[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
… So, by your logic we could reduce the debt to zero by making money completely worthless. That is not what he is arguing.
…[/quote]
That is not my argument nor is it his.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bullshit.[/quote]
What an eloquent argument!
Can’t appreciate?
who the FUCK has the biggest force in Afganastan right now cleaning up the bloody mess the Americans made…so what they didn’t go to Iraq…and wanna remind me who has a bigger peace keeping history??? So, yeah Canadians soooooooooooooooooooooo don’t appreciate other cultures you’ll have to excuse me for my mistake
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bullshit.
What an eloquent argument![/quote]
Your crap deserves no better.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Iraq has been a shithole for decades and has been a danger to the world.[/quote]
Weak. You did not argue that Iraq was a “shithole”. You argued that it had done bad things (many of which happened over 15 years ago), and admittedly, that the US was punishing them for it. More than likely, you don’t give a shit about the suffering of the Iraqis, either under Saddam or post Saddam.
What things? Being a “shithole” ? Despite White House marketing, the war was never intended to do this. It is not, and never was, a humanitarian mission. The current hell that is Iraq did not exist prior to our invasion. For finding a “shithole” you could have done a lot better than Iraq under Saddam. But such places were not chosen because that was never the point. Our leadership lies and acts without conscience to protect it’s interests around the world – chief among these being an almost pathological desire for hegemony.
To the US, there are good and bad dictators. Dictators are good as long as they bow to Washington’s hegemony and serve as pawns. Dictators are bad when they refuse to do this.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Iraq has been a shithole for decades and has been a danger to the world.
Weak. You did not argue that Iraq was a “shithole”. You argued that it had done bad things (many of which happened over 15 years ago), and admittedly, that the US was punishing them for it. More than likely, you don’t give a shit about the suffering of the Iraqis, either under Saddam or post Saddam.
[/quote]
You introduced the current state of Iraq into the discussion. I merely pointed out that Iraq has been a shit hole for a long time. Don’t presume to tell me my feelings on the suffering of Iraqis.
There certainly are “good” and “bad” dictators. Good dictators do not use WMD’s against their own people. If long ago Saddam would not have gone down this evil path and he would have ruled Iraq in such a way that it was not a threat to the international community and he did not murder his people on a mass scale Washington certainly would have seen his leadership of Iraq as being the lesser of two evils.
What is your point? That mass murdereers should be treated well or that we should depose every non-democratically elected government?
Or are you just making a typical US = bad argument?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What the fuck are you rambling amount? Americans are damn generous as hell. We help other cultures all the time.[/quote]
Unless they’re in New Orleans.
Of course, protecting the world’s supply of energy by keeping the region in a state of perpetual war might not be the best way to go about it.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What the fuck are you rambling amount? Americans are damn generous as hell. We help other cultures all the time.
Unless they’re in New Orleans.
[/quote]
Bullshit. We have spent countless dollars on that money pit.
“Keeping”? Were they peaceful before we got there?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Of course, protecting the world’s supply of energy by keeping the region in a state of perpetual war might not be the best way to go about it.
“Keeping”? Were they peaceful before we got there?[/quote]
Yes. Way more peaceful without our arms deals and installed dictators.
Yeah, the middle east had no war prior to 1950.
[quote]Majin wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Of course, protecting the world’s supply of energy by keeping the region in a state of perpetual war might not be the best way to go about it.
“Keeping”? Were they peaceful before we got there?
Yes. Way more peaceful without our arms deals and installed dictators.
[/quote]
When was that again? 1973? 1967 when Nasser mobilized? 1956? 1948? 1936? Before the Saudis drove the Hashemites to Jordan and Iraq? 1922? 1917? Oh, yes, when there was no oil industry, and the Ottomans ruled from Damascus and Istanbul?
And on and on. Americans add glitter, neon and news reporters to the mix, and the guarantee that criticism–by the guilty and innocent alike–will be grudgingly born.
Right, shame on me for criticizing military coups, puppet regimes, arms deals and invasions for profit and resources. Oh, and ‘region stability’. In fact our presence in every nation we invaded was so glamorous it was that all the cover-up and false reasons given to the public were probably just an effort to not ruin our sunny days.
So, what about the dictators in the region who are our enemies? They must be ok, I guess.
I hope you don’t actually believe that we, or anyone in history of the world for that matter, ever go to war for some noble causes.
We created or participated in creation of most(if not all) of those enemies and continue creating more with our government’s constant thirst for profit, resource and power.
Not that our rulers are any worse then others, they just happen to have the overwhelmingly greatest capability. I’m sure England or France would do the same had they been as powerful as our government is.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What the fuck are you rambling amount? Americans are damn generous as hell. We help other cultures all the time.
Unless they’re in New Orleans.
Bullshit. We have spent countless dollars on that money pit. [/quote]
As opposed to Iraq, I suppose?
America. Because rescuing our own is less exciting than killing foreigners.
[quote]Majin wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Of course, protecting the world’s supply of energy by keeping the region in a state of perpetual war might not be the best way to go about it.
“Keeping”? Were they peaceful before we got there?
Yes. Way more peaceful without our arms deals and installed dictators.
[/quote]
I hope this is sarcasm.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Majin wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Of course, protecting the world’s supply of energy by keeping the region in a state of perpetual war might not be the best way to go about it.
“Keeping”? Were they peaceful before we got there?
Yes. Way more peaceful without our arms deals and installed dictators.
I hope this is sarcasm.[/quote]
I hope yours is if you think we’re bringing peace and democracy to the middle east.
[quote]Majin wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Majin wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Of course, protecting the world’s supply of energy by keeping the region in a state of perpetual war might not be the best way to go about it.
“Keeping”? Were they peaceful before we got there?
Yes. Way more peaceful without our arms deals and installed dictators.
I hope this is sarcasm.
I hope yours is if you think we’re bringing peace and democracy to the middle east.
[/quote]
Is Iraq going to invade Kuwait again? Was Iraq democratic? Is it now?