MidnightQ4 wrote:I mean I know that we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but is that really a chance we are prepared to take?
No...of course the US shouldn't take that chance.
Hell...using this logic and stretching it to the extreme the US should probably eliminate ALL OTHER COUNTRIES on the planet....cause eventually, probably, more than likely (pick one) they'll "become a problem" for the US.
And don't forget to nuke the japs again cause one day they'll make more DVD players than the US. Is that really a chance you are prepared to take?
Unfortunately this thread is still void of any alternatives, just more criticism and outlandish speculation.
Come up with another plan that would work. Let’s here your suggestions. What would you do? There are some really crazy leaders in the world today who are constantly crossing the line. When is it too far? Is it when they drain there economy for their own gain causing mass poverty and starvation? Maybe it's when they jail and kill thousands of their own people for no reason? Could it be when they repeatedly defy the collective world governments? Would it be when they invade another country? Or should we wait for their use of biological/nuclear weapons on an unsuspecting enemy? Where's the line for you. And if your answer is to turn your head to the whole thing, you're a bigger idiot than Bush.
BTW, the comments about replacing “Saddam” with “The US” are complete and utter nonsense.
YourGrandpa wrote:There are some really crazy leaders in the world today who are constantly crossing the line. When is it too far? Is it when they drain there economy for their own gain causing mass poverty and starvation? Maybe it's when they jail and kill thousands of their own people for no reason? Could it be when they repeatedly defy the collective world governments? Would it be when they invade another country? Or should we wait for their use of biological/nuclear weapons on an unsuspecting enemy? Where's the line for you. And if your answer is to turn your head to the whole thing, you're a bigger idiot than Bush.
BTW, the comments about replacing “Saddam” with “The US” are complete and utter nonsense.
Fuckin hell gramps you've been getting too much radiation from those LAN parties you go to.
Step back and think about it....rather, read up about it.
Can you not see that EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT IN YOUR POST can DIRECTLY be attributed to the US government over the last 60 years?
Are you that fuckin stupid or just taking the piss?
Wow, Gramps you are completely ignorant as to the effects of aggressive, interventionist US foreign policy. Your last comment proves that beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Are there crazy fuckers out there? Sure. But were it not for all the shit we've pulled for the last 100 years, most of them wouldn't give a fuck about us. Man, wake the hell up.
Nightshade wrote:TBH, we really have no way of knowing how many civilians were actually in Fallujah. But then, there's always Dresden and Tokyo to recall fondly!
YourGrandpa wrote:Unfortunately this thread is still void of any alternatives, just more criticism and outlandish speculation.
Come up with another plan that would work. Let’s here your suggestions. What would you do? There are some really crazy leaders in the world today who are constantly crossing the line. When is it too far? Is it when they drain there economy for their own gain causing mass poverty and starvation? Maybe it's when they jail and kill thousands of their own people for no reason? Could it be when they repeatedly defy the collective world governments? Would it be when they invade another country? Or should we wait for their use of biological/nuclear weapons on an unsuspecting enemy? Where's the line for you. And if your answer is to turn your head to the whole thing, you're a bigger idiot than Bush.
BTW, the comments about replacing “Saddam” with “The US” are complete and utter nonsense.
fucking hell
"another plan that would work" - plan to do what? deal with rogue states who flout international law when it suits them? deal with states who commit aggression against other states?
i've got a way you can deal with the biggest of these rogue states without any bloodshed whatsoever: YOUR LOCAL BALLOT BOX AT THE NEXT FUCKING US ELECTION, GRANDPA
Sure, the US is guilty of many similar things. But it isn't US policy to kill and/or jail its civilians just because they're feeling the need to. The US is not forcing 90% of the countries population to live below poverty because the leader wants everything for himself. The US has never been involved in mass genocide. The US has never invaded a country for the sole purpose of consuming said country under its rule. So to say you can "directly" compare the US and Saddam is a blatant display of stupidity. You're simply trying to redirect the conversation away from your inability to provide a viable solution.
Yes, the US did bomb Japan. They were attempting to dominate the world and instead of losing countless amounts of soldiers the US ended the war that way. But then the US helped rebuild Japan. Will that excuse the deaths of thousands of women and children? Probably not? Though I do guaranty if Japan could have brought that same annihilation to the US, they would have and they wouldn't have helped us rebuild.
It's real easy for you arm-chair generals and politicians to sit back and criticize the decisions made by our world leaders. But I implore you to suggest something more effective.
YourGrandpa wrote:
Sure, the US is guilty of many similar things. But it isn't US policy to kill and/or jail its civilians just because they're feeling the need to.
Guatanamo Bay. Read up on it because the US abso-fucking-lutely jailed and is still holding known civilians with no terrorist ties.
Sure, the US is guilty of many similar things. But it isn't US policy to kill and/or jail its civilians just because they're feeling the need to. The US is not forcing 90% of the countries population to live below poverty because the leader wants everything for himself. The US has never been involved in mass genocide. The US has never invaded a country for the sole purpose of consuming said country under its rule. So to say you can "directly" compare the US and Saddam is a blatant display of stupidity. You're simply trying to redirect the conversation away from your inability to provide a viable solution.
Yes, the US did bomb Japan. They were attempting to dominate the world and instead of losing countless amounts of soldiers the US ended the war that way. But then the US helped rebuild Japan. Will that excuse the deaths of thousands of women and children? Probably not? Though I do guaranty if Japan could have brought that same annihilation to the US, they would have and they wouldn't have helped us rebuild.
It's real easy for you arm-chair generals and politicians to sit back and criticize the decisions made by our world leaders. But I implore you to suggest something more effective.
Never engaged in mass genocide?!?! WHAT THE FUCK?!?! What the hell do you call what we did to the American Indians? Square dancing lessons?
We may not invade and conquer countries just to dominate them, we just invade them or support coups to install puppet governments that will allow us unfettered access to their resources. Do some research man, because while I respect your desire for alternative solutions (hey, how about not letting corporations and corrupt politicians set damaging policies?), you're seriously ignorant in this area, if not outright delusional.
Oh, and you also need to look up the reasons why we got involved in WWII, and how it could have been ended without dropping the bomb.
And explain to me again what the rationale was for firebombing population centers?
"another plan that would work" - plan to do what? deal with rogue states who flout international law when it suits them? deal with states who commit aggression against other states?
i've got a way you can deal with the biggest of these rogue states without any bloodshed whatsoever: YOUR LOCAL BALLOT BOX AT THE NEXT FUCKING US ELECTION, GRANDPA
So you would have the US and the rest of the world turn it's head and ignore the situation? As I asked before. How long do you ignore it? When is enough, enough? Do you have an answer, Mr Brilliant? I'll bet you don't......
YourGrandpa wrote:
Sure, the US is guilty of many similar things. But it isn't US policy to kill and/or jail its civilians just because they're feeling the need to.
Guatanamo Bay. Read up on it because the US abso-fucking-lutely jailed and is still holding known civilians with no terrorist ties.
We're not killing them and were not holding them for no reason either.
Several detainees have died in US custody, and it's a FACT that they are holding people that they just gathered up in sweeps in Afghanistan. They had no ties to Al Qaeda, just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Nightshade wrote:
Never engaged in mass genocide?!?! WHAT THE FUCK?!?! What the hell do you call what we did to the American Indians? Square dancing lessons?
We may not invade and conquer countries just to dominate them, we just invade them or support coups to install puppet governments that will allow us unfettered access to their resources. Do some research man, because while I respect your desire for alternative solutions (hey, how about not letting corporations and corrupt politicians set damaging policies?), you're seriously ignorant in this area, if not outright delusional.
Let's follow this silly logic. Englishmen kill Indians over 200 years ago establishing the United States. Which in turn makes Saddam's nonsensical genocidal rampages ok. Can you tell me when it will be ok to step in and stop this type of madness or do we let it continue because of what happened to the American Indians?
All of the other babbling about government conspiracies to rule the world are merely your and other theorist's opinions. Those arguments can be endlessly counterpointed, unfortunately it's still not a solution.
I don't blame the British for much of what happened to the Indians because most of them died from disease... there was no way to know that disease was going to wipe out entire populations at the time. I think NS is talking about the later shit pulled by people like Andrew Jackson
Nightshade wrote:Several detainees have died in US custody, and it's a FACT that they are holding people that they just gathered up in sweeps in Afghanistan. They had no ties to Al Qaeda, just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It's not common practice to kill detainees, you moron. You can't be this thick. And they were arrested for a reason, "Wrong palce wrong time". They'll be sorted and released. Not murdered per a maniac's protocal.
Dude, you cannot be this dim. You said the US had never engaged in genocide. I proved you wrong with a very obvious example. And they weren't Englishmen, they were AMERICANS. READ A BOOK.
The "theories" I mention are hard facts, again, read a book. Do some research on the Banana Wars that the Marines fought in Central America. You know what they were for? CORPORATE INTERESTS. You know who said it? Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, two-time Medal of Honor winner. Go read "War is a Racket", his book on the subject. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/092291 ... s&v=glance
When one of our most decorated officers tells you something like that, you're a fucking fool not to listen. After all, he was only the guy that prosecuted the whole thing.
Ignore the facts and engage in strawman arguments at your peril.
Dave wrote:I don't blame the British for much of what happened to the Indians because most of them died from disease... there was no way to know that disease was going to wipe out entire populations at the time. I think NS is talking about the later shit pulled by people like Andrew Jackson
That's not my point anyway. I was pointing out how rediculous it is to think the US and other countries should allow the mass murder of a race because the American Indians were killed in a similar fashion.
