Pages: 1 … 12 13 14

 

2010-01-07 13:07:07
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France

ruisleipa wrote:

Pug wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:


well that is a matter of opinion. Personally I don't think the Kuwait constitutional monarchy is worth f-all.
And then...what's your opinion of Congo?
I don't know enough that much about Congo tbh but I reckon the civilians there are just as important as the people in Kuwait. Don't you?
Well make up your mind then.

Either both the Kuwaitis and Congonese civilians are worth protecting, or neither of the civilians are worth protecting.

Either Kuwait was about oil and not the civilians, or it was about the civilians and not about oil.

Either you want the US involved everywhere protecting Kuwait and Congo, or you want the US to stay home.
2010-01-07 14:56:19
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

kind of like how Poland was defended back in 1939...
Not by the US it wasn't, no oil I guess.
Fuck Israel
2010-01-07 15:15:12
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

Pug wrote:

Either both the Kuwaitis and Congonese civilians are worth protecting, or neither of the civilians are worth protecting.
both sets of civilians - but in fact the congolese aren't being invaded and its debatable whether the kuwaiti civilians were in much danger if saddam invaded for oil innit.

Pug wrote:

Either Kuwait was about oil and not the civilians, or it was about the civilians and not about oil.
Why only one or the other?


Pug wrote:

Either you want the US involved everywhere protecting Kuwait and Congo, or you want the US to stay home.
again doesn't have to be one or the other does it but I don't want the US to invade other countries, basically. Like Iraq for example. I was only saying that the invasion of Kuwait was certainly also about oil like the occupation of Iraq is too and not about protecting democracy which was one shit excuse given at the time.
2010-01-07 15:38:24
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France
both sets of civilians - explain how a military force entering from the north border increases the safety of the civilians.  Feel free to compare it to what's actually relevant - Saddam not invading at all.  And if you can prove that, then do you think the Congo affair is making the civilians safer?

one or the other - you stated the war was about war, then brought in Congo, which has no oil.  So therefore, if Congo has no oil, then you are asking for the US to do the same for Congo, which would be about something besides oil right?  If it works for one, why doesn't it work for the other?

Last part - you finally came back to it.  Well, I go back to my first question - was it right for Saddam to invade Kuwait?  Should the US supported it instead?  Isn't that what you are suggesting?  Or are you merely pointing out it was a "shit excuse", while I'm proving it was justifiable?  You might think it was ugly, but where were you when this all went down?  The whole freakin world was happy about it.

Another question - one's a civil war, one's action against an invasion.  Of the two you are arguing against repelling an invasion and for involvement in a civil war?  Wut?

 

Pages: 1 … 12 13 14

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard