Conquer Club

qeee1 wrote:Hmmm... what to choose.

Meh, let's see:

The Kyoto agreement.

terrafirma wrote:

he could shave his beard and look as american as apple pie, baseball and George Washington....combined!

that is an inuslt to america...and pie

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I STILL want to see those articles!

hitandrun wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I for one disagree with the US funding of the IRA, and just because we did in no way obligates me to believe that we shouldn't take out a dictator who is funding a terrorist organization. I honestly can't see your point there.

The USA wanted to "take out" someone who was funding a terrorist organisation. The USA funded/funds terrorist organisations, should they be taken out? My point.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:--> Saddam committed genocide. You can't debate the moral issue about that; all you can debate is whether or not it's our business whether or not thousands of people in Iraq are killed just because they are Kurdish.

He did, and so he had to be dealt with. However, my problem is with the way in which it has been done and the USA's arrogance in regards to world deplomacy.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:--> Saddam was a threat to our country. I'm not going to go into the WMD debate, because it makes me want to tear my hair out and bash in my television screen so I never have to see the media again, so forget about that. Even without WMD, any dictator of a primarily Islamic country who harbors blatantly anti-American sentiments (and in this case has a history of open defiance toward the US, hence the Kuwait incident) is a threat to us because they can a- provide terrorist organizations with arms, intel, funding, and many other things such organizations need, and b- because he may just get powerful enough to BECOME an overt threat to us, through treaties, acquiring WMD, etc.

If Saddam was a threat to the USA because of his funding terrorists, then most of the world is a threat. The USA is a threat to Britain. Where does it end? Being Anti-American (or anti-septic) is no threat and no justification for attack. He would not have become powerful and even if he did he would not have dared facing off.

I do not regret that Saddam is now being tried for his crimes. I do regret that the USA thinks that it is in some way superior. I hope that in the future your country will mature and see it has to be part of the world system as an equal.

hitandrun wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I STILL want to see those articles!

You have the internet, just look!

Here's one to get you started:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm

hitandrun wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I STILL want to see those articles!

You have the internet, just look!

Here's one to get you started:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm

vtmarik wrote:Well the one big problem that I (and others apparently) seem to have is the fact that Saddam hated Osama almost as much as we did. He had no use for the zealotry that Osama had and was quite happy running his country like an Old Fashioned Dictator (Like Franco or Mussolini). Sure, he didn't like us but at least he wasn't the one crashing planes at us. Hell, if we had approached him like adults rather than whiny kids out of a Samurai-Revenge Plot, he may have been able to help us catch that Cave-Dwelling Terrorist.

Unfortunately, now that the secular influence is no longer influencing, the country has descended into sectarian violence drawn across religious lines.

And who did it - The President? Rumsfeld? Cheney? The Project for a New American Century? This Box of Grapes?

Well, we won't be sure until the history books talk about this. I'll get back to it in 50 years or so.

Well the one big problem that I (and others apparently) seem to have is the fact that Saddam hated Osama almost as much as we did.

OnlyAmbrose a few pages back wrote:
The fact is that Saddam WASN'T taken care of during the Gulf War. We have to deal with that. I am NOT in my argument linking 9/11 to the War in Iraq. Sure, that's when we actually invaded, because it's what gave the President enough political juice to do it, but the motives are not linked, despite what the president may say (at least not in my mind). My argument is as follows, and as such you don't need to adress anything else:

--> Saddam committed genocide. You can't debate the moral issue about that; all you can debate is whether or not it's our business whether or not thousands of people in Iraq are killed just because they are Kurdish.

--> Saddam was a threat to our country. I'm not going to go into the WMD debate, because it makes me want to tear my hair out and bash in my television screen so I never have to see the media again, so forget about that. Even without WMD, any dictator of a primarily Islamic country who harbors blatantly anti-American sentiments (and in this case has a history of open defiance toward the US, hence the Kuwait incident) is a threat to us because they can a- provide terrorist organizations with arms, intel, funding, and many other things such organizations need, and b- because he may just get powerful enough to BECOME an overt threat to us, through treaties, acquiring WMD, etc.

Those are the grounds on which I see it possible to justify the war.

Do I agree with the war? Well, I think Saddam needed to be taken out, and I think it should have been done a long time ago, but since it didn't I think now was as good a time as any. Sooner was clearly better than later simply because he didn't have time to become as strong and his genocidal tendencies were cut short.

Do I agree with the manner in which the war is being waged? In terms of ethics, I can't say. I take everything the media says with a pinch of salt, and since I'm not in Iraq, that means I don't have a damn clue what goes on over there. In terms of politics, I think this is becoming a drain on America, and the sooner we get out the better. What's more, I don't think the Iraqis themselves are taking enough initiative in getting their own nation running. I want our troops home- they did their job. But once again, I do believe the war was justified- just not necessarily for the reasons stated by the politicians.

ksslemp wrote:

qeee1 wrote:Hmmm... what to choose.

Meh, let's see:

The Kyoto agreement.

Wrong forum, this goes under "Why does the world hate China"!

reverend_kyle wrote:

ksslemp wrote:

qeee1 wrote:Hmmm... what to choose.

Meh, let's see:

The Kyoto agreement.

Wrong forum, this goes under "Why does the world hate China"!

Lol, eveyrthing you say is null and void as your american ignorance speaks wonders with that statement.

ksslemp wrote:

reverend_kyle wrote:

ksslemp wrote:

qeee1 wrote:Hmmm... what to choose.

Meh, let's see:

The Kyoto agreement.

Wrong forum, this goes under "Why does the world hate China"!

Lol, eveyrthing you say is null and void as your american ignorance speaks wonders with that statement.

Lemme explain.. Kyoto is a city in japan.. the kyoto agreement was signed by china and almost every country in the world.. america not so much.

DITTO! "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"
"You give them Books, and what do they do? They Eat the pages"!

reverend_kyle wrote:

ksslemp wrote:

reverend_kyle wrote:

ksslemp wrote:

qeee1 wrote:Hmmm... what to choose.

Meh, let's see:

The Kyoto agreement.

Wrong forum, this goes under "Why does the world hate China"!

Lol, eveyrthing you say is null and void as your american ignorance speaks wonders with that statement.

Lemme explain.. Kyoto is a city in japan.. the kyoto agreement was signed by china and almost every country in the world.. america not so much.

DITTO! "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"
"You give them Books, and what do they do? They Eat the pages"!

terrafirma wrote:

qeee1 wrote:

for the first reply you obvously dont no anything aobut the kyoto agreement or else you would only hate the countries that signed not the US.

explain

not allof the protocaol is bad but there are some oarts that make it useless. for instance a country with emissions lower the the limit can sell its excess polution to another country. that doesnt solve the polution problem that just makes an industry out of excess polution sales

ksslemp wrote:You've got to be kidding me, I have'nt heard such a naive statement since i accidently turned my radio dial to Air America.

You want to approach Saddam Hussein like an adult? With your plan we'd have troops on his border for that 50 years you mentioned.

Maybe if the rest of the world had a backbone Saddam would have been forced to comply with the U.N. mandates. But that wasnt the case and this war was the ONLY option, It was either NOW or LATER, with the Later meaning having to deal with a stronger Saddam.

mr. incrediball wrote:most americans are alright, but there are some (adults included) who are just SO BLOODY ARROGANT! i can't stress enough that i'm talking about the minority here, but it's those people who

1: think no-one did anything in wwII 'til the us showed up

2: seriously need to think of others

3: have u ever seen that simpsons episode where they go to england? there are two things homer says that demonstrate my point:
a) "Would an american DOLLAR convince you to leave us alone?"
b) "hello, we're from everyone's favourite country, the USA"

4: frankly, it's just plain rude to think we get exited when people give us dollars (btw, i should point out that an english pound is worth almost twice as much as a dollar), and fyi my favourite country, (like many ppls) is my HOME! and even then, it's japan that comes 2nd

that's the reason many hate america, i'm not saying everyone in america does those things, but it's the few that do that really spoil your otherwise wonderful country

Lewis Black wrote:America goes around the world and says "We're the best" and that is a little fuckin' obnoxious!

If someone came into your office everyday and said "I'm the greatest fucker here! And the rest of you sniveling shits would die without me." You'dve killed him, and eaten him in order to gain his power.

qeee1 wrote:And to explain my metaphor, as some of you don't seem to get it: Earth is public space, Parking represents pollution. And the consequences are far worse than traffic. Point is the earth is a shared resource, we all should respect it and not damage it too much, for it does not belong to us.

Anyway:

So it's ok for America to pollute because of (your percieved) problems in the treaty? Seems someone's missed the point.

Perhaps I should restate it: America's pollution, and lack of effort to counteract it.