The W
Views: 97733384
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
27.7.07 2328
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Powell's Iraq Case
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3(1854 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (46 total)
Net Hack Slasher
Banger
Level: 100

Posts: 890/2805
EXP: 10059596
For next: 294836

Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind

Since last post: 3502 days
Last activity: 1922 days
#41 Posted on 8.2.03 2134.15
Reposted on: 8.2.10 2134.52
I'm a little scared to say this but I agree with OSH. I still don't see the necessary connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussan or Iraq. 9/11 was a huge tragedy but taking that date and giving a free pass to attack any country you have a problem with doesn't seem to work.

This is very Minority Reportish, you are attacking someone for something that hasn't happened yet and you suspect it happen. This wouldn't hold up at any court of law in America, but speculation of what might happen is enough reasoning to have a full out attack on someone.

If that is the case, why not attack North Korea, how about attacking the Soviet Union and dropping bombs over Moscow during the cold war.

Atleast a decade ago you had Saddams men marching into Kuwait. What do you have now. America is being the aggressor, it looks really bad.

Lets call it as it is. This isn't protecting America, this is all about Oil. Bush wants oil, Iraq has it. If he can control Iraq he has the supply that he wants and he doesn't have to worry about pain in the ass trading partners like The Saudi's, or the environmentalist in Alaska. And I didn't even mention the headaches with Venezuela right now.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 470/1528
EXP: 4046267
For next: 144881

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2742 days
Last activity: 2585 days
AIM:  
#42 Posted on 8.2.03 2335.27
Reposted on: 8.2.10 2335.28

    Originally posted by Net Hack Slasher
    Lets call it as it is. This isn't protecting America, this is all about Oil. Bush wants oil, Iraq has it. If he can control Iraq he has the supply that he wants and he doesn't have to worry about pain in the ass trading partners like The Saudi's, or the environmentalist in Alaska. And I didn't even mention the headaches with Venezuela right now.


Ah yes, oil. You know we get most of our oil from Venezuela? Here, let me posit a couple hypotheticals for you.

1.) Bush, in a "humanitarian" move, drops sanctions against Iraq. Saddam gives us oil in exchange.

2.) Bush takes over Iraq, gets oil.

Given the world climate, I think number one is much easier. The French would no doubt love us for it, as they get a good amount of oil from Iraq, as I believe the Russians do also.

This war might involve oil interests, but they are not American.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1444/3420
EXP: 13549611
For next: 410079

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
#43 Posted on 9.2.03 0820.53
Reposted on: 9.2.10 0823.39
"And, Bucs: You think American is trying to take over the world? Check the facts. What happened after WWII? Last I checked, the Soviets took over huge swaths of land, while the Americans REBUILT EFFING EUROPE, so they could oppose us decades later. If we were truly an Imperial nation, we would have done exactly what the Soviets did, and there would be no France or Germany today. And if we wanted Empire, why go through the freaking UN? If we wanted to take over the whole Middle East, we would have done it by now. Who is going to stop us, Canada and it's 55,000 man army? The case that America is an imperialist nation has zero grounding. Our history is rife with opportunities for land grabs and massive imperialism (remember, we had the nuke before anyone else), and we passed up on them."

I didn't mean to say the US was trying to take over the world. I was pointing outthe double standard of whomever posted what I was responding to, saying that mass killings would be excusable for America.

And America being friendly pre- and post-WWII is completely irrelevant. I wish this country had the attitude now that it appears to have had back then.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 472/1528
EXP: 4046267
For next: 144881

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2742 days
Last activity: 2585 days
AIM:  
#44 Posted on 9.2.03 1357.57
Reposted on: 9.2.10 1358.59
Again, you're not looking to merit or motive. I will agree that all killing is a loathsome thing. I will not agree that all killing is wrong. Is it wrong to shoot a man who is trying to rape your wife?

Granted, that analogy is not perfect, but it does (I hope) prove my point that killing is sometimes necessary.

What if the DC sniper was using a human shield, and the only way to take him down was to take the human shield with him? Would that be justified? I say yes. I suspect you disagree.

And America's track record after WWII is completely relevant; it refutes your (later-retracted) claim that we're an Imperialist nation.

(edited by PalpatineW on 9.2.03 1459)
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 850/3059
EXP: 11461931
For next: 9514

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1899 days
Last activity: 1833 days
#45 Posted on 9.2.03 1622.10
Reposted on: 9.2.10 1622.32
"And America's track record after WWII is completely relevant; it refutes your (later-retracted) claim that we're an Imperialist nation."

Although I do agree that America is not an Imperialist nation-just an arrogant one-I do have counterpoint to this. Using past track records is pointless when debating America's current actions; the entire argument for Iraq is based around preventative measures and sensible action to protect future interests. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there was little long-term thinking dedicated to the decision to, y'know, ARM certain Middle Eastern despots during the Cold War.

PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 474/1528
EXP: 4046267
For next: 144881

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2742 days
Last activity: 2585 days
AIM:  
#46 Posted on 9.2.03 1627.39
Reposted on: 9.2.10 1628.17
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    "And America's track record after WWII is completely relevant; it refutes your (later-retracted) claim that we're an Imperialist nation."

    Although I do agree that America is not an Imperialist nation-just an arrogant one-I do have counterpoint to this. Using past track records is pointless when debating America's current actions; the entire argument for Iraq is based around preventative measures and sensible action to protect future interests. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there was little long-term thinking dedicated to the decision to, y'know, ARM certain Middle Eastern despots during the Cold War.




I think the US was more concerned with keeping the rest of Europe, and the world, out from under the Iron Curtain at the time. So maybe we can accuse US leadership of lack of foresight, but arrogance? The Cold War was as much for Europe's freedom as America's.

(edited by PalpatineW on 9.2.03 1729)
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2 3Thread ahead: State Can Make Inmate Sane Enough to Execute
Next thread: UN is always good for a laugh
Previous thread: What a difference a decade makes
(1854 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Powell's Iraq CaseRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.185 seconds.