you because most of them are so brainwashed, all they know is how to hate one country at a time. If they defeat america, and Western Europe falls under Shai law, they'll come for you next.

I'm sure H2's gonna lose a lot of sleep over that.

:tongue: There no way in Hell they can "defeat" the United States.

They defeated the U.S.S.R. Why can't they take out another evil empire?

They haven't attacked you because most of them are so brainwashed, all they know is how to hate one country at a time. If they defeat america, and Western Europe falls under Shai law, they'll come for you next.

That statement is laughable, plain and simple.

They haven't attacked you because most of them are so brainwashed, all they know is how to hate one country at a time.

Then how come most of them manage to hate both the US and Israel?


If they defeat america, and Western Europe falls under Shai law, they'll come for you next.

Why would they attack Brazil, Brazil hasn't exactly been doing anything to them. In addition, how would western Europe fall under Sharia law?

They defeated the U.S.S.R. Why can't they take out another evil empire?

His talking about Iran occupying and running the United States and Europe. It is fucking ridiculous.

How can they better memories?

It's a cultural thing. The West has often been referred to as a "People without history", referencing the fact that we've oriented ourselves around other goals than most of the world's other cultures. Near Eastern societies tend to focus on pas events far more than we do, especially Persians who remember all the way back to the Battle of Karbala when it comes to their Arab neighbors.

The vast majority of the population doesn't live long enough to remember it. Outside of those with power, who live like kings while the bast majority of their countrymen starve.

That's not actually an accurate description of Iran.

Why would they attack Brazil, Brazil hasn't exactly been doing anything to them.

You DO realize you made a mistake in asking that, right? He'll throw more baseless crap at us. :p

That statement is laughable, plain and simple.

Bra-zil, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?

Do you know why Iran hates the U.S.? Iranians have much better memories than we do. They haven't forgotten how we deposed the democratically-elected Mossadegh and re-instated the Shah, whose secret police were trained by the U.S., whose military was supplied by the U.S., and whose government was lavishly funded by the U.S.

Yes, I agree. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality that my government had (The US) during the cold war was crap and only caused problems down the road. However, it still does not justify what the Iranian government has done afterwards with regards to supporting terrorism.

That statement is laughable, plain and simple.

When Johnny Jihd has his bare foot heel on your throat shouting "Alah Akbar!" You won't be laughing.



They defeated the U.S.S.R. Why can't they take out another evil empire?

Because the last evil empire fell in 1992?

His talking about Iran occupying and running the United States and Europe. It is fucking ridiculous.

Right.

That's not actually an accurate description of Iran.

Indeed...

When Johnny Jihd has his bare foot heel on your throat shouting "Alah Akbar!" You won't be laughing.

The A key of your keyboard has a problem...

No, really. That statement of yours is so ridiculous that all that I care to point out about it is that your A key seems to have a problem.

When Johnny Jihd has his bare foot heel on your throat shouting "Alah Akbar!" You won't be laughing.

We'll worry about that when the time comes (that is, never).

When Johnny Jihd has his bare foot heel on your throat shouting "Alah Akbar!" You won't be laughing.

Won't happen.

Because the last evil empire fell in 1992?

All empires fall.

Yes, I agree. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality that my government had (The US) during the cold war was crap and only caused problems down the road. However, it still does not justify what the Iranian government has done afterwards with regards to supporting terrorism.

Of course. Terrorism is inexcusable no matter who does it, and no matter what the reason is.

It very well does matter. Have you read any of Chalmers Johnson's books?

Key to everything Johnson is his basic thesis that the US has developed a global empire centered on military bases around the world, and that is laughable. His figures are often wrong, out of date, or extremely distorted. Key omissions are glaring, and he's out of step with almost the entire academy. How about we consider someone such as Gaddis, Mueller or Herrmann, they'll give you a radically different (and far more accurate) set of viewpoints.

Yes, I've read him, and I have dismissed him.

But, as to other matters, terrorism is almost entirely a domestic threat, with international terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda being so small and rare as to be nothing more than bit players that paranoid states and populations overrespond to. They're the swine flu of international relations.

Key to everything Johnson is his basic thesis that the US has developed a global empire centered on military bases around the world, and that is laughable. His figures are often wrong, out of date, or extremely distorted. Key omissions are glaring, and he's out of step with almost the entire academy. How about we consider someone such as Gaddis, Mueller or Herrmann, they'll give you a radically different (and far more accurate) set of viewpoints.

Yes, I've read him, and I have dismissed him.

You're entitled to your opinions, of course. The important thing is that you're open-minded enough to read opposing viewpoints. I respect that. :)

Then how come most of them manage to hate both the US and Israel?




Why would they attack Brazil, Brazil hasn't exactly been doing anything to them. In addition, how would western Europe fall under Sharia law?
Mass migration of Muslim immigrants to Europe. The small minority of Muslims that hold extremist beleifs are also the most vocal and most active; same with any group. They are the ones that will get political power, they are the ones that will change laws to suit them and their beliefs and only their own beliefs. It will take a long time to happen, but if left uninterupted it will happen.


His talking about Iran occupying and running the United States and Europe. It is fucking ridiculous.

I never said that it was Iran. I said extremist Muslims. Explained above.

Mass migration of Muslim immigrants to Europe. The small minority of Muslims that hold extremist beleifs are also the most vocal and most active; same with any group. They are the ones that will get political power, they are the ones that will change laws to suit them and their beliefs and only their own beliefs. It will take a long time to happen, but if left uninterupted it will happen.

The "small minority" will ALWAYS have to work with:

1- Being the minority.

2- A majority annoyed at them.

3- The Constitutions of the countries.

4- Etc.

That assuming there is even such a movement to begin with, a very dubious statement in and of itself.

I never said that it was Iran. I said extremist Muslims. Explained above.

There are not enough of them to occupy all of the Western World.

You're entitled to your opinions, of course. The important thing is that you're open-minded enough to read opposing viewpoints. I respect that. :)

I just think he's ignored a lot of the reality of US policy, and how the military behaves, in order to fit his thesis more closely.

I've read where he's claimed the US defense budget is seven times more than it actually is, where he's cited a huge number of military bases around the world (of which over 50% are in one country, and include such nefarious facilities as golf courses, schools and apartment blocks. Oh, and the country? Germany) as evidence for an American empire. Further, military spending, as a percentage of the GDP, has historically been quite low in the United States--even during the eighties, and radically decreased after the collapse of the USSR.

American post-collapse military experiences have often been driven by other states desires, more so than our own. The Gulf War was funded by everyone else in the world (especially the Saudi's and the Japanese). Yugoslavia was driven, for instance, by the Germans. Everything involving North Korea has been driven by the South. Iran is an issue driven by the Israelis.

The "small minority" will ALWAYS have to work with:

1- Being the minority.

2- A majority annoyed at them.

3- The Constitutions of the countries.

4- Etc.

That assuming there is even such a movement to begin with, a very dubious statement in and of itself.

If the majority is silent and generally pissed of, then no matter how small the minority, they can still acheive great power. Godwin warning: Look at 1930s Germany.

If the majority is silent and generally pissed of, then no matter how small the minority, they can still acheive great power. Godwin warning: Look at 1930s Germany.

A Constitution STILL protects a lot of stuff. The same holds true for the fact that, no, the majority won't simply take the most egregious abuses.

If the majority is silent and generally pissed of, then no matter how small the minority, they can still acheive great power. Godwin warning: Look at 1930s Germany.

The situation in Europe today is completely different from that in Weimar Germany, and the NSDAP and radical Islam are completely different things.

How can they better memories? The vast majority of the population doesn't live long enough to remember it. Outside of those with power, who live like kings while the bast majority of their countrymen starve.

They haven't attacked you because most of them are so brainwashed, all they know is how to hate one country at a time. If they defeat america, and Western Europe falls under Shai law, they'll come for you next.

When Johnny Jihd has his bare foot heel on your throat shouting "Alah Akbar!" You won't be laughing.


Because the last evil empire fell in 1992?
Obvious troll is obvious.

You didn't happen to bring a real argument with you today, did you?


Mass migration of Muslim immigrants to Europe. The small minority of Muslims that hold extremist beleifs are also the most vocal and most active; same with any group. They are the ones that will get political power, they are the ones that will change laws to suit them and their beliefs and only their own beliefs. It will take a long time to happen, but if left uninterupted it will happen.

I never said that it was Iran. I said extremist Muslims. Explained above.
It will take a long time. Yes. Maybe a couple of hundred years or so, even.


If the majority is silent and generally pissed of, then no matter how small the minority, they can still acheive great power. Godwin warning: Look at 1930s Germany.
Godwin warning: Irrelevant remark.

A Constitution STILL protects a lot of stuff.

Only in theory. When it comes down to it, a Constitution is really just a piece of paper. Nothing more, nothing less. It has no inherent magical qualities that can rein in a government run amok. That is simply wishing thinking. If a government wants to, it can either have the courts (whose members it appoints) "re-interpret" it "correctly," or ignore it outright. And there's not a damn thing that can be done.

A Constitution STILL protects a lot of stuff. The same holds true for the fact that, no, the majority won't simply take the most egregious abuses.

They will in the name of "security." See the Enabling Act and the PATRIOT (sic) Act.

Gingrich, whose rabid militarism makes even bloodthirsty warmonger John McCain look like Martin Luther King, Jr. in comparison, has called for (http://jta.org/news/article/2009/05/03/1004875/gingrich-remove-iranian-regime) "regime change" in Iran (because remember, that worked so well in Iraq...not!).

Of course, the idiocy isn't limited to the GOP. Many Democrats are also buying into the "ZOMG teh Iranians r making n00kz!!!!!111" nonsense, even though all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously concurred that not only had Iran abandoned its WMD program, but it was several years away from being able to successfully develop nuclear weapons even if it wanted to.

Remember, when U.S. politicians say "Country first," they don't mean the U.S.

Gingrich? Newt Gingrich?

And why is he a bastard?

Gingrich? Newt Gingrich?

And why is he a bastard?

Yes, that Gingrich. How fitting that such a slimy character be named "Newt."

See the link.

Obvious troll is obvious.

You didn't happen to bring a real argument with you today, did you?



It will take a long time. Yes. Maybe a couple of hundred years or so, even.



Godwin warning: Irrelevant remark.

How giving an example were an extremist minority took power and caused great destruction irrelevant? Just because it deals with the Nazi party does not make my point irrelevant.

Look, if the POTUS becomes a Newt, we'll just have to wait for it to get better.

Look, if the POTUS becomes a Newt, we'll just have to wait for it to get better.

If Newt becomes POTUS, we can all go "FORT SUMTER!"






...sorry, couldn't resist. :$

How giving an example were an extremist minority took power and caused great destruction irrelevant? Just because it deals with the Nazi party does not make my point irrelevant.

No, what makes it irrelevant is that you fail to show any actual similarity between it and jihadists. You may as well compare them to the American Revolutionaries -- they were extremists who came to power violently, too. And that serve about as well as a model for understanding Islamic extremism as the Nazis do -- that is, not at all.

What you actually did there was classic Godwin -- you attempted to equate Islamic extremism with Nazism as a convenient way to bypass critical judgment and analysis and instantly demonize the enemy rather than actually explain what they do, what you think they will do, and why. In other words, it was a cheap shot. And it missed.

Yes, that Gingrich. How fitting that such a slimy character be named "Newt."

See the link.

Ok, he wants to destroy sites that hold nuclear missiles, no?
And that is making a bastard of him?

About the regime change, future will tell if Bush was right about Iraq. 2009 is still to soon to evaluate the situation. We will talk back in 2030 or something.

Ok, he wants to destroy sites that hold nuclear missiles, no?
And that is making a bastard of him?

About the regime change, future will tell if Bush was right about Iraq. 2009 is still to soon to evaluate the situation. We will talk back in 2030 or something.
No, HK, what makes him a bastard is that he promotes international war, promotes the US attacking other countries in wars of choice, thus encouraging the killing of thousands of people, and he does it for no reason but to grab power in the US for his political party.

As for whether history will show Bush to be right or wrong about Iraq -- sorry, you're wrong again. Bush was wrong because what he did was illegal and immoral. He did permanent damage to Iraq as well as to the US. If Iraq and the US somehow manage to recover from that, it will not magically make Bush right to have done it.

No, HK, what makes him a bastard is that he promotes international war, promotes the US attacking other countries in wars of choice, thus encouraging the killing of thousands of people, and he does it for no reason but to grab power in the US for his political party.

As for whether history will show Bush to be right or wrong about Iraq -- sorry, you're wrong again. Bush was wrong because what he did was illegal and immoral. He did permanent damage to Iraq as well as to the US. If Iraq and the US somehow manage to recover from that, it will not magically make Bush right to have done it.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't read that in the link.

All I know is, I wouldn't mind us leaving the Middle East, protecting ourselves, and letting the jackasses there blow themselves up. As terrible as that sounds, I'm getting sick of seeing the bastards take the lives of our young men and women.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't read that in the link.
The link showed him calling for intervention to cause regime change in Iran. That is exactly what Bush did in Iraq. It is also what the US did years ago in Iran. In both cases -- as well as all the other cases in which the US decided to change other countries' governments, thousands of people died as a result. Newt is calling for violence, war, and the deaths of innocents.

As for his motives, you have to be familiar with his career and hear him speak in the media to be aware of that.

About the regime change, future will tell if Bush was right about Iraq.

That future is now. There were no WMDs, so he wasn't.

All I know is, I wouldn't mind us leaving the Middle East, protecting ourselves, and letting the jackasses there blow themselves up. As terrible as that sounds, I'm getting sick of seeing the bastards take the lives of our young men and women.

Sometimes is a war justified. I consider the government of Iran as dangerous one. If they would have nuclear toys then it could be a serious threat for our young men and women HERE. And not only the young ones (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44227000/jpg/_44227383_youngones2_bbcpicgall.jpg).

Those young people opted for a profession in an army and armies could fight from time to time. If those fights prevent the attack of nuclear missiles than I am all ears.

Sometimes is a war justified. I consider the government of Iran as dangerous one. If they would have nuclear toys then it could be a serious threat for our young men and women HERE. And not only the young ones (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44227000/jpg/_44227383_youngones2_bbcpicgall.jpg).

Those young people opted for a profession in an army and armies could fight from time to time. If those fights prevent the attack of nuclear missiles than I am all ears.
So you approve of the Bush Doctrine -- that a country should attack another country if it even seems like it could threaten them someday or might like to someday? That such an attack should be launched whenever and not wait for an actual threat to come up or for the target country to do anything aggressive? In other words, you think it's okay for countries to attack each other just because they don't like each other?

Also, are you under the impression that soldiers are the only people who die in wars?

That future is now. There were no WMDs, so he wasn't.

I don't think that the Bush office invaded Iraq for WMDs. That was the explanation for the public and was not selected carefully.

We will see if Iraq is developing to a nice country. If it is in 2020 or 2030 then Bush was right.

I don't think that the Bush office invaded Iraq for WMDs. That was the explanation for the public and was not selected carefully.

We will see if Iraq is developing to a nice country. If it is in 2020 or 2030 then Bush was right.
What part of "what he did was illegal" do you not get?

Or do you just not believe in law at all?

So you approve of the Bush Doctrine -- that a country should attack another country if it even seems like it could threaten them someday or might like to someday? That such an attack should be launched whenever and not wait for an actual threat to come up or for the target country to do anything aggressive? In other words, you think it's okay for countries to attack each other just because they don't like each other?

Also, are you under the impression that soldiers are the only people who die in wars?

No, I certainly do not agree with the statement that countries can invade each other just because they don't like each other. But I don't mind war if there's a real threat.

It's rather difficult to assess what a real threat is. Should we wait till the first nuke is launched?

No, I'm aware that also civilians die. In fact, I think the dead counter is usual higher for them than for the soldiers. But what's better. A few thousand dead bodies or millions?

It's a macabre decision and I'm happy I'm not the one who has to handle that kind of stuff.

What part of "what he did was illegal" do you not get?

Or do you just not believe in law at all?

Countries do all kind of illegal actions which are often justified.

Think about Adolf Eichmann and Israel to give just one example.

Sometimes is a war justified. I consider the government of Iran as dangerous one. If they would have nuclear toys then it could be a serious threat for our young men and women HERE. And not only the young ones (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44227000/jpg/_44227383_youngones2_bbcpicgall.jpg).

Those young people opted for a profession in an army and armies could fight from time to time. If those fights prevent the attack of nuclear missiles than I am all ears.

A nuclear armed Iran would not launch missiles on the US. There's this thing called mutually assured destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction) that means that if a nuclear armed nation launches missiles against another nuclear armed nation, the retaliation will be enough to the aggressor. Iran may not agree with the US, but they are unlikely to cement their demise. In addition, there is no reason that if the US is allowed to have nuclear weapons, Iran should not. Except for the "all are equal, but some are more equal than others" that seems to be the current situation.

A nuclear armed Iran would not launch missiles on the US. There's this thing called mutually assured destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction) that means that if a nuclear armed nation launches missiles against another nuclear armed nation, the retaliation will be enough to the aggressor. Iran may not agree with the US, but they are unlikely to cement their demise. In addition, there is no reason that if the US is allowed to have nuclear weapons, Iran should not. Except for the "all are equal, but some are more equal than others" that seems to be the current situation.

The Soviets were afraid of dying from nukes. I'm still unsure Iran feels the same way.

I don't think that the Bush office invaded Iraq for WMDs. That was the explanation for the public and was not selected carefully.

We will see if Iraq is developing to a nice country. If it is in 2020 or 2030 then Bush was right.

Iraq won't develop into a nice country. And it wasn't right regardless.

Mutually Assured Destruction only works when both sides are sane. Seeing as Iran is a theocracy, expecting it to be sane is like expecting a potato to dance.

We will see if Iraq is developing to a nice country. If it is in 2020 or 2030 then Bush was right.

Would it really be worth all the blood we have on our hands?

No, I'm aware that also civilians die. In fact, I think the dead counter is usual higher for them than for the soldiers. But what's better. A few thousand dead bodies or millions?

That wasn't the choice in Iraq.

Mutually Assured Destruction only works when both sides are sane. Seeing as Iran is a theocracy, expecting it to be sane is like expecting a potato to dance.

Perhaps not sane, but at least not suicidal. Also, I wish to reiterate: why should the US be allowed nuclear weapons, while Iran is denied them?

Mutually Assured Destruction only works when both sides are sane. Seeing as Iran is a theocracy, expecting it to be sane is like expecting a potato to dance.

http://www.akswing.com/index_files/image034.jpg

http://www.akswing.com/index_files/image034.jpg

Only on NSG.

Perhaps not sane, but at least not suicidal. Also, I wish to reiterate: why should the US be allowed nuclear weapons, while Iran is denied them?

The Iranian Government would only see that suicide as a ticket to heaven.

Perhaps not sane, but at least not suicidal. Also, I wish to reiterate: why should the US be allowed nuclear weapons, while Iran is denied them?

Because Iran's leader, Pres. Ahmedinejad (I spelled that wrong I bet), said Israel needs to be wiped off the map, and that the Holocaust didn't happen. These are not the words of a man we can trust with the same power that makes the sun burn.

Not saying the U.S. hasn't had it's share of warmongering, but still.

Iraq won't develop into a nice country.
Of course not. It's too sandy to be nice. And too warm. If Iraq wants to turn into a nice country, it needs to buy some grade A topsoil, and move a bit further north. *sod*

Perhaps not sane, but at least not suicidal. Also, I wish to reiterate: why should the US be allowed nuclear weapons, while Iran is denied them?

*NOBODY* should have nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, world leaders aren't mature enough to part with their shiny [not-so] new toys.

*NOBODY* should have nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, world leaders aren't mature enough to part with their shiny [not-so] new toys.

I'd call nuclear weapons "new" since relatively compared to other weapons, they are indeed quite new. The gun's been around for about half a millennium.

Yes, but the first nukes came around before most NSGers.

Yes, but the first nukes came around before most NSGers.

Nonetheless.

I say that if we are to get rid of nukes, let's hurl them into the sun. See what happens.

Nonetheless.

I say that if we are to get rid of nukes, let's hurl them into the sun. See what happens.

They'll likely melt and explode harmlessly way before even getting to the surface.

They'll likely melt and explode harmlessly way before even getting to the surface.

I was hoping for something more cool.

They most likely would just sink into the giant gas cloud and explode too low tos ee eanything.

Instead, aim them at Phobos; it's small and it's close enough to mars that gravity will drag it into the planet eventually. Don't you think it'd be nifty if the combined power of all of earth's nukes is enough to split it in two, or at least give it a second stickney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stickney_crater)?

They'll likely melt and explode harmlessly way before even getting to the surface.

Stop ruining awesome ideas with your god-damned 'Facts'.

Damn Ivy-League West-Coast Liberals. :mad:

A nuclear armed Iran would not launch missiles on the US. There's this thing called mutually assured destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction) that means that if a nuclear armed nation launches missiles against another nuclear armed nation, the retaliation will be enough to the aggressor. Iran may not agree with the US, but they are unlikely to cement their demise. In addition, there is no reason that if the US is allowed to have nuclear weapons, Iran should not. Except for the "all are equal, but some are more equal than others" that seems to be the current situation.

Sure. Do you think some Bin Laden didn't know they would hunt for him after he ordered 2 planes for the WTC? Do you think he was not aware that many people would die. His own people.

Sure he did. But for some reason, for him, it was worth the price.

Iraq won't develop into a nice country. And it wasn't right regardless.

How do you know it will not develop into a nice country?

A nuclear armed Iran would not launch missiles on the US. There's this thing called mutually assured destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction) that means that if a nuclear armed nation launches missiles against another nuclear armed nation, the retaliation will be enough to the aggressor. Iran may not agree with the US, but they are unlikely to cement their demise. In addition, there is no reason that if the US is allowed to have nuclear weapons, Iran should not. Except for the "all are equal, but some are more equal than others" that seems to be the current situation.

Governments are not equal.

Democracy > theocracy.

Would it really be worth all the blood we have on our hands?

Maybe it is yes.

Sure. Do you think some Bin Laden didn't know they would hunt for him after he ordered 2 planes for the WTC? Do you think he was not aware that many people would die. His own people.

Sure he did. But for some reason, for him, it was worth the price.

It's because he believes that if he kills innocents, he will be rewarded by Allah.

Pretty similar to President A. of Iran in insanity.

How do you know it will not develop into a nice country?

Because if it did, then he would be wrong, and he can't be wrong, ever. Infact, if he was wrong, I wouldn't put it past him to go to a stable and safe Iraq and blow himself up to just say that it isn't safe.

They most likely would just sink into the giant gas cloud and explode too low tos ee eanything.

Instead, aim them at Phobos; it's small and it's close enough to mars that gravity will drag it into the planet eventually. Don't you think it'd be nifty if the combined power of all of earth's nukes is enough to split it in two, or at least give it a second stickney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stickney_crater)?

Yeah.

Or we could aim it at Uranus. That's always something. :p

Because if it did, then he would be wrong, and he can't be wrong, ever. Infact, if he was wrong, I wouldn't put it past him to go to a stable and safe Iraq and blow himself up to just say that it isn't safe.

I highly doubt that.

That wasn't the choice in Iraq.

I don't know. While no WMDs were found, he had them AND used them.

Are you aware the Saddam regime could create new WMDs?
They are rather easily to develop.

And maybe, maybe the US government had a solid reason, which it couldn't make public.

I highly doubt that.

I don't.

Because if it did, then he would be wrong, and he can't be wrong, ever. Infact, if he was wrong, I wouldn't put it past him to go to a stable and safe Iraq and blow himself up to just say that it isn't safe.

There were no WMDs, and people died.

I was right. That simple. And flamebaiting me won't change that fact.

I don't.

You're you.

I don't.

Just because someone disagrees with you almost all the time does not mean they will go to extreme lengths such as those you've suggested to prove you wrong. As one of the older (join-date wise) conservatives on this forum, I have often found myself debating with the same people over and over again, yet I haven't felt that they found it necessary to prove me wrong.

There were no WMDs, and people died.

I was right. That simple. And flamebaiting me won't change that fact.

People die every day. Infact, I wonder how many people are starving to death on the streets in Brazil right now?

And no, you weren't right.

People die every day. Infact, I wonder how many people are starving to death on the streets in Brazil right now?

And no, you weren't right.

The difference between death from starvation and death from war is that war can usually be prevented. Starvation is not decided upon by governments (directly).

If there is no need for people to die in a war, why fight the damn war?

People die every day. Infact, I wonder how many people are starving to death on the streets in Brazil right now?

And no, you weren't right.

More people died as a result of the war than would have died otherwise. As for the people starving to death, they're not a valid comparison; our government isn't actively killing them.

Yes, I was. There were no WMDs. People died.

More people died as a result of the war than would have died otherwise. As for the people starving to death, they're not a valid comparison; our government isn't actively killing them.

Yes, I was. There were no WMDs. People died.

I doubt that more people died in Iraq since the war if we hadn't invaded. Saddam probably would have kept up his genocide of the Kurds.

I doubt that more people died in Iraq since the war if we hadn't invaded.

Wrong.

*NOBODY* should have nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, world leaders aren't mature enough to part with their shiny [not-so] new toys.

I think we should declare nuclear weapons protected by the 2nd amendment. For home defense.

Wrong.

The Genocide of the kurds would have kept up regardless of what the outside world said. We stopped a genocide. This is like debating a mule. You never concede that your wrong. All you have is a tiny bubble of reality, and if things don't fit in that bubble, you don't see them as true.

I think we should declare nuclear weapons protected by the 2nd amendment. For home defense.

AP News: April 12, 2065

A man was able to fend off thieves by using his Minuteman ICBM. More details in just a moment.

The Genocide of the kurds would have kept up regardless of what the outside world said. We stopped a genocide. This is like debating a mule. You never concede that your wrong. All you have is a tiny bubble of reality, and if things don't fit in that bubble, you don't see them as true.

Is your name Pot? I have a friend named Kettle who'd love to meet you.

Seriously, though, I used to think the same way. But I was wrong. You don't fight wars over that sort of thing anyways.

Is your name Pot? I have a friend named Kettle who'd love to meet you.

Seriously, though, I used to think the same way. But I was wrong. You don't fight wars over that sort of thing anyways.

So its wrong to stop a genocide?

The Genocide of the kurds would have kept up regardless of what the outside world said. We stopped a genocide. This is like debating a mule. You never concede that your wrong. All you have is a tiny bubble of reality, and if things don't fit in that bubble, you don't see them as true.

And the US went and replaced the genocide of the Kurds with the one of the entire Iraqi population and then some.

Wrong.

How many people died under Sadam his ruling?
And how many people died since the invasion?

So its wrong to stop a genocide?

No. Indeed, it's what most of the world tried to do, but the US were having none of it.

And the US went and replaced the genocide of the Kurds with the one of the entire Iraqi population and then some.

I wouldn't call it the genocide of the entire Iraqi population. THAT is a bit of an overstatement.

And the US went and replaced the genocide of the Kurds with the one of the entire Iraqi population and then some.

USA and his club of the killing killed all of the 28,945,657 Iraqis????

I wouldn't call it the genocide of the entire Iraqi population. THAT is a bit of an overstatement.

So is "we stopped a genocide".

USA and his club of the killing killed all of the 28,945,657 Iraqis????

Did Saddam kill ALL Kurds?

So is "we stopped a genocide".

Agreed, but doing the same thing as him, even to make a point, doesn't make your argument any more correct.

And the US went and replaced the genocide of the Kurds with the one of the entire Iraqi population and then some.

We were not the ones doing the ethnic cleansing. It was sunni-shiate problem that was at the root of the ethnic killings. When Saddam eventually died, The same thing would have happened, and if there hadn't been US forces in the country, it would have been 10 times worse.

We were not the ones doing the ethnic cleansing. It was sunni-shiate problem that was at the root of the ethnic killings. When Saddam eventually died, The same thing would have happened, and if there hadn't been US forces in the country, it would have been 10 times worse.

Wrong.

Did Saddam kill ALL Kurds?

Did the turks kill all Armenians?

No. Thats still a genocide.

We were not the ones doing the ethnic cleansing. It was sunni-shiate problem that was at the root of the ethnic killings. When Saddam eventually died, The same thing would have happened, and if there hadn't been US forces in the country, it would have been 10 times worse.

To that extent, HK 2, Brogavia's right. Any deliberate killing of civilians being done by US soldiers is a rarity.

Although, Brogavia, you realize that someone would have just replaced Saddam once he died, right?

Did the turks kill all Armenians?

No. Thats still a genocide.

Did Americans kill all Iraqis?

No. That's still a genocide.

I'm a copycat, you see.

Wrong.

Prove he's wrong. You have been correct in most cases with this, but you aren't offering any proof.

Prove he's wrong. You have been correct in most cases with this, but you aren't offering any proof.

Neither is he, and he's offering a hypothetical. :p

Did the turks kill all Armenians?

No. Thats still a genocide.

By that definition, every murder that has ever taken place is a genocide.

A genocide requires a deliberate concentrated effort on the part of a group or individual to purge a certain area or the world of a race, religion, gender or any other characteristic that differentiates them from others.

Saddam's killing of Kurds was a genocide, as it was aimed solely at the Kurds.

The war in Iraq, while stupid and wrong, was and is not a genocide.

To that extent, HK 2, Brogavia's right. Any deliberate killing of civilians being done by US soldiers is a rarity.

Although, Brogavia, you realize that someone would have just replaced Saddam once he died, right?

Look what happened when Saddam got kick out of power. Massed looting and civil unrest, now add in the Iraqi army, with all of it weapons that would have been destroyed in the invasion. Saddam's repression was the only thing holding Iraq together. With him gone, his sons would have tried to compete for power, and the millitary would be divided, and a civil war with no moderating force would have broken out. The factions would splinter and in the chaos, the ethnic cleansing would go on unchecked.

Neither is he, and he's offering a hypothetical. :p

So are you.

Did Saddam kill ALL Kurds?

No, USA didn't allow it.

Wrong.

Great argument.

In all seriousness, there's a distinct lack of developed argumentation in this thread, which is sad, because it's about an interesting topic. :(

No, USA didn't allow it.

Who do you think put him in power in the first place? *whistling*

No, USA didn't allow it.

By starting a bigger crime.

"My murdering that woman prevented that guy from robbing her."

Heh.

Who do you think put him in power in the first place? *whistling*

I find I hard to believe the US would back a socialist group in a coup...

I find I hard to believe the US would back a socialist group in a coup...

Well, kept him in power, at least.

What he have to ask is: Why would Saddam be good then and bad now?

even though all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously concurred that not only had Iran abandoned its WMD program, but it was several years away from being able to successfully develop nuclear weapons even if it wanted to.

We have 16 external intelligence agencies? What on earth for?

Who do you think put him in power in the first place? *whistling*

And who supported Bin Laden? *whistling back*

Well, kept him in power, at least.

What he have to ask is: Why would Saddam be good then and bad now?

He was never really good. Someone in the American Millitary said it best, "If only they could both lose."* When he was asked about the Iran-Iraq War.

*Rough paraphrase, can't remember who said, it, but it was something along these lines.

He was never really good. Someone in the American Millitary said it best, "If only they could both lose."* When he was asked about the Iran-Iraq War.

*Rough paraphrase, can't remember who said, it, but it was something along these lines.

Then Reagan was being a bit of doofus.

I find I hard to believe the US would back a socialist group in a coup...

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Rise_to_power

Saddam Hussein in the past was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism in the 1960s and 1970s.[15] Although Saddam was al-Bakr's deputy, he was a strong behind-the-scenes party politician. Al-Bakr was the older and more prestigious of the two, but by 1969 Saddam Hussein clearly had become the moving force behind the party.

If you're anti-wiki you can always check out the links sourced for that claim: http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2003/04/10/Exclusive-Saddam-key-in-early-CIA-plot/UPI-65571050017416/

The US also had reason to support saddam in the 1980s where he got the WMDs ...

Great argument.

In all seriousness, there's a distinct lack of developed argumentation in this thread, which is sad, because it's about an interesting topic. :(

Oh, shush! We once responded to a lack opf arguing by starting an FF7 vs FF8 debate, and eventually Archduke Franz Ferdinand's wild declaration started an entire world war!* :p

*May be a total fabrication

We have 16 external intelligence agencies? What on earth for?

So at least one gives us something we can spin to say what we want. Usually :p

Newt is an idiot who should shut up, plain and simple.

It's not America's place to force regime change on other countries. The sooner America learns this, the better it is for America.
Nope, if it's our best interests, we should absolutely force a regime change. That would be better.

Not us, that's for sure.
I'm sure China would be a wonderful steward of the world's problems. If the UN would only move to Bejing...

Nope, if it's our best interests, we should absolutely force a regime change. That would be better.

No, you shouldn't. One of the most recent interferences lent credibility to the Taliban.

I'm sure China would be a wonderful steward of the world's problems. If the UN would only move to Bejing...

What about neither?

Why don't you folks stop pretending the options are only US and China?

According Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) 91,856 – 100,278 civilians died since the invasion.

And BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4875678.stm) is telling us that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the death of 180,000 civilians.

According Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) 91,856 – 100,278 civilians died since the invasion.

And BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4875678.stm) is telling us that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the death of 180,000 civilians.

The first over the course of six years.

The second over the course of twenty.

The first over the course of six years.

The second over the course of twenty.

USA will not stay in Iraq for twenty years.

And as you can see the killing rates are dropping.

Deaths per day from suicide attacks and vehicle bombs (now includes non-vehicle suicide attacks):

2007 : 21
2009 : 6,8

Deaths per day from gunfire / executions

2006: 56
2009: 4.6

USA will not stay in Iraq for twenty years.

Yes, that was IN SPITE of Republican efforts, not BECAUSE of them.

What about neither?

Why don't you folks stop pretending the options are only US and China?
I don't think anyone pretends that China is the only alternative to the U.S. in the arena of world 'meddling'. It's only one of a long line of unappealing candidates. Neither isn't an option. Some nation will assume the position that the United States now occupies in a more or less helpful way.

Yes, that was IN SPITE of Republican efforts, not BECAUSE of them.

Eh...Bush had already plans developed to move out Iraq. Obama is just executing these plans.

Eh...Bush had already plans developed to move out Iraq. Obama is just executing these plans.

Bush entered in the first place and repeated "stay the course" like a retarded broken record, remember?

What about neither?

Why don't you folks stop pretending the options are only US and China?

Because we're the two most powerful nations on the planet. How do you not get this?

This has been drilled into you for well...years now?

Superpowers do what is, or somethings think, is in their best interests. It doesn't seem that hard to understand.

The strong do what the will.

Heikoku 2,

If USA didn't stop Saddam, more people would get killed. And his sons were ready to take over when dad would die. The news said that they were worse than daddy.

Beside this, there are also other things. Saddam supported all kind of terrorist groups. Invaded other countries. Etc...

Yes, Saddam is a nice man, he just killed only 180,000 of his own people. Maybe we should give him, posthumously, the Nobel Peace Prize

Bush entered in the first place and repeated "stay the course" like a retarded broken record, remember?
As I recall, the actual legislation that called for a regime change happened in an administration before GWB. A Democratic administration...

Heikoku 2,

If USA didn't stop Saddam, more people would get killed. And his sons were ready to take over when dad would die. The news said that they were worse than daddy.

Beside this, there are also other things. Saddam supported all kind of terrorist groups. Invaded other countries. Etc...

Yes, Saddam is a nice man, he just killed only 180,000 of his own people. Maybe we should give him, posthumously, the Nobel Peace Prize

It doesn't matter. The war was still wrong and illegal. I don't give a damn how "nice" Saddam is or not - in fact, neither did Rumsfeld when he shook hands with him back in the 80s. The war was wrong, no WMDs were found, Iraq was not a threat, it was unethical to attack "preemptively", and illegal as well. Period.

It doesn't matter. The war was still wrong and illegal. I don't give a damn how "nice" Saddam is or not - in fact, neither did Rumsfeld when he shook hands with him back in the 80s. The war was wrong, no WMDs were found, Iraq was not a threat, it was unethical to attack "preemptively", and illegal as well. Period.

Maybe. But if Iraq is turning itself into a nice society, I don't bother.

Maybe. But if Iraq is turning itself into a nice society, I don't bother.

If Iraq turns into a nice society (won't happen, but whatever), it'll be DESPITE the war, not BECAUSE of it.

If Iraq turns into a nice society (won't happen, but whatever), it'll be DESPITE the war, not BECAUSE of it.

Why do you think it will not happen? The figures are telling different, the death toll is currently lower than the murder rates INSIDE America.

Do you really think that Saddam would have give up his repression and stuff? I don't think so, he clearly needed some help.

Look, it's sad that so many people lost their life since the invasion, but the alternative isn't any better.

I think it is working out well, the Iraqi people will have a better future than 10 years ago.

Why do you think it will not happen? The figures are telling different, the death toll is currently lower than the murder rates INSIDE America.

Do you really think that Saddam would have give up his repression and stuff? I don't think so, he clearly needed some help.

Look, it's sad that so many people lost their life since the invasion, but the alternative isn't any better.

I think it is working out well, the Iraqi people will have a better future than 10 years ago.

And if the US hadn't meddled, Iraq wouldn't have HAD Saddam in the first place, remember?

Besides, no, it was illegitimate and wrong to stage that goddamn war.

And if the US hadn't meddled, Iraq wouldn't have HAD Saddam in the first place, remember?

Besides, no, it was illegitimate and wrong to stage that goddamn war.

That's how international politics work. Not all the allies of America are nice people. I'm rather sure that Saddam received countless warnings to behave, he didn't, so...

In an ideal world we all would live in a world of piece, but reality is different.

That's how international politics work. Not all the allies of America are nice people. I'm rather sure that Saddam received countless warnings to behave, he didn't, so...

In an ideal world we all would live in a world of piece, but reality is different.

I'm sure reality would be quite different for the people who worked at the WTC if the US didn't pick allies of convenience like Saddam and Al Qaeda.

According this website 46,38 people were murdered INSIDE America EVERY day (2007 figures)

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

According this website 46,38 people were murdered INSIDE America EVERY day (2007 figures)

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

The US has about ten times the population of Iraq.

The US has about ten times the population of Iraq.

I know. But it's not located in a war zone.

I know. But it's not located in a war zone.

Another detail: The amount of dead Iraqis from the war is EXTRA. Usual crime, disease, etc, are not accounted for in that amount.

I'm rather sure that Saddam received countless warnings to behave, he didn't, so...
Like Israel, China, North Korea, Pakistan, etc etc

Let's just blame the British for creating Iraq in the first place.

Maybe it is yes.

Ergo, it would be worth it to destroy the one country, and it's people naturally, who has actually used nuclear arms as weapons of war. America. You never know when they'll do it again.

Ergo, it would be worth it to destroy the one country, and it's people naturally, who has actually used nuclear arms as weapons of war. America. You never know when they'll do it again.

That was nessecary to end the war. We traded a 100,000 for the entire japanese population.

That was nessecary to end the war. We traded a 100,000 for the entire japanese population.

Doesn't matter. Anyone with the potential to use nuclear arms must be wiped off the face of the planet and replaced in order that nuclear arms will not be used. I see no reason why America should be the exception to the rule it decided to create.

No, I certainly do not agree with the statement that countries can invade each other just because they don't like each other. But I don't mind war if there's a real threat.

It's rather difficult to assess what a real threat is. Should we wait till the first nuke is launched?

No, I'm aware that also civilians die. In fact, I think the dead counter is usual higher for them than for the soldiers. But what's better. A few thousand dead bodies or millions?

It's a macabre decision and I'm happy I'm not the one who has to handle that kind of stuff.

Countries do all kind of illegal actions which are often justified.

Think about Adolf Eichmann and Israel to give just one example.
Actually, no, it is not really all that hard to tell what is legal or what is justified. The rules are laid out for all and have been for a long time. If merely having nukes and the potential to use them is enough to warrant attack, then half the world is at risk for being attacked by the other half right now. If not being friendly and harboring dangerous elements is enough to warrant attack, then at least a third of the world is at risk of unprovoked attack by other nations, including the US and much of Europe (from the rest of Europe).

You say you don't approve of the Bush Doctrine, but you repeat it very well and often. And it is just as shallow, self-serving, and unrealistic when you say it as it was when he and Cheney said it.

Originally Posted by The Parkus Empire
Would it really be worth all the blood we have on our hands?
Maybe it is yes.
You have no basis for that remark. All you have are "maybe it will all turn out right in thirty years and then we can retroactively give Bush credit and congratulate ourselves on having killed all these people." I'm sorry, but that's BS. I am not interested in excusing a war and saying that attacking non-belligerent countries without provocation, killing hundreds of thousands of people, fostering hatred and violence against ourselves and other nations by those actions are somehow "worth it" because you imagine that it might possibly turn out to be not so bad someday. That kind of argument disgusts me.

So its wrong to stop a genocide?
I've lost track. Was that talking point reason for starting the war #37 or #38?

According Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) 91,856 – 100,278 civilians died since the invasion.

And BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4875678.stm) is telling us that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the death of 180,000 civilians.
Are you under the impression that, because someone else committed a bigger crime, that makes it okay for us to commit crimes?

Doesn't matter. Anyone with the potential to use nuclear arms must be wiped off the face of the planet and replaced in order that nuclear arms will not be used. I see no reason why America should be the exception to the rule it decided to create.

And to take us out would mean destruction to whoever acted to try and take us out.

Actually, no, it is not really all that hard to tell what is legal or what is justified. The rules are laid out for all and have been for a long time. If merely having nukes and the potential to use them is enough to warrant attack, then half the world is at risk for being attacked by the other half right now. If not being friendly and harboring dangerous elements is enough to warrant attack, then at least a third of the world is at risk of unprovoked attack by other nations, including the US and much of Europe (from the rest of Europe).

You say you don't approve of the Bush Doctrine, but you repeat it very well and often. And it is just as shallow, self-serving, and unrealistic when you say it as it was when he and Cheney said it.

Yes, but governments of nations choose which nations to meddle with based on what they think is best...for the country, or sometimes for themselves.

You have no basis for that remark. All you have are "maybe it will all turn out right in thirty years and then we can retroactively give Bush credit and congratulate ourselves on having killed all these people." I'm sorry, but that's BS. I am not interested in excusing a war and saying that attacking non-belligerent countries without provocation, killing hundreds of thousands of people, fostering hatred and violence against ourselves and other nations by those actions are somehow "worth it" because you imagine that it might possibly turn out to be not so bad someday. That kind of argument disgusts me.

Nonsense.

Saddam was a tyrant. Taking him out, and his sons, was good. We cleaned up a mistake, even if that wasn't the sole purpose of the mission. And we'll always have hatred directed against, no matter what we do. Better to give them actual reasons to hate, and better yet, fear us.

Snip.

Mur, I trust you will deal with him?

And to take us out would mean destruction to whoever acted to try and take us out.

So? According to the pre-emptive strike advocates, the destruction of the attackers don't matter to them when they get nuclear arms.

So either they're telling the truth and the nuclear armed advocates should be wiped off the face of the planet before they put everyone else at risk, or they're peddling a load of feel good bullshit.

Are you under the impression that, because someone else committed a bigger crime, that makes it okay for us to commit crimes?

Hmm, taking out a tyrant isn't a crime. And US soldiers don't routinely go and shoot civilians for lulz. Its the mujhadeen or whatever they're called. Though Iraq seems to have been stabilizing recently, from what I've seen.

Iraq was a clusterfuck, yes, but taking out Saddam and his sons will pay off for Iraq in the future, well barring larger conflicts that will most likely affect every nation in the near future.

And to take us out would mean destruction to whoever acted to try and take us out.



Yes, but governments of nations choose which nations to meddle with based on what they think is best...for the country, or sometimes for themselves.



Nonsense.

Saddam was a tyrant. Taking him out, and his sons, was good. We cleaned up a mistake, even if that wasn't the sole purpose of the mission. And we'll always have hatred directed against, no matter what we do. Better to give them actual reasons to hate, and better yet, fear us.

Mur, I trust you will deal with him?
What is there to deal with? Nothing but the lies and bravado of a rightwing puppet, some kid (or someone who acts like a kid) who merely parrots heroic-sounding bullshit without putting any thought of their own into it. I'm tired of these empty pissing demonstrations.