[quote]unbending wrote:
[/quote]
Oh. My. God. And this is why nothing else you said is worth responding to.
[quote]
Well, you guys sold some to him awhile ago. [/quote]
We sold WMDs to Saddam Hussein? Another case in point.
Good job at stepping up to the bat for your country. Bad job at representing any knowledge about current events.
[quote]unbending wrote:
Its like you go out with your buds. They are your friends (Allies). Now let’s say you’re at a bar and you see some drunk guy who looks like he wants to beat the shit out of you. Your friends say ‘dude, chill out you don’t even know he’s looking this way, let’s wait and see.’ But you go ahead and get in a fight.
Your friends don’t help out cause you did a very stupid thing, and they don’t want to be seen with you. Embarrassing. Now everybody thinks you’re the biggest asshole because you beat the crap out of some old drunk guy. Turns out he wasn’t looking at you after all.
Get it?[/quote]
your analogies are on par with Jesus. You are truly the beacon of wisdom shining for your country.
Forgive me if I never read another post from you again.
Why was Canada involved in WW1 and 2? Just asking.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Your ability to buy just about any line of bullshit is astounding.[/quote]
No need to cast insults. Afterall, when we entered Iraq initially, we were greeted with flowers and smiling children. Don’t you remember that? The Iraqi’s love us for a short period in the beginning. Then it went to Hell. I tihnk the theory has some merit, atleast as an aegis towards our current situation. Afterall, ordinary Iraqi’s are fighting us not for Islam but because they believe we are ruining their country. They blame us for the state of their nation.
[quote]spittle8 wrote:
No need to cast insults. Afterall, when we entered Iraq initially, we were greeted with flowers and smiling children. Don’t you remember that? The Iraqi’s love us for a short period in the beginning. [/quote]
Any idea how you were welcomed in Tikrit?
[quote]lixy wrote:
spittle8 wrote:
No need to cast insults. Afterall, when we entered Iraq initially, we were greeted with flowers and smiling children. Don’t you remember that? The Iraqi’s love us for a short period in the beginning.
Any idea how you were welcomed in Tikrit?[/quote]
Tikrit was the home of Saddam, and the people were treated very well. They were overlords of the land. That is a fantastically vapid and irrelevent statement to make.
[quote]lixy wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
So from what I’ve read your best argument is that we dropped bombs on civilians, which is not entirely true.
Oh no? How did you proceed in 2003? Did I miss the part where you had civilians evacuated. By the most conservative accounts, thousands have died. That’s still thousands too many for me.[/quote]
We obviously were not able to evacuate civilians. We also used precision munitions, and limited collateral like never before in history. We missed opportunities to avoid civilian losses.
A few thousand dead for liberation from a monster is a worthy thing. Anyone who says differently is, well, not the type who would have liked the founding Fathers and, not the type of person I could respect.
The issue has not been American barbarity in this war, it has been the lack of Iraqi balls. At risk of pissing off the politically correct, the Iraqi people have simply proven themselves inferior to Americans.
They just can’t stomach a great distress. We survived a bloody, indecisive, confused revolution, an invasion, a national schism, and a vicious civil war. Iraq can’t even create a nation of itself! They simply can’t lead.
I believe the difference between America of 1776 and 2003 Iraq is no more than the dearth of great men in the latter. It was the great men that forged America, not its people. Iraq has no great leaders that can accrue addulation from all groups.
They have no Washington. Jefferson and Hamilton were hated on two sides; Washington got everyone to play nice. Obviously, the Arabs aren’t the types to embrace liberties and individualism, but I don’t see why we haven’t found a national hero leader for Iraq. Osama is a Salafi Sunni if I remember correctly, yet he is a Muslim hero across the board. He is diplomatic, and tactful. If Iraq doesn’t develop such a leader, then they’re pretty much screwed.
When the U.S. pulls out, all will fall apart, and Iran and Saudi Arabia will run in to clean up the mess and establish hegemony and create spheres of influence. Iraq as a nation is really a great tragedy. That nation should never have been artificially created. On the flip side, Iraq stopped Iranian imperialism.
[quote]spittle8 wrote:
…
[/quote]
Comparing today’s Iraq to 18th century’s America is not fair at all.
You guys had something uniting you. The only thing that was uniting Iraq was Saddam. You may digg up Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and populate Iraq with your ancestors and they’ll still be unable to do anything about it. It’s different circumstances that made things the way they are. Your statement about your “great men” (whom I have a profound respect for) is racist at best.
As for the thousands of victims being a fair price to pay for the “liberation”, I’ll have you know that as early as last October, a very serious report (which even your closest allies endorsed) concluded 655,000 Iraqis died as a result of the invasion. So talk all you want about how the Iraqis are savage people who won’t see what’s good for them if it bit them in the face.
It won’t change the fact that had you not invaded, a lot of kids would still have their parents and a lot of people would still have their limbs/lives.
You can’t “liberate” people against their will. Didn’t you learn anything from Vietnam?
[quote]lixy wrote:
spittle8 wrote:
You can’t “liberate” people against their will. Didn’t you learn anything from Vietnam?[/quote]
We weren’t there to “liberate” Vietnam. We were there to stop a Communist infiltration of the north. We were standing by an ally.
[quote]lixy wrote:
You can’t “liberate” people against their will. Didn’t you learn anything from Vietnam?[/quote]
If you are going continue your anti-america crusade, at least do some research before making comments like this. It diminishes what little credibility you have.
[quote]unbending wrote:
And Canada probably would not defend you. We and the rest of the World do not like Empires. Other countries including our own want to keep our sovereignty and not have a ‘big brother’ dictating and taking over everything.
[/quote]
Well, well, well.
A rancid, petulant, little canadian.
Who would have thought it possible?
You do realize that if we were an “EMPIRE,” you would be the first easy target seized.
If we were really interested in conquest, why not start with you?
We could take everything and use all your resources. We’d never have to pay taxes?
What is stopping us?
What?
Who is stopping us?
Who could stop us from taking everything you hold dear?
I’ll answer: We are.
Our own sense of fairness and justice.
Again, if we were interested in free things and establishing an empire, you would be under our boot.
In summary, you are exhibit A in my argument. As your weak little arms and stuttering brain vomits out your pathetic invective, remember that you are doing so precisely because we are not an “EMPIRE.”
JeffR
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
unbending wrote:
Oh. My. God. And this is why nothing else you said is worth responding to.[/quote]
Ok. So correct my mistake then.
[quote]
Well, you guys sold some to him awhile ago.
We sold WMDs to Saddam Hussein? Another case in point.
Good job at stepping up to the bat for your country. Bad job at representing any knowledge about current events. [/quote]
You comment but not develop it. If I am so way off base then please share your wisdom.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
your analogies are on par with Jesus.[/quote]
And how would that be?
I forgive you.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
If we were really interested in conquest, why not start with you?[/quote]
Low payoff. In order to occupy the country, it would take far too much time, resources and it just wouldn’t work as well as an ‘alliance’. Not really an alliance since its not too mutual.
[quote]
We’d never have to pay taxes?[/quote]
What are you nuts? War machines cost money.
[quote]
Again, if we were interested in free things and establishing an empire, you would be under our boot.[/quote]
Very nice wordplay. But you fail to realize Canada is getting there. Closer now thanks to our current political leaders.
[quote]
In summary, you are exhibit A in my argument. As your weak little arms and stuttering brain vomits out your pathetic invective, remember that you are doing so precisely because we are not an “EMPIRE.”[/quote]
I judge by behavior and not by formal definition. Just because you don’t have an Emperor or monarchy does not mean its impossible.
Military Bases World Wide:
"The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.
In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.
These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007)."
[quote]unbending wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
When did I say anything about Canada not engaging in wars? I asked if Canada would bail out the US. Would they? Could they? I wasn’t criticizing Canada or saying anything derogatory about their military history so I don’t know why you felt you needed to defend them.
He felt the need to defend because a huge portion of our population died when defending against some Imperialistic lunatics during the Second and first World Wars. Probably a bigger portion than you guys because canadians used obsolete equipment to ‘fight’ (more like survive and take down a few if you’re lucky).
…[/quote]
Just to clarify a bit Canada was defending the British Empire.
That “Imperialistic” label cuts both ways.
[quote]unbending wrote:
JeffR wrote:
If we were really interested in conquest, why not start with you?
Low payoff. In order to occupy the country, it would take far too much time, resources and it just wouldn’t work as well as an ‘alliance’. Not really an alliance since its not too mutual.
We’d never have to pay taxes?
What are you nuts? War machines cost money.
Again, if we were interested in free things and establishing an empire, you would be under our boot.
Very nice wordplay. But you fail to realize Canada is getting there. Closer now thanks to our current political leaders.
In summary, you are exhibit A in my argument. As your weak little arms and stuttering brain vomits out your pathetic invective, remember that you are doing so precisely because we are not an “EMPIRE.”
I judge by behavior and not by formal definition. Just because you don’t have an Emperor or monarchy does not mean its impossible.
Military Bases World Wide:
"The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.
In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.
These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007)."
Lame response.
JeffR
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
unbending wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
When did I say anything about Canada not engaging in wars? I asked if Canada would bail out the US. Would they? Could they? I wasn’t criticizing Canada or saying anything derogatory about their military history so I don’t know why you felt you needed to defend them.
He felt the need to defend because a huge portion of our population died when defending against some Imperialistic lunatics during the Second and first World Wars. Probably a bigger portion than you guys because canadians used obsolete equipment to ‘fight’ (more like survive and take down a few if you’re lucky).
…
Just to clarify a bit Canada was defending the British Empire.
That “Imperialistic” label cuts both ways.[/quote]
Zap,
Nice job.
Don’t expect him/her/it to admit it.
JeffR
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
We weren’t there to “liberate” Vietnam. We were there to stop a Communist infiltration of the north. We were standing by an ally.
[/quote]
Did you ask the North Vietnamese what they wanted? Ally my ass. You went in with the idea that they can’t be trusted to know what’s good for them.
[quote]unbending wrote:
Military Bases World Wide:
"The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.
[/quote]
You seem to be under the impression that those bases are on foreign ground without their expressed request. They are there by invitation. Security and economic considerations to the host country are the reasons that there are bases around the world. When a request to depart their lands comes, the base and all it’s personnel evacuate.
What was your point, unbending?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
We weren’t there to “liberate” Vietnam. We were there to stop a Communist infiltration of the north. We were standing by an ally.
Did you ask the North Vietnamese what they wanted? Ally my ass. You went in with the idea that they can’t be trusted to know what’s good for them. [/quote]
We didn’t ask what the North Koreans wanted, either. Do you think that they would have chosen the life they live under “communism,” right now?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
You do realize that if we were an “EMPIRE,” you would be the first easy target seized. [/quote]
You do realize that it’s not the dark ages anymore. If the Brits knew the horrors done in their name to expand the empire, you can bet your sweet ass that they would have taken out their leaders.
Neo-colonialism is much more subtle than what plain ol’ colonialism. The ensuing tragedies aren’t. Neo-colonial powers try to not cross the line at which people will revolt in the streets.
If we are to follow your insane logic, any criminal could claim that he isn’t one.
Criminal: I’m not a murderer. You being alive proves that.
Interlocutor: But, but you did slaughter those…
Criminal: Look, if I was a murderer, what would be the easiest target right now.
Interlocutor: Ahem…me?
Criminal: I didn’t kill you now did I?
Interlocutor: No…
Criminal: Case in point.