AliHajiSheik
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Messages
- 12,550
- Reaction score
- 4,369
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No. We are comparing scumbags by relativity. I don't think The First Moron's killing of 115,000 plus Iraqis is any different than Saddam killing 115,000 plus Iraqis.
I'm having a hard time following you, please use real names for who you are talking about. Is Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, the first President under the Iraqi Republic, the First Moron?
It seems pretty clear in Post 75. Is English your first language?
So what is our alliance and financial support of Saudi Arabia? Does invading that country only become priority once they don't play ball with the US?
This has nothing to do with absolutism and everything to do with understanding how States function. Perhaps YOUR motives were altruistic. But to claim that was the intention of the neocons and defense contractors is naive.
Not sure why this stat matters...
We as a nation are responsible for ending a tyrant that killed far more of his own people than we could ever imagine. We created an opportunity for democracy. And while you are bull****ting, we ended the....what was it...millions of children killed by those awful embargoes, plus the added benefit of stoping the Uday and Qusay express. Final tally...keep hatin if it makes you feel all better about yourself, but...That's not true. I don't give a rat's ass about Obama. I'm a Green. I hope to strike a resonant chord in the collective conscience of this board. We as a Nation are guilty of the deaths of those 115,000+ Iraqis.
You need real numbers so you will know just how relatively guilty you should feel. We killed them.
Logic: If you are going to **** your pants over the one, make sure you have plenty of diapers.Logic: yeah it was a ****ty decision going over there, but at least the other party voted for it too! :roll:
Is this coming from the same person who thinks that diplomacy and not war is the answer to world development? Tell ya what, I'll explain a bit. You see, when a country "plays ball" with the US, that means we have diplomatic and economic ties. With those ties, the West is provided an in-road, if you will, towards the COMMERCIALIZATION of those countries. Of course, we expect most countries to COMMERCIALIZE slowly, as we prod them along with the various tools in the diplomatic toolbox. Now, countries that are not willing to "play ball" with the West must be dealt with in other ways (sanctions, etc).
Now that you are aware of the many tools in the diplomatic toolbox and the role of context and priorities in the decision making process, you should be capable of grasping how these considerations result in various policies enacted towards various countries.
It is not only absolutism, but gravely ignorant absolutism. To pretend that every country should be treated exactly the same, as if any two countries are exactly the same, is a most unfortunate and, frankly, blind method of diplomacy.
ps. I don't believe in altruism. I do what I do because it helps me sleep better.
And you don't think we saved millions? Look, war is terrible, there is always collateral damage, however, the greater good was acheived.
These tools are known as developing Banana Republics run by Oligarchs for Oligarchs and we, as a Nation, can prove it. There is nothing altruistic about USA foreign policy. It helps American (USA) Corporations overseas. Those are about making profit not generating a positive impact on human rights.
We saved OIL for USA Corporations. Now, women don't have rights and they had rights under Saddam. Al Maliki did not get the most votes and he is the President, so it is not a Democracy. The $64 dollar question: "How do you help us by bringing war and death to our Country?" Originally asked by a young Vietnamese lady.
We saved OIL for USA Corporations. Now, women don't have rights and they had rights under Saddam. Al Maliki did not get the most votes and he is the President, so it is not a Democracy. The $64 dollar question: "How do you help us by bringing war and death to our Country?" Originally asked by a young Vietnamese lady.
Was that a young Vietnamese lady from the south that was being attacked by Ho Chi Minh? You ever met with any of his victims and discussed the reasons why we not only should have been there but should have vaporized the asshole?
Your sense of outrage and standards are pretty skewed for a guy that pretends to care.
The poll tells me what [people want to believe. The actual numbers are in the post links and pretty much indisputable. truthfully, I thought this would be the result and is the real reason for posting the poll. Give everyone the correct answer and follow the results. Ain't it revealin'?
Thats a pretty pathetic response. You threw out the whole Vietnam thing...right? THATS your comparison. THATS the stand you take. For the record, DF sez...US shouldnt have ended Saddam Hussein, and US shouldnt have stood against Ho Chi Minh.It's nice to see that no matter how wrong you are, you are going to "stick to your guns," as the old folks like to say. That sticktoitiveness must be a burden at times, like now, eh?
Has it occurred to you that people could be trolling you with their poll responses?
Perhaps YOU are the one being tested.
I'm gonna vote 1-5k right now, because your poll doesn't mean **** to me.
Thats a pretty pathetic response. You threw out the whole Vietnam thing...right? THATS your comparison. THATS the stand you take. For the record, DF sez...US shouldnt have ended Saddam Hussein, and US shouldnt have stood against Ho Chi Minh.
Thats a hell of a position for you to take and some awful interesting allies you choose.
That is why I made it a public poll. That way anyone who wanted to flaunt their ignorance had equal opportunity.
Has it occurred to you that people could be trolling you with their poll responses?
Perhaps YOU are the one being tested.
I'm gonna vote 1-5k right now, because your poll doesn't mean **** to me.
If you read the history of the Vietnam War you will learn that Ho Chi minh asked for our help and we decided to ally with the Catholics. That would be in a predominately Buddhist country. It was another evil war and I was there and I am sure of it.
The poll doesn't mean anything at all.
Ho Chi Minhs people brutalized south Vietnamese. When we bailed on them it was far worse for them. Our mistake was not our presence in Vietnam, it was that we didnt engage the war to defeat the enemy. The error was political, tactical. We should not have been there if our intent was to not defeat the enemy and you dont defeat an enemy like North Vietnam by fighting a fight by their rules. Glad you made it home safe, but seriously dood SIDE with Minh??? You realize how many south Vietnamese people he slaughtered on his way to taking over the country...right? **** dood...considering your zeal for Minh you must have had a hard on thinking about Saddam.If you read the history of the Vietnam War you will learn that Ho Chi minh asked for our help and we decided to ally with the Catholics. That would be in a predominately Buddhist country. It was another evil war and I was there and I am sure of it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?