THe United States: Best Country On Planet

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by tim_duncan2000
And how might we do that?

I'm not exactly sure, alot of time and effort for damned sure but it will certainly take both sides to come together.

 

[Scourge]

Originally posted by Moi
The reason terrorists attack us are as varied as the number of attacks. But the first and foremost reason is that they can. Plain and simple.

Until such time as their actions have consequences which make others think before they act and then decide against attacking us, terrorism will continue.

Surely you are not suggesting that the world would be better off for prior societies to have failed to secure exploration, domination and ultimate settlement of new lands? Please. Labeling a civilization as evil just becasue they used their resources for the betterment of their society is not evil on its face. The Roman and Grecian empires, the byzantines, great britain, the US, etc. They were all beneficiaries of empire building...it's what humans do. Yes, there's a winner and a loser and to the victor go the spoils. That doesn't make the victor evil nor the loser good. Nor does it mean the opposite.

Every society will eventually have to stake their claim. I believe that the US is going to be the winner in the war against the middle east - rightly so for me. However, I'm not going to worry about how history looks back on us. I know in my heart and mind that what we are doing is right and just and it is necessary for the continuation of the country that I love.

Because stopping terrorists will save our lives, greater freedom for religous differences will better society as a whole and stopping a regime which treats 50% of its population as inferior and regularly allows violence, rape and murder to happen to them will better the world and, because I'm not stupid, I do believe that there are more than enough other countries out there with similar ideas, to send a message that we will die rather than abdicate our responsibility and privledge of defending what's right in this world.

ok. I have to respond to several of your points.

What consequences do you suggest for those who are willing to die? And do you REALLY think people kill themselves to attack us because they think we are weak? Or free? I think you have to seriously mess with someone before they would commit suicide just to hurt you. yeah there is the whole martyr thing, but most people need a reason to attack. And we have given them MANY.

And yes, the world would be better off if 'prior empires' had failed to conquer new lands. There would be an entire continent of people, and clean air and water where we now live. We would've avoided the slave trade, genocide, world wars, you name it. All those things happened under the banner of 'entitlement' of which you now speak.

And I never labelled anyone evil for using their own resources, it's when you INVADE ANOTHER COUNTRY FOR THEIR RESOURCES that you become 'evil' as you put it. Wouldn't we consider an invading army evil? Even if they claimed Bush was an idiot, and that we we were misusing our resources. Would you hate a country that dropped bombs on you because of their freedom? Or because THEY DROPPED BOMBS ON YOU?

And the 'war against the middle east' as you put it, is not necessary for the continuation of our life. Perhaps if the country of middle east we are at war with had half a million troops and gunships, etc. on our doorstep we would be at war and would be threatened.

And ultimately, invading, killing, conquering a people because we are on the side of good, and they on the side of evil is ridiculous. By being the aggressor and attacking first, any argument about defense is gone. We are just another tyrannical empire trying to rule the world, because our way is the right way. What a new thought. Someone should bomb us with crates of history books and logic texts and help us undo the flawed mathematics of war.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Scourge
And ultimately, invading, killing, conquering a people because we are on the side of good, and they on the side of evil is ridiculous.

I agree, we should have let them continue their terroristic ways and systematic elimination of their own citizens. It was their right to use chemical weapons against their own people. So what if Saddam and his regime raped and tortured those who disagreed with them. The UN, who are they? Why should Saddam have had to listen to them after 12 years of UN resolutions. He should have been able to continue his nuclear program as well, what's the big deal?

One word describes your entire post - pathetic.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Scourge, you're living in fantasy space camp. This level of unreality is precisely why the democrats are being systematically politicially dismembered. You guys simply cannot be trusted with national security.

Ok. Let's all jump in the pool at the count of three! One, two, three!

Are you all wet and alone, again? When will you libs learn?

 

[the truth hurts]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I agree, we should have let them continue their terroristic ways and systematic elimination of their own citizens. It was their right to use chemical weapons against their own people. So what if Saddam and his regime raped and tortured those who disagreed with them. The UN, who are they? Why should Saddam have had to listen to them after 12 years of UN resolutions. He should have been able to continue his nuclear program as well, what's the big deal?

One word describes your entire post - pathetic.

Makes you think... Hmm....
Just to clarify, what chemical weapons are you talking about?
The ones that the US supplied them in the early 80's...?

What else... OH YA! Nuclear program. Didn't we just find out that he actually wasn't developing any nukes? And that whole WMD thing was based on BAD intelligence?

Interesting....

Oh yes!
Obeying the UN? You're absolutely right on that!! (clap, clap--- BRAVO).... Wait a minute! Didn't the UN say that the US couldn't invade Iraq? I'm pretty sure they were against the US on that.

Please clarify, I'm sooo confused.

Be safe

 

[jimnyc]

Makes you think... Hmm....
Just to clarify, what chemical weapons are you talking about?
The ones that the US supplied them in the early 80's...?

Use your brain please! The US supplies people with guns on a daily basis. Do we not reserve the right to punish people that use them inappropriately?

What else... OH YA! Nuclear program. Didn't we just find out that he actually wasn't developing any nukes? And that whole WMD thing was based on BAD intelligence?

It's called reading, try it sometime! The inspectors clearly stated that Saddam was aggresively working on a nukes program and if left unattended he would succeed.

Obeying the UN? You're absolutely right on that!! (clap, clap--- BRAVO).... Wait a minute! Didn't the UN say that the US couldn't invade Iraq? I'm pretty sure they were against the US on that.

Yes, their failures were obvious so we had to make alternate arrangements.

You are confused because you obviously have a problem with reading and comprehension. I'll asky Bully to include you in his prayers.

 

[the truth hurts]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Use your brain please! The US supplies people with guns on a daily basis. Do we not reserve the right to punish people that use them inappropriately?

YES!! You don't have that right! You shouldn't be giving guns to anybody.
Give a government weapons. They don't use it the way you want them to, so you bomb them and kill hundreds of innocent civilians.
It's sooo... Whats the word??? FAIR.

It's called reading, try it sometime! The inspectors clearly stated that Saddam was aggresively working on a nukes program and if left unattended he would succeed.

So what? Do you honestly think he would have nuked the US? Seriously speaking now. This is a rediculous statement. Over 50 countries have nukes or the technology to make them, the US is the only that has used it in combat. In a war they already won.



Yes, their failures were obvious so we had to make alternate arrangements.

Oh my God! Tell me you didn't just say that?
So when Iraq disobeys the UN. We bomb.
But when we disobey the UN. It's beacuse they're wrong?
That, by far, has to be the biggest double standard I've ever heard on this board.

You are confused because you obviously have a problem with reading and comprehension. I'll asky Bully to include you in his prayers.

Ask him to include you as well!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by the truth hurts
Ask him to include you as well!

I'll ask him to include your other identity as well.

 

[the truth hurts]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I'll ask him to include your other identity as well.

Great comeback! :rolleyes You must have been captain of your debate team!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by the truth hurts
Great comeback! :rolleyes You must have been captain of your debate team!

Your time is coming to an end here...

 

[winston churchi]

Originally posted by Scourge
ok. I have to respond to several of your points.

What consequences do you suggest for those who are willing to die? And do you REALLY think people kill themselves to attack us because they think we are weak? Or free? I think you have to seriously mess with someone before they would commit suicide just to hurt you. yeah there is the whole martyr thing, but most people need a reason to attack. And we have given them MANY.E]

Perhaps I have missed the point to your statement here. We have given who many reasons?
What comes to mind is 9/11. The attack of the world trade center, the pentegon and of course the failed attempt at the white house.
I am not sure what reasons we have given terrorists to attack structures killing in mass. I would not understand nor never understand their reasons anymore than I will ever understand The Nazi's concentration camps. I would not understand their logic anymore than the logic of Saddam Hussein torturing and murdering (including his son in laws) his own people.
Where have I missed what you are trying to say???