Bully Losing Popularity Contest

[Kramerman]

You mean like Israel used against the Arabs? Like Russia used to prevent us from intervening in Afghanistan? Please. That whole 'shield' thing has never worked because no one wants to be the one to use a nuke.

well, I dont think we should take that risk, especially with someone like Saddam who does hate America oh so much. The other arguements for invading Iraq are still very justified, as told in my previous posts.

Actually yes. We have gone to war over no 'God damn reason' before. Grenada mean anything to you?

there was a medical school on greneda that had 600 (IIRC) of US cirizens not to mention about another 400 US citizens on the island. A dictator briefly came to power on the island in a murderous coup and was backed by Cuba/SU. The Iranian hostages in the embassy thing was either still going on, or had just ended, i dont recall which. Any how, there was a real and major fear that this marxist governmet may take some prisoner/hostage. This is on top of the fact the Orgabization of Eastern Carribbean States pleaded with the US to help. This had reason, though some my find it little, it is none the less reason.

So you are saying the American government is the most charitable because we give the most money in total dollars? Percentages of budget is the ONLY thing that means jack.
Or do you think that the rich man that give 1% of his budget to the poor is more charatible than a middle class man that gives 10% of his budget? Let's get serious here.

I believe I said we gave the most (and infered 'if not, nearly the most') of any country. If we didnt have to spend so much money on our exstensive military(someone has to have one) or our drug war or extensive crime fighting in general, among other things we must spend much more than our fello industrialized nations, then we could afford to be more charitable. The fact is, America has just as many if not more internal problems then our industrialized friends and need to keep more to ourselves. Dont forget that many of our friends are socialists, and when people pay their high taxes they know a portion of that is going to foreign aid. In the US, we are much less socialistic, and, again, our private citizenry, may it be individuals or organizations, I am sure when combined with our nation's federal aid spending (and our UN budget...) it is easily our own share of helping the world. We help in other ways too, that other countries dont. Our technological advaces (along eith outher nations) in medicine helped bring an end to small pox and we are working towards bringing an end to AIDS. Genetically engineered food is helping starvation, mediating in foreign disputes such as the egypt-Israeli one and the Israeli- Palistian one. There are countless other ways in which we have, and in which we do help others. And these ways arent cheap, mind you. The point being, the US is a charitable nation. Maybe not the most, but no one can say we are not charitable, or even stingyly charitable.

Kman

[Ned]

Kman, Unfortunately, any foreign aid given by Europe or the United States is dwarfed by the damage done by the recent farm "subsidy" bill passed by the Democrats in congress and signed by a Republican president. This bill will spend 180 billion, if I recall correctly, to pay farmers NOT to grow crops. Now, just imagine what food prices would be in the world if that bill had not been passed and signed?

[CyberGnu]

Ned, you claimed that Gore supported Bush's foreign policy. I'm rakcing my brain, but can;t come up with anything but afganistan. He is, however, on record deploring Bush's decisions on Kyoto, the international court and the withdrawal of family planning aid.

I asked you for substantiation of your claim, but your only reply was something about why Gore hasn't talked about Iraq...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I lapse into personal attacks when I can't take my target seriously. It looks like Imran has the same policy...

Exactly. After that 'good friend OBL' crack... well... looks like you were the first to go personal.

well, I dont think we should take that risk, especially with someone like Saddam who does hate America oh so much.

You think Saddam hates America? It was similar hate that the USSR demonstrated towards the US.

Any how, there was a real and major fear that this marxist governmet may take some prisoner/hostage.

Why? The only government during the Cold War that really held Americans hostage was a fundamentalist Islamic one. Not really marxist, is it?

The fact is, America has just as many if not more internal problems then our industrialized friends and need to keep more to ourselves.

This doesn't make sense. Why do we need to keep to ourselves, because we have internal problems. I guarentee you that our internal problems are no worse than most European countries.

(and our UN budget...)

You mean when we choose to pay it?

Maybe not the most, but no one can say we are not charitable, or even stingyly charitable.

I'd disagree, I'd say we are very stingy with our charitability. That is also manifest in the idea that many Americans seem to have that the rest the world doesn't exist.

[Sprayber]

What's the use of these threads? Is it to satisfy someone's need to piss on someone else? Is that the best some of you can do?

[Kramerman]

You think Saddam hates America? It was similar hate that the USSR demonstrated towards the US.

Once again, Saddam is a lone ranger with his finger potentially on a big red button, where as the US and The soviet Union had very elaborate protocols among various branches of military/government before weapons of mass destruction could be used. If Nakita Krushchev woke up one day in a pissy mood, he couldnt just launch a nuclear attack on the US. Saddam however, could potentially act on a whim. Also, the US and Soviet Union were advisaries who in actuality had more fear from each other rather than hatred, though they did hate, there mutual hatred however is nothing like what Saddam has for the US. And what about Saddam sharing plans/materials with Terrorists, or any of the other reasons why we need to take Saddam out? Why shouldnt we take Saddam out? Saying he is not a threat to the US is like saying The SU was not a threat to the US in 1946. Do you not think that the US would have taken out the SU early on if it had the chance, if it new what was going to happen after WWII, if it knew about the cold war, before the SU developed nukes (fighting a war with russia at this point however would be much different, because russia was still formidable, even without WoMD, unlike Iraq comparatively with the US today)? I dont really want another 50 year cold war, especially if is can be avoided in one swift stroke - that is all to say in the best of light that it would be another Cold War, and not a WoMD war.

Why? The only government during the Cold War that really held Americans hostage was a fundamentalist Islamic one. Not really marxist, is it?

It was a real and genuine fear. The Greneda dude who came to power was merely supported by marxists (because of the turbulance that he was creating in Americas backyard), though I dunno if he was one. What was feared was he would be another brutal Latin American dictator and was unknown what he would do to protect his regime. What I can say is the act inflamed this region with protest and they asked the US for help. Also, if Greneda did become communist, in the irrationable times of the Cold War the last thing the US thought it needed was another Cuba in its backyard. So self-interest was definately involved. But is Greneda not a better place because of our actions, regardless of merit?

What's the use of these threads? Is it to satisfy someone's need to piss on someone else? Is that the best some of you can do?

I find it interesting to hear others opinions on various topics, though rarely does anybody change anybody elses mind. Everybody is fairly entrenched in their ways, even if great arguements are given, some remain in denial or are just to stubborn to admit they were wrong. Everyone I know, including myself, is guilty of doing stuff like this at least once (myself many times, though I am growing up).

Kman

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Sprayber
What's the use of these threads? Is it to satisfy someone's need to piss on someone else? Is that the best some of you can do?

I have to agree with you here. Not one person on these forums can influence policy decisions in the slightest, yet everyone debates their own opinion with the utmost earnestness. I am fairly certain that our world's leaders do not check Apolyton before making any policy decisions.

Instead of attacking one another, it might be nice if people would respect each other’s total lack of respectability on these forums.

We can't make a difference by posting our opinions on anonymous cyberspace bulletin boards. Policy is made in the street and in the backrooms of power.

This opinion was stated with the utmost earnestness.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ned, you claimed that Gore supported Bush's foreign policy. I'm rakcing my brain, but can;t come up with anything but afganistan. He is, however, on record deploring Bush's decisions on Kyoto, the international court and the withdrawal of family planning aid.

I asked you for substantiation of your claim, but your only reply was something about why Gore hasn't talked about Iraq...

CyberGnu, Here is my statement. I already said he did not support Kyoto.

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Sadly, most europeans forget that there ARE good americans too. Like the 51% who voted for Gore...

Gore has supported Bush's foreign policy save for Kyoto.

[Bereta_Eder]

Antimericanism is a good and healthy reaction

Glad to see more and more are joining

Antimericanism must stop when the US inteferences stop or when US is exterminated/crippled/powerless, which ever comes first. Otherwise we become just like them.

[Ned]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Antimericanism is a good and healthy reaction

Glad to see more and more are joining

Antimericanism must stop when the US inteferences stop or when US is exterminated/crippled/powerless, which ever comes first. Otherwise we become just like them.

Hey, Ecevit. The United States won't interfere - at the request of the Greeks themselves.

[Bereta_Eder]

Like they interfered in Cyprus. Right.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Antimericanism is a good and healthy reaction

Except when you need us to do something.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Except when you need us to do something.

[chequita guevara]

What I find amusing is that, despite history to the contrary, many people seem to firmly believe that Saddam is just itching to use WoMD. He didn't use them against US or Israel when he had the chance and ability. Why will he suddenly do so now? Why do people rabidly believe that Hussein is a madman, waiting for the moment when US resolve blinks to embark on a campaign of world conquest? I think some of you play way too much Civ.

[Kyle]

The concern is that he'll blackmail his neighbors. He's shown that he will use them if available. He got away with it before because he was fighting Iran. And frankly, dictators who are accountable to no one shouldn't have WoMD available to them.

Regional domination is his goal, WoMD (especially nuclear) will help him toward that goal.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What I find amusing is that, despite history to the contrary, many people seem to firmly believe that Saddam is just itching to use WoMD. He didn't use them against US or Israel when he had the chance and ability. Why will he suddenly do so now? Why do people rabidly believe that Hussein is a madman, waiting for the moment when US resolve blinks to embark on a campaign of world conquest? I think some of you play way too much Civ.

That is only a small concern of a few. There are many more major concerns of Saddam having WoMD, especially nuclear. Refer to previous posts, though they are still incomplete. I may start a thread - though I really dont have the time right now to be posting on these forums...

[Imran Siddiqui]

dictators who are accountable to no one shouldn't have WoMD available to them.

So when are you preparing the invasion of China and Pakistan?

[KrazyHorse]

Those are second rate powers. The US is still nibbling at the 3rd-rate ones...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Frogger
Those are second rate powers. The US is still nibbling at the 3rd-rate ones...

We have to get our units up to veteran status somehow.

[KrazyHorse]

You mean we might finally see the US acquire a Great Leader (or even a good one)?

[DinoDoc]

And you thought that our habbit of kicking the crap out of a random country every few years was pointless.

[chequita guevara]

The US military has improved remarkably in the 1990s.

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

dictators who are accountable to no one shouldn't have WoMD available to them.

So when are you preparing the invasion of China and Pakistan?

With China, it's no fun when they can shoot back. And there are reports that the US military either already has control over Pakistan's nuclear weaponry or is position to sieze it should the need arise.

[KrazyHorse]

And there are reports that the US military either already has control over Pakistan's nuclear weaponry or is position to sieze it should the need arise

?

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Frogger

Quote:

And there are reports that the US military either already has control over Pakistan's nuclear weaponry or is position to sieze it should the need arise

?

Sorry, I read the Times of India daily.

[uh Clem]

And there are reports that the US military either already has control over Pakistan's nuclear weaponry or is position to sieze it should the need arise.

The expression you're grasping for here is, "use 'em or lose 'em." If the Pakistanis know that the Yanks will try to sieze their nukes the instant hostilities begin, they have that much more incentive to fire immediately, before they're left defenseless. US policy (if true) takes a situation that is dangerous to begin with and ratchets it up several notches. Dumb, dumb, dumb...

Btw, is there a comparable program to grab control of India's weapons?

[Kyle]

Originally posted by uh Clem


The expression you're grasping for here is, "use 'em or lose 'em." If the Pakistanis know that the Yanks will try to sieze their nukes the instant hostilities begin, they have that much more incentive to fire immediately, before they're left defenseless. US policy (if true) takes a situation that is dangerous to begin with and ratchets it up several notches. Dumb, dumb, dumb...

Btw, is there a comparable program to grab control of India's weapons?

Well no, because India isn't in danger of losing it's government to fundementalist elements. Plus they have a no first use policy, and they're further ahead in setting up a nuclear infrastructure (command and control, etc).

And no, that's not what that alleged policy would do. It would be implemented in case Musharaf's government is close to being overrun by various Islamic fundementalists, that's when it would happen. Of course, there's no real facts for this other than a story or two in the Times of India.

[uh Clem]

India's government is already thoroughly riddled with religious/nationalist crackpots (although India is no doubt a more diverse society than Pakistan, thus diluting the crackpots' influence somewhat). Hindu nationalists have never made any secret of their desire to destroy Pakistan, forcibly convert it to Hinduism, and reabsorb it into India.

The world rightly pays attention when Christian churches are attacked in Pakistan. When Hindu mobs kill hundreds of Muslims in India, the act is less newsworthy, at least in the US. Mass murder is a very serious matter, when Muslims do it.

[KrazyHorse]

India isn't in danger of losing it's government to fundementalist elements

Yes it is.

[chequita guevara]

The Hindu Nationalist Party are religious fundimentalists.