 |
| |
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
You mean like Israel used against the Arabs? Like Russia used to prevent us from intervening in Afghanistan? Please. That whole 'shield' thing has never worked because no one wants to be the one to use a nuke. |
well, I dont think we should take that risk, especially with someone like Saddam who does hate America oh so much. The other arguements for invading Iraq are still very justified, as told in my previous posts.
quote:
Actually yes. We have gone to war over no 'God damn reason' before. Grenada mean anything to you? |
there was a medical school on greneda that had 600 (IIRC) of US cirizens not to mention about another 400 US citizens on the island. A dictator briefly came to power on the island in a murderous coup and was backed by Cuba/SU. The Iranian hostages in the embassy thing was either still going on, or had just ended, i dont recall which. Any how, there was a real and major fear that this marxist governmet may take some prisoner/hostage. This is on top of the fact the Orgabization of Eastern Carribbean States pleaded with the US to help. This had reason, though some my find it little, it is none the less reason.
quote:
So you are saying the American government is the most charitable because we give the most money in total dollars? Percentages of budget is the ONLY thing that means jack.
Or do you think that the rich man that give 1% of his budget to the poor is more charatible than a middle class man that gives 10% of his budget? Let's get serious here.
|
I believe I said we gave the most (and infered 'if not, nearly the most') of any country. If we didnt have to spend so much money on our exstensive military(someone has to have one) or our drug war or extensive crime fighting in general, among other things we must spend much more than our fello industrialized nations, then we could afford to be more charitable. The fact is, America has just as many if not more internal problems then our industrialized friends and need to keep more to ourselves. Dont forget that many of our friends are socialists, and when people pay their high taxes they know a portion of that is going to foreign aid. In the US, we are much less socialistic, and, again, our private citizenry, may it be individuals or organizations, I am sure when combined with our nation's federal aid spending (and our UN budget...) it is easily our own share of helping the world. We help in other ways too, that other countries dont. Our technological advaces (along eith outher nations) in medicine helped bring an end to small pox and we are working towards bringing an end to AIDS. Genetically engineered food is helping starvation, mediating in foreign disputes such as the egypt-Israeli one and the Israeli- Palistian one. There are countless other ways in which we have, and in which we do help others. And these ways arent cheap, mind you. The point being, the US is a charitable nation. Maybe not the most, but no one can say we are not charitable, or even stingyly charitable.
Kman
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
|
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
You think Saddam hates America? It was similar hate that the USSR demonstrated towards the US. |
Once again, Saddam is a lone ranger with his finger potentially on a big red button, where as the US and The soviet Union had very elaborate protocols among various branches of military/government before weapons of mass destruction could be used. If Nakita Krushchev woke up one day in a pissy mood, he couldnt just launch a nuclear attack on the US. Saddam however, could potentially act on a whim. Also, the US and Soviet Union were advisaries who in actuality had more fear from each other rather than hatred, though they did hate, there mutual hatred however is nothing like what Saddam has for the US. And what about Saddam sharing plans/materials with Terrorists, or any of the other reasons why we need to take Saddam out? Why shouldnt we take Saddam out? Saying he is not a threat to the US is like saying The SU was not a threat to the US in 1946. Do you not think that the US would have taken out the SU early on if it had the chance, if it new what was going to happen after WWII, if it knew about the cold war, before the SU developed nukes (fighting a war with russia at this point however would be much different, because russia was still formidable, even without WoMD, unlike Iraq comparatively with the US today)? I dont really want another 50 year cold war, especially if is can be avoided in one swift stroke - that is all to say in the best of light that it would be another Cold War, and not a WoMD war.
quote:
Why? The only government during the Cold War that really held Americans hostage was a fundamentalist Islamic one. Not really marxist, is it? |
It was a real and genuine fear. The Greneda dude who came to power was merely supported by marxists (because of the turbulance that he was creating in Americas backyard), though I dunno if he was one. What was feared was he would be another brutal Latin American dictator and was unknown what he would do to protect his regime. What I can say is the act inflamed this region with protest and they asked the US for help. Also, if Greneda did become communist, in the irrationable times of the Cold War the last thing the US thought it needed was another Cuba in its backyard. So self-interest was definately involved. But is Greneda not a better place because of our actions, regardless of merit?
quote:
What's the use of these threads? Is it to satisfy someone's need to piss on someone else? Is that the best some of you can do? |
I find it interesting to hear others opinions on various topics, though rarely does anybody change anybody elses mind. Everybody is fairly entrenched in their ways, even if great arguements are given, some remain in denial or are just to stubborn to admit they were wrong. Everyone I know, including myself, is guilty of doing stuff like this at least once (myself many times , though I am growing up).
Kman
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Like they interfered in Cyprus. Right.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kyle
|
 |
Evil and I'm also a Capitalist
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by uh Clem
The expression you're grasping for here is, "use 'em or lose 'em." If the Pakistanis know that the Yanks will try to sieze their nukes the instant hostilities begin, they have that much more incentive to fire immediately, before they're left defenseless. US policy (if true) takes a situation that is dangerous to begin with and ratchets it up several notches. Dumb, dumb, dumb...
Btw, is there a comparable program to grab control of India's weapons? |
Well no, because India isn't in danger of losing it's government to fundementalist elements. Plus they have a no first use policy, and they're further ahead in setting up a nuclear infrastructure (command and control, etc).
And no, that's not what that alleged policy would do. It would be implemented in case Musharaf's government is close to being overrun by various Islamic fundementalists, that's when it would happen. Of course, there's no real facts for this other than a story or two in the Times of India.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-08-2002 10:50
Exactly. After that 'good friend OBL' crack... well... looks like you were the first to go personal.
|