Sorry... have to break for a moment... just find it entertaining that it's better living in Communism than being under French rule... whew... that was a good laugh!Turquoise wrote:
However, looking at the context of each war, Vietnam was a shitty situation to begin with. Before the Communists invaded Vietnam, it was oppressed by the French. Understandably, the people saw the potential for a better life in Communism. In hindsight, it kind of looks like the Vietnamese were screwed either way, by trading one oppression for another. However, at the time, a lot of Vietnamese had a logical reason to trust the Communists more than the French.
Yet, was this really a fight for world peace? One could argue at the time that the Communists could have provided a better life for the Vietnamese than the French had. Undoubtedly, we entered Vietnam to stop the spread of Communism, but that doesn't necessarily equate to aiding world peace.
then america came along and deformed nearly all of the next vietnamese generation...and vietnam can't even sue...
LOL... yes, believe it or not, the French treated the Vietnamese very badly.silo1180 wrote:
Sorry... have to break for a moment... just find it entertaining that it's better living in Communism than being under French rule... whew... that was a good laugh!Turquoise wrote:
However, looking at the context of each war, Vietnam was a shitty situation to begin with. Before the Communists invaded Vietnam, it was oppressed by the French. Understandably, the people saw the potential for a better life in Communism. In hindsight, it kind of looks like the Vietnamese were screwed either way, by trading one oppression for another. However, at the time, a lot of Vietnamese had a logical reason to trust the Communists more than the French.
Yet, was this really a fight for world peace? One could argue at the time that the Communists could have provided a better life for the Vietnamese than the French had. Undoubtedly, we entered Vietnam to stop the spread of Communism, but that doesn't necessarily equate to aiding world peace.
sfarrar33 wrote:
Fancy_Pollux easy to make nuke!?!?! are you sane!??!?!
please go look it up on wikipedia, then once you have think about the logistics of aquiring the materials and assembling them and then delievering this nuke to where it needs to be.
Having the instructions to build a nuke != having the means to do so. I already explained that. You should brush up on your reading comprehension:Fancy_Pollux wrote:
If you knew anything about this would realize that building a nuke is fairly simple and common knowledge to most nations. What is not simple is obtaining and producing the materials required to do so.
www.hookedonphonics.com
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-04 09:45:49)
Mate i never quoted it all because it was getting to big, didnt want people to have to trawl all through it again, i should of put some ... sorry my bad. Smiley face wasn't being clever at all, its just the Bush Administration said one thing entering the war on Iraq and im sure within the last 6 months one of them (i forget who) said that they went it for another reason. A reporter then asked was it not for *insert original thing here* and the guy said no! Sometimes it seems they forget what they originally said. Hope your not taking this personally, im just commenting on what I know (could be wrong and im happy to be corrected) or see/hear.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Yes, and I explained why just above that in the post you neglected to fully quote. Is the smiley face your way of attempting to be clever?tiptopT wrote:
Ah but was it ever "initially" for World PeaceFancy_Pollux wrote:
Whether or not the U.S. has succeeded, please explain how either of those were not in the interest of world peace. Your logical is circular. It's like saying that we went into the country in the interest of world peace, but since we failed in our mission of creating that peace, our interest for initially going there suddenly is not one of peace.
P.S. Smiley face is showing that im not being aggressive as hard to tell.
Yeah common knowledge to most nations who have developed them, the US government publishing stuff like how to build a triggering device etc etc is handy for those who haven't spend billion of dollars on a nuclear development program and now don't really need to thanks to the current U.S administration, the delivery system and detonation is a bit more complicated than the equation, "wayhaaaay we've got weapons grade plutonium = bomb" So highlighting this gross incompetency is hardly irrelevant, my point is why buy it when thanks to the government anyone with such aspirations got most of the required information free by just logging onto the Internets and using google..Fancy_Pollux wrote:
If you knew anything about this would realize that building a nuke is fairly simple and common knowledge to most nations. What is not simple is obtaining and producing the materials required to do so. Care to interject any more irrelevant points?IG-Calibre wrote:
No they just put the information up free on how to build it themselves on the internet..
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-11-04 09:47:35)
"Well, after all america can invade any country any time..."
You will be a super power for about 10 more years. Make the most of your cowboy attitude.
Any country can. America could never mess with a country from the EU. They would get spanked. France, Britian and Germany are the "EU" then there are the small countrys.
You will be a super power for about 10 more years. Make the most of your cowboy attitude.
Any country can. America could never mess with a country from the EU. They would get spanked. France, Britian and Germany are the "EU" then there are the small countrys.
You were questioning my post, yet failed to include in that quote the part that answered the question, thus making your post pointless as far as progressing the debate goes.tiptopT wrote:
Mate i never quoted it all because it was getting to big, didnt want people to have to trawl all through it again, i should of put some ... sorry my bad. Smiley face wasn't being clever at all, its just the Bush Administration said one thing entering the war on Iraq and im sure within the last 6 months one of them (i forget who) said that they went it for another reason. A reporter then asked was it not for *insert original thing here* and the guy said no! Sometimes it seems they forget what they originally said. Hope your not taking this personally, im just commenting on what I know (could be wrong and im happy to be corrected) or see/hear.
P.S. Smiley face is showing that im not being aggressive as hard to tell.
As I already outlined, which I will now elaborate on, the US's initial reason for invading Iraq was to remove Saddam's WMDs (which turned out to be non-existent). The operation has now shifted to rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and establishing a democracy. All of these are in the interest of world peace. If you disagree, you are simply not making the distinction between intent and consequence.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-04 09:53:37)
I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this.Onidax wrote:
Any country can. America could never mess with a country from the EU. They would get spanked. France, Britian and Germany are the "EU" then there are the small countrys.
While I agree that our superpower status is on the way out, I would argue that America could defeat the EU militarily. Granted, attacking the EU would be a really stupid idea, and we'd be in bad shape afterwards.Onidax wrote:
"Well, after all america can invade any country any time..."
You will be a super power for about 10 more years. Make the most of your cowboy attitude.
Any country can. America could never mess with a country from the EU. They would get spanked. France, Britian and Germany are the "EU" then there are the small countrys.
To agree(i think) there is more chance of me having sex with Micheal Jackson Yesterday on Mars than America attacking the Eu.Turquoise wrote:
While I agree that our superpower status is on the way out, I would argue that America could defeat the EU militarily. Granted, attacking the EU would be a really stupid idea, and we'd be in bad shape afterwards.Onidax wrote:
"Well, after all america can invade any country any time..."
You will be a super power for about 10 more years. Make the most of your cowboy attitude.
Any country can. America could never mess with a country from the EU. They would get spanked. France, Britian and Germany are the "EU" then there are the small countrys.
Theres no point,Britain is one of America's greatest allies.It's like a broken pencil,pointless.
Anyway if it did happen,what would stop Russia or China thinking why the hell did they just attack Europe?Then proceeding to attack the Us.
The only reason the operation has shifted to rebuilding Iraqis infrastructure is because America blew the shit out of it using lies and deception to justify it. A wrong, then a right don't equals a right. The rebuilding is just a way for large American companies to the 'rebuilding' while skimming funds and lining their own pockets with the people of Iraqis oil money. Granted the USA isn't stealing the Iraqi oil directly, but indirectly. The oil for food scandal proved that.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
As I already outlined, which I will now elaborate on, the US's initial reason for invading Iraq was to remove Saddam's WMDs (which turned out to be non-existent). The operation has now shifted to rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and establishing a democracy. All of these are in the interest of world peace. If you disagree, you are simply not making the distinction between intent and consequence.
On the thread topic. The findings of this survey are prity much what I already knew from talking to ppl. People are scared shitless of what Bush Co. are capable off next.
Last edited by JahManRed (2006-11-04 10:01:18)
How low can you go? I just posted the survey and made no comment at all.SoC./Omega wrote:
Bush a threat?! Well were sorry for attacking terroists who killed 3,000 of our people and knocking down one of our best buildings. Tell me if you fucking brits were attacked you would just sit there and let them keep attacking you, EH?! You guys don't see things Americans do. You don't see what good he has done also, you don't see anything good about Bush over there because BBC is liberal and only reports the bad shit.sfarrar33 wrote:
come on i want an american to honestly say that they think Bush is a threat to world peace, there has to be someone out there
sergeriver any shutting up from you about Bush? Its getting old and stupid, knock it off argintine.
Um, the middle east has been a hot bed long before we ever invaded Iraq, or liberated Kuwait for that matter. Orwell was right, people have such short memories we can barely remember the history of 5 years ago. Terror training camps have been around for a much longer time, and the only way to beat them is to "nation build". And yes, it IS what we did in Germany and Japan in WWII, they didn't build themselves. We re-established their Gov'ts, rebuilt their infrastructure, and re-created their economies. We realized then that the only way to stabalize a region is to create a stable gov't, not to let it fester for the next time. We've realized it again, and need to stay there to finish the job. Only with a stable, working, and friendly gov't working together will this ever stop. Syria, Iran and other nations have been funding and supporting terrorism for much longer than we've had Iraq as a thorn in our side.Turquoise wrote:
By removing Saddam, we greatly increased the chaos of the Middle East. Having created a hotbed of terror right in the middle of that region is certainly something that qualifies as having harmed world peace.
Oh, right, and the Iraqi infrastructure and system was in such GREAT shape while Saddam was in power, no problems there at all. Oh, and the main culprits in the oil for food scandal involved mainly UN and European powers, not US.JahManRed wrote:
The only reason the operation has shifted to rebuilding Iraqis infrastructure is because America blew the shit out of it using lies and deception to justify it. A wrong, then a right don't equals a right. The rebuilding is just a way for large American companies to the 'rebuilding' while skimming funds and lining their own pockets with the people of Iraqis oil money. Granted the USA isn't stealing the Iraqi oil directly, but indirectly. The oil for food scandal proved that.
Guys, seriously, if Bush was that stupid and that bad of a president why did we re-elect him? Eh?
And if anyone says that its because Americans are stupid, go to school some more.
And if anyone says that its because Americans are stupid, go to school some more.
The Middle East has been and will ALWAYS be a hotbed of terror with or without US involvement in the region. The only end of this would be through military intervention or their evolution into a civilized society. I already outlined this earlier in the thread.Turquoise wrote:
By removing Saddam, we greatly increased the chaos of the Middle East. Having created a hotbed of terror right in the middle of that region is certainly something that qualifies as having harmed world peace.
I pretty much agree with this statement about ME as a hotbed of terror, although I think more war will only bring more terrorism. The world needs to replace the UN with something that really works, and it's not useless like the UN. We need a nun, New United Nations.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
The Middle East has been and will ALWAYS be a hotbed of terror with or without US involvement in the region. The only end of this would be through military intervention or their evolution into a civilized society. I already outlined this earlier in the thread.Turquoise wrote:
By removing Saddam, we greatly increased the chaos of the Middle East. Having created a hotbed of terror right in the middle of that region is certainly something that qualifies as having harmed world peace.
PS: Fancy, don't take it wrong, I find some of your posts very right and somehow clever, but you say things in an arrogant way, and people don't like that.
Last edited by sergeriver (2006-11-04 11:10:14)
I think this is the first time I agree with you on something sergeriver, the UN is kinda useless lol.sergeriver wrote:
I pretty much agree with this statement about ME as a hotbed of terror, although I think more war will only bring more terrorism. The world needs to replace the UN with something that really works, and it's not useless like the UN. We need a nun, New United Nations.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
The Middle East has been and will ALWAYS be a hotbed of terror with or without US involvement in the region. The only end of this would be through military intervention or their evolution into a civilized society. I already outlined this earlier in the thread.Turquoise wrote:
By removing Saddam, we greatly increased the chaos of the Middle East. Having created a hotbed of terror right in the middle of that region is certainly something that qualifies as having harmed world peace.
PS: Fancy, don't take it wrong, I find some of your posts very right and somehow clever, but you say things in an arrogant way, and people don't like that.
FYI I posted this as an information from The Guardian, I didn't even make a comment or statement. And you must learn to deal with the fact that not everyone likes Bush. The survey says Bush is a threat not America. And, in reply to your question I think he won the second election because John Kerry was a poor candidate, and yet it was a close election. Watch Bush popularity today in the US, it is in its lowest level ever. So nobody can say Americans are stupid, Americans did notice he is not doing well too.SoC./Omega wrote:
I think this is the first time I agree with you on something sergeriver, the UN is kinda useless lol.sergeriver wrote:
I pretty much agree with this statement about ME as a hotbed of terror, although I think more war will only bring more terrorism. The world needs to replace the UN with something that really works, and it's not useless like the UN. We need a nun, New United Nations.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
The Middle East has been and will ALWAYS be a hotbed of terror with or without US involvement in the region. The only end of this would be through military intervention or their evolution into a civilized society. I already outlined this earlier in the thread.
PS: Fancy, don't take it wrong, I find some of your posts very right and somehow clever, but you say things in an arrogant way, and people don't like that.
I was talking specifically about Iraq. It wasn't a hotbed of terror before the invasion, and now that it is, it has worsened the situation.jarhedch wrote:
Um, the middle east has been a hot bed long before we ever invaded Iraq, or liberated Kuwait for that matter. Orwell was right, people have such short memories we can barely remember the history of 5 years ago. Terror training camps have been around for a much longer time, and the only way to beat them is to "nation build". And yes, it IS what we did in Germany and Japan in WWII, they didn't build themselves. We re-established their Gov'ts, rebuilt their infrastructure, and re-created their economies. We realized then that the only way to stabalize a region is to create a stable gov't, not to let it fester for the next time. We've realized it again, and need to stay there to finish the job. Only with a stable, working, and friendly gov't working together will this ever stop. Syria, Iran and other nations have been funding and supporting terrorism for much longer than we've had Iraq as a thorn in our side.Turquoise wrote:
By removing Saddam, we greatly increased the chaos of the Middle East. Having created a hotbed of terror right in the middle of that region is certainly something that qualifies as having harmed world peace.
America will be the world super power for a really long time.
It spends more money on military then the top 10 combined.
It spends more money on military then the top 10 combined.
...because Kerry sucked that much.SoC./Omega wrote:
Guys, seriously, if Bush was that stupid and that bad of a president why did we re-elect him? Eh?
And if anyone says that its because Americans are stupid, go to school some more.
In your opinion. However, there remains the question: knowing that nation-building is a very expensive process, do you really think America should be burdened with rebuilding Iraq for decades to come? The evolution you speak of takes decades of cultural change, and trillions of dollars.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
The Middle East has been and will ALWAYS be a hotbed of terror with or without US involvement in the region. The only end of this would be through military intervention or their evolution into a civilized society. I already outlined this earlier in the thread.Turquoise wrote:
By removing Saddam, we greatly increased the chaos of the Middle East. Having created a hotbed of terror right in the middle of that region is certainly something that qualifies as having harmed world peace.
What islamic nations have to do is seperate church from state.Turquoise wrote:
In your opinion. However, there remains the question: knowing that nation-building is a very expensive process, do you really think America should be burdened with rebuilding Iraq for decades to come? The evolution you speak of takes decades of cultural change, and trillions of dollars.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
The Middle East has been and will ALWAYS be a hotbed of terror with or without US involvement in the region. The only end of this would be through military intervention or their evolution into a civilized society. I already outlined this earlier in the thread.Turquoise wrote:
By removing Saddam, we greatly increased the chaos of the Middle East. Having created a hotbed of terror right in the middle of that region is certainly something that qualifies as having harmed world peace.