|
US troops out. Private security forces in. Maybe just my cynical outlook on the situation. Seems like another political maneuver by an administration appropriately timed for elections.
|
On October 22 2011 17:11 Senorcuidado wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 16:58 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 16:47 Senorcuidado wrote:On October 22 2011 16:39 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 16:36 Senorcuidado wrote:On October 22 2011 16:31 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 16:15 Senorcuidado wrote:On October 22 2011 16:00 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 15:51 Senorcuidado wrote:On October 22 2011 15:38 OsoVega wrote:
[quote]
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
[quote]
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified. Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something... And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons. I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic: The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified. Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it. You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs. Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it. This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply. Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003. I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary. Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_WarPlus, you know, all the torture. "The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance."
-Shibumi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War The responsibility of the force initiating state. Plus, you know, all the torture. Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights. Just so we're clear about your positions: The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country. And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree? The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country. I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma. Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong". You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience. It's not about "deciding" what is wrong. It's about what is wrong. Do you believe that A is A, that existence exists, that red is not blue, that right is not wrong? If you can not realize that there are objective truths in this universe, you have little hope. Some arbitrary date does not matter. It was the same government. Even under your circumstances Saddam was in fact a dictator in 2003. Well, I'm going to take Subversive's advice and stop responding. Your arguments have become very hollow and I don't even need to pick at them anymore to discredit them. They speak for themselves. Your values are obviously quite unique, and I won't try to convince you to change them. I'm off to bed 
My arguments haven't changed. Tell me how my arguments are hollow.
My values are that of a man who desires a happy life on earth, reason, purpose and self-esteem. Reason as my only tool for knowledge. Purpose, as my choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve. Self-esteem, as my certainty that my mind is competent and that I am worthy of happiness on earth.
|
____ only use the finest premises, the most prime rational thought and less than 2% contradictions. That's why I buy ____ arguments and you should too!
Mmm canned arguments. How can you disagree with them?
|
On October 22 2011 17:18 Subversive wrote:
____ only use the finest premises, the most prime rational thought and less than 2% contradictions. That's why I buy ____ arguments and you should too!
Mmm canned arguments. How can you disagree with them?
I thought you weren't going to respond to me? Instead you've made another substance-less post in direct response to me. Any argument deduced from true premises, rational thought with zero contradictions is an argument any rational and informed human being will accept and all human beings should accept. Do you really deny this?
If anyone had shown me a rational flaw in my thinking, a contradiction I had made or a false premise I was acting upon, I would have been receptive but all arguments against me have been either based on a terrible misunderstanding of my post, irrational or based on false premises or simply stating things along the lines of "nobody could believe this" and "your arguments speak for themselves", etc. Good night.
|
On October 22 2011 16:58 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 16:47 Senorcuidado wrote:On October 22 2011 16:39 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 16:36 Senorcuidado wrote:On October 22 2011 16:31 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 16:15 Senorcuidado wrote:On October 22 2011 16:00 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 15:51 Senorcuidado wrote:On October 22 2011 15:38 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
[quote]
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs? Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force. On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
[quote]
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume?
An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies. The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified. Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something... And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons. I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic: The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified. Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it. You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs. Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it. This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply. Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003. I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary. Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_WarPlus, you know, all the torture. "The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance."
-Shibumi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War The responsibility of the force initiating state. Plus, you know, all the torture. Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights. Just so we're clear about your positions: The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country. And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree? The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country. I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma. Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong". You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience. It's not about "deciding" what is wrong. It's about what is wrong. Do you believe that A is A, that existence exists, that red is not blue, that right is not wrong? If you can not realize that there are objective truths in this universe, you have little hope. Some arbitrary date does not matter. It was the same government. Even under your circumstances Saddam was in fact a dictator in 2003.
Could you tell me why the US didn't finish the job in 1991 instead of starving the country for ten years with an embargo? It's not like he was any less a dictator back then, and there was even more of a justification -- he had invaded Koweit. It seems like wasting twelve years to to the exact same thing is a waste... Or, more likely, Bush the son wanted to avenge Bush the father. I mean, considering dictatorships wrong is all fine and dandy, but it's hard to pretend that western countries don't have double standards concerning this. History is written by the victors, after all.
All in all, I'm happy they're finally pulling out at last from Irak. Let's just hope the country manages to pull itself out of the economic wreck that it's in at the moment. Sadly, it's the cue for foreign companies to take over the infrastructure; I'm not very hopeful that the Iraki people will have any say in what happens to their country for a while now.
|
On October 22 2011 17:40 scFoX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 16:58 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 16:47 Senorcuidado wrote:On October 22 2011 16:39 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 16:36 Senorcuidado wrote:On October 22 2011 16:31 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 16:15 Senorcuidado wrote:On October 22 2011 16:00 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 15:51 Senorcuidado wrote:On October 22 2011 15:38 OsoVega wrote:
[quote]
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
[quote]
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified. Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something... And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons. I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic: The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified. Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it. You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs. Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it. This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply. Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003. I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary. Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_WarPlus, you know, all the torture. "The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance."
-Shibumi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War The responsibility of the force initiating state. Plus, you know, all the torture. Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights. Just so we're clear about your positions: The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country. And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree? The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country. I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma. Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong". You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience. It's not about "deciding" what is wrong. It's about what is wrong. Do you believe that A is A, that existence exists, that red is not blue, that right is not wrong? If you can not realize that there are objective truths in this universe, you have little hope. Some arbitrary date does not matter. It was the same government. Even under your circumstances Saddam was in fact a dictator in 2003. Could you tell me why the US didn't finish the job in 1991 instead of starving the country for ten years with an embargo? It's not like he was any less a dictator back then, and there was even more of a justification -- he had invaded Koweit. It seems like wasting twelve years to to the exact same thing is a waste... Or, more likely, Bush the son wanted to avenge Bush the father. I mean, considering dictatorships wrong is all fine and dandy, but it's hard to pretend that western countries don't have double standards concerning this. History is written by the victors, after all. All in all, I'm happy they're finally pulling out at last from Irak. Let's just hope the country manages to pull itself out of the economic wreck that it's in at the moment. Sadly, it's the cue for foreign companies to take over the infrastructure; I'm not very hopeful that the Iraki people will have any say in what happens to their country for a while now.
I personally can't as I don't have an intimate knowledge with that history or the rationale of the US government at that point. You're right that western countries have a double standard concerning this. It's because they are often dishonest about the reasons for deposing dictators.
|
The Coalitions main goal in the Gulf War was to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, which they did. The reason they didnt really go any further arguably stems from the horrific "highway of death" where hundreds of iraqi soldiers, or at least vehicles, were squashed like bugs as they were retreating. Kinda put a bad taste in peoples mouths and it basically all stopped shortly after since popularity of the war plummeted. Who knows how far they wanted to go into iraq anyway.
|
Hmm I wonder which country will be next, let's roll dem dice!
|
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote:On October 22 2011 11:56 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country  It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's. Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime. American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally. The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East. Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post. OK then. I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from. If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts. If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me. And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable. Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
Are you actually fucking serious? Incredibly unfair agreements made with the pressure of force and clearly at the disadvantage of the vastly weaker party, whereby a government is not acting in the interests of the state, aren't actually seen as legally binding in any jurisdiction. Hence, the fact that the nationalisation was ruled as entirely legal. This is basic international law and to have it any other way would be unbelievably evil.
If you think agreements where a figurative gun is pointed to the head should be legally binding then you're actually ridiculous. Thank goodness nobody with any sense agrees and the courts most certainly don't.
|
|
|
On October 22 2011 19:29 FuzzyJAM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote:On October 22 2011 11:56 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's. Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime. American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally. The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East. Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post. OK then. I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from. If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts. If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me. And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable. Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government. Are you actually fucking serious? Incredibly unfair agreements made with the pressure of force and clearly at the disadvantage of the vastly weaker party, whereby a government is not acting in the interests of the state, aren't actually seen as legally binding in any jurisdiction. Hence, the fact that the nationalisation was ruled as entirely legal. This is basic international law and to have it any other way would be unbelievably evil. If you think agreements where a figurative gun is pointed to the head should be legally binding then you're actually ridiculous. Thank goodness nobody with any sense agrees and the courts most certainly don't.
This was (or is) the US foreign policy since the second world war. Look at South America and the middle east. Is there any South American country that hadn't a US intervention because they didn't do business like the USA wanted it? I am not surprised. This policy must have at least some support in the American Population.
|
every word from obama sounds like a lie...
"After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over."
what does that suppose to mean? The war ended itself? Why the war ended itself?
"The new partnership with Iraq will be "strong and enduring" after U.S. troops leave the country"
So logicaly there is no need for war after all.. because partnership doesnt have to do anything with the war itself..
And the most important thing is that noone even knows why the war started.. after f... 9 years noone doesnt give a damn about why the war started... You know, when something important goes, people remember the past and say, yes, its over and we did what we came for. Havent read anywhere that kind of information...
|
On October 22 2011 18:31 Xcobidoo wrote:
Hmm I wonder which country will be next, let's roll dem dice!
Probably Iran or Mexico, after this fake terrorist attack on that Saudi ambassador.
|
lets see. if obama shuts down guantanamo bay now, the nobel prize comittee could start thinking about a peace nobel prize for obama.
|
On October 22 2011 17:20 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 17:18 Subversive wrote:
____ only use the finest premises, the most prime rational thought and less than 2% contradictions. That's why I buy ____ arguments and you should too!
Mmm canned arguments. How can you disagree with them? I thought you weren't going to respond to me? Instead you've made another substance-less post in direct response to me. Any argument deduced from true premises, rational thought with zero contradictions is an argument any rational and informed human being will accept and all human beings should accept. Do you really deny this? If anyone had shown me a rational flaw in my thinking, a contradiction I had made or a false premise I was acting upon, I would have been receptive but all arguments against me have been either based on a terrible misunderstanding of my post, irrational or based on false premises or simply stating things along the lines of "nobody could believe this" and "your arguments speak for themselves", etc. Good night.
I was mocking you, which is different to responding. I like how you never respond to any of the reasonable arguments that are put to you, like my post. You just cherry pick arguments, make outrageous statements and then dress it all up as rational, well-reasoned, all because you said so.
Respond to:
No one can seriously defend killing/torturing civilians on the ultra flimsy notion that they have forfeited their rights by what a 'dictator' has done, when that same dictator was trained, installed and supported by the country now claiming moral immunity in it's actions in removing him.
This is why nothing you said about Iraq made sense. What you said about Iran made even less sense.
|
Oh hey it's only 9 years late
|
Does this includ CIA activity? I don't think so. Don't be so naive...
|
On October 22 2011 19:41 ambient_orange wrote:
every word from obama sounds like a lie...
"After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over."
what does that suppose to mean? The war ended itself? Why the war ended itself?
What do you mean "what does that suppose to mean"? Do you not understand "America's war in Iraq will be over"? It doesn't mean the war ended itself, it means the war will be over. If you don't speak English well enough to understand basic sentences like this one please refrain from calling Obama a liar without opening a dictionary.
On October 22 2011 19:41 ambient_orange wrote:
"The new partnership with Iraq will be "strong and enduring" after U.S. troops leave the country"
So logicaly there is no need for war after all.. because partnership doesnt have to do anything with the war itself..
You do understand that they weren't still fighting the Iraqi government, right? I don't think you understand the situation at all, because your comment makes no sense. And those two statements aren't even remotely close to being lies so I don't know what you're on about.
|
Well, I think if the situation in Iraq is stable enough, then pulling out might be a good idea. I just hope that the new government is strong enough.
Usa has more then enough problems to fix at home, so if they could cut down some on military spendings, they could fix some of those.
I (and probably most europeans) hope that the democrats stay in power.
|
Thought this day would never come. Finally!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
