|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted November 01, 2002 01:54 AM |
|
|
Yes but my point was to show that from his point of view it is natural to distrust Russia and consider them evil and bad neighbours, in the same way you do so for your (former) neighbouring countries. I had no wish to start a debate on which country is the nicest or has committed the most crimes against humanity, but was merely giving a logical reason for the thinking behind that members post.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted November 01, 2002 02:11 AM |
|
|
ok then 
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 01, 2002 02:51 AM |
|
|
"USA is basically trying to occupy Iraq and claim its oil resources"
The U.S. will never occupy Iraq with a government.
In the late 1800's and early 1900's was the last time the U.S. was really imperialistic. We got the Philipeans, Cuba, Hawaii and Alaska. But the U.S. will not take over and govern any Arab country.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2002 06:30 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 1 Nov 2002
|
Quote
“Anyway, isn't that interesting that the "axis of evil" where the Iraq belongs to, consists of countries who have lots of oil in their soil.”
Hmmm I guess you know something the rest of the world is unaware of….North Korea has lots of oil? They are part of what Bush has said is the axis of evil in case you didn't know.
Also of course the middle east has some of the highest oil resources...but there are tons of countries that have oil resources (Mexico, Canada, etc...even the USA)...and guess what...they aren't part of the axis of evil....I will give you a chance to figure out why...no I guess I won't...they aren't one of the axis of evil...cause they aren't evil!
Quote
“USA seems to be blind to the peaceful options offered by the EU.”
Yeah I guess that is why for over a DECADE we have tried “peaceful” options…come on! What would you prefer…another decade? When is enough enough? Maybe when a nuke is landing in your backyard.
Quote
“USA is basically trying to occupy Iraq and claim its oil resources in order to sustain its petroleum-fuelled economy”
Man people keep alluding to this...come on we are all educated here...why are their such asinine claims. If that was true....1. why didn't we occupy Kuwait when we liberated it 2. We had Iraq on the ropes 10 years ago...if it was only about oil we would of annexed them. Seems we didn't so please lets have a more rational discourse!
Oh and I wasn’t aware that US is the only petroleum using country…when did the EU convert to all its cars from gasoline? I really wish anti regime change people would argue facts instead of make up outrageous fiction!
One has to wonder why so many in the anti-regime change crowd can’t seem to live in the world of facts. For those of you who are anti-regime change that are logical…I would think you would be embarrassed when you see such faulty logic and debate.
|
|
FrustratedBa...
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 01, 2002 08:51 AM |
|
|
USA didn't need to occupy Kuwait because the latter was already providing them with oil, and that is the one and only reason why USA stopped Iraq from occupying Kuwait.
Why didn't USA finish off Iraq ten years ago? Let me quote something that was once said in BBC or CNN(don't remember which one):"USA can not afford to lose Iraq as an enemy".
Do the math. Do you really think that the agression against Iraq will solve anything? It will only cause more problems, paving the way for even more unstable mid-east region. The fear for a nuclear weapon being used against USA makes me laugh. Really, even the greatest warmongers are afraid of using it, and NO ONE WOULD USE IT WITHOUT A GREAT REASON. As long as I see, USA's foreign policy is one of the major reasons for the hatred against it. Quite frankly, it was the foreign policy, not religion, that lead to the events of September the 11th. Afghanistan had been under an economical embargo for a decade, and USA should have seen it coming.
Yes, canada and Usa have also big oil reserves, but they are using only small part of it, because it is cheaper to get the oil from Arab countries than drill it, not to mention the hazard to the environment. As for the petroleum-fuelled economies, yes, there is an array of similar countries, but it is the USA that is using violence to sustain it. I don't see France or Germany using arms to secure more oil reserves.
Let me specify: MOST of the members of "the axis of evil" are oil countries. N-Korea is in that group because it doesn't belong to the ranks of supporters of the USA. Remember what Bush said after the September events? "You are either with us, or against us!" Think upon that.
____________
A: What's your ICQ number?
B: What for do you need an icy cucumber??
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 01, 2002 04:45 PM |
|
|
Hmmmmmm just saw this.
Quote:
Also of course the middle east has some of the highest oil resources...but there are tons of countries that have oil resources (Mexico, Canada, etc...even the USA)...and guess what...they aren't part of the axis of evil....I will give you a chance to figure out why...no I guess I won't...they aren't one of the axis of evil...cause they aren't evil!
I shall await eagerly the attack on Saudi Arabia then for some of it's crimes against humanity...... oops they are america's friends...... forgot that one, must maintain SOME allies out there I geuss huh?
On a lighter note there was a joke in an english paper which went something like:
Vladimir Putin: Dictator, a man who wages war on ethnic minorities in chechnya, a man who has used chemical weapons on his own people (gas attack recently), a man with a large nuclear potential and a grave threat to the world......... tell me Mr Bush, when is the US of A going to turn it's war machine on Russia?
(that for you over-reacting people here was what we british call toungue in cheek, IE a joke before you begin a rant)
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2002 06:01 AM |
|
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2002 06:54 AM |
|
|
Quote
“USA didn't need to occupy Kuwait because the latter was already providing them with oil, and that is the one and only reason why USA stopped Iraq from occupying Kuwait. “
That is ridiculous…why if we need their oil so bad did we place an OIL EMBARGO on Iraq? That kind of comment is incoherent!
Quote
” Let me quote something that was once said in BBC or CNN(don't remember which one):"USA can not afford to lose Iraq as an enemy".”
Please make up your mind…do we want their oil or do we need them as an enemy? IF we need them as an enemy then we wouldn’t be talking about a regime change would we….cuase was there is a regime change then they wouldn’t be our enemy any longer. I love when people just make these unfounded claims as if they can read the mind of America….truly lovely that the BBC or CNN is so omniscient. So did these enlightened journalist elaborate on their amazing logic to make such an outrageous and nonsensical statement? Lastly….get your news from BBC not CNN…CNN is but a political rag with no objectivity.
Quote
“Afghanistan had been under an economical embargo for a decade, and USA should have seen it coming.”
I love when people blame the victim. I really hope you don’t do any rape crisis counseling.
Let me get this straight…in that line of logic….USA is not free but must trade with every nation in the world…we have no choice, no moral code that we can follow…we just have to or we are going to have our innocent civilians killed? That is crazy. So much freedom.
Quote
“Yes, canada and Usa have also big oil reserves, but they are using only small part of it, because it is cheaper to get the oil from Arab countries than drill it, not to mention the hazard to the environment.”
Cheaper….I don’t think so. The only reason we aren’t drilling in USA is one word DEMOCRATS.
Quote
“it is the USA that is using violence to sustain it.”
That really begs the question….you are making the very wrong assumption that this is only about oil. So was WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam all about oil also? I love how people can just make up any allegation they want with absolutely NO proof or historical precedence to back up their argument.
Quote
"You are either with us, or against us!"
Do you really even know what was meant by the statement? What does it mean to you? I would assume that the way you are using it that either you didn’t ever listen/read the presidents speech or you are purposely misusing it.
Quote
“I shall await eagerly the attack on Saudi Arabia then for some of it's crimes against humanity”
PH I will take it you are joking…you of course know that comparing the Iraq situation to Saudi Arabia is lame as they are as different situations as day and night. Furthermore you yourself have argued for the pragmatic concerns that involve any military situation/intervention.
Quote
“The US has a history of human rights violations against African Americans, particularly in the South. How would we have taken it if another military power ….This would have been an offence against our status as a sovereign nation. Doesn't the same apply to Iraq?”
That is what I call fuzzy logic….just enough truth to make it palatable but just enough ignorance to mislead.
First off….USA had free elections…Iraq doesn’t… they murder opposition.
Second we fought our bloodiest war ever in eradicating slavery.
Third and probably most importantly that argument lacks any sense of understanding of history. Anyone who comprehends history knows that when you accurately judge history you pronounce moral judgment on historical events not by today’s standards but by the standards of the time (of course we judge to an extent…but you know what I mean). Back then slavery was not thought of as abhorrent as it is today. Many countries were practicing slavery…it was the blinders of the age. Just like in my opinion the brutal murder of children through abortion I think will be considered the blinders of our day. Years from now people will be saying…how could they practice such barbarianism.
Every society throughout history has done bad things. The difference is that now we are suppose to be more enlightened and have higher moral values. For example back in different times women were thought of as property, children were disposable, imperialism was encouraged, freedom of speech was unheard of, etc. etc. Today none of those are acceptable by society at large.
Oh yeah one more point….if USA back then had tried to assinate the leader of say France (as Iraq has done to USA) you can bet your life’s savings that France would of tried to kick our butt (not that that is the only reason we are attempting regime change).
Actually the more I think of it…there are just too many wholes in the argument…I could go on about them…but I will spare everyone;P
|
|
FrustratedBa...
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 02, 2002 08:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That is ridiculous…why if we need their oil so bad did we place an OIL EMBARGO on Iraq? That kind of comment is incoherent!
USA needed KUWAIT's oil, not Iraq's. I said nothing about USA needing Iraq's oil back then. However, now USA wants to grab Iraq's oil reserves as well.
Quote:
Please make up your mind…do we want their oil or do we need them as an enemy? IF we need them as an enemy then we wouldn’t be talking about a regime change would we….cuase was there is a regime change then they wouldn’t be our enemy any longer. I love when people just make these unfounded claims as if they can read the mind of America….truly lovely that the BBC or CNN is so omniscient. So did these enlightened journalist elaborate on their amazing logic to make such an outrageous and nonsensical statement? Lastly….get your news from BBC not CNN…CNN is but a political rag with no objectivity.
USA wants both. It is difficult to steal from a friend and that is why USA needs it as an enemy. If the USA had been interested in regime change, why didn't Bush(the older one) finish Saddam off when he had the chance. To think that USA's agression will result in a regime change, is a "touch" naive. Look at the events of Afghanistan. They wanted a regime change and supported the people of Afghanistan.
Quote:
I love when people blame the victim. I really hope you don’t do any rape crisis counseling.
You don't know who's the victim and who's responsible for the 11.09 events, do you? The victims were, indeed, innocent Americans, but it was none other than the government of the United States of America, that is and should be held responsible for the tragedy. Why did Al Quaeda attack WTC twice(they failed the first time)? The reason is not the religion. Do the math.
Quote:
Let me get this straight…in that line of logic….USA is not free but must trade with every nation in the world…we have no choice, no moral code that we can follow…we just have to or we are going to have our innocent civilians killed? That is crazy. So much freedom.
Are you losing grip or sth?
USA is NOT the world. USA could cease all its foreign trade for all I care, but it was a total embargo that USA laid on Afghanistan, which means that no country in the world can trade with the one under the embargo.
Quote:
Cheaper….I don’t think so. The only reason we aren’t drilling in USA is one word DEMOCRATS.
I dissagree. Find out how expensive can the drilling on USA's soil be before trolling on sth U don't know. No offence.
And it aren't the Democrats that are against drilling on USA's soil. Ever heard of environmental activists?
Quote:
That really begs the question….you are making the very wrong assumption that this is only about oil. So was WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam all about oil also? I love how people can just make up any allegation they want with absolutely NO proof or historical precedence to back up their argument.
Every war has its own causes.
WW1, for example, came into reality because of imperialism. Germany, which had already overtaken GB in GDP, wanted to establish hegemony in the world, just like USA is trying to do today. There had also been a big gap between major wars, etc
I could talk about the other wars here too, but this isn't the topic we are arguing about.
____________
A: What's your ICQ number?
B: What for do you need an icy cucumber??
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 02, 2002 03:21 PM |
|
|
Only partly Dargon, I don't think even the most pro bush supporter could honestly say Saudi Arabia is a nice gentle democracy with good honest rulers and a decent legal system. Not on the same level as Iraq perhaps, but methinks America and the west can be VERY selective about who is and is not their ally at times.
Quote:
So was WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam all about oil also?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm WWI was prestige and power, WWII was to stop a madman, though it is good to note that hitler often struck at nations or concentrated on areas with large oil reserves. Vietnam and korea was simply about America and the west being so anti communist they couldn't drag their heads out of their collective butts and work out just how disgusting their own allies were. Geuss they all have one thing in common....... enlightened self interest of the governments in question.
Quote:
First off….USA had free elections…Iraq doesn’t… they murder opposition.
Second we fought our bloodiest war ever in eradicating slavery.
I have to take issue here 
point 1: Free elections? No black person in the south could vote! Secondly there was strong indications in 1861 that Maryland (a state surrounding Washington DC) may have sided with the south. Lincoln sent troops in to prevent this. Besides this you did not fight the civil war solely on the grounds of anti slavery. Certainly the south did not consider this the main issue, the fought more over state rights over federal rights. Lincoln was anti slavery, but did not make it a major issue until 1862 with the emancipation proclamation. This was largely a political ploy to put the british and french off from interfering as both of them were anti-slave and lincoln knew no anti-slave nation could intervene on behalf of the slave owning south against an anti-slave north. Many prominent southern leaders were anti-slavery including Robert E Lee, they fought simply because it was their home state and they could not fight against it.
Point 2: Many european nations were fighting slavery, specifically Britain who denounced it some 30 years prior to the ACW and were actively fighting slavery.
Point 3: I don't recollect the Americans asking the democratic will of the tribes of indians living in their current country before ethnically cleansing them from their homelands and killing most of them.........
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 02, 2002 04:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This has probably been brought up before, but forgive me, since I had no desire to read the previous 17 pages of posts before donating my $0.02.
I understand, God forbid you read what other people have actually said before you disagree with them.
Quote:
USA didn't need to occupy Kuwait because the latter was already providing them with oil, and that is the one and only reason why USA stopped Iraq from occupying Kuwait.
Do you think that the US should have allowed Iraq to occupy Kuwait?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 02, 2002 04:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
First off….USA had free elections…Iraq doesn’t… they murder opposition.
Second we fought our bloodiest war ever in eradicating slavery.
Quote:
I have to take issue here
point 1: Free elections? No black person in the south could vote! Secondly there was strong indications in 1861 that Maryland (a state surrounding Washington DC) may have sided with the south. Lincoln sent troops in to prevent this. Besides this you did not fight the civil war solely on the grounds of anti slavery. Certainly the south did not consider this the main issue, the fought more over state rights over federal rights. Lincoln was anti slavery, but did not make it a major issue until 1862 with the emancipation proclamation. This was largely a political ploy to put the british and french off from interfering as both of them were anti-slave and lincoln knew no anti-slave nation could intervene on behalf of the slave owning south against an anti-slave north. Many prominent southern leaders were anti-slavery including Robert E Lee, they fought simply because it was their home state and they could not fight against it.
PH- you are right about most things but African Americans had the right to vote in the U.S. in 1862, 1865 in the south. Southerners didn't like this and they "detered" blacks from voting. Robert E. Lee could have gone either way, and he was a great general, Lincoln wanted him but he said he couldn't go against his home state. So to mess with his head, when the north controled Virginia Lincoln took Lee's property and made a Cemetery for northern solidiers in his front yard.
Quote:
Point 2: Many european nations were fighting slavery, specifically Britain who denounced it some 30 years prior to the ACW and were actively fighting slavery.
Point 3: I don't recollect the Americans asking the democratic will of the tribes of indians living in their current country before ethnically cleansing them from their homelands and killing most of them.........
I don't remember any European nation compaining at the time. A bad example of you to use would be Custer. He was an IDIOT, plain and simple. He got expeled from West Point. He got in again and graduated last in his class. He had 200 cavelry under his command vs. 80,000 indians. Hmmm, wonder who will win. He split his force in three groups and attacked, he was ordered to wait for reinforcements, so much for that. He was slaughtered, what a surprise.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 02, 2002 05:02 PM |
|
|
Custer was an idiot true, though I think 8,000 would be more accurate of the forces facing him at LBH. He was an idiot in the civil war where he gained the temp rank of general as by LBH he was not one (though he liked to be called one) My point was there were many massacres by the american forces of this time killing innocent men and women of those tribes. Other tribes were forcibly relocated to areas such as florida by marching them hundreds of miles under supervision. Democratic will at this time did not come into it for these people.
Oh yes and as for being permitted to vote I think I remember reading somewhere that there was laws passed in some southern states which stated that no person could vote unless they could read a passage from the constitution. As many black people in the south couldn't read and those that could often had trouble with the longer words they were often denied the vote for years after 1865. they were also bullied by the KKK and others into not voting or voting the right way.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
|
posted November 02, 2002 05:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Point 2: Many european nations were fighting slavery, specifically Britain who denounced it some 30 years prior to the ACW and were actively fighting slavery.
As long as you are going back into history to condem slavery you shouldn't hold Britain up as any kind of shining light in the anti slavery cause. When slavery started the US was still part of England. The slavers who brought the slaves over, in british ships, where british sailors and british officers. The people who profitted of the buying and selling of human flesh were British investors. British hands are not clean in the slavery issue.
Another point for you history buffs, the civil war was fought over one issue- Slavery. The south secceeded from the union because they thought the north was going to make them give up slavery. The only "State's Rights" that the south was fighting for was the right to own slaves.
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 02, 2002 06:41 PM |
|
|
errrrr Hello I wasn't holding us up as innocents, you might want to read back a bit when I said I could argue on any european nation for what it had done wrong. You want me too I could right pages on britain, america and France. I just don't appreciate the notion that america was born with this perfect constitution or that it was this perfect place with freedom and justice for all from it's birth. It wasn't, so I don't like to see anyone claiming it was. I note you mentioned nothing on the ethnic cleansing of your native american population though, that is hard to excuse whichever way you look at it.
(yes so did britain, so don't try that one either, I was just pointing out some truths, feel free to point out some about britain, I don't mind one bit if they are true)
As for state's rights, this goes much deeper than you imagine. To the southern states, state came above all, in the war one state, which produced the most uniforms refused to hand any of them over to other state's units because they claimed they were reserved for their own troops. Southern militia and regular units at the begining of the war refused to serve outside their state as they claimed they signed up to defend their state and no other. They believed that the state has the only right over them and not the overpowering population of the north that could force through taxes and legislation over them against their will.
Why if slavery was such an issue did lincoln not fully denounce slavery until 1862 with his proclomation? It was only then he made it THE issue of the war, to a large extent to justify his reasons for forcing the southern states back into a union that they did not want (as even if all 3 million black slaves were allowed to vote and voted to stay in the union, the 6 million white men of the south would have democratically beaten them and left it).
I would reccomend reading http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/rhett.html A document which contains the speech "South Carolina's Address to the Slaveholding States". It gives other reasons for the secession, including taxes to name but one.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 02, 2002 08:56 PM |
|
|
Yes about 8,000, and 2,000 warriors. It was a typo.
Oldtimer - You don't know what you are talking about. The (Here I have to say American) Civil War was very complex. Don't say anything like that unless you are sure. It was State's Rights, slavery was part of it but not all. The south didn't like the strong federal government.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 02, 2002 09:09 PM |
|
|
|
You can scream "no strong federal government" all you want, but the issue that they state governments disagreed with the federal government over was slavery (more specifically, the expansion of slavery to new states). Let me put it to you this way - if the south didn't have slaves, would the civil war still have happened?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 02, 2002 09:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
heh anything ive missed?
Yes, I think you mean France, not Great Britain.
"republican bullcrap"?
I assume that you are democratic and very liberal. A country cannot survive on just domestic policys
Bort- Yes I think the (American) Civil War would still have happened. It was not all slavery.
This is off topic so I think I will start a new thread for historical debates.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 02, 2002 10:02 PM |
|
|
Bort:
Yes it may well of as there was more of an issue such as the taxation from the north and the differences in people from the two areas, the south were sick of the north bullying them around over their rights (amongst which were slave issues), and were also wary of the north with it's growing popualtion of immigrants as they saw themselves as more pure americans than the north with their recent massive influx of European immigrants.
Would it have happened? I dunno, but it's not the only thing affecting the war. The south saw it as important amongst it's gentry, the north saw it important amongst some sections of the country, the government used it as a polictial ploy to rouse the nation. Stopping a state from leaving the union was something the north could not justify. Fighting slave owning states was something it could. That's why it was an issue, much more than actually making black people equal (which did not happen truly for some 100 years) the slave issue was more of a good political ploy than a true attempt to right the evils visited on the black population of america
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 02, 2002 10:13 PM |
|
|
Yes, slavery was a smaller part of the war than most people think.
*off topic* put things like that in "Historicl Debates"
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
