kickycan wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:kickycan wrote:And the fact that he didn't threaten us means nothing, because you have such a hard-on about the threat that he might have become.
Yes, we now live in an age in which weapons exist such that one use of one can obliterate a large city.
You do the best Chicken Little impersonation I've ever seen. Saying that we live in an age in which WMDs exist is meaningless to this discussion, since Saddam HAD no WMDs.
You can say it over and over again, but you'll just be wrong over and over again.
Are you forgetting your own remarks? You said:
kickycan wrote:And the fact that he didn't threaten us means nothing, because you have such a hard-on about the threat that he might have become.
So I answered. I explained why it was a matter of such grave concern.
kickycan wrote:Saying that we live in an age in which WMDs exist is meaningless to this discussion, since Saddam HAD no WMDs.
Well, I didn't say merely that they exist, but that one single WMD of certain types could obliterate an entire city. The level of danger posed by the weapons is not irrelevant to the discussion. If they did not have the capacity to kill in such huge numbers, we would not have needed to invade Iraq to be sure he no longer had them.
"We now live in an age in which weapons exist such that one use of one can obliterate a large city."--Brandon9000
As I said earlier, why even go through the trouble of thinking of new answers. Your entire argument boils down to this one statement. A hypothetical. Everything in your paranoid fantasy world is justified because of a hypothetical. No thought, just fear of a hypothetical doomsday scenario. Weak.
I always found it fascinating that the city that actually got nailed on 9/11 DIDN'T vote for Bush.
And I would venture to guess that it's because THEY don't feel safe enough under this moron of a pResident.
So, why is it that people like Brandon are somehow experts on all of this? Florida is a world away from New York, and they WEREN'T attacked by terrorists on 9/11.
Relying on hypotheticals in order to invade a sovereign country is, IMO, pathetic, and mearly taps into the fears of Americans in a post 9/11 world.
Dookiestix wrote:I always found it fascinating that the city that actually got nailed on 9/11 DIDN'T vote for Bush.
And I would venture to guess that it's because THEY don't feel safe enough under this moron of a pResident.
So, why is it that people like Brandon are somehow experts on all of this? Florida is a world away from New York, and they WEREN'T attacked by terrorists on 9/11.
Relying on hypotheticals in order to invade a sovereign country is, IMO, pathetic, and mearly taps into the fears of Americans in a post 9/11 world.
You were probably a fish in your previous life.
kickycan wrote:"We now live in an age in which weapons exist such that one use of one can obliterate a large city."--Brandon9000
As I said earlier, why even go through the trouble of thinking of new answers. Your entire argument boils down to this one statement. A hypothetical. Everything in your paranoid fantasy world is justified because of a hypothetical. No thought, just fear of a hypothetical doomsday scenario. Weak.
I am not sure which part is the fantasy. When someone of the character of Saddam Hussein builds weapons of this lethality, and is working on further development, he simply must be stopped or there is a very real danger of terrible things happening down the road. We stopped him. Invasion was the final step. Once these weapons propagate to a number of people like Hussein, the danger of somebody sneaking one into a country and creating a nuclear 9/11 will be appreciable. We need to be vigilant now to prevent that scenario from coming to pass.
McGentrix wrote:Adrian wrote:The war was justified.
Iraq violated security council resolutions.
Iraq had WMD.
I am now awaiting the US invasion of Israel.....
Why? Is Israel ruled by an evil dictator that funds terrorism, and has a history of using WMD's against their own country men?
Why? Was Iraq invaded
because Saddam was an evil dictator that funds terrorism, and has a history of using WMD's against their own country men?
btw, terrorists of the kind Saddam funded are being called insurgents nowadays....
I'm always amazed what a little name change can do!
Dookiestix wrote:I always found it fascinating that the city that actually got nailed on 9/11 DIDN'T vote for Bush.
And I would venture to guess that it's because THEY don't feel safe enough under this moron of a pResident.
So, why is it that people like Brandon are somehow experts on all of this? Florida is a world away from New York, and they WEREN'T attacked by terrorists on 9/11.
I am not claiming expertise, only to have an opinion which I have a right to present here.
Dookiestix wrote:Relying on hypotheticals in order to invade a sovereign country is, IMO, pathetic, and mearly taps into the fears of Americans in a post 9/11 world.
The hypothetical in question is that the lying murderer Saddam Hussein, might not have destroyed all of the WMD and WMD programs he had promised to. He had been very evasive and dishonest during the inspections. It seems to me that to leave such a chance uninvestigated would have been suicidal on our parts.
I am not sure what your fascination with the word "hypothetical" is. Every tragedy that happens is at most theoretical before it happens. The issue is the magnitude of the chance that it is true.
And there's a hypothetical that as we speak, North Korea could be sending nukes to California.
So why don't we act now?
Or is there a difference?
Dookiestix wrote:And there's a hypothetical that as we speak, North Korea could be sending nukes to California.
So why don't we act now?
Or is there a difference?
Yes, Dookie!
As Brandon will explain you, NK
is a threat! Iraq was invaded because it wasn't one...
old europe wrote:McGentrix wrote:Adrian wrote:The war was justified.
Iraq violated security council resolutions.
Iraq had WMD.
I am now awaiting the US invasion of Israel.....
Why? Is Israel ruled by an evil dictator that funds terrorism, and has a history of using WMD's against their own country men?
Why? Was Iraq invaded
because Saddam was an evil dictator that funds terrorism, and has a history of using WMD's against their own country men?
In addition to having WMD's and violating multiple UNSC resolutions, yeah, that pretty well sums it up.
McGentrix wrote:old europe wrote:McGentrix wrote:Adrian wrote:The war was justified.
Iraq violated security council resolutions.
Iraq had WMD.
I am now awaiting the US invasion of Israel.....
Why? Is Israel ruled by an evil dictator that funds terrorism, and has a history of using WMD's against their own country men?
Why? Was Iraq invaded
because Saddam was an evil dictator that funds terrorism, and has a history of using WMD's against their own country men?
In addition to having WMD's and violating multiple UNSC resolutions, yeah, that pretty well sums it up.
Oh, that's nice... I didn't know Saddam had WMD, but here we go.
Soooooo, McG: What do you think, when will the invasion of North Korea start?
Quote:Yes, Dookie!
As Brandon will explain you, NK is a threat! Iraq was invaded because it wasn't one...
Ah, yes, but of course... :wink:
old europe wrote:McGentrix wrote:old europe wrote:McGentrix wrote:Adrian wrote:The war was justified.
Iraq violated security council resolutions.
Iraq had WMD.
I am now awaiting the US invasion of Israel.....
Why? Is Israel ruled by an evil dictator that funds terrorism, and has a history of using WMD's against their own country men?
Why? Was Iraq invaded
because Saddam was an evil dictator that funds terrorism, and has a history of using WMD's against their own country men?
In addition to having WMD's and violating multiple UNSC resolutions, yeah, that pretty well sums it up.
Oh, that's nice... I didn't know Saddam had WMD, but here we go.
Soooooo, McG: What do you think, when will the invasion of North Korea start?
Why would we invade N. Korea?
Oh! I know why you think that! You believe that every country should receive the exact same type of treatment! I forgot the sophmoric attitude that hasn't figured out that US foriegn relations handles each and every country as a unique and independent case.
Sorry, but that doesn't work.
McGentrix wrote:Why would we invade N. Korea?
Oh! I know why you think that! You believe that every country should receive the exact same type of treatment! I forgot the sophmoric attitude that hasn't figured out that US foriegn relations handles each and every country as a unique and independent case.
Sorry, but that doesn't work.
I thought somebody just recently said:
Quote:All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
old europe wrote:McGentrix wrote:Why would we invade N. Korea?
Oh! I know why you think that! You believe that every country should receive the exact same type of treatment! I forgot the sophmoric attitude that hasn't figured out that US foriegn relations handles each and every country as a unique and independent case.
Sorry, but that doesn't work.
I thought somebody just recently said:
Quote:All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
Yes, that means we have their back. Doesn't mean we will do it for them. Look at what's happening in Lebanon.
Do you think the US won't step in to protect those that would create a democratic government there?
We won't do it for them though.
McGentrix wrote:Quote:All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
Yes, that means we have their back. Doesn't mean we will do it for them. Look at what's happening in Lebanon.
Do you think the US won't step in to protect those that would create a democratic government there?
We won't do it for them though.
Okay, you have their back. Doesn't mean you will do it for them.
Now look at what's happening in North Korea. I actually do think the US won't step in to protect those that would create a democratic government there.
But then, maybe you think there's nobody in NK to be protected. Maybe they want to live the way they do.
Either you believe this, or you believe the US would step in. Select one, McG.
Select one what? Of your silly choices?
How about we work with the countries surrounding N. Korea and work out a diplomatic solution to N. Korea. Kind of like we are doing.
I have no idea why you think every country has to be dealt with forcefully.
Libya - No force
Egypt - No force
Saudi Arabia - no force
Lebanon - no force
Pity you don't have a better grasp on diplomacy and how various interactions between countries can accomplish great things, but sometimes the gloves must come off.
McGentrix wrote:Pity you don't have a better grasp on diplomacy and how various interactions between countries can accomplish great things, but sometimes the gloves must come off.
Nonono, don't get me wrong. I totally agree with what you just said. In fact, I will eventually use it against you!
What I'm saying is: the United States are one nation amongst so many others around the globe. And all the other nations have the right to hold the US (gov) by their word.
This implies: treat every country equal. In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.
No doubt each situation merits its own analysis, but the recent history of US foreign policy decisions based on face-values produce contradictions/inconsistencies.
Take the WMD pretense for going to war:
Why is it that North Korea merits no invasion (correctly), when the (subsequently disproven) pretenses under which Iraq was invaded, are actually being admited by Pyong Yang? In addition to having a "proud" history of totalitarian rule, they tout possession of Nuclear Weapons, and freely and brazenly threaten neighbors.
If the not-knowing but worrying about a tyrant possessing WMD (this being a revision of history from imminent mushroom clouds, death-wagon bomb factories and exact locations of WMD stockpiles) is enough cause for military action, why isn't self proclamation by the next tyrant?
Unless, of course, possesion of WMD was a foregone conclusion (or a foregone pretend conclusion) by the administration prior to the war for the purposes of convincing (60% of) an already paranoid public.
On the issue of Liberty and freedom from tyranny:
Why are North Koreans less deserving of liberty from tyranny than Iraqis. . While we risk life and limb to supposedly free our Iraqi brethren hungry for freedom, why should the North Koreans starve?
(All this is of course assuming the massionic premise that we are the champions of liberty and the beacon of light in the first place -- and what about the light of liberty for Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, etc...)
On doomsday devices and liberation crusades, justification is resoundingly absent.
Perhaps proponents will find another claim that justifies the invasion, like the fallacy of a 9/11 culpability or connection, or the pretense of cultivation of terrorism in Iraq (now an unfortunate self fulfilling prophecy under the new term "insurgency").
The world outside our borders is much more attune to the inconsistencies between the rhetoric and reality, and masquerading deeds behind false pretenses on part of a superpower, regardless of how ostrichlike we justify our actions, or revise history a la "animal-farm". It would be a refreshing start to call a spade a spade.
