Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Phred]
    #8003915 - 02/10/08 08:59 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

You don't support the rights of nations.




And you don't support the rights of nations or the people found within them unless granting these rights somehow benefits the United States.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Redstorm]
    #8003927 - 02/10/08 09:04 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Redstorm writes:

Quote:

And you don't support the rights of nations or the people found within them unless granting these rights somehow benefits the United States.




Incorrect. Show me where I have advocated violating the rights of citizens of any country.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Phred]
    #8003978 - 02/10/08 09:30 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Nice try, but you can't ask me to prove what I'm not arguing. I never said you support violating the rights of any country, only that you ignore the US enforcing those rights unless it benefits them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Redstorm]
    #8004003 - 02/10/08 09:39 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

There is a gigantic difference between the meaning of the words "enforce" and "support".





Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Phred]
    #8004070 - 02/10/08 10:17 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

And neither of those actions are done in regards to countries in regards to countries with repressed citizenry unless it meets some calculated interest to the United States. Example: Sudan.

It's just ridiculous to hear people saying the United States is committed to the universal expansion of democracy, when in fact, they are only committed when it suits their purpose.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Redstorm]
    #8004298 - 02/10/08 11:38 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

And neither of those actions are done in regards to countries in regards to countries with repressed citizenry unless it meets some calculated interest to the United States. Example: Sudan.




Of course. Do you have a problem with that?

Quote:

It's just ridiculous to hear people saying the United States is committed to the universal expansion of democracy, when in fact, they are only committed when it suits their purpose.




Oh, please. There is a spectrum of "commitment". How committed are you to legalizing marijuana? Committed enough to risk doing twenty years in prison?

The US encourages, supports, and tends to assist (sometimes openly, sometimes clandestinely) peoples struggling to establish a democratic form of governance in their countries. Sometimes that support is limited to little more than speeches and public pronouncements cheering on movements in oppressive regimes. Sometimes it amounts to more concrete support.

But you as a student of politics must be aware of the restrictions the UN places on actual concrete action a government can take to support nascent democratic reformers. In my opinion, such restrictions illustrate the extreme bogosity (or bogusness or whatever the correct term might be) of that absurd organization, but to most of the people in the world -- including, unfortunately, the leaders of the US government -- the feeling is that the United Nations should be listened to on such matters.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVirus_with_Shoes
Pastor of Muppets
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/25/07
Posts: 3,707
Loc: Zuid-Holland, Nederland
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Phred]
    #8005057 - 02/10/08 03:22 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

It is. Your claim is that there is no process by which the head of state achieves and maintains his status as head of state which is more legitimate than any other process.




I'm not arguing about the legitimacy a state! You are still missing my point and trying to say that I support strongmen which is a totally idiotic argument. In many instances evil regimes come to power in states around the world and it is not our responsibility as a nation to rectify this problem! Let the peoples of these nations deal with it themselves. You are twisting my argument for your own ends and skirting the issue.

Quote:

Neither you nor the UN have a problem with entire nations being enslaved, and entire peoples being wiped out, as long as the enslavers accomplish their task from within their own borders. The enslavers need not even necessarily be citizens of the nation in question: all that matters to you is that they first entered the nation in a non-violent fashion.




This is just straight up bullshit. There's a difference between not having a problem and invading the fucking country and putting in a new government. There are some atrocious things going on in Sudan right now but we would never invade them and install a new government because they are a non-entity to us both geopolitically and economically. Unless this country is a threat to US interests, we should sanction them, withdraw diplomatic recognition and isolate them in the global community.

Let's get some perspective here too. YOU don't give a shit about these enslaved and oppressed people either! You yourself said that they should not be helped unless they are a threat to the US. So unless they pose a threat to the US they should be completely ignored and let to die by the millions is what you are basically saying and yet you have the audacity to say I don't care about these countries. One word sir- hypocrisy.

Quote:

Hussein's Iraq likewise posed no direct threat in the sense of Iraq mounting an invasion of the US or lobbing missiles across the ocean to land in Miami or Galveston. But as a base from which terror operations could be launched (using either Iraqi nationals or Islamic terrorists), Iraq most certainly did pose a threat.




Neocon propaganda again and a very weak, disproved argument. Al Qaeda didn't use Iraq as a staging ground until we invaded the country.

Quote:

Look, people would take you more seriously if you would use words the way they are meant to be used. The US is not "imperialistic" and follows no imperialistic policies. If the US does get involved in a military operation in another country, it comes, does the job, then leaves. Empires don't do this. Is Japan a colony or vassal state of the US? Nope. How about Germany? Nope. Kosovo? South Korea? Afghanistan? Iraq? Panama? No, no, no, no and no.




For your information I'm not too concerned about not being taken seriously by the likes of you because it's quite clear you are talking out of your ass. Not an empire? Doesn't stay long? Here's a map of permanent military bases the US has around the world...



Now look at the list of countries you've just given me and see if we have left any of them. The answer: no. Imperialism is not just having vassal states, it exists in many different hues.

Quote:

You argue that it was wrong to invade Iraq because it was "illegal" to do so (you are wrong about that, by the way




I'll take Kofi Annan's word over yours any day. At least the guy knows his ass from a hole in the wall when it comes to international relations.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1306642,00.html


Edited by Virus_with_Shoes (02/10/08 04:34 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVirus_with_Shoes
Pastor of Muppets
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/25/07
Posts: 3,707
Loc: Zuid-Holland, Nederland
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Redstorm]
    #8005098 - 02/10/08 03:34 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Quote:

You don't support the rights of nations.




And you don't support the rights of nations or the people found within them unless granting these rights somehow benefits the United States.




The greatest part about this whole thing is that you also support this position in your own words! Your words betray you Phred...

Quote:

"To the ones which pose a threat to the US? Invade them, depose their governments, set up a Western form of governance. To the ones which don't pose a threat to the US? Not my problem. The citizens of those countries are on their own. I wish them the best of luck, but hey... shit happens." -- post 8000028





Redstorm hit the nail on the head with this one:

Quote:


It's just ridiculous to hear people saying the United States is committed to the universal expansion of democracy, when in fact, they are only committed when it suits their purpose.





Your position, quite frankly, is idiotic.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVirus_with_Shoes
Pastor of Muppets
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/25/07
Posts: 3,707
Loc: Zuid-Holland, Nederland
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Phred]
    #8005118 - 02/10/08 03:41 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

The US encourages, supports, and tends to assist (sometimes openly, sometimes clandestinely) peoples struggling to establish a democratic form of governance in their countries




Bullshit. We support governments that serve our interests and this has included brutal genocidal dictators. You've even conceded this point in admitting that the CIA was involved in Pinochet's regime in Chile. The fact that you are still trying to make this argument betrays a certain thickheaded nature and inability to listen to reason.

Our actions are seldom done in the name of spreading democracy but unfailingly in the name of national interest.

Quote:

In my opinion, such restrictions illustrate the extreme bogosity (or bogusness or whatever the correct term might be) of that absurd organization, but to most of the people in the world -- including, unfortunately, the leaders of the US government -- the feeling is that the United Nations should be listened to on such matters.




Are you out of your mind?! The US openly DEFIED the UN in its invasion of Iraq. How can you even begin to try to make the point that the US is in any way shape or form restricted by the UN.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Virus_with_Shoes]
    #8005346 - 02/10/08 04:36 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

virus writes:

Quote:

I'm not arguing about the legitimacy a state!




Yes you are. You have stated repeatedly and quite emphatically that it is wrong/illegal to invade another country as long as the only thing the head of state of that country is doing is slaughtering those within his country's own borders.

Quote:

You are still missing my point and trying to say that I support strongmen which is a totally idiotic argument.




I don't say you "support" strongmen, I say you give their actions a legitimacy (it is wrong to stop them from murdering folks) that you refuse to give to those outside actors who would rescue those the strongmen murder. You say the US has no right to go in and help those being slaughtered in Darfur. I say the US -- and every other free country in the world -- does have that right. But I also say the US has no obligation to help the folks in Darfur, because they don't.

Quote:

In many instances evil regimes come to power in states around the world and it is not our responsibility as a nation to rectify this problem!




Agreed. It isn't our responsibility. But if we choose to rectify the problem, we have a right to.

Quote:

Let the peoples of these nations deal with it themselves.




I agree. Unless, of course, helping them out also reduces threats to us by a sufficient degree.

Quote:

You are twisting my argument for your own arrogant ends and skirting the issue.




Au contraire. You seem honestly unable to grasp the difference between "right" and "obligation". You and I are not talking about the same thing at all.

Quote:

This is just straight up bullshit. There's a difference between not having a problem and invading the fucking country and putting in a new government. There are some atrocious things going on in Sudan right now but we would never invade the Sudan and install a new government because they are a non-entity to us both geopolitically and economically.




I agree we shouldn't, for the same reasons you mention. But you are also saying we shouldn't because it is illegal. According to you, not only is it illegal for the US to overthrow the government of Sudan and liberate those poor folks getting murdered, it is just as illegal for Chad or Egypt or Libya or Eritrea or Ethiopia or Kenya or Uganda or Zaire or the Central African Republic -- all of whom border on Sudan; none of whom consider Sudan to be a non-entity to them either geopolitically or economically -- to overthrow the government of Sudan and liberate those poor folks currently being murdered.

Quote:

Unless this country is a threat to US interests, we should sanction them, withdraw diplomatic recognition and isolate them in the global community.




Yup.

Quote:

YOU don't give a shit about these enslaved and oppressed people either!




In a manner of speaking, that's correct. I feel sorry for them, but I certainly don't feel sorry enough for them to advocate sending US troops in there to rescue them. Sucks to be them, but hey... whaddya gonna do?

Quote:

You yourself said that they should not be helped unless they are a threat to the US. So unless they pose a threat to the US they should be completely ignored and let to die by the millions is what you are basically saying and yet you have the audacity to say I don't care about these countries. One word sir- hypocrisy.




But you don't care about them. I say there's not enough benefit to the US in helping them out to make it a good idea for the US to help them out. We can help them out, but we choose not to. You say that they cannot be helped out by the US, because it is against international law to help them out. So even if we wanted to help them out, the only way we could do so would be by breaking the law and becoming the bad guy, the aggressor, the imperialist, the dominator using twenty-first century hi-tech weaponry against hapless tribesmen on horseback.

So as I have pointed out, in your inverted version of morality, all the strongman has to do is be smart enough to confine his depradations to within his own borders. He then becomes untouchable because anyone who dares to touch him must necessarily break the law, thus (in your view and the view of the UN) automatically becoming the bad guy of the scenario.

Quote:

Neocon propaganda again and a very weak, disproved argument. The fact that you still believe this makes me sick. Al Qaeda didn't use Iraq as a staging ground until we invaded the country.




This is one of the reasons your opinions are so wrong -- you are operating from faulty data. Garbage in, garbage out, as coders say. Yes, Hussein did send an assassin after a former US president; yes he harbored one of the 1993 WTC bombers, yes he harbored other terrorists such as Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, yes he rewarded the families of Palestinean 'splodeydopes. This is all common knowledge, widely reported in the open source media and easily verifiable for anyone who wants to take the time to check it out.

Quote:

Imperialism is not just having vassal states, it exists in many different hues.




No it doesn't. Keeping a military base in a country at the invitation of the host government is not an act of Imperialism.

Quote:

I'll take Kofi Annan's word over yours any day. At least the guy knows his ass from a hole in the wall when it comes to international law.




If it makes you feel better to believe a thoroughly corrupt hack bureaucrat rather than people who actually do know the law, be my guest. Here's a question for you, though -- in light of the fact that the UN has never been shy about condemning the US for this or that supposed "violation", does it not strike you as odd that no UN resolution protesting the resumption of hostilities in Iraq has yet been filed? Not only that, but the UN has voted regularly since March of 2003 to legitimize the stay of the coalition forces for yet another year. What a puzzler, eh?

Quote:

We support governments that serve our interests and this has included brutal genocidal dictators.




US companies have done business in the past with countries run by dictators, yes -- as do companies from other countries all over the world. And the US government has in the past co operated with governments of countries strategic to thwarting the interests of their enemies, yes -- as do governments of other countries all over the world. However, the US also lends moral support and in some cases more practical support to peoples struggling to overthrow their oppressive governments. See their aid to the Afghanis mujahadeen in their struggle against the godless Commie oppressors as an example of the latter.

Quote:

Our actions are seldom done in the name of spreading democracy but unfailingly in the name of national interest.




Spreading democracy is in the national interest of the US.

Quote:

The US openly DEFIED the UN in its invasion of Iraq.




Actually, no it didn't. The coalition forces resumed hostilities in Iraq without the approval of France, true. But that is hardly the same thing as "defying the UN".





Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineb0b gnarley
Hold my beer and watch this!
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/17/08
Posts: 3,246
Loc: The Bounds of Reality
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: the white man's burden [Re: kriminalelement]
    #8005355 - 02/10/08 04:38 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Times have changed brah.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Phred]
    #8010838 - 02/11/08 08:42 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
So despite the fact there was no indication to think Western democracy would "take" with a people possessed of deeply-held traditions centuries old of submission to the elite (samurai class) and complete and instantaneous obedience to the Emperor, the Japanese took to Western democracy like fish to water.



You can't predict where democracy will take. In the case of Japan, there is a well-documented cultural tendency to avoid defeat to the last man, and then, when defeat is admitted, to wholly embrace the methods of the winner and acquesece to their superiority. Probably more important was the extent to which Japan was war torn and how long the Empire had failed to address the changing nature of Japan both at home and in the world. Indeed, the alliance with Hitler was a failed attempt to find Japan a place in the modern world. When we handed dropped the bomb on them they were ready to admit they chose the wrong side.

Quote:

But in Iraq, that didn't happen. The voters (three times now) defied the 'splodeydopes and turned out in very large percentages to vote.




Great. Let's see how it lasts when we aren't guarding the voting booths.

Quote:

So England during the Irish troubles wasn't a stable democracy? Israel is not a stable democracy?



Both countries developed their own democracy as oppossed to having American style democracy violently enforced upon them.
Quote:

Iraq is a stable (albeit not particularly strong from a security standpoint as of today) democracy being attacked by folks who don't want it to be a stable democracy. Those people are being eliminated steadily.



If you think Iraq is a stable democracy than we are just going to have to remain in disagreement.

Quote:

We are not morally obliged to. We have the right to, but not the obligation to.



What gives us the right? Does North Korea have the right to invade us?

Quote:

First of all, I do believe in democracy. Vehemently. Rule of the people trumps all.




Quote:

Interesting admission. So you would have been just fine with that whole slavery business had you lived a hundred and fifty years ago. And you're okay with marijuana and mushrooms being illegal, and with gays not being allowed to marry each other. Okey dokey, then.




Interesting that you consider my support of true democracy as an "admission." Who do you believe should rule if not the people?
No I am not okay with any of the things you named because I see them as violations of civil liberty, and I see it as the government's job to protect my civil liberty in court. But I do recognize that most people see it differently, and I am willing to accept that things aren't the way I would like them to be exactly because the majority disagrees with me. That is the price you pay for living in a democracy, but what you get out of it is a lot greater.

Quote:

But I don't want to see a world government. I merely point out (to your agreement) that the world would be a far more enjoyable place if all countries adopted the Western model of governance. I'm not saying there should be one big government. I'm content with 190 or so separate governments, so long as each they respect individual human rights.




Nice fantasy. As I already pointed out countless wars have been fought to realize a similar one and they have all failed.

Quote:

Revolution is "the" answer? Hardly. The result of most revolutions is continuing revolution. See the history of France as just one example.



Say what you want about what is going on in France right now, but as a democracy it is in no danger.
Quote:

Or hell, toss a dart over your shoulder at a map of South America.




Ironically, South American history has a lot more to say about the failure of colonialism to create any type of stable governing body (my argument) than it says about your argument that imposed democracies are healthier autonomic ones. Look at the history of Guatemala.


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblezorbman
blarrr
Male


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
Re: the white man's burden [Re: gluke bastid]
    #8011353 - 02/11/08 11:24 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

You can't predict where democracy will take. In the case of Japan, there is a well-documented cultural tendency to avoid defeat to the last man, and then, when defeat is admitted, to wholly embrace the methods of the winner and acquesece to their superiority. Probably more important was the extent to which Japan was war torn and how long the Empire had failed to address the changing nature of Japan both at home and in the world.




Well put.

Japan was an island nation with a homogeneous population. The allied powers shattered that country both physically and spiritually. General MacArthur, a man who actually understood the culture of the country he ruled, was able to step into that power vacuum and with his massive ego convincingly adopt the emperor role vacated by Hirohito.

He then used that power to rebuild their infrastructure, remake their society and write their constitution (which stands virtually unchanged today) leaving them with a stable democracy in five years- the same time frame of the start of the Iraq war until now.

Iraq, on the other hand, is an artificial entity with borders slapped together by the colonial powers with an arrogant disregard of the history and culture of the region's inhabitants.

In Iraq you actually have three countries in one whose people are being forced to live together within borders created by foreign powers. The main thing holding it together was a strongman, Saddam Hussein. When we took him out we removed the glue that held it together at gunpoint.

What may ultimately be needed to keep it together is another strongman.

Irony of ironies.


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVirus_with_Shoes
Pastor of Muppets
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/25/07
Posts: 3,707
Loc: Zuid-Holland, Nederland
Re: the white man's burden [Re: zorbman]
    #8013341 - 02/12/08 01:31 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

    Quote:
    The US openly DEFIED the UN in its invasion of Iraq.

Actually, no it didn't. The coalition forces resumed hostilities in Iraq without the approval of France, true. But that is hardly the same thing as "defying the UN".




The Iraq War was illegal, plain and simple. There was no mandate by the Security Council to authorise the use of force and the US did not wait around for one either. The only people in the world who disagree are the US and the UK, for obvious reasons. Even Richard Perle, probably a way bigger neocon than yourself has conceded the illegality of the invasion. Again, I'll let a well-respected source, the International Commission of Jurists do the talking:

http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en

Quoted from the press release: "The United States, the United Kingdom and Spain have signaled their intent to use force in Iraq in spite of the absence of a Security Council Resolution. There is no other plausible legal basis for this attack. In the absence of such Security Council authorisation, no country may use force against another country, except in self-defence against an armed attack."

Quote:


    Quote:

Neocon propaganda again and a very weak, disproved argument. The fact that you still believe this makes me sick. Al Qaeda didn't use Iraq as a staging ground until we invaded the country.

Yes, Hussein did send an assassin after a former US president; yes he harbored one of the 1993 WTC bombers, yes he harbored other terrorists such as Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, yes he rewarded the families of Palestinean 'splodeydopes. This is all common knowledge, widely reported in the open source media and easily verifiable for anyone who wants to take the time to check it out.




This hardly constitutes a casus belli. If you were really concerned about international terrorism you would have advocated a war on Saudi Arabia not Iraq. After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers originated from the Kingdom of Saud. Why have we not invaded? Oh that's right, they're a major trading partner. Doh! Invading Iraq was probably the dumbest place to invade if you were truly interested in quashing international terrorism.

Quote:

    Quote:

However, the US also lends moral support and in some cases more practical support to peoples struggling to overthrow their oppressive governments. See their aid to the Afghanis mujahadeen in their struggle against the godless Commie oppressors as an example of the latter.




Yes, and we all remember how well THAT worked out for us...  :whatever:


Edited by Virus_with_Shoes (02/12/08 01:37 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Virus_with_Shoes]
    #8013434 - 02/12/08 02:53 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

The ICJ has zero authority. None, zip, nada. I have as much authority as them to declare something illegal.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebodhiman777
Stranger
Male

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 69
Loc: Adirondacks
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Virus_with_Shoes]
    #8013446 - 02/12/08 02:57 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

this man has the one true solution


--------------------
... and so forth


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Virus_with_Shoes]
    #8013466 - 02/12/08 03:05 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Virus_with_Shoes said:

This hardly constitutes a casus belli. If you were really concerned about international terrorism you would have advocated a war on Saudi Arabia not Iraq. After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers originated from the Kingdom of Saud. Why have we not invaded? Oh that's right, they're a major trading partner. Doh! Invading Iraq was probably the dumbest place to invade if you were truly interested in quashing international terrorism.





I keep seeing this incredible bit of relativist masturbation over and over again. "We didn't do it here why should we do it there." In this particular instance it is because it is not the policy of the government of Saudi Arabia that is supporting terrorists. The government of Saudi Arabia is not funding or training attackers. The government of Saudi Arabia is helping as much as they probably can. The government of Saudi Arabia has wanted bin Laden dead for longer than we have. It was the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan that were the problems, not random street jerkoffs like we got from Egypt and SA. The fact that the anti-war crowd even bothers to make this argument speaks to the utter dearth of their ability to make any argument of substance. It is prima facie a loser.

Other moronic relativism:

DARFUR! FTW!


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: the white man's burden [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8013853 - 02/12/08 04:41 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:


Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia?





I guess its no cooincidence that you tend to find the ultimate nutball wackjobs on drug forums.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVirus_with_Shoes
Pastor of Muppets
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/25/07
Posts: 3,707
Loc: Zuid-Holland, Nederland
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Luddite]
    #8014054 - 02/12/08 05:22 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Luddite said:
Quote:


Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia?





I guess its no cooincidence that you tend to find the ultimate nutball wackjobs on drug forums.




...as the pot calls the kettle black.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Virus_with_Shoes]
    #8014066 - 02/12/08 05:26 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

At least you know you're a kettle.:grin:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Republic or democracy God_Killer 1,489 11 03/05/02 06:10 PM
by Agent Cooper
* The Rise of Illiberal Democracy FrenchSocialist 1,541 8 04/10/22 09:13 AM
by Brian Jones
* When Democracy Failed: The warnings of history trendalM 1,218 15 03/19/04 03:59 PM
by Anonymous
* Kasparov: Putin is destroying democracy in Russia Luddite 703 1 09/23/07 06:28 PM
by Disco Cat
* US was warned Democracy in Iraq may be "Impossible"
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Edame 6,613 79 08/19/03 08:29 AM
by GernBlanston
* Why is Israel a stable democracy and the Arab states aren't?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
RandalFlagg 4,141 103 08/24/06 07:25 PM
by downforpot
* 21 US states claiming sovereignty Visionary Tools 1,554 14 02/20/09 05:34 PM
by zouden
* The United States is NOT Capitalist...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
trendalM 16,626 133 09/28/09 11:34 AM
by Phred

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,821 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.