When is the right time to change sides?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Sava
Master Zen

When Bush and his crew say "Democracy" they mean "regime we can control".

...And the problem with that is....?




Kanadar, Afghanistan



Ph3r the American Empire! Bow before our capitalist Imperialism!

[Sava]

Azazel, it's possible, however unlikely, do to the wrong thing for the wrong reasons and still get a good result.

[Az]

I know that. My point is, intent don't matter.

[Sava]

I disagree. If the Bush-4sslicking society is going to praise him like he's the savior and peacemaker of the Middle East, then intent does matter. But, I'll concede that for history's sake, and for the sake of the people of Iraq, intent doesn't matter. Intent matters in America more than the rest of the world. While other countries enjoy the benefits of US military action started by our Presidents, we have to put up with these corrupt b4stards. And, BTW, we're the target if things don't go as planned. Israel is still a target, but those fanatics want you guys dead regardless. It's not like War with Iraq is going to increase terrorism in Israel any more than the current climate. I don't have to fear going to a mall, or a sporting event, or any other mass-gathering of people because the likelihood of some fanatic blowing himself up is small (at this point). And I'd like to keep it that way. So forgive me for not supporting a War which is going to create a whole lot of terrorists.

[Master Zen]

Sava, unlike so many of your countrymen, YOUR WORDS ARE BACKED BY LOGIC AND REASON. And that's worth so many times more than Nuclear Weapons...

[Az]

Am I the only one that thinks that the lives of the people of Iraq matter as well? If the current trend of events will go on ( better than what I've expected), They'll live abetter life than the one they lived before.

The impact on the US' politics is negligble in comparison to that, and the impact of that on us is non-existant.

[Az]

Another point: The "resulting fear of terrorism" argument is the most frickin' stupid, chicken****, plain WRONG argument ever.

Let's pretend that everyone, yes INCLUDING YOU, agrees that the war on Iraq is justified. If you care about retribution of terrorists, doesn't it mean that you let terror influence you, and prevent you from doing the right thing?

[Lonestar]

Sava, how can you look at those kids and NOT feel as if we're right?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Sava, how can you look at those kids and NOT feel as if we're right?

They should be drinking Coke.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Azazel
Another point: The "resulting fear of terrorism" argument is the most frickin' stupid, chicken****, plain WRONG argument ever.

Let's pretend that everyone, yes INCLUDING YOU, agrees that the war on Iraq is justified. If you care about retribution of terrorists, doesn't it mean that you let terror influence you, and prevent you from doing the right thing?

wouldnt this also be the worst arguement for going to war

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

They should be drinking Coke.

Pepsi tastes better, and has been around just as long.

[Az]

yeah, Pepsi are commies. I remember drinking pepsi as a kid in the SU.

seriously.

[Sava]

Azazel: My goal is to decrease terror. Not to act chauvinistic and admit that the US shouldn't change some of its policies because it breeds terror. If I see a rabid, junkyard dog walking in an alley, I don't say, "Well I'm going to walk in this alley because I can't let my fear of this dog change the way I do things." It's logical, and perfectly reasonable, to combat terror and to stop doing things that give terrorists reasons to hate.

Lonestar: I somewhat agreed with the military action in Afghanistan. There wasn't much we could do to mess things up there. The Taliban (funded and originally armed by the US) had taken control and needed to be removed. Saddam also needs to be removed... with the support of the world. There are more legitimate and credible reasons to not invade Iraq than there are to do so. And... the risk and consequences of doing so are also too large than the possible rewards.

Sure, I want the people of Iraq to be free. I want everybody in the world to live in a Utopia. Millions of kids are starving across the world. If the US was in the business of providing the world with a higher quality of life, I might take Bush's arguments more seriously. But he doesn't give half a sh1t about the Iraqi people. If he's such a humanitarian, why is he against providing generic AIDS drugs to Africa?

BECAUSE HE AND HIS REPUBLICAN BUDDIES CARE MORE ABOUT MAKING MONEY AND THEIR OWN POLITICAL INTERESTS ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH MONETARY GAIN.

The second Saddam is gone, the US will only provide the most minimal amount of aid possible without pissing the rest of the world off.

The US government, Bush, and company, don't even care about providing medical care to Americans or helping poverty in America. What in the hell makes anyone think they give have a crap about Iraqis?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Azazel
yeah, Pepsi are commies. I remember drinking pepsi as a kid in the SU.

seriously.

Yeah, but that was in the era of Perestroika and glasnost, so I'm not too worried.

[Az]

wouldnt this also be the worst arguement for going to war

It would be. That's why I am not using it.

Azazel: My goal is to decrease terror. Not to act chauvinistic and admit that the US shouldn't change some of its policies because it breeds terror. If I see a rabid, junkyard dog walking in an alley, I don't say, "Well I'm going to walk in this alley because I can't let my fear of this dog change the way I do things." It's logical, and perfectly reasonable, to combat terror and to stop doing things that give terrorists reasons to hate.

Terrorists are not rabid dogs. They're people, often very intelligent people that act against you. doing as they tell you, won't stop them from striking. It may lessen their recruiting, but your action is only a single element in their motivation.