|
Clean
the lense
Registered: 05/11/03
Posts: 2,374
|
Re: Project for New American Century - global military dominance [Re: Snobrdr311]
#2296524 - 02/03/04 06:03 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
quick question Snowbrdr311, from which sources do you get most of the news?
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 23 days
|
Re: Project for New American Century - global military dominance [Re: Snobrdr311]
#2296858 - 02/03/04 09:07 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
And the Bush administration isn't trying to dominate the world
Did you read the quotes which I took directly from the PNAC's own statement of principles?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
TrueBrode
Stranger
Registered: 11/03/03
Posts: 287
|
Re: Project for New American Century - global military dominance [Re: Snobrdr311]
#2297360 - 02/03/04 12:56 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Dude, don't get upset, and that's not what it says. It's about ideals 100%, plain and simple. What I was saying is that I contrast with liberal ideals, yes, I do.. so what? Bush is conservative, if you don't like his policies or philosophies then you're not a conservative and most likely a liberal.
haha, do yourself a favor and take an American Government class or read any basic text on government for that matter, because you obviously don't understand what "conservative" means. I'll give you a hint: Bush is not a conservative. He isn't a Republican either, just for the record. He might belong to the Republican party, but he sure does not adhere to Republican standards.
Most of you here have liberal ideals and philosophies, all I was saying is i'm suprised how much I contrast from a lot of you, what's the problem? No one is allowed to disagree with you without you getting upset?
A) I'm not liberal or a Democrat B) Liberalism does not have anything to do with a war sold to the masses for a different reason than was really the motive. Explain to me how being upset that we didn't get a fair chance to debate the real reasons for this war (which I admit some were actually good) makes me a liberal- after you read that American Government text and learn what liberal and conservative actually mean though. And the Bush administration isn't trying to dominate the world, we have dominated the world since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, from a Military aspect anyway, which is a good thing.
No we haven't dominated the world since the fall of the Soviet Union, we have the most economic power, and we get involved in a lot shit with struggling third world countries, but we do not "dominate" the world- we're just the most poweful right now.
And yes, they are expanding the military, and have taken over two countries by pre-emptive strikes, which by the way, have been disasters in both cases.
Some of you people act like you really have an idea what kind of firepower we really have, i'd be willing to bet it really isn't much more than a lot of other countries.. like China for example, or even the UK or Russia.
Well when your fire power and military expansion is kept with the utter most silence, it's kind of hard to tell isn't it? So obviously your statement holds no bearing at all since we have no idea what we have, or what Russia or China really have.
|
Azmodeus
Seeker
Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
Re: Project for New American Century - global military dominance [Re: Snobrdr311]
#2297760 - 02/03/04 02:55 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Snobrdr311 said: I agree, but sometimes force is necessary to protect our people from attacks,
Mabye they were doing just that to protect thier people from the retalitory attack you guys used to protect your people etc etc...
"force" is not a means of 'defense'
Quote:
Snobrdr311 said:Do you think the 3,500 people who died on 9/11 would be agreeing with you if they could speak from the dead?
Yes, having died in such an attack, im sure they would not wish it on the aggressors countries citizens.
But i guess you must get even.
Quote:
Snobrdr311 said:Saddam has proven himself to be a threat and a loose cannon by his actions in the past, having him in power is a liability the world just can't take.
Why not? His country doesn't have the largest stockpile of wmd, with pre-emptive policies of using them.
Quote:
Snobrdr311 said: I don't want to die in an attack, do you?
Youd best stay under you bed the rest of your life then...
-------------------- "Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source. Lest we forget. "
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Project for New American Century - global military dominance [Re: Snobrdr311]
#2297814 - 02/03/04 03:07 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Snobrdr311 said: I agree, but sometimes force is necessary to protect our people from attacks,
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." -- Albert Einstein
also:
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." --Albert Einstein
Choosing to "protect" your people by means of force only results in an ever-degrading situation of endless conflict. Where you must constantly increase the force you use to protect your people. At what point does it become too much?
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Snobrdr311
outdoorenthusiast
Registered: 09/03/01
Posts: 1,468
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Project for New American Century - global military dominance [Re: Clean]
#2298336 - 02/03/04 05:26 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Clean said: quick question Snowbrdr311, from which sources do you get most of the news?
cnn.com, drudgereport.com
|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Project for New American Century - global military dominance [Re: Snobrdr311]
#2301677 - 02/04/04 04:18 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Yea until some Republicans said he was wagging the dog...
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Project for New American Century - global military dominance [Re: Snobrdr311]
#2362586 - 02/21/04 02:18 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
"set the oil wells on fire for nothing."
I thought they burned the oil wells as a type of "if the westerners want this stuff, then we might as well just burn it"
which I find to be pretty reasonable
-------------------- Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me. In addition: SHPONGLE
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Project for New American Century - global military dominance [Re: Strumpling]
#2362764 - 02/21/04 05:40 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Strumpling said: "set the oil wells on fire for nothing."
I thought they burned the oil wells as a type of "if the westerners want this stuff, then we might as well just burn it"
which I find to be pretty reasonable
So deliberately releasing massive amounts of pollution is "reasonable"?
Interesting... and informative.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
MOTH
Wild Woman
Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 23,431
Loc: In the jungle
|
Re: Project for New American Century - global military dominance [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#2362800 - 02/21/04 06:36 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
Strumpling said: "set the oil wells on fire for nothing."
I thought they burned the oil wells as a type of "if the westerners want this stuff, then we might as well just burn it"
which I find to be pretty reasonable
So deliberately releasing massive amounts of pollution is "reasonable"?
Interesting... and informative.
Well, if you look at it from an angry-petty-vengeance point of view, then you can see how it can be seen as reasonable to the people who did it out of defiance.
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 20 years, 11 days
|
Re: Project for New American Century - global military dominance [Re: Snobrdr311]
#2365185 - 02/21/04 07:07 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Snobrdr311 said:
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Quote:
I agree, but sometimes force is necessary to protect our people from attacks, I don't want to die in an attack, do you? Do you think the 3,500 people who died on 9/11 would be agreeing with you if they could speak from the dead?
I agree. Bush should've paid better attention to the warnings and prevented such an attack.
Quote:
Saddam has proven himself to be a threat and a loose cannon by his actions in the past, having him in power is a liability the world just can't take.
I don't see how he's any more dangerous than any other dictator in that region, including some of our allies(*cough* Saudi Arabia *cough*).
Actually it was Bill Clinton who had the opportunity to take out Bin Laden many times, and passed on it. Then after Bin Laden attacks many US targets overseas Clinton gets some intel and shoots a couple cruise missiles at him, but misses by an hour cuz he waited to long, again!
So you could say if Clinton would of pulled the trigger when he had the chance there may of never been a 9/11.
Another intelligent fellow! Kudos to the snow boarder! Blaming BUSH for 9/11 is idiotic, Clinton had terrorist attacks on US citizens occur when he was president, he knew who the perpetartor was, why didn't he effectually deal with him?
Answer: He was busy trying to keep the members of the "vast right wing conspiracy" from masturbating him to acquire the sperm that they splattered all over Lewinsky's dress.
|
|