Terrorists Have Invaded America

[Super_X]

The only way I can forsee us getting any economic gain is by becoming trading partners with Iraq once they become a stable democracy, which we can do with any country we convert to a democracy.

Or, Oil. We can install a figure-head to run their government while thy give us cheep oil. Then we can bartar it off to other countries for much more than it's worth! Woo for capitalism..

[MyndFyre]

The only way I can forsee us getting any economic gain is by becoming trading partners with Iraq once they become a stable democracy, which we can do with any country we convert to a democracy.

Or, Oil. We can install a figure-head to run their government while thy give us cheep oil. Then we can bartar it off to other countries for much more than it's worth! Woo for capitalism..

Well, that wasn't exactly what I was going for, but I'd pretty well assume we'll become trading partners with Iraq once it stabilizes.  Sure, we could do that with anybody, but I don't think that shum bum bubalai from Zimbabwe is going to go nearly as far economically for us as Iraqi oil.

[iago]

x86] link=topic=6235.msg74576#msg74576 date=1150321482]
That's stupid, this guy has launched chemical agents on his own people..what's stopping him from doing it on the rest of the world?

Oh, I don't know.  How about the world's armies and weapons?

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=6235.msg74576#msg74576 date=1150321482]
That's stupid, this guy has launched chemical agents on his own people..what's stopping him from doing it on the rest of the world?

Oh, I don't know.  How about the world's armies and weapons?

Yea because EVERY NATION is capable of stopping this right? Just like Iran was able to stop his initial invasion withought our help and just like Kuwait was able to defend their oil fields from burning. He isn't going to look far to launch them.

[iago]

x86] link=topic=6235.msg74723#msg74723 date=1150367856]

x86] link=topic=6235.msg74576#msg74576 date=1150321482]
That's stupid, this guy has launched chemical agents on his own people..what's stopping him from doing it on the rest of the world?

Oh, I don't know.  How about the world's armies and weapons?

Yea because EVERY NATION is capable of stopping this right? Just like Iran was able to stop his initial invasion withought our help and just like Kuwait was able to defend their oil fields from burning. He isn't going to look far to launch them.

Iran and Kuwait aren't the "rest of the world". 

We don't stop African countries from attacking each other.  We don't stop other middle-eastern countries from fighting.  If countries want to attack each other and their neighbours, that's fine, let them resolve their little disputes.  That's the way the world has always worked, and there isn't much sense in stopping it.  There's no reason for us to go mucking about in their affairs. 

Now, if they represent a threat to us, or to our allies (Americas, Western Europe, Eastern Asia), then yeah, there's an issue.  But until they are a threat to the "rest of the world", as you said, there isn't much sense in stepping in. 

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=6235.msg74723#msg74723 date=1150367856]

x86] link=topic=6235.msg74576#msg74576 date=1150321482]
That's stupid, this guy has launched chemical agents on his own people..what's stopping him from doing it on the rest of the world?

Oh, I don't know.  How about the world's armies and weapons?

Yea because EVERY NATION is capable of stopping this right? Just like Iran was able to stop his initial invasion withought our help and just like Kuwait was able to defend their oil fields from burning. He isn't going to look far to launch them.

Iran and Kuwait aren't the "rest of the world". 

We don't stop African countries from attacking each other.  We don't stop other middle-eastern countries from fighting.  If countries want to attack each other and their neighbours, that's fine, let them resolve their little disputes.  That's the way the world has always worked, and there isn't much sense in stopping it.  There's no reason for us to go mucking about in their affairs. 

Now, if they represent a threat to us, or to our allies (Americas, Western Europe, Eastern Asia), then yeah, there's an issue.  But until they are a threat to the "rest of the world", as you said, there isn't much sense in stepping in. 

So you're for letting an oppresive dictator potentially use chemical and biological agents on other people? Good to know.

[iago]

x86] link=topic=6235.msg74743#msg74743 date=1150387266]
So you're for letting an oppresive dictator potentially use chemical and biological agents on other people? Good to know.

I'm for either always doing it, or not doing it.  In almost all cases, you don't do it.  If you're only doing it in cases where it benefits your own country in some way, then I call bullshit. 

[CrAz3D]

x86] link=topic=6235.msg74743#msg74743 date=1150387266]

x86] link=topic=6235.msg74723#msg74723 date=1150367856]

x86] link=topic=6235.msg74576#msg74576 date=1150321482]
That's stupid, this guy has launched chemical agents on his own people..what's stopping him from doing it on the rest of the world?

Oh, I don't know.  How about the world's armies and weapons?

Yea because EVERY NATION is capable of stopping this right? Just like Iran was able to stop his initial invasion withought our help and just like Kuwait was able to defend their oil fields from burning. He isn't going to look far to launch them.

Iran and Kuwait aren't the "rest of the world". 

We don't stop African countries from attacking each other.  We don't stop other middle-eastern countries from fighting.  If countries want to attack each other and their neighbours, that's fine, let them resolve their little disputes.  That's the way the world has always worked, and there isn't much sense in stopping it.  There's no reason for us to go mucking about in their affairs. 

Now, if they represent a threat to us, or to our allies (Americas, Western Europe, Eastern Asia), then yeah, there's an issue.  But until they are a threat to the "rest of the world", as you said, there isn't much sense in stepping in. 

So you're for letting an oppresive dictator potentially use chemical and biological agents on other people? Good to know.

...maybe you missed what iago said the other day, he doesnt have a problem with war

[iago]

I don't have a problem with war.  I DO have a problem with dishonesty. 

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=6235.msg74743#msg74743 date=1150387266]
So you're for letting an oppresive dictator potentially use chemical and biological agents on other people? Good to know.

I'm for either always doing it, or not doing it.  In almost all cases, you don't do it.  If you're only doing it in cases where it benefits your own country in some way, then I call bullshit. 

We're benefiting by losing money and lives on a war? I'm sure the money we're using in Iraq COULD go to rebuild New Orleans but we're helping people start a greater country. We're going to do this in each and every country we find harboring terrorists or with an oppresive dictator. If this war were about Oil we wouldn't be buying it from them, we'd be taking it. This is just another stupid theory people make to try to justify their dislike for the war even in situations when it doesn't make sense.

[CrAz3D]

I don't have a problem with war.

......and again

Who in their right mind is ok with war!?  Its a horrible thing!

[Chavo]

I don't have a problem with war.  I DO have a problem with dishonesty. 

I hope this is one of those 'iago-taking-the-losing-side-of-an-argument-just-to-make-it-more-interesting' situations

whether you like it or not, politics is politics
I'm pretty sure the death tole from politics is a lot lower than war.

[MyndFyre]

I don't have a problem with war.

......and again

Who in their right mind is ok with war!?  Its a horrible thing!

Shh.  I'm not pro-war, I'm just not anti-war.  Sometimes it's necessary.

[CrAz3D]

x86] link=topic=6235.msg74762#msg74762 date=1150394832]

I don't have a problem with war.

......and again

Who in their right mind is ok with war!?  Its a horrible thing!

Shh.  I'm not pro-war, I'm just not anti-war.  Sometimes it's necessary.

We should all be anti-war, but we should also except that it is necessary..if that makes any sense, mayb ei'll reword later.

I dont believe in abortion, but I support it.
I dont like war, but I know we need it sometimes.

[iago]

War is often necessary and beneficial.  Like if the US had decided to dethrone Saddam Hussein, that would have been a good war.  If only they'd done that.  But instead, they mislead, lied, and declared victory on a goal that they hadn't set out to achieve (publicly). 

And incidentally, supporting war as being necessary isn't the same as saying that I like it. 

And yes, a lot of money was spent on the war, but look at all the oil and land that was captured.  I'd bet that the war in Iraq will pay for itself. 

How can you say, "Who in their right mind is ok with war" while at the same time support nuking the entire middle-east?  That would result in A LOT more death and suffering than any war has.