python416
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2005
- Messages
- 484
- Reaction score
- 2
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini
Please do not quote ANYTHING about making money. All of the permenate members of the SC sell weapons, but the US is the leader. They too sold weapons to Saddam right up to Kuwait.
You seem to think that because Iraq is in the middle of the map, that gives the US the right and obligation to conquer it. Well it doesn't. Just cause it is a strategic location with a lot of oil, that doesn't give the US the right to invade. And to invade under the veil of "war on terror" is even more wrong.
There are ways to aid democracy without forcing it with bombs, or having other dictators force it from outside. In fact, neither will bring real democracy - but then again that is not what this war is about anyways.
The US does coddle dictators, so don't say that the other ways to deal with Iraq would have required it. The US did it before Iraq and will continue to do it after Iraq. Iraq has nothing to do with anti-dictator desires.
I have no problem with the US in its 20th century role. I applaud it. I may seem to come at the US, but my only issues with US foreign policies have been under this adminstration. And it is even more inexcusable due to the opprotunity to really make the world a safer place with the world-wide political captial Bush had after 911 - which he completely wasted.
The neoconservative momentuem was there in the Reagan era, but didn't fully take control until Bush 43. Once 911 hit, they were in place to start PNAC, and they have. That is where the US stopped being a force of conservative balance in the cold-war / post-cold-war eras, and started being a neoconservative destabilizing force that only cares about controlling strategic parts of the world - and making money. It is unchecked captialism, with little in the way of moral guidelines.
I do enjoy myself thanks. You say you are a nuclear expert, but you seem to be a little of the mark in terms of the damaging effects of nuclear contamination. I believe in nuclear power, but also believe that radiological isotopes in the open-environment is bad. Forgive me if I don't want to take the word of someone who thinks wind-currents are going to keep the US biosystem free of contamination if the US clear-cut the mid-east with nukes - forgive me if I don't want to take your word for it when it comes to the damaging effects of U238.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Please do not quote ANYTHING about making money. All of the permenate members of the SC sell weapons, but the US is the leader. They too sold weapons to Saddam right up to Kuwait.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You seem to think that because Iraq is in the middle of the map, that gives the US the right and obligation to conquer it. Well it doesn't. Just cause it is a strategic location with a lot of oil, that doesn't give the US the right to invade. And to invade under the veil of "war on terror" is even more wrong.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
There are ways to aid democracy without forcing it with bombs, or having other dictators force it from outside. In fact, neither will bring real democracy - but then again that is not what this war is about anyways.
The US does coddle dictators, so don't say that the other ways to deal with Iraq would have required it. The US did it before Iraq and will continue to do it after Iraq. Iraq has nothing to do with anti-dictator desires.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I have no problem with the US in its 20th century role. I applaud it. I may seem to come at the US, but my only issues with US foreign policies have been under this adminstration. And it is even more inexcusable due to the opprotunity to really make the world a safer place with the world-wide political captial Bush had after 911 - which he completely wasted.
The neoconservative momentuem was there in the Reagan era, but didn't fully take control until Bush 43. Once 911 hit, they were in place to start PNAC, and they have. That is where the US stopped being a force of conservative balance in the cold-war / post-cold-war eras, and started being a neoconservative destabilizing force that only cares about controlling strategic parts of the world - and making money. It is unchecked captialism, with little in the way of moral guidelines.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I do enjoy myself thanks. You say you are a nuclear expert, but you seem to be a little of the mark in terms of the damaging effects of nuclear contamination. I believe in nuclear power, but also believe that radiological isotopes in the open-environment is bad. Forgive me if I don't want to take the word of someone who thinks wind-currents are going to keep the US biosystem free of contamination if the US clear-cut the mid-east with nukes - forgive me if I don't want to take your word for it when it comes to the damaging effects of U238.
Last edited:
