uh besides, have you seen the silly amount of stuff that's made in china. for your idiotically, baseless argument to even attempt to work you should of said something that isn't electronics, like.. actually i can't name something we make alot of that they don't. probably american flags, i'm pretty sure we make our own flags.
Baghdad is free!
- Thread starter Funkalicious
- Start date
uh besides, have you seen the silly amount of stuff that's made in china. for your idiotically, baseless argument to even attempt to work you should of said something that isn't electronics, like.. actually i can't name something we make alot of that they don't. probably american flags, i'm pretty sure we make our own flags.
this may be OFN but if you never click on another war related link again, click on this one: http://www.tucko.com/hippypwnd/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3
Panda Star said:
I didn't compare it. The author of the article did.
Yes. And China has been around longer than you. The time a country has existed is not necessarily directly proportional to the type of government is has. The fact that they have existed that long and still not become democratic could be many reasons. They are a different, highly religious and factioned culture living in the desert. IF lack of industrialization is what has prevented them from becoming a democracy, can you blame them?
Well... to quote that site again..
Turqy said:
But I'm never clicking another war link again..how can I click that one?
ZugZug said:
But of course your not saying this was a war for oil, right?
Just a take oil from the bad guy and give it to the good guys war?
My neo-conservative father thinks we should take $50 billion in oil to pay for our liberating the Iraqis.
I wonder how many in the administration feel the same.
CapnPyro said:
You (and a few others) seem to be missing the point. It was an analogy. China, Korea, Russia, France, England; doesn't matter. Electronics, Dildo's htf cares. If there was something. Do they get the right to invade the U.S. to secure it? While teaching the U.S. their own policy?
INCONCEIVABLE!
PS. I'll respond already to what some of you are thinking.
some dumb ass said:
If the U.S. can be morally justified in doing so, why can't some other country?
ZugZug said:
I don't expect you to follow along, so I'm not really replying to you. I'm quoting your question so people understand why this elementary lesson is needed.
There is a difference between a reason and a rationalization. Logic (reason) goes from general to specific, i.e.
- we must disarm the most dangerous country to us
- we must liberate the most oppressed people
- must seek out the most dangerous terrorists
You then find the object of your reason to make a logical decision.
- we must disarm the most dangerous country to us :: lets disarm NK
- we must liberate the most oppressed people :: liberate NK
- must seek out the most dangerous terrorists :: attack Iraq
A rationalization is a supporting argument for a decision already made, i.e.
We're going to attack Iraq. What benefits will come of it?
- an enemy will be disarmed
- people will be liberated
- terrorists will be disrupted
However correct and beneficial, rationalizations are not a substitute for the real reason the decision was already made.
Those of us who have opposed this war from the beginning have often asked what the reason behind this action is, and have always been given rationalizations. The people arguing in favor of the action have always presented rationalizations as reasons, and wondered why we are not convinced or satisfied.
Now I don't expect stone or ZugZug to be able to follow such heavy thinking, but perhaps Yogi or CF would care to take a stab at it?
When we have failed to comply with 15 UN resolutions and do not disarm our WOMD when we have been required to do so for 10 more years, when we become a dictatorship that has its civilians killed for speaking out,and when we present a legitmate threat to canada and Mexico then your analogy might mean something.
Marweas said:
Sorry, I'm done thinking for the day.
I figure the reason why we chose Iraq and not NK is pretty simple: Iraq is the easiest target. A nice clean victory, morale is up, now we can turn and take a look at NK and see what they're doing. Maybe by showing we are willing to take action, NK will back down of their own accord.
That's just what I think, though. All this political stuff really annoys me, for the most part, and it'll keep happening whichever way it happens no matter what I say about it. I don't care enough to change anything
Kharn353 said:
The analogy was poking fun at his remarks about there is nothing wrong with securing the worlds oil supply; while in the same breath, saying its one less evil dictator the world has to deal with.
My response was to point out that other countries with different values and beliefs exist. Do they have the right to do the same?
ie. attack countries under the guise of removing 'evil' (which can vary depending on the culture) while securing resources for itself as spoils of war?
Dhamon said:
Hey you fucking dipshit I already answered your stupid argument, but you seemed to want to ignore it and continue with your child like argument.
IT IS NOT A REASON TO INVADE A COUNTRY IF YOU DONT AGREE WITH THE WAY IT IS RUN. we did not invade iraq for oil, or for the liberation of it's people. we did however invade them to ensure our, and the world's security. a happy fucking side effect is the liberation of it's people, and cheaper oil.
please don't make me explain that again, and next time don't present an argument that's already been discussed or you'll like like even bigger of an assbag, thanks for your cooperation.
Marweas said:
Killing people who get too close.
Darkstrand
Veteran X
Why is it that every time I see a t2 developer or that trax guy talking on the forums they come off as guys who think of themselves as really smart.
They always seem to believe in a right and always seem to think themselves in it but then again I suppose thats not anyworse then the people they always insult.
They always seem to believe in a right and always seem to think themselves in it but then again I suppose thats not anyworse then the people they always insult.
Last edited:
CapnPyro said:
And im making light of the fact that maybe some country would like to do the same to you. Would it make it wrong?
What if a country like North Korea feels threatened by U.S. policy. Is it justified in attacking for its own security?
That was my point.
P.S. When resorting to name calling, it really weakens your position in a debate. Instead, try logical, reasoned rebuttals.
Boomyguy said:
Hell yeah, it was a war for oil. Oil is really damned important.
It was also a war against terrorism, a war against an evil dictator who had and was trying to get more weapons to kill us and our friends, and it was a war of liberation for the Iraqi people.
We won. Buck up and enjoy it.