Is the Embassy Proof of Duplicity?

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I was ardently hoping for an invasion of Iraq years before it happened, simply because I was afraid that Saddam Hussein was secretly continuing development of WMD, and that if he did attain them, something terrible might happen. How is that immoral?

Quote:

Those other countries are entirely different situations. I haven't called for the invasion of North Korea because they already have the bomb, and could use it if an invasion were tried. It's too late. That's the whole point, actually.

I'm not sure how North Korea was an entirely different situation before they tested their first nuke just last year. Are you saying you weren't hoping for an invasion of North Korea for YEARS before they tested their nuke? How was North Korea different from Iraq before they tested their device in October?

North Korea was different because I believed that they had abandoned their nuclear weapons development programs. Had I known that they were developing nukes in hiding while pretending to cooperate, I would have favored a period of further negotiation followed, if necessary by an invasion.

parados wrote:

Hoping for an invasion of Iraq - Immoral? Hard to say. Consistent and based on well thought out principles? Not based on your answer it wasn't.

You state this without any proof or clarification of how you reached your conclusion.

0 Replies

OGIONIK wrote:

Maybe the world needs defending from democracy, if america is defining it.

And, you are free to think that.

0 Replies

hey
do you actually think it's true!!!!!!! Confused

0 Replies

hey
wat happened did a eathquake hit Sad

0 Replies

Snood, 'nemmee' was meant to mean 'not me'.

0 Replies

huh
i didn't know about iraq stuff Shocked

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

revel wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
OGIONIK wrote:
how did we protect the world from communism?

Are you a communist?

Who are you, McCarthy? Answer the question. Have we protected the world from communism?

The fact that he is not a communist, and neither are you, or most people in Europe, Africa, North America, South America, most of Russia now, Australia, etc... is proof that we defended the world against communism.

If you doubt our build up nuclear weapons had no role in that, then you are just an idiot.

So we got rid of the whole word's communism all by our selves because we build up our nuclear weapons? If that ain't an incentive for other countries to get nuclear weapons I don't know what is.

Or in the case of brandon's reason of why we don't invade North Korea (who remains a communist nation) other countries better hurry up and get some nukes so we don't invade their countries and turn it into hell on earth.

We still have a few communist countries such as China and Vietnam and some others who we trade and do business with.

0 Replies

Yes, and I've defended the world from takeover by Muslims, and Space Aliens, and Daoists as well.

I'm not sure you realize what the words you say, actually mean, McG. They are not logical arguments.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I answered a question on page 3 of this thread that has turned into some rather silly rhetoric from some rather silly posters.

Read this as it may help those of you that need it.

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

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I answered a question on page 3 of this thread that has turned into some rather silly rhetoric from some rather silly posters.

Read this as it may help those of you that need it.

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

As though we couldn't go to wikipedia anytime we wanted. In any event, history is not something I have really kept up with so I bow to others who know more.

It just seems to me that it is hypercritical of the US to go around talking about other people having or getting nuclear weapons when we have them and (I think) we are only country in the world that has even used a nuclear weapon. The mere fact that the cold war ended which may or may not have happened because we built up our nuclear weapons does not mean we are the only ones in the world with an inherent right to have nuclear weapons and get to decide who gets them and who does not. Which is what the gist of your argument was. Which is what was not a logical argument.

I must of missed something though, what does all this have to do with the embassy in Iraq we are building?

Speaking of the embassy:

Baghdad embassy plans turn up online

0 Replies

Does anyone know the number of countries we have embassies in? i hear its 80%, O_o

I am gonna have to double check this number, that seems like an extremely high amount.Its like we invade drop embassies then leave, invade embassy leave.why dont we just stay in america? why do we need these embassies?

0 Replies

OGIONIK wrote:

Does anyone know the number of countries we have embassies in? i hear its 80%, O_o

I am gonna have to double check this number, that seems like an extremely high amount.Its like we invade drop embassies then leave, invade embassy leave.why dont we just stay in america? why do we need these embassies?

Have you passed 6th grade yet? Do you even have a clue what an embassy is and what function it serves?

0 Replies

We do have embassies in other countries. But in Iraq it is different because it re-enforces the perception that we are occupiers of Iraq which will only fuel more hatred by those in Iraq who oppose our presence which does nothing to stem the violence. Furthermore, the embassy we are building in the midst of a country we have turned into a wasteland of poor security, basic utilities ECT, is obscenely extravagant.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/bdyembassy2.gif

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/bagpics3.gif

source

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

I was ardently hoping for an invasion of Iraq years before it happened, simply because I was afraid that Saddam Hussein was secretly continuing development of WMD, and that if he did attain them, something terrible might happen. How is that immoral?

Quote:

Those other countries are entirely different situations. I haven't called for the invasion of North Korea because they already have the bomb, and could use it if an invasion were tried. It's too late. That's the whole point, actually.

I'm not sure how North Korea was an entirely different situation before they tested their first nuke just last year. Are you saying you weren't hoping for an invasion of North Korea for YEARS before they tested their nuke? How was North Korea different from Iraq before they tested their device in October?

North Korea was different because I believed that they had abandoned their nuclear weapons development programs. Had I known that they were developing nukes in hiding while pretending to cooperate, I would have favored a period of further negotiation followed, if necessary by an invasion.

Oct 2002 North Korea reveals to US that they have a secret nuclear program
Nov 2002, US cuts off oil supplies to North Korea because of their hidden nuclear program.
Oct 2006, North Korea tests its nuke

Looks like YEARS to me Brandon. Four years isn't enough time to start thinking about invasion?

Oct 1998 Inspectors were in Iraq confirming no known ongoing programs.
Oct 2002 US is making noises about invading Iraq and passes the resolution allowing force
May 2003 US invades Iraq.

parados wrote:

Hoping for an invasion of Iraq - Immoral? Hard to say. Consistent and based on well thought out principles? Not based on your answer it wasn't.

You state this without any proof or clarification of how you reached your conclusion.[/quote]
I reached it based on facts in existence. You claimed IF you had known North Korea was developing a nuke you would have supported an invasion after negotiation failed. Meanwhile in the case of Iraq, knowing wasn't even in the equation. You merely had to be afraid. Yet when it became common knowledge that North Korea had been cheating you let it go for years finally using the test 4 years later as your excuse for not supporting any invasion.
So..
Iraq - you only had to be afraid they were getting WMD to support an invastion.
North Korea - you required knowledge followed by negotiation before you would support an invasion

Iraq - 4 1/2 years without inspectors and few negotiations was more than long enough to support an invasion
North Korea - 4 years without inspectors and few negotiations was NOT long enough to support an invasion.

So Iraq - Merely SUSPECTING was enough to give you YEARS of supporting an invasion which means you had to support an invasion at least in 2001, 2 years after inspectors left.
But North Korea - Even after 4 years of KNOWING you still didn't support an invasion.

Or should we just realize you don't pay any attention to what is really going on and just make up your beliefs out of thin air?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

revel wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
OGIONIK wrote:
how did we protect the world from communism?

Are you a communist?

Who are you, McCarthy? Answer the question. Have we protected the world from communism?

The fact that he is not a communist, and neither are you, or most people in Europe, Africa, North America, South America, most of Russia now, Australia, etc... is proof that we defended the world against communism.

If you doubt our build up nuclear weapons had no role in that, then you are just an idiot.

The fact that you are not a big Pink squirrel is proof that our nukes prevented you from becoming one.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

What is wrong with you? Do you some how believe now that the USSR was not an actual threat to anyone and that the cold war was just made up?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

What is wrong with you? Do you some how believe now that the USSR was not an actual threat to anyone and that the cold war was just made up?

Nothing is wrong with me. What is "wrong" is your failed attempt at logic.

What's wrong with you that you can't see how silly your attempted logic was?

0 Replies

My logic: The build up of nuclear weapons deterred the USSR from expanding to it's neighbors. The fact that the US has a stable government and a strong conventional military (which allows for the use of nuclear weapons only as a last ditch effort) enables the US to keep Nuclear weapons.

Now, please explain what is wrong with that beyond the idiotic response of pink polka dotted bunnies.

0 Replies

going back to Snood's questions,

if i can play devil's advocate, while it's quite possible that there were hidden reasons for invading Iraq, such as establishing permanent bases or even running up profits for Halliburton, that by itself does not prove that the publicly stated reasons such as WMD or establishing democracy were bogus. i prefer to think that the Iraq morass the US finds itself in is the result of incompetence rather than Machiavellian scheming. either way, I never agreed with the invasion, and the sooner the US pulls out, the better, now that there doesn't seem to be any clear objective to continuing the occupation.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Pakistan is a nominal ally. I certainly have never advocated invading every nuclear power in the world. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who had attempted to annex neighbors, had destroyed an entire town with nerve gas, and who seemed to be well on the road to developing WMD based on hidden programs.

No, you never advocated an invasion of Pakistan, but that's only because your criteria for invading countries are designed solely to justify the decision to invade Iraq.

0 Replies

Is the Embassy Proof of Duplicity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know