Jump to content

The Real World


Jimmy Leeds

Recommended Posts

The U.S. still doesn't convince me that this is the 'right' action.

"I could prove to you that the [iraqis] are the most guilty people in the world, but [international politics] are not a law court, and we have to decide what is best for the [u.S.], not what is fit or just for [iraq]"-Thucydides. With my own additions in brackets.

If the U.S. is going to undertake war with Iraq, they have to do so with as little civilian casualties as possible. It's clear from that article that Iraq has done some very shady things. But the U.S. would have to proceed with caution.. they do not want to make more terrorists by trying to depose old ones.

It also wouldn't surprise me if the terrorists are waiting for the U.S. to strike before striking again..

I liked this sentence:

"VX was first developed as a weapon by the U.S. Army." Good one, U.S. Army. Scientists are so amoral and patriotic.. might be why I don't like them very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bombing Iraq is going to open up a huge can of worms, especially if things don't go as planned and the casualties start mounting. There's going to be a lot of people opposed to this war demanding we pull out.

you have to realize it's not just Iraq, Iraq is the weakest of all the countries that pose a threat to America, you also have N. Korea, China, & Iran out there. Plus Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda is still on the loose. Seems like Bush has put us on a path to global war.

it also seems as though none of these countries fear the US, and why should they when we have such a weak leader. How the heck does Kim Jong Il get away with activating all his nuclear power plants? now they're going to start producing plutonium and building nuclear weapons.

Iraq will be bombed, but I don't think it's going to make America any safer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was waiting for the two of you.

Triumph........I don't thing the Administration need to convince YOU to do what is right. They know there are plenty of anti-American anarchists, especially in our universities, that would believe Hussein, Bin Laden, & Jong over our own government, no matter what they do to us.

And ^7^, Jong was able to activate those nuclear power plants because Bill Clinton GAVE them the nuclear technology, at the urging of another zealot, Jimmy Carter who praised the North Koreans as 'peace loving', at a time when the Communists in North Korea were ready to crumble. But, there was Bill to save the Communists day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So typical of the right wing to paint anyone who disagrees as "Anti-American" or an "anarchist". Please. You didn't even listen to my argument at all, just used name-calling. Are you going to call me a "socialist" too?

My argument was that in spite of what Iraq has done, it may not necessarily be the right action to go to war with them. If the goal is to prevent terrorism, a war with Iraq may not do that.

I'm also glad you've effectively marginalized my opinion. I'm not some extremist left-wing reactionary idiot who prevails around colleges. And even so, they have a right to be heard, if only to be laughed at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read what you wrote.

I didn't call you anything of the sort. What I said was the US Government knows that there are plenty of anti-American zealots out there who will believe the enemy over their own country. Especially in the colleges.

When our enemies crumble our buildings on our soil (I'm not including ^7^ in the 'our' group) and citizens speak out against our own government, THAT IS ANTI-AMERICAN.

Your called me a "right-winger", that's name calling. Just because it's true, does that make it right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa. Let's not go too far, Leeds. I'm not outright anti-American, but I still reserve the right to disagree with my government whenever the hell I think I should. I'm not going to let terrorist attacks play on my fear so much that I think any action against the terrorists is the right one (nor am I accusing you of that). That's called panic. Just because of the September 11th attacks doesn't mean we're going to turn the U.S. into a Fascist state.

We put the leaders there so they can act as leaders.. and so when it came time for them to lead, in the weeks after the attacks, I supported Bush. But when our leaders start making moves out of fear instead of advantage, then I begin to question. I also begin to question if the government is using fear for its own advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

North Korea built the Yongbyon Reactor II in 1984, the Taechon Reactor I in 1988, and the Simpo Reactor in 1989. They've had this stuff for a while Jimmy.

people have every right to question the government, especially when somebody as shady as Bush jr. is president. 9/11 could've been prevented, it was not about Clinton "gutting the military" as you would say, Bush was aware of the threats, those attacks could have been prevented, but they just fell asleep at the wheel.

so excuse the people of America who won't rally around a president who's let them down in more ways than one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people 'of' America...or people 'in' America?

I'll get back to you on that one ^7^ and will stand corrected if need be. I don't mind admitting when I am factually incorrect.

Clinton not only "gutted" the military, He almost killed the intelligence services.....he is responsible.

Tri,....you are not "outright" Anti-American......??????????

Gotta go guys, I'm looking for a new resident for my county jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.. that means I may have some ideas that go contrary to the U.S., but certainly not all of them do, but I also do not base my opinions opposite to the U.S. just to be "different".

As for this Clinton-Bush argument nonsense, who cares who is 'responsible'. All that matters is what happened, and how to fix what happened. I personally can't place blame at the feet of one man, but if you two want to, go ahead. It won't change anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe they were warned, but as I remember, the allegations that came out claimed vague threats that this idea was out there..but definitely nothing solid.

Do I think it was possible to stop? Maybe. But do you think people would've waited in long security lines etc. just because of this vague threat? I don't think so. No one believed it could happen to us. Bush included. I'm not going to vilify someone who believed the exact same thing I did.. and that's what you're doing. It's revisionist history to say otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it hadn't really happened. Yeah, there was the attack in 93, and the Oklahoma City bombing.. but those were not major terrorist attacks. The 93 one failed, and the Oklahoma City bombing was not at a very prominent target.

Obviously I knew that anti-Americanism was prevalent throughout the world. I guess I never really thought they could carry out something of that magnitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok i've been reading the past posts here and i gotta ask 'if we know these countries are a serious threat to us (i.e. Iraq, N Korea, etc) why the phuck should we sit on our ass and do nothing?' To me thats what it looks like your saying here. Clinton would have done some good with the present situation during his time in office if he really went after Iraq and those son of a bitch terrorists instead of half assed, while embarrassing our country in the mean time (lewinski). Bush i feel is doing a good job cuz he is going after these countries with a don't phuck with us attitude. Now could he have prevented the attacks on the trade center? Yeah in some ways he could. But we are constantly getting threats, so to know that one is going to happen over all of the others is tough to judge. If you think you can decipher one real threat over another, please do tell (i need a laugh). What I don't agree with is how Bush is using the threat of terrorism to take away our freedoms, slowly but surely he is trying to take away our privacy. With Iraq, it goes like this, think of it as a game of chess your goal of your opponent (Iraq) is to kill you and bring down your pieces. You know his weapons pawn, bishop, rooke, etc. In reality those can be any NBC weapon. Now in chess would you not do anything or would you try to get your opponent in a corner (check-mate)? Do we want to be the one saying 'check-mate' or 'oh $hit'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.