Al-Qaida Has Nuclear Weapons Inside U.S.
- Thread starter VanillaGorilla
- Start date
cr4ytonic
Board Supporter
Jeez, ok let me lay it out socratic style.
A policeman must decide whether an action is right or wrong before taking action.
He needs some criteria, or set of rules to decide if something is right or wrong.
Different cultures have different criteria for what is right and wrong.
If one culture imposes its ideas of right and wrong on another the imposed upon people are going to get pissed *nb.
nb - This is fine with me because in the end someone is right and the other person is wrong, and can be seen as the cause of many conflicts.
What is wrong with US foreign policy that you have a problem with. BE SPECIFIC AND PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE POLICY CHOICE.
A policeman must decide whether an action is right or wrong before taking action.
He needs some criteria, or set of rules to decide if something is right or wrong.
Different cultures have different criteria for what is right and wrong.
If one culture imposes its ideas of right and wrong on another the imposed upon people are going to get pissed *nb.
nb - This is fine with me because in the end someone is right and the other person is wrong, and can be seen as the cause of many conflicts.
What is wrong with US foreign policy that you have a problem with. BE SPECIFIC AND PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE POLICY CHOICE.
hiphop
New member
well if you think us foreign policy is ok them im really sorry for you
ok let me give you an example.
iraqi
thousands of people dead
the war was totally and uncessairy
no WMD
US lied to the world
no ones to blame
and all this for oil
and the alternative is to be fair and honest
ok let me give you an example.
iraqi
thousands of people dead
the war was totally and uncessairy
no WMD
US lied to the world
no ones to blame
and all this for oil
and the alternative is to be fair and honest
cr4ytonic
Board Supporter
Is that a haiku?
Look you are going to have to make an argument, that is just a bunch of protestor chants.
You need to say the US is wrong because it did X when it should have done Y because of B in response to C, etc.
Sadam
millions of his citizens dead
the war removed him from power
tortured good people
He stole food for oil money
and now he is gone
is not an argument.
I don't understand though why people don't just admit Sadam was a bad guy and deserved/needed to be caught and punished. On of my friends here is from an exchange student who once lived in Iraq, her uncle spoke out against Sadam so they made the family watch as he was slowly lowered into a meat grinder... not a nice guy. Are you telling me he should have stayed in power? Results matter.
Look you are going to have to make an argument, that is just a bunch of protestor chants.
You need to say the US is wrong because it did X when it should have done Y because of B in response to C, etc.
Sadam
millions of his citizens dead
the war removed him from power
tortured good people
He stole food for oil money
and now he is gone
is not an argument.
I don't understand though why people don't just admit Sadam was a bad guy and deserved/needed to be caught and punished. On of my friends here is from an exchange student who once lived in Iraq, her uncle spoke out against Sadam so they made the family watch as he was slowly lowered into a meat grinder... not a nice guy. Are you telling me he should have stayed in power? Results matter.
hiphop
New member
but george bush is a bad guy too do we remove him from power ??, there are ways to do these thingsd properly, he could have got the whole world to support him on this, lend troops, pay for the cost and america would have at least regained a little bit of credibility in the mid east and come out a hero.
my point is because of american foreign policy you guys are encouraging terrorism, we have israel which is the main source of terrorism and we now have iraq that is the 2nd main source of terrorism. now forgive me if im wrong but everyone has a right to defend themselves wether its a so called terrorist in iraq or a freedom fighter in palestine.
But now the problem is where this was just a US problem and the terrorists only targeted them they are now targeting Europe and we are having to pay for americas irresponsibleness.
cr4ytonic
Board Supporter
Sure you say Georgy boy is evil but I run by the white house a couple times a week (good jog to do shirtless, lots of hotties run the monuments) and there are protesters out all the time and nobody messes with them. You know what happened if you even thought of protesting Sadam in his country?
The US DID try to get help form the rest of the world (Powell going before the UN, the resolution) the world just refused to help.
Please back up your claim that Isreal is the main source of terrorism, I have NEVER heard of an Israeli terrorist.
Just because I am doing something right/good and someone takes offense to it does not mean I have to stop doing it.
It is a fallacious argument that just because the middle east takes issue with the way the US runs it own house that the US should change to appease the middle east.
If I am doing something and you take holy offense to it and start killing people, you need to stop killing people, I don't need to stop whatever I am doing (you are the one killing people). Victim mentality and senseless appeasement make me want to puke!
The US DID try to get help form the rest of the world (Powell going before the UN, the resolution) the world just refused to help.
Please back up your claim that Isreal is the main source of terrorism, I have NEVER heard of an Israeli terrorist.
Just because I am doing something right/good and someone takes offense to it does not mean I have to stop doing it.
It is a fallacious argument that just because the middle east takes issue with the way the US runs it own house that the US should change to appease the middle east.
If I am doing something and you take holy offense to it and start killing people, you need to stop killing people, I don't need to stop whatever I am doing (you are the one killing people). Victim mentality and senseless appeasement make me want to puke!
hiphop
New member
im not saying he wasnt bad im saying the proper channels for conflict that should have been used werent, and you clearly support other dictatorships so it doesnt make sense to remove one but not the other.
Ironically the entire world refused to believe that iraq had WMD and yet the US was the only country that believed they did have them, thousands of unesscessary deaths later the world was right and the US was wrong. So who looks like the fool now
well there are such groups just wait and see when the gaza strip is handed over then they will come out but thats a long way out. I was actually talking about israel/palestine conflict. Im sure you and the rest of the world are well aware that this is the main source of terrorism in the world.
so if you are doing something that you believe is good/rght and the entire world believs its bad/wrong would you go ahead and do it anyway ??
what about if you started killin them first, dont they have a right to defend themselves
CDB
Registered User
It's those innocent civilians that are the mailman in my analogy. I do admit we didn't hear much from Japan as an enemy after we dropped nukes on them though. Given the possible extremity of the situation it might be justifiable.cr4ytonic said:
It is not our best interest to kill innocents. The best and most effecient way to deal with enemies is not to make enemies in the first place. We have more to gain through voluntary interaction than military dominance.
It's called self preservation. While the scenrio you bring up could happen there's no way to defend against it, other than doing what we're already doing in trying to track and inventory nuclear material as best we can. Pissing Iranians off isn't a way to make them less likely to do something of this nature. Iran wants power and to be taken seriously as a nuclear power. Despite the existence of hostile nuclear powers throughout the years, none has ever attacked us. Treat them as equals, trade with them and irreversibly tie our economic interests together and you do more to achieve safety for US citizens.
You forget to mention one thing about all the past civilizations you mentioned which is very relevant: They all fell, violently so, and very arguably because of their foreign and domestic policies of military dominance.
I have. If you read the Bible literally you will find some freaky **** too. Your point? I could point to The Next Christendom: the Coming of Global Christianity, by Philip Jenkins to counter your cite of Clash of Civilizations. Clash of Civilizations is written from a distinctly neoconservative point of view, that necessarily slants his opinions. And to address something you said before, neocons are not realists. They are largely war mongerers with a memory problem that doesn't allow them to think more than five minutes into the future or see more than five minutes into the past. Hence your quote about our current policy being a "response" in the Middle East.
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/font]
You mean mobs, but I digress. Survivial is better served through other means than killing some of your enemy and leaving the rest to take revenge, or as it's otherwise known Interventionism. That's a continuing cycle which threatens survival in the short and long term. As for those experts you've studied under, they're the same people that have brought us our current situation, which to me suggests they might be too caught up in their own BS to see beyond their own precious theories. I'd suggest some alternate, outside reading you may never have heard of: Interventionism and Omnipotent Government: The Rise of Total State and Total War, by Ludwig Von Mises; The Myth of National Defense, by Hans Herman Hoppe; Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, by Murray N. Rothbard; Diplomacy, by Henry Kissinger (which I assume you've already read, but you know it's got to be on the list); The Sorrows of Empire, by Chalmers Johnson. Many are written from an economic perspective.
If you don't mind I've assembled some quotes from your other posts to reply to:
We're in agreement about the UN, possibly for slightly different reasons though. I don't think the UN ever had a point or was justified in any way.
This is more than a bit disingenuous, and borderline bullshit. In 1949 we supported Colonel Husni az-Zaim in Syria, and he ended up turning agaisnt the US. Syria has essentially been screwed since our intervention there. In 1952 we first support Nasser in Egypt hoping he'll support us in anti-soviet actions. Instead he turns against us and then in '56 we rescinded foreign aid for the Aswan Dam, which he uses as a pretext to nationalize to Suez Canal. This causes a shitstorm with France, Israel and Britain, and oddly enough made us very popular with Arabs for about two minutes.
In '53 we help install the Shah in Iran, the Savak which were trained by the US overthrow the Shah and in the late 70s Iran turns against the US just as Syria did. In '58 we help overthrow the Iraqi royal family and help install Kassem as ruler of Iraq. He gets executed in '63 because he was a bloodthirsty bastard and we maneauver to support a little thing called the Ba'th Socialist Party in Iraq. There's a shitload of coups and in '76 Saddam Hussein emerges as ruler of Iraq, bloodily taking control of the very government we helped him install in the late 60s. 1958 is also the year we attempted to support the president of Lebanon from being overthrown, and that country has been fucked ever since.
Then oil is discovered in Libya and we support a young Muammar al-Khadafy, who after he achieves power turns against the US, says we're exploiting Arabs and procedes to nationalize the oil refineries in his country. He also persecutes the Jews and foreigners living there, taking their property, etc. In 1980 we support Iraq against Iran, Saddam invades Iran and the war lasts 8 years. We supply Hussein with weapons and intelligence. In '83 there's Lebanon to deal with, the bombing of the US barracks there. CIA agents attempt to kill Sheikh Fadlallah leader of the Hezbollah with a bomb. We end up killing/wounding just over three hundred civilians and not getting the Sheikh. In '86 we bomb Lybia and admit we're trading arms with Iran. Then comes Iraq I and II and we're into current territory. We supported the Taliban in '95 to try and end the civil war in Afghanistan and to further the drug war in the Middle East, and we end up fighting them in our current war.
Current US policy in the Middle East is a continuation of an idiotic policy of interventionsim, and to say they hate us because of cultural or religious differences is denying a history of misery we've brought upon that area, lasting more than half a century, which could do nothing but give birth to extremists like Bin Laden.
Agreed. This is because the bulk of criticism comes from the American left, which is ideologically foggy to begin with. The left was perfectly happy to use sactions to starve kids to death in Iraq under Clinton, but somehow thinks killing them directly with bombs under Bush is a bad thing. In fact I'd be willing to bet the number of civilians who died as a result of the sanctions was higher than the current war's civilian death count. Maybe it's an aesthetic disagreement, I haven't figured it out yet. One of the reasons I'm not so critical of Bush is because even though I think this problem is more than certainly of our own making, I see few if any coherent alternatives offerred.
Governments serve themselves, not their citizens.
Last edited:
hiphop
New member
although one thing i would like to say and has been left out is israel in this position, most of the wars and anti us hatred is because of israel, its easy to go round and give freedom and democracy to iraq and then up the road take that very same priveledge away from palestinians.
i agree with this good stuff
CDB
Registered User
I would disagree slightly with that. Israel is the lightening rod for anti US sentiment in the area but not the cause. The cause is our ever increasing interventionism and its effects on the citizens of the various countries there. Israel is just the focus people find, and only one of three main reasons listed by Bin Laden for attacking the US.hiphop said:
cr4ytonic
Board Supporter
CDB said:
I'm not saying we should kill innocents if it can be avoided, I am just saying it is natural for countries to do what is in their best interests which can involve any number of things.
CDB said:
The US needs to minimize the number of rogue nuclear states in the world, contries like Iran are extremely subject to political upheval, and do not want to be equals. They want to dominate, which is why a hard policy is the best, the safest senario is one where they never posess ICBMs or other nuclear material. It is just the US maximizing its relative power.
CDB said:
Most rot from the inside when their leaders cease to be virtuous. Rome did this, St. Auguinse's 1200 page City of God is a great explanation. Arguably Rome became great through her conquests, and fell when she became stagnant.
CDB said:
Please post what in the New Testament (yes the old is a little more risque but it is superceded by the new) you are talking about, there is a big difference in calling for the death of infadels and "love thy neighbor".
CDB said:
I have only read two of those, however I am familiar with the idea you are referring to and I think it discounts the idea that states exist in a state of international anarchy, i.e. there is no one to govern states so the strong do what they will and the weak do what they must to survive.
You are right about the difference between neocons and realists but I think the neocons are headed in the realist direction post-iraq, the only people closer to them are the old-school conservatives like George Carey and they are dying off (See his book in defense of the constitution).
You are obviously much more knowledgeable about the recent history of the middle east (I don't keep up with current events enoug being more into theory) than I although I am unsure about some of your conclusions.
PC1
Guest
CDB said:
This is a laugh, frankly. We come in with offers of military aid and heavy financial assistance to help remove leaders who are anti-US (and typically ruthless, brutal leaders), and WE are the problem?! Have most countries (or leaders, or would be leaders) we've intervened in CASHED the check we presented, or did they send the money back declining on principle?
You forget a few details. We bring democracy, peace and prosperity, not oppression at the hands of a brutal dictator. And while it also serves our own interests in doing so, the US is the only country in the history of humanity that has the military might to destroy the world or take posession of any country by force yet does not. Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq could have become the next 3 states in the union, yet we've handed the keys of sovereignty back to those countries...... and that's happened, WHEN before in the history of humanity?!
The US ARE the GOOD guys of the world, whether or not other countries care to admit it. The tyrannical dictators are not. Big difference bro, no comparison at all.
PC1
Guest
hiphop said:
hiphop said:
Well bro, if your second quote above was meant to be a question directed to me, you could have phrased it like a question. No disrespect intended but your English is rather tortured. Generally when people ask a question, they end the sentence with a "?" That's how one knows a response is being solicited.
Having gotten that out of the way, I believe what you're seeking is an "honest and fair" discourse. If that's what you're after, no problem.
Now aside from Israel, what is YOUR problem with US foreign policy, specifically..... point by point?
Also keep in mind that there are more Jews living in NYC now than live in Israel itself. So like it or not, I don't see the US abandoning Israel as an ally.
CDB
Registered User
That would be the safest option, but it's not acheivable. You can't stop the proliferation of technology. It'd be just as pointless to try and stop them from getting their hands on PCs. Or at least name one way to acheive it that doesn't involve greatly pissing them off or military action on our part. You can't stop progress, and stepping into the nuclear age in terms of energy and weapons is progress. As for rogue nuclear states I'm assuming you mean the ones that have caused or might cause harm by using nukes. If so the US is on the top of the list, as we're the only ones to have ever actually used nuclear weapons in a conflict.cr4ytonic said:
I might point out they worked rather nicely, which is probably why so many nations want them.
From perspective of economics, which is the main driving force in the rise and fall of all nations, the more resources diverted from the productive private sector toward war and bureaucracy the more waste there is. This is exactly how Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. He accelerated the fall of an already unworkable socio-economic system by forcing it into a military spending spree it couldn't maintain because it had literally no private sector to divert funds from. The rising costs associated with conquest, the maintainance of the annexed lands and the bureacracy that follows becomes too much a burden on the private sector, both in the resources consumed and the distortions introduced into the market. It eventually leads to a system wide collapse.
You can't section off a whole portion of the holy book in question. I'll quote from wherever I see fit, and this quote from Deuteronomy fits the kill all infadels mold rather nicely.
"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him." - Deuteronomy
If you want to compare crazies we've got them here too. They blow up abortion clinics, refuse to allow their children to see doctors because they fear for their child's soul, etc. It's just here they can earn a living, live in a house and generally chill out.
I don't know that they are better in their post war Iraq ideas, I just know the liberals are off base in most ways. Wars don't begin and end neatly. WWII was considered a success and there were guerilla attacks in Germany for some time after the official end of hostilities. The current situation in Iraq isn't unusual at all, nor is it a quagmire though it could possibly have been better prepared for. Nor should we ever feel the need to beg the UN to defend ourselves if necessary, nor should any other nation.
The problem is, as I pointed out in my list of events leading up to Iraq II, every past attempt at such an action in the Middle East, either covert or overt, has been a failure. Iraq will most likely be a failure as well. Plus it's still a questionable call as to whether or not we should have attacked Iraq to begin with, with the prudent judgement falling on the 'No' side. There was evidence of a relationship between Al Qeda and Iraq, nothing operational though and in no way enough to justify a full scale invasion. If it was there are several other countries over there with much clearer ties to terrorism begging to be invaded. The only way this war will be judged correctly is over time, maybe it will work out for the best maybe it won't.
Given the history of the region I side with those who say it won't. The best thing to do in my opinion is let the whole area fight it out and kill each other off and trade with whoever is the winner in the end. My money would be on the Israelis, they're tough motherfuckers.
It's simple though: if for over fifty years a foreign nation was trying to influence or outright run things in our country for their own benefit and routinely screwing things up, killing or subjugating our countrymen, allowing or outright installing bloody rulers, destroying our economic standing, etc., we'd be pissed off too, and we'd be justified. In fact this has more or less happened, it's the general trend of events in the thirteen colonies before the American Revolution. Britain was installing governors and engaging in mercantilism, restricting trade, controlling the minting of money, etc. If you look at the list of charges leveled at King George in the Declaration of Independence a lot of them are applicable to the people of the Middle East and why they're pissed at the US, the only difference being we don't directly rule the area so they're more abstract in their application. My feeling is we're setting ourselves up for a major war and it seems everyone on the planet besides the Brits are pissed at us. You don't need theory or current events to know that's not a good thing, just common sense.
Last edited:
VanillaGorilla
Active member
They do try to do try to place economic sanctions threw the WTO. If they decided to cross a line or go too far then they would start a trade war which wouldn't exactly be too beneficial for them economically or for the UN seeing that we pay a good chunk of their tab. Also if we stopped with our current globaloany religion of hurting the American economy for the sake of globalism we would be fine. We are making it easier and easier to export American jobs and they are being replaced with remedial pizza hut jobs. First we basically exported our manufacturing sector of the economy and now we are starting to see higher tech jobs being out sourced.They just had a story on the news about state workers being out sourced to India. Yet if you are against this type of policy you are labeled a protectionist. Apparently there is something wrong with protecting United States jobs.
You first question or comment doesn't make any sense. It is 100 % unconstitutional for the United States to be under foreign control. This country is a constitutional republic meaning our laws and rules come from the constitution of the United States not from the UN. The UN didn't support us in the war because of the oil for food scandal, which hasn't been getting too much media coverage for some reason. The UN, France, Germany and Russia were all getting kick backs and benefiting from the program. The United Nations was created so countries could have a place to talk and work threw conflicts rather than going to war. It was not created to be a global government, have it's own army, and to try to dictate to other countries what they should do.
As far as the war goes , there are more and more stories popping up that Iraq was indeed in the process of obtaining or all ready had the materials needed to make nuclear weapons.If that is the case them we were justified in going in. After 9-11 The united states has a right to do what ever is necessary to protect our country even if it pisses off bureaucratic socialist countries who believe the UN is the dictator of the world. Sadam was in violation of the UN's own resolutions and they did nothing about it. We now know why this was the case. The point is we can not depend on the UN for U.S security. Say for a minute that we had 100% positive intelligence that Iraq had nuclear and biological weapons that were going to be shipped out of the country in a week. The UN would be sitting on it's ass two months later debating about it. We need to look out for our own interests and most of the time our best interest is not what the UN wants.
CDB
Registered User
PC1 said:
You said I forgot a few details, yet leave the details out and bring rhetoric. I marshalled up a pretty lengthy list of US fuckups in the Middle East, where we most definitely did not bring "democracy, peace and prosperity," but in fact did bring oppression at the hands of brutal dictator(s)." Here's an abbreviated version of that list, in case you missed it.
Husni az-Zaim in Syria.
Nasser in Egypt.
The Shah in Iran, later overthrown by the Savak secret police, which were trained by the US.
Kassem in Iraq.
The Ba'th Socialist Party in Iraq
Saddam Hussein in Iraq in '76
Muammar al-Khadafy in Libya
The Taliban in Afghanistan.
I'd like to see one example where US intervention in the Middle East led to the results you claim. Recent examples of temporary stability don't count. This is an area where time is the test, there's no telling how the governments of Aghanistan and Iraq will shake out in the coming years. As for Kuwait, are you talking about the same Kuwait that was carved off from Iraq by the British after WWII and then later attacked by Hussein, the very leader we installed and supported in Iraq? How many Kuwaitees died in that war? Kuwait is like Saudi Arabia. Both are ruled by oligarchies, strict royal regimes. I'm sure you noted most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. The two countries aren't that different, neither is a good example of a westernized democracy where prosperity and freedom are in abundance.
I see nothing but rhetoric, no facts, no dates, no evidence. Write me when you get a little more substance to post. However here's a little primer on why the foreign aid you're so proud of is in fact nothing to be proud of. Take this quote from the American Economic Review:
"There is no evidence that less corrupt governments receive more foreign aid. Our vast exploration of the data never uncovered any even weak evidence of a negative effect of corruption on received foreign aid. The same result applies to debt relief programs, an additional form of aid." - Alberto Alesina and Beatrice Weder
By subsidizing socialist and generally corrupt regimes we hide, but not too well, the effects of their policies on their people. The rulers pocket the money, hand it off to cherry picked contractors, some domestic but mostly favored US corporations, for public good programs that do the public no good. It's essentially investment insurance for US corporations. Why do you think third world countries are always screaming for debt relief? Even with the billions if not trillions we've funnelled into those countries they haven't developed enough of an economy to stop the accrual of debt, much less start paying it off. Foreign aid really succeded in places like Haiti and Etheopia, oh yeah. Take this quote from an article on the subject by Jude Blanchette:
"The case of North Korea highlights the perils that government subsidies engender. Throughout the 1990's, the United States funneled billions of taxpayer's dollars into the North Korean government's coffers. Aid in food and oil helped support and extend the life of a moribund dictatorship. Korean leaders quickly became adept at extracting aid in return for more central planning and communism. The recent nuclear blackmail by North Korea has sparked yet another round of "aid" negotiations. The United States will most likely buy-off the North Korean government once again, and this outpost of Stalinism will prolong its existence and the continued misery for its populace. For Kim Il Jong, foreign subsidies offer the only hope for political survival."
Our aid does not help people. It is essentially welfare on an international scale for governments and not people. And like its domestic/individualistic counterpart it creates a permanent underclass of governments that becomes forever dependent on receiving more and more aid, even at the expense of extending the misery of the people those governments rule over.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
You said he was a bad guy. The last time I checked dubya wasn't cutting off peoples hands. We tried to go threw the "proper channels" but they we making money from Iraq so they wouldn't support us.
Now there is some evidence that may indicate that we were right. Contrary to popular opinion there is also some evidence that there was a link between Iraq/ Al Queda. I am not saying that Iraq plan the 9-11 attacks but they may have supplied the terrorist with anthrax.
I think the proverb your parents taught you or should have applies here. If the rest of the world decides to jump off a bridge, should we too?
cr4ytonic
Board Supporter
Yes, there are dictators we have not removed. Yes we made some mistakes. I think we have good intentions.
If there were a million people who were starving and you only had enough to feed one, would you feed nobody?
Likewise would you never lift a weight because you were afraid you could make a mistake and hurt yourself in the process?
I will get in on the specifics of your post @ work tomorrow, rater do a big post on the man's dime than my own
This is a good break form *(#)@*#)(*$ lsat studying though.
If there were a million people who were starving and you only had enough to feed one, would you feed nobody?
Likewise would you never lift a weight because you were afraid you could make a mistake and hurt yourself in the process?
I will get in on the specifics of your post @ work tomorrow, rater do a big post on the man's dime than my own
This is a good break form *(#)@*#)(*$ lsat studying though.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
It is laughable. It has became the intellectual fad in the elite circles and in Hollywood to have the what does Europe think mantra. In these peoples minds Europe is the socialist utopia. My response is, who cares what they think and if it's so great why doesn't they move there instead of trying to turn the United States into France? I don't want to pay 50 to 60 % of my income in taxes, pay 5.00 a gallon for gas, have the energy taxes that Europe has, or have a crappy socialized medicine were you have to wait 2 years to have important surgery if you needed it.
CDB
Registered User
There's a famous saying about the road to hell being paved by good intentions.cr4ytonic said:
What does this have to do with anything? I fail to see the slightest parallel of any kind in this statement to the situation in the Middle East.
No. However if it were a virtual certainty that I'd hurt myself and past experience dictated that certainty, I wouldn't lift weights. It's a virtual certainty Iraq will turn out like every other attempt at intervention in the Middle East. Badly. The government that takes power will likely turn against us or become so hopelessly corrupt and abusive the people of the area will overthrow it and replace it with some other extremist regime that hates the US. That's been the pattern for almost every intervention in US history. There's no reason to believe this one will be different. I also find it disturbing that you came on rather strong in you first posts and then admitted you weren't even familiar with the most basic of timelines recounting US involvment in the Middle East.
CDB
Registered User
If you're a famous sports star you can get bumped to the top of the list. Perhaps socializing medicine is just an attempt to get everyone to achieve that level of physical conditioning. I've always wondered why people want their health care handled by the same people who brought them the DMV. I also find it interesting that they blame greedy capitalists for raising the price of health care, when those same greedy capitalists have lowered the price of every other product/service on the planet.VanillaGorilla said:
Thing is people don't think regulation adds costs to a product/service, nor do they see a point to be made in that everyone can afford a TV, a computer, a blender, a CD player, and various other largely unregulated goods, but few can afford over regulated services like medical care, nor afford the licensing or approval necessary to start a business, become a doctor, or a lawyer, etc. Most people don't know that prices are set by consumers' marginal utility, not by corporations' greed, nor that it is corporate greed that drives prices down, not up. Most people don't see the inherent flaws in third party health insurance that works on fixed premiums but pays out essentially whatever is billed, nor do they understand how laws that eliminate discrimination on virtually any basis undermine the very function of pooled risk (insurance), or at the very least distort it severely.
Most people are really fucking stupid.
PC1
Guest
CDB said:
Recent examples of temporary stability don't count because why........ you say so?
In the history of humanity, how many examples of "permanant" stability can you rattle off for us?
CDB said:
This isn't about dates, names of foreign leaders, etc. The middle east is fvcked up with or without our investment in foreign aid. Our foreign aid is NOT the principal cause of their problems, was my point. Moreover, name 1 instance where we wrote the check, and the party on the receiving end declined on principle?
It's human nature to be resentful of others who have greater wealth and are more powerful than they are. Their "problem" with the US begins right there, even if the effects of our intervention has created more problems in some instances.
Personally, I have no problem whatsoever in discontinuing foreign aid. I'd be very happy to see Pat Buchanan in the White House.
CDB said:
You're not making any friends with that attitude.
Being that this web site espouses the benefits of weight training and physical conditioning, my advice to you bro is to go hit the weight room and blow off some of the pent up frustration you seem to be carrying around........and getting laid would put a new light on the day for you, too.
Last edited:
CDB
Registered User
Because at any time over the last fifty years one can pick a five to ten year period of relative tranquility within the region. Contrast this with the US or Europe, were one can pick periods of half a century up to a century to demonstrate relative tranquility. Nothing is permanent, the length of the period of stability relative to any random place in North America or Western Europe would be a good start. Take Saudi Arabia. It's relatively tranquil, has been for a while. The royal family there is holding on to power by a thread, and could easily be overthrown and if they are the general sentiment of the area would be largely against the US. Long lasting periods of stability are what I asked for because it's the true test of stability: time. It's inherent in the word's definition.PC1 said:
...because most don't know them and revel in the ignorance.
No, and why should they? What idiot would turn down free money. You also seem to forget that interventionism covers foreign aid and military action in foreign lands. But to clarify the point for you, just as Reagan's policies forced the USSR into a spending spree it couldn't support thus accelerating its fall, so the foreign aid of our current leaders props up corrupt and tyranical regimes in foreign countries and prolongs their existence, and most assuredly making the lives of the people there worse for it.
So would I, but for different reasons I don't doubt. However to underplay the role of military intervention in breeding resentment of the US among Middle Easterners is a bad move. If a man is richer than you, you may be jealous. If he kills your son accidentally in the name of promoting freedom, I think that would engender more resentment than his greater wealth. So would his general occupation of your country by military forces. How would you feel if foreign soldiers were, justifiably, laying seige to a local church? They may have a legitimate reason for doing so, for most people that wouldn't matter.
Don't know what attitude you mean. The one of actually being aware of the general history of the area and the context of this current conflict, or the one that refuses to make excuses for dead US soldier, dead Iraqis, and refuses to dehumanise the enemy by submitting to a "they hate us because we're rich" argument? Don't quite care if that makes or loses me friends. I refuse to take the simplistic attitude that we are the target of terrorists because they disagree with the swimsuit portion of the Miss America Pageant.
hiphop
New member
Ironically the entire world refused to believe that iraq had WMD and yet the US was the only country that believed they did have them, thousands of unesscessary deaths later the world was right and the US was wrong.
1.who is to blame for the failiure's regarding WMD in iraq
so if you are doing something that you believe is good/rght and the entire world believs its bad/wrong would you go ahead and do it anyway ??
your attempt to side step the original question was poor i said the entire world refused to believe that iraq had WMD and they were right your replied with some piss poor attempt to link iraq with al-queda which even the bush administration has rubbished. So if you dont mind awnsering the question again
1.who is to blame for the failiure's regarding WMD in iraq
so if you are doing something that you believe is good/rght and the entire world believs its bad/wrong would you go ahead and do it anyway ??
cr4ytonic
Board Supporter
cr4ytonic said:
was aimed at
hiphop said:
Your economic argument about Russia does not apply in this case (out of context). That was a conflict between two regional hegemons. The U.S. is now clearly a global hegemon, and the middle east, even combined, is not. I do npt think this can be painted in terms of great power conflict, especially an economic one (I don't think we are in a race to outspend the middle east, or worried about Mutually assured destruction, etc). Economics is just one part of a countries relative power, which is perhaps the best way of viewing conflict, etc (relative power that is).
As far as the old testament, use it to talk about Judaism all you want - but it simply does not apply to the Christian religions if it is over-ruled by the New Testament (why Jesus talks about replacing the old). Any reputable religious scholar, even those that are anti-christian, admit this fact since it is very clear. There is no replacing of the old in Islam (or Judaism). Yes you can quote anything you want, but that doesn't mean you are correct. For example if you qoute an old steroid book about pyramiding on and off on cycles you may be quoting something BBs once believed and did, but it has been replaced by something new.
It is possible to restrict the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Few countries want nukes. Even fewer have the power to acquire them. Even fewer are the ones we do not want to acquire them.
Ever seen those satellite shots of N. Korea? The NSA/CIA has employees staring at photos like that 24 hours a day. Nuclear processing facilities have a distinct look, it is pretty easy to spot them given the technology and machinery required and thus shut them down. Big cooling towers, places to store radioactive waste, etc. The US is also currently developing a satellite monitoring system I believe. If clinton haden't screwed up w/ N. Korea so bad they would be shut down by now.
Hiphop, shutup about the WMD in Iraq, no one really cares, everyone did think they were there and they may still find stuff. The investigation is not over.. Sadam needed to be taken down for oh so many reasons. If you don't think Sadam needed to go, state your case. I find it strange that people who are soooo eager to talk about human rights think a mass killer like Sadam should have been left in power.
CDB said:
I know enough about the timeline and to make a decent argument (I would say more than most). But I am not going to argue specific details when I know I would mess up on one or two and get called on it. It is simply not my area of expertise and I rarely say things I am not 100% sure about (hate being wrong).
I am not arguing the US is the good guy (although I think it may be) or that we have the best interests of foreigners at heart (although sometimes we do). I am arguing that any sovereign nation should be primarily concerned with its perpetual existance and the self-interest of its citizens.
CDB, i would love to see them fight it out and kill each other off too. However I don't think Israel is tough enough to win w/o US support (Didn't we give them their air force? not sure). Whoever emerged the victor would be more powerful than any of the previous competitors, and would control most of the world's oil supply as a regional hegemon. Basically they could dictate what the US should do, and could start WWIII, possibly allied against the US w/ china on their side. I think it is best to keep the area in perpetual internal conflict, it prevents them from really focusing their energies on the USA.
CDB
Registered User
The point of the quote is that there can't be a separation between intentions and actual results. Both are relevant, and one's intentions are secondary to the actual outcomes of one's actions. Good intentions that lead to actions that result in repeatedly making the situation worse for those you/we mean to help are essentially meaningless. Over time the quote has also come to mean that meddling in other people's affairs, no matter the intentions of the meddler, is a good way to screw things up worse for that person. Put simply, good intentions are not enough.cr4ytonic said:
I note the rest of my points have still gone unaddressed. I'm guessing you're a troll, the second I pulled out some very basic facts about the history of US involvement in the area you backed off and resorted to random swipes such as the one above. Until some coherence comes into your posts, adios.
CDB
Registered User
It does apply for that very reason. It's totally economic in nature. The effects are the same, or I should say opposite, for the chosen policies regardless of who is the superpower in the world.cr4ytonic said:
Which ignores your original argument. You pointed to, but did not provide specifics, of quotes in the Koran calling for the killing of infadels. I'm not asking for the specifics, I've read them already. There's nothing special about people raised in the Judeo-Christian tradition that gives them a superior ability to ignore the extreme passages of their holy book when compared to Muslims. You're basically saying here Christians won't kill because of such extreme passages, but Jews and Muslims will. This is clearly not the case.
It's essentially part of the neocon approach to war, the need to dehumanize the enemy. Christians are common sense people that won't kill on a whim because of some outdated quotes in their scriptures, but Muslims will. Ridiculous. Crazies are crazies regardless of religion, and they will use any means at all to justify their insanity. Muslims are all over the planet, if the quotes in the Koran are in any way causative of terrorism the entire planet should be in the middle of a blood bath. Like our own crazies, they quote selectively to justify their actions.
I wouldn't count on the CIA/NSA intelligence, simply because of the human error factor. The analysis of such pictures is usefull but it ignores an obvious flaw: the analysis is only applicable to areas that have been photographed. Human intelligence is necessary as well to make sure those sats are pointed at the right spots, and we're sorely lacking in that.
An interesting point, yes. I also find it interesting they ignore the deaths of Iraqi civilians under the sanctions during the eight years of Clinton, when his intervention could have easily had them lifted.
I wouldn't argue this, just that the means you are suggesting are in fact counterproductive. Also it is appropriate to point out that the interests of the government and the people subject to that government aren't always the same.
The Israeli army is made up of the other side of the Middle East fanatic group: fanatical jews. They are tough motherfuckers as I've said. I wouldn't put our army up against them in a logistically equal battle, their passion is unreal.
cr4ytonic
Board Supporter
CDB said:
The NT is the holy book for christians, the OT just puts it in context of what came before. Just because night comes before day does not mean they are the same thing. the night just puts the day in context because it is different, and the differences between the two define them.
CDB said:
Not sure I buy this, the U.S. has many satellites and we know what troubled regions to look at, it is easy to narrow the search (no need to look at canada for example). Clouds, etc may temporarily obsure the area but the things are massive and non-mobile.
CDB said:
True, although in speaking of elected officials I would like to think they are, and if they are not they will be replaced. It is often the case also that the interests overlap (not getting bombed, etc).
CDB said:
Yeah they are tough, 1967 Six-Day War, 1973 Yom Kippur War, etc proved that. I would not put U.S. troops up against thos religious fanatics with guns either.
My point was though that I think the U.S. supplies most of Israel's military needs on the supply side (tanks, guns, planes, etc - no troops). We would have to aid them (supply-side) for them to win an all-out conflict.
CDB said:
CDB
Registered User
I'll have a more detailed post to respond a bit later. Just wanted to name a good book on this subject, Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Excellent work that explains in economic terms why the interests of elected officials are destined to diverge from those of the populace.cr4ytonic said:
hiphop
New member
your wrong about WMD and your wrong about most of your other poinbts so there goes yuour credbility and integrity.
america has no ones interests at heart except its own its only on the rare occasion when a non allie does something wrong do they have the interets of the world at heart and yes they go through the UN so this rubbishes that point.
well if that was there plan then it was backfired as the conflict has broken out of the middle east and is now the worlds problem great thanks america another fine fcuk up.
this is difficult to asses as israel has always had the technological advantage, but i personally think the arabs would win cause when i see arab people trying to take on abrams with RPG either they are very brave or have a death wish
VanillaGorilla
Active member
The point I made is valid. If we had a serious 100 % proven threat to the united states, we would be waiting until it was too late for the UN's permission. My other point which you ignored was that the UN, France, and Germany was paid off by Iraq. What points have you made other than if the rest of the world is doing it so should the united States and parroting the anti Bush mantra of the left?
I didn't side step you question you just chose to ignore the UN oil for food scandal. If you have been reading the papers or watching the news there have been several stories this week about the intelligence about Iraq seeking nuclear material from Africa being accurate. There was some speculation that Iraq sent his WMD's to Syria.
Also in 1999 before 9-11, Newsweek ran a story about an Iraq / al Qaeda connection. Czech intelligence claimed that there was a meeting between Mohamed Atta and Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague and a few other meetings. It is my opinion that Iraq supplied the terrorists with anthrax. There was also these stories Invalid Link Removed and
Invalid Link Removed
Lets just say that Iraq had no WMDs and never did have any of them. You question is who's fault would it be. It would obviously be our own fault. We know that a informant was getting paid to feed us bad intelligence from another government.That however has nothing to do with the UN being the worlds global government. I am not a big supporter of president Bush but I will say this. He believed that there was a threat to the united states and he acted on it and didn't wait for permission. That I do support.
Who's interest are we supposed to act on France's? The UN acts for in own interests, so does France, Russia, and Germany. In fact they were making money from Sadam. We tried to follow the "channels". Why didn't the UN follow the proper channels when Sadam was in violation of their own resolutions? There decision not to support us was about the oil for food scandal not WMDs. The United States constitution is what this country follows not international law.
cr4ytonic
Board Supporter
VanillaGorilla said:
I would take this one step further to say that international law does even not exist, instead states exist in a system of international anarchy which is why they must put their self-interest first.
This is primarily because there is nobody to enforce it.
hiphop
New member
excuse me you havent made any valid points, if the threat was 100% proven you wouldnt have any problems gettings it through the UN. That point is invalid the oil for food is a poor attempt to give a reason to why they didnt believe the false evidence provided by the US. Yet you make no other attempt to explain the millions of people, various other countries and even heads of security that didnt agree with the illegal iraq war so that point is a waste of time and i refuse to continue with debating it.
this is nonsense
iraq - al-queda link = wrong
your opinion is wrong
this came from[/quote] you should have read all the way to the bottom you would have read this The 1,000 "sources" evacuated in the Iraqi operation included a "huge range" of radioactive items used for medical purposes and industrial purposes, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration told AP news agency. so i have no idea what you are trying to do linking medical nuclear waste to WMD waste.
This is the same guy that is now head of iraq hhmmm how ironic that this guy does such a **** job at intellegence that suits americas oil interetsts so ideally is now head of the iraq interim council hhmmmmm.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
They try to with the WTO. It is pretty obvious that the goal of the globalists is to install a way to enforce it. The problem is what they want is for the UN or something like the UN to become the global government of the world. What happens when U.S laws are in conflict with international law? The globalists believe we should change our laws to conform with theirs. All of this is blatantly unconstitutional of coarse.
cr4ytonic
Board Supporter
hiphop said:
You got it, america is in it for the oil. That is why oil prices here have gone UP after the war, not down. I think the fact that the U.S. is not stealing the oil speaks volumes for our intentions. We could sell it to U.S. companies to finance the war effort, but are not. We could sell it to lower the national debt, but are not. George Bush could use it to create a baseball team in texas which could beat the yankees, but he is not.
hiphop said:
This is fallacious, you are assuming the UN member states care if a threat exists, amongst other assumptions. If it is in their best interests to ignore the threat, why would they support the US?
VanillaGorilla
Active member
This statement says it all. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The only reason that we were able to get support for the first war in Iraq was we dropped the debt owed to us by certain countries. The UN is slow bureaucracy with the majority of members being against the united States. They don't do anything quickly or efficiently. If you honest believe that the UN and the rest of the world cares about American security I have some nice ocean front property to sell you in Arizona.
The point is all of the countries that would not support us were all making quit a bit of money from Iraq. Coincidence? No. Open up a paper or watch the news. There have been several stories about ours and England's intelligence being correct that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear material from Africa this week.
So your saying news week was wrong in 1999 and Czech intelligence is wrong too? I don't suppose you could provide any evidence to that case could you?
I spent quit a bit of time writing a paper about this. Do you even know anything about it? My guess is no.
Put on your thinking cap for a minute. Do you think maybe that terrorists would want to use this material to make a weapon? How about this... maybe just maybe Sadam was either planning to give the material to terrorists or make his own bomb? You left this quote out by the way... "could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device," or dirty bomb"
No it's not but thanks for providing more evidence that you don't know what your talking about.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
The person wasting b.w is you. You don't back up or even make an attempt to provide any evidence to back up what you say. You last two posts are perfect examples of this. My guess this is because you have no idea what you are talking about other than repeating a few left mantras. Debates work like this I say I believe this because XYX. You say what about A and B. All you do is say wrong and that you couldn't possibly waste you time composing a single paragraph. This may work in your one world government European socialist utopia but not here.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
Also you do know that Micheal Moore's movie has some inaccuracy problems.
PC1
Guest
VanillaGorilla said:
Yo VanillaGorilla............
You're wasting bandwidth on Hiphop. You can spend a day drudging up valid sources such as Newsweek, he just broad brushes it saying it's not valid.
I've enjoyed this thread, and feel like I"ve learned a thing or two. Hiphop doesn't give a shite, he's made up his mind and so please don't confuse him with facts.
PC1
Guest
CDB said:
No?
CDB said:
It would be that one right there. The "I'm a flaming ass" attitude that says fvck you.
I've enjoyed reading your posts btw. It's just too bad you had to lose your cool and stoop to this. I think you should apologize.
CDB said:
On this I agree 100%. This, and that you need to hit the gym and get laid
VanillaGorilla
Active member
You're right but I couldn't resist. It seemed to have kept him quite for the time being though. Tomorrow he'll post wrong, wrong, wrong but I can't tell you why.lol
CDB
Registered User
You need to read the post that quote was in response to, it was in line with it's tone. I've kept my argumentative posts in line as well. Getting laid is no problem, you might have a point about the gym though. I've got second degree burns running up and down both legs and can't workout for another week or so. It's infuriating.PC1 said:No?
It would be that one right there. The "I'm a flaming ass" attitude that says fvck you.
I've enjoyed reading your posts btw. It's just too bad you had to lose your cool and stoop to this. I think you should apologize.
On this I agree 100%. This, and that you need to hit the gym and get laid