[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
John S. wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
John S. wrote:
Look what happened the last time we sanctioned the people in the middle east. We are still missing two towers because of it.
Yes, that’s why. If only not for that darned sanction.
Their where many reason’s, but sanctions where a main reason. You don’t think they attacked because of our Freedoms do you?
Precisely how does your propaganda film (I think that is a fair description) support your claim that al-Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center was due to a US sanction?
And which sanction do you mean?
Didn’t Khalid Sheikh Mohammed previously organize or contribute to the organization of the attempted destruction of the WTC in 1993?
So why would you attribute a later sanction as the cause of their desire to do this?
Why don’t you believe their own claims that their religion teaches them to do this?[/quote]
Bin Laden himself said he was waging war on the U.S. because of our presence in the middle east.
Which is an affront due to their interpretation of their religion being that US troops being in Saudi Arabia is sacriligous, regardless that the country has them there at their own desire.
There’s no reason to think he would have objected to troops of a Muslim nation being there at Saudi invitation.
I’m unaware whether you meant your statement as support or opposition to what I said: it in fact supports that it is on account of their religion as they interpret it.
Anyway, your statement doesn’t support the new off-the-topic claim that US sanctions caused 9/11, or it would seem be related to Obama’s Peace Prize, so I’ll leave this divergence where it is.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You decided, pretty much out of nowhere, to make an assertion as to the reason that the terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center, killing so many of the people in it.
I asked you to back it up, which seems reasonable enough given how major a claim that is. I haven’t seen your back up, beyond simply asserting it.
I know of no Obama bin Laden tape yet released, or any other al-Qaeda propaganda or statements, attributing their actions to the sanctions against Iraq. I know of precisely zero evidence for your claim, and it seems you don’t either, or by now likely you’d have provided the specific.[/quote]
Sanctions interfere with the middle east, They have said numerous times that they are at war with us because of our meddling in the middle east.(this is the part where you say they also said that they did it because we support Israel)
Now don’t get me wrong I am in no way sympathizing with them, and their are a few things on the video I gave you that I disagree with/don’t have a problem with, but the point is that video right there is how they view us that’s what that video was supposed to show you.
I think I have backed up my assertion pretty well. Now if I am wrong please tell me how I am wrong. Don’t just tell me I am wrong and then refuse to tell me what is right, please enlighten me.
Because when making a claim that there is a specific cause – you named sanctions – if a person has no evidence that that specific is the cause, then, well, they have no evidence.
You have yet to give the specific evidence that any given sanction, set of sanctions, or sanctions in general were the cause. That is to say, the factor that was necessary, without which the event would not have happened.
Sorry about the ambiguity of my statment. I agree with your statement completely Bill. You nailed it. For some reason this logic has fallen upon deaf ears. You don’t hear stuff like this from our politicians unfortantely. I liked the youtube video , which was definitely a propoganda video but entertaining none the less.
Well, first, he has not succeeded in fucking up the country yet. The people have spoken loud and clear. Even with a representative majority, he cannot accomplish his intentions. Second, sometimes it is hard to detect sarcasm but if there is any seriousness to this statement “Btw, Yasser Arafat and Che Guevara rule…” then forgive me for being direct, but you are stupid. If you were being sarcastic, then I apologize for that. Those guys are murderers in cold blood. They were motivated by pure hate and guile. They deserve nothing but disdain.[/quote]
Lol the US Army kills too…whats your point? Its funny because what the Tea part protesters are doing is some less violent version of what Yasser and Che did. They stood up to the authority and fought for the “little people”; what they believed to be a cause.
Don’t give me this B.S of how Obama is a socialist and Marxist. Most of you and your “boys” have no idea what that means. I presume (and its a big presumption) that those who say Obama is a socialist have never actually been to a “socialist” country or any other country for that matter.
For the past 80 years the USA has kept on growing and become the richest most powerful nation on earth. Great. But you guys are put pretty low on the list of countries with the best quality of life. My country New Zealand and your neighbor Canada are ranked in the top 4 and if you knew anything about how these countries operate you’d label them as “socialist.”
Where the fuck were you when Bush was in office. If you say now that “he hasn’t fucked up the country yet” you must have known you were gonna get fucked eventually. As I see it McCain wasn’t going to do anything different than whats going on now. Atleast you have a guy who can articulate what he wants to do instead of interpreting “I got a B in econ101 (herher).”
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Because when making a claim that there is a specific cause – you named sanctions – if a person has no evidence that that specific is the cause, then, well, they have no evidence.
You have yet to give the specific evidence that any given sanction, set of sanctions, or sanctions in general were the cause. That is to say, the factor that was necessary, without which the event would not have happened.[/quote]
let me word it this way. Any sanction on any country in the middle east at any time is considered by them interfering. Is that not one of the reasons Bin Laden gave for 9/11?
And then lets look at who sanctions hurt? Is it an oppressive government? north Korea has shown us no. It’s the people, so now who do the people think is the evil empire?
How would you feel if a country bigger and stronger then us sanctioned us? You wouldn’t like it and you would feel hatred towards them. If we are all created equal then they must feel the same way about us.
Sanctions are nothing more then a cowardly act of war designed to hurt civilians.
Well, first, he has not succeeded in fucking up the country yet. The people have spoken loud and clear. Even with a representative majority, he cannot accomplish his intentions. Second, sometimes it is hard to detect sarcasm but if there is any seriousness to this statement “Btw, Yasser Arafat and Che Guevara rule…” then forgive me for being direct, but you are stupid. If you were being sarcastic, then I apologize for that. Those guys are murderers in cold blood. They were motivated by pure hate and guile. They deserve nothing but disdain.
Lol the US Army kills too…whats your point? Its funny because what the Tea part protesters are doing is some less violent version of what Yasser and Che did. They stood up to the authority and fought for the “little people”; what they believed to be a cause.
Don’t give me this B.S of how Obama is a socialist and Marxist. Most of you and your “boys” have no idea what that means. I presume (and its a big presumption) that those who say Obama is a socialist have never actually been to a “socialist” country or any other country for that matter.
For the past 80 years the USA has kept on growing and become the richest most powerful nation on earth. Great. But you guys are put pretty low on the list of countries with the best quality of life. My country New Zealand and your neighbor Canada are ranked in the top 4 and if you knew anything about how these countries operate you’d label them as “socialist.”
Where the fuck were you when Bush was in office. If you say now that “he hasn’t fucked up the country yet” you must have known you were gonna get fucked eventually. As I see it McCain wasn’t going to do anything different than whats going on now. Atleast you have a guy who can articulate what he wants to do instead of interpreting “I got a B in econ101 (herher).”
[/quote]
Don’t really know why you are comparing peaceful protest and free assembly guaranteed by the first amendment to the actions of a bunch of murders. Secondly, your comparing a country with 4 million people to a country with 300 million people. No one goes to New Zealand to get a heart transplant dude. Universal health care, expansion of governmental power, czars, nationalization of private industry, bail outs, These are not principals of American democracy. The only thing you got right with this post is how both parties in America are exactly the same. Bush ran up deficits with out of control spending and expanded government and the trend continues with Black Jesus and mckennedy.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Because when making a claim that there is a specific cause – you named sanctions – if a person has no evidence that that specific is the cause, then, well, they have no evidence.
You have yet to give the specific evidence that any given sanction, set of sanctions, or sanctions in general were the cause. That is to say, the factor that was necessary, without which the event would not have happened.
let me word it this way. Any sanction on any country in the middle east at any time is considered by them interfering. Is that not one of the reasons Bin Laden gave for 9/11?
And then lets look at who sanctions hurt? Is it an oppressive government? north Korea has shown us no. It’s the people, so now who do the people think is the evil empire?
How would you feel if a country bigger and stronger then us sanctioned us? You wouldn’t like it and you would feel hatred towards them. If we are all created equal then they must feel the same way about us.
Sanctions are nothing more then a cowardly act of war designed to hurt civilians.
[/quote]
“Designed” implies intent. I’m sure you have no evidence for that either, but that’s another matter.
So what is your better solution when, say, Saddam is developing chemical and biological weapons and pursuing a nuclear weapon (which he was – the UN inspectors found all kinds of things in the early years.)
You don’t want sanctions to at least slow him down and hopefully cause him to decide it’s not worth it, you don’t want his sovereignty sullied (you don’t want an invasion) so unless your answer is do nothing, what is your better answer?
Don’t really know why you are comparing peaceful protest and free assembly guaranteed by the first amendment to the actions of a bunch of murders.[/quote]
You’re being ignorant. Try and think in multiple perspectives. Put urself in their shoes for a second even if you hate them or whatever. They did ‘something’ for a reason, like all of us do stuff because of a cause.
“Designed” implies intent. I’m sure you have no evidence for that either, but that’s another matter.
So what is your better solution when, say, Saddam is developing chemical and biological weapons and pursuing a nuclear weapon (which he was – the UN inspectors found all kinds of things in the early years.)
You don’t want sanctions to at least slow him down and hopefully cause him to decide it’s not worth it, you don’t want his sovereignty sullied (you don’t want an invasion) so unless your answer is do nothing, what is your better answer?
[/quote]
You and I both know what sanctions do, and to pretend that the people in Washington do not is a lie and you now it.
Iraq getting nuclear capability would have upset everyone in that region, now the people in the region would have looked for help in getting rid of them. Now who in that area is really powerful? Israel maybe?
But Iraq does have a history of using WMD against its own people. And them pulling this bullshit of you can inspect us but you cant look here I believe they gave enough reason to go in there. It’s my understanding that Iraq agreed not to peruse weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf war.
I do support the war, but it could have been handled much differently. The thing is this situation started at the Gulf war. I am a big believe in you break it you buy it.
Edit*
But at the end of the day what I think does not matter. The Constitution does not give us the authority to police the world. The Constitution is our law and we must follow it.
The other countries in the middle east would have joined together to stop Iraq if they truely viewed it as a threat. Iraq was the powerhouse in that region so the other countries would have to have gotten help from someone, most likely Israel.
Personally, I have no problem with the Iraq war, I think there was enough information at the time they could have declared war the legal way. Doing so would have actually made the war a lot quicker, we could have gone in full force.
I don’t support how we got in their but I do think we should be there if that makes any sense.
[quote]John S. wrote:
<<< But at the end of the day what I think does not matter. The Constitution does not give us the authority to police the world. The Constitution is our law and we must follow it.
[/quote]
This is maybe the one major area where I believe that technology has rendered the geopolitical worldview of the founders obsolete. That said “police the world” is fairly broad and open to some interpretation, but technological realities have necessitated that provision for the common defense be viewed beyond our shores. Todays dragons are not theirs by any stretch. The world didn’t even have electricity or running water (for the most part) nevermind atomic understanding, manned flight, instantaneous global communication, satellite navigation and warships bigger than many towns yet much faster than their wind driven vessels on and on.
Who would prefer that we repel a coastal land invasion than keep it from ever getting here? It’s only never happened because we have made sure that it never got that far. Even so had we had todays technology in the 1930’s the Japanese could not have pulled off Pearl Harbor unless we took the guard the fenceline approach favored by some still. Any country capable of preventing a domestic attack by foreign intervention in today’s world and chooses not to is nuts.
Don’t really know why you are comparing peaceful protest and free assembly guaranteed by the first amendment to the actions of a bunch of murders.
You’re being ignorant. Try and think in multiple perspectives. Put urself in their shoes for a second even if you hate them or whatever. They did ‘something’ for a reason, like all of us do stuff because of a cause.
[/quote]
must be my ignorant American brain. I wish I could be enlightened.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
John S. wrote:
<<< But at the end of the day what I think does not matter. The Constitution does not give us the authority to police the world. The Constitution is our law and we must follow it.
This is maybe the one major area where I believe that technology has rendered the geopolitical worldview of the founders obsolete. That said “police the world” is fairly broad and open to some interpretation, but technological realities have necessitated that provision for the common defense be viewed beyond our shores. Todays dragons are not theirs by any stretch. The world didn’t even have electricity or running water (for the most part) nevermind atomic understanding, manned flight, instantaneous global communication, satellite navigation and warships bigger than many towns yet much faster than their wind driven vessels on and on.
Who would prefer that we repel a coastal land invasion than keep it from ever getting here? It’s only never happened because we have made sure that it never got that far. Even so had we had todays technology in the 1930’s the Japanese could not have pulled off Pearl Harbor unless we took the guard the fenceline approach favored by some still. Any country capable of preventing a domestic attack by foreign intervention in today’s world and chooses not to is nuts.[/quote]
I think the basic guiding principals still apply. Strong national defense,limited mingling in foreign countries. make friends and trade. Technology has definitely changed the variables, but i don’t think that they make the founding father’s views on geopolitics obsolete. Intelligence gathering has changed.
I think the basic guiding principals still apply. Strong national defense,limited mingling in foreign countries. make friends and trade. Technology has definitely changed the variables, but i don’t think that they make the founding father’s views on geopolitics obsolete. Intelligence gathering has changed. [/quote]
