CJay said: Hitler was extending his empire in every direction - East, West, North, South - throughout Europe into Asia, Africa....open your eyes. This guy wanted one thing. And he had the means and he was far more aggressive and dangerous than any dictator about today......yet the USA did nothing for 'freedom' during his ascension to power. However you are keen as mustard to get into second rate dictator's nations, people who pose no valid threat to the USA or to Europe...... But people who have a lot of oil and a lot of poppies......
So, um, if a person is taking power in any nation around the world, and we don't like him, you are saying that it would be a good idea to just launch a pre emptive strike against them before they do anything wrong? WHy is it I have a hard time believing this is your true opinion?
Quote: - To support the people and show solidarity in the international community before a mad dictator had had a chance to convince them the only way out of their hell-hole existence was to hand over their reason to him.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe time to put down the history book that talks of "ONE" mid-east led terrorist attack in the USA and pick up one just a weensy bit more accurate?
Quote: So you get your history and values off black hawk down, not superman then. Sounds like you're as dumb as me. Well I guess that's the way US culture feeds it's big lines - via TV and Hollywood.
I was dumbing it down to your level. And whats wrong with superman?
Quote: By the way I know Osama has not been caught - maybe you should read a book on rhetoric.
Maybe you should read a book on mental retardation. You were saying how Osama was responsible for the FIRST attack, which isn't true at all. He wasnt' responsible, nor has he been apprehended. HOwever, the person/s responsible for the first attack are currently being anally intruded 10x a day in a prison for the rest of their lives. So no matter how you cut it ,you are wrong.
Quote: But thanks for qualifying - no he hasn't been caught. Instead he has been used as an excuse to terrorise a subcontinent, impinge on people's freedoms and generally throw aside reason.
Yea, those Afghan women that get to drive a car and not wear burkahs without being executed in the soccer stadiums rant and rave non-stop about their freedoms being impinged upon
Quote: And back to the first WTC attempt, his name was certainly bandied about by the US government and the media.
Blowing up a truck in a building is as much an "attempt" at terrorism as a gang-bang is an "attempt" at losing your virginity. I don't think they did really talk about Osama for the first one, maybe you could show me a link or some sort of evidence? Although, if your source for this is the same source where their was only one attack, you might want to consider the fact that I won't accept it.
Quote: Having a reactor isn't the only way to get nuclear warhead grade radioactive material......I mean you guys were pretty convinced saddam had his ways despite all those sanctions. I don't think it's too hard to get these things when you are pals with china and know a lot of the shady avenues of power in Asia. There's still a lot of the old soviet stuff floating around for starters.
The entire issue with N Korea recently began when they removed inspectors from their reactor. Sure they could "buy" It on the open market, but that would be like having 1 ton of compost, spores, a sterile lab, incubators and terrariums and hanging out in the ghetto looking to buy shrooms. Kinda unlikely, know what I mean?
Quote: N.Korea isn't prewar Germany, but it's a hell of a lot closer than Iraq. The army is one of the most powerful in the world...and they have real WMD. And I think Kim likes the power game quite a lot, it's not just about the money.
How many nations has Kim invaded?
Quote: - No how about - don't support him, don't sell arms and precursors to WMD to him. Anyway where are these nukes?
You honestly aren't saying that you don't think N Korea has nukes, are you? Maybe in the same world where Osama organized teh first (and nonexistant) attack on the WTC, and the second (really the first) one, that might be true. Read a book.
Quote: DON'T SUPPORT HIM, DON'T USE UNPROVOKED MILITARY FORCE - it's quite simple
Funny how a few paragraphs above you were talking about how the USA should have stopped Hitlers rise to power. So, using your "No support", and "No unprovoked military force", how would we have stopepd Hitlers rise to power?
Quote: Shame you can't us this massive power you brag about to ensure any food aid etc goes to civillians and the people who need it rather than handing it straight to the trusty dictators of the world. You seem to have enough power to do everything else you please.
I'd really have to refer you to black hawk down as just one teensy example of where we did just that. Would you think that using US military forces in a foreign, soverign nation to ensure that food went to the people would qualify as "use of force"? IF so, didn't you JUST SAY that you wouldn't support that?
Quote: you don't have to cowtow to the UN, you could just try respecting it. The UN isn't a hitler-esque world domination body. When you join an organisation you have a certain responsibility to it, that is if your word counts for anything.
Hah. If "our" word counts for anything. I'd say that our "promise" to disarm Saddam and the UN's "commitment" to do show really demonstrates which of us means what they say.
Quote: The UN was carrying out inspections, Saddam was impotised....The path of reason was being followed. Till the US government ran out of time to see through the only outcome it was considering. It couldn't be left for any truth or justice to fully emerge...the war had to be fought while the pretext was still strong.
Removing a man who kills innocent people isn't "true" or "just"? Do tell.
Quote: Can't wait for the next history lesson germ!
No problem for me.
|