User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 10:44:33 AM EDT
[#1]
Post from garandman -
We USE AND ABUSE Saddam to kill some Iraqis, then we TURN ON HIM. Surprise!!!!! He hates America. 'Abuse' Saddam? Really? When did we abuse him? 'Turn on him'? Really? When did we turn on him? What we did was simply not deal as closely with him as we had before. We got what we wanted from him, he got what he wanted from us! End of story. Then, after several years, he decides that he wants to invade Kuwait. THINGS CHANGE, [b]garandman[/b]! We USE AND ABUSE Usama to kill some Soviets, then we TURN ON HIM. SURPRISE!!!!!!! He hates America. 'Abuse' Osama? Really? When did we abuse Osama? 'Turn on him'? Really? When did we turn on him? After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, we simply let the Afghanis go about their business. As a matter of fact, the faction that Osama supported came into control of the country. Then, because the United States, and not his Al Qaeda organization and other Arabs, came to the rescue of Kuwait, Osama turned on his former allies, and the Khobar Towers bombing, the Embassy Bombings in Africa, the USS Cole attack, and finally, Sept 11th, were the result of his dagger in the back of America. THINGS CHANGE, [b]garandman[/b]! And these two fellows who were happy as hell to take weapons, advice, and other assistance from the Great Satan, suddenly showed their true nature. End of story. Eric The(Well,NotQuiteYet)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 10:44:35 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: We, the US [b]enabled[/b] Saddam and Osama in their own, individual goals. That's an amzingly myopic way of looking at the world. EVERYONE KNOWS that we were using the Mujahadeen in our Cold War against the Soviet Union. EVERYONE KNOWS were were using the Iraqis against the greater enemy - Iran. The operative principal of [i]realpolitik[/i] being: The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend. Once [b]our[/b] goals had been met, we pulled up stakes. Saddam and Osama perhaps felt cheated. That's too bad, but that's the politics of temp alliances in the real world. Can I assume that you'll support TERMINATING our aliance with Israel when they no longer serve a purpose for us??? No, I'm quite SURE you've said "You don't turn on your friends." You'll rspond "Well, USama and Saddam weren't rteally our friends. We were just using them." Yeah - and they all to well know it. And if THAT is your position, then you must acknowledge that we armed our enemies. Hardly justification for the murder of 3,000 civilians, is it? It wasn't murder - it was an act of war. And the very reason G. Washington admonished to avoid foreign alliances. Cuz, on a global scale, when you USE people, then turn on them, they are gonna wanna kill you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 10:52:21 AM EDT
[#3]
Post from garandman -
Can I assume that you'll support TERMINATING our aliance with Israel when they no longer serve a purpose for us??? No matter what the subject matter of a thread might be, for some reason it always comes back to your 'feelings' on Israel! We were never friends with Saddam or Osama in the same manner as we are with Israel. Our friendship with Israel has lasted 54 years so far, and shows no signs of abating. Our cooperation with Saddam lasted all of 6 or 7 years, period. Our cooperation with Saddam lasted even less. We share nothing whatsoever in common with the people whom Saddam and Osama represent. We share a great deal with Israel. Tough cookies, eh? No, I'm quite SURE you've said "You don't turn on your friends." If no one else has said this, I'll say it! [b]You don't turn on your friends![/b] Saddam and Osama were never our friends, just folks on the same side of a dispute with us. Eric The(TrueBlue)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 10:54:45 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Then how do you explain why the US exported billions of dollars worth of dual-use technology well after US intelligence had established without a doubt that the Iraqis were developing CW? As you say, they were [i]dual[/i] use items, and I suspect we were at best misled as to their ultimate use [i]as secretly intended[/i] by the Iraquis. Why did the US, specifically the Reagan administration, remove Iraq from the terrorist list to begin with? Perhaps they did not meet the then-extant definition of "terrorist" nation? Many other low-life egimes also do not technically qualify, rither. And why did the US vote against a UN Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical/biological weapons? Read on. If it looks like a duck.... I'm sure I don't know. Perhaps it would be helpful to answer these questions, providing references to original source documents. I certainly would like to be informed if the US was culpable in some way. And for the record, do not count me among the "Hate America" crowd. Ronald Reagan happens to be my favorite President. God, I hate this thread. [:(] I'll take you at your word, Bear. Your credibility is fine with me. Just let me say, and this is not meant to be an offensive remark, but: Not all things that look like ducks, etc., [b]are[/b] actually ducks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 10:55:34 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: We USE AND ABUSE Saddam to kill some Iraqis, then we TURN ON HIM. Surprise!!!!! He hates America. We USE AND ABUSE Usama to kill some Soviets, then we TURN ON HIM. SURPRISE!!!!!!! He hates America. I say that's pure [b]B.S.[/b]!!! Neither of these people wanted the American way of life! They would've never sacrificed the risk of less 'authority' in their country for more US support. I'd bet the resentment would've been worse. Its the truth. There was a mutual enemy, the Soviet Union, for the US and the Mujahadeen. We used them, they used us. To kill Soviets. Then we backed out on the Mujahadeen, and left them high and dry. I'd love to see someone do to you what we did to the Mujahadeen, and then see you say "AWWWWW, shucks, Wally - its no big deal. We're still friends." Same with Saddam and Iraq. We used them to kill Iraqis, a mutual enemy. Then cut and ran. Same is gonna happen in Afghanistan with Karzai. We'll use him to satabilize teh region. He'll use us to cement his power base. Eventually, he'll want to cut Gipetto's strings, and we won't let him. He'll come to hate us - to kill us. I know its unplesant to hear that a few American politicos have endangered your family with some REALLY STUPID alliances. But teh sooner you embrace the truth, teh sooner we can fix the problem. ALL THIS is why GWashington warned against foreign entanglements. "What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive...." Tell me something, where does the Taliban enter the picture? What unjustices did we do to them that gave them their views to build their soceity in the form they did? They are impressionable mental midgets, with whom Islam has been twisted to tell them tehy will receive 77 virgins in paradise if they kill Americans. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer. Basically, they are useful dunces, that USama has enlisted as his foot soldiers. Usama is Western educated. You think he CHOSE the taliban?? No, they were the only army he could raise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 10:57:26 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: And for the record, do not count me among the "Hate America" crowd. Ronald Reagan happens to be my favorite President. God, I hate this thread. [:(] Well, you better duck out NOW big bear, cuz they ALWAYS resort to that tactic, when their paper thin logic has holes poked in it. Yes, this thread DOES suck. Truth can be painful. But error will ALWAYS be MORE painful, in teh long run. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 10:58:34 AM EDT
[#7]
And another thing, why did we turn on Saddam? It wouldn't have anything to do with him invading Kuwait would it?
Let's go step back in time and re-write history. No help for Iraq = Iran kicks their ass & has larger control. No help for Saudia Arabia (via technology sales or direct involvement) = Iran decides to kick their ass. Hhmm, looking good huh??? Now all Muslims say, 'lets stomp Isreal!' Well, no help for them either. Wow, the middle east sure looks good now, they've got most of the world's oil production & would be getting a helluva a lot of money for it!!! I figure they'd be close allies with the [b]still thriving USSR[/b] and would be looking to buy some nukes. Hey, all of that looks great though, we're sitting here at home watching MTV and talk about what the next door neighbor did that pissed us off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 11:05:21 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Post from garandman - Can I assume that you'll support TERMINATING our aliance with Israel when they no longer serve a purpose for us??? No matter what the subject matter of a thread might be, for some reason it always comes back to your 'feelings' on Israel! NO, that was merely an illustration. We were never friends with Saddam or Osama in the same manner as we are with Israel. Oh, so you DO TURN on your "sorta friends." We were friends with them enuf to arm them to the teeth. [b]You don't turn on your friends![/b] Saddam and Osama were never our friends, just folks on the same side of a dispute with us. Eric The(TrueBlue)Hun[>]:)] Then why are we arming people who aren't our friends????? They are either friends or they are enemies. YOU ADMIT they weren't our friends. SO they WERE our enemies. And we armed them. And now they are killing us. Its why GWashington said to avoid foreign entanglements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 11:05:36 AM EDT
[#9]
Post from Big_Bear -
Ronald Reagan happens to be my favorite President. God, I hate this thread. President Reagan is my favorite of all time, as well. The good news is that you don't have to hate this thread. President Reagan did precisely what had to be done at precisely the right time. The Fall of the Soviet Union can and has been correctly attributed directly to him and his willingness to challenge the Evil Empire in every corner of the Globe! Whatever was done in the 80s, you can count on it being done in America's best interests if President Reagan was behind it. The fact that we had 8 years of the saddest and lamest President this country ever had to suffer through, destroyed the great position that the US had enjoyed under Reagan-Bush. So, don't let any of this bother you any at all. Eric The(Reaganite)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 11:13:08 AM EDT
[#10]
Post from garandman -
NO, that was merely an illustration. [sarcasm/on] Yeah, right! [sarcasm/off] Oh, so you DO TURN on your "sorta friends." ??? What's a 'sorta' friend???? We were friends with them enuf to arm them to the teeth. First, they were hardly 'armed to the teeth' by us, now were they? And second, you don't have to be a friend to assist someone against a common enemy - witness that great anti-communist Winston Churchill's alliance with that communist bastid Stalin during the fight against Hitler! I would hardly call Winston and Uncle Joe 'friends'! Then why are we arming people who aren't our friends????? Because it behooves us to do so. They are either friends or they are enemies. Nonsense, it is not an either/or situation. Is France our enemy or our friend? [:D] Eric The(LetMeKnow!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 11:20:04 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: We, the US [b]enabled[/b] Saddam and Osama in their own, individual goals. That's an amzingly myopic way of looking at the world. EVERYONE KNOWS that we were using the Mujahadeen in our Cold War against the Soviet Union. Yep, everyone knew it, [i]including them[/i]. So what's their beef? They achieved their aims, didn't they? Without our aid they wouldn't have had a chance, and everybody knows that, also. We picked up our toys and went home when our part of the game was over, just like great powers have done since the dawn of time. Tough luck, but that's predictable human and political behavior. EVERYONE KNOWS were were using the Iraqis against the greater enemy - Iran. Same answer as above. We pulled out of both of these pest-holes with their repellant, repressive regimes as fast as we could. Or would you have preferred we had remained friends? Wanna tell me how you could possibly sell that to the American people, let alone the political opposition? Indefensible position, which we wisely refused to adopt. The operative principal of [i]realpolitik[/i] being: The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend. Once [b]our[/b] goals had been met, we pulled up stakes. Saddam and Osama perhaps felt cheated. That's too bad, but that's the politics of temp alliances in the real world. Can I assume that you'll support TERMINATING our aliance with Israel when they no longer serve a purpose for us??? No, I'm quite SURE you've said "You don't turn on your friends." When and if that time comes, I'll let you know. Don't hold your breath. You'll rspond "Well, USama and Saddam weren't rteally our friends. We were just using them." Yeah - and they all to well know it. I'll let you get away with this instance of putting words in my mouth (Watch it!) because it's true. They knew they were being used before, during, and after. [b]And they were happy to accept our help[/b]. And if THAT is your position, then you must acknowledge that we armed our enemies. Wrong again. They were, at that time our temporary clients, [i]and they knew it[/i]. At no time during the period that military supplies were being provided was either regime our declared enemy. Hardly justification for the murder of 3,000 civilians, is it? It wasn't murder - it was an act of war. So, I guess Pearl harbor is OK with you, then? According to your logic it only was "an act of War", right? And the very reason G. Washington admonished to avoid foreign alliances. Really? He sure had NO problems accepting an Alliance with the French, did he? Cuz, on a global scale, when you USE people, then turn on them, they are gonna wanna kill you. You accuse [b]me[/b] of myopia, and then say something like this? LOL! You're really off your game today, Garandman. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 11:25:08 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: And second, you don't have to be a friend to assist someone against a common enemy - witness that great anti-communist Winston Churchill's alliance with that communist bastid Stalin during the fight against Hitler! [>]:)] Eric - You may want to STAY OUT of the illustration business, cuz this one REALLY MAKES MY POINT FOR ME. What the Churchill / Stalin (also FDR, whom apaprently you forgot) alliance did - 1. Created the USSR, with which we almost came to nuclear blows. 2. Which created the need to create an alliance with the Mujahadeen, to fight the Soviet Union. 3. Which when we were done with the Mujahadeen, we TOSSED THEM, thereby enraging Usama bin Laden, who torched our WTC's and Pentagon. (All of this is widely documented, known and accepted fact) Yeah, that one worked out REAL well for us. [rolleyes] THIS IS WHY GWASHINGTON WARNED AGAINS FOREIGN ALLIANCES. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 11:35:57 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Yep, everyone knew it, [i]including them[/i]. So what's their beef? I look forward to the day someone makes an alliance with you, then turns on you, to MAKE SURE you cut them as much slack. Your view above doen't cut it in the real world. originally by raf originally by garandman: And the very reason G. Washington admonished to avoid foreign alliances. Really? He sure had NO problems accepting an Alliance with the French, did he? You're really off your game today, Garandman. [:D] Washingtons first term as president began in 1789 - AFTER the alliance with the French in the War for Independence had been created. He was just a general in the army, at the time. He had no say in the matter. And you say I'm off my game. Yikes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 11:37:49 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: And second, you don't have to be a friend to assist someone against a common enemy - witness that great anti-communist Winston Churchill's alliance with that communist bastid Stalin during the fight against Hitler! [>]:)] Eric - You may want to STAY OUT of the illustration business, cuz this one REALLY MAKES MY POINT FOR ME. What the Churchill / Stalin alliance did - 1. Created the USSR, with which we almost came to nuclear blows. Wrong. The USSR predated the Second World War by decades. 2. Which created the need to create an alliance with the Mujahadeen, to fight the Soviet Union. Wrong again. The unprovoked Soviet invasion of Afghanistan created the Muj, and provided us with the opportunity of a temporary alliance. 3. Which when we were done with the Mujahadeen, we TOSSED THEM, thereby enraging Usama bin Laden, who torched our WTC's and Pentagon. Wrong [i]still[/i]! Osama's problem with the US stems from the presence of US troops (infidels) on Saudi soil, which Osama considers sacred. This by [i]his own statements[/i]. (All of this is widely documented, known and accepted fact) It [b]is?[/b] Bwahahahaha! Yeah, that one worked out REAL well for us. [rolleyes] THIS IS WHY GWASHINGTON WARNED AGAINS FOREIGN ALLIANCES. So what should we do? Give the US back to the Brits because Washington allied with the French to help win the Revolution? [rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 11:42:26 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: So what should we do? Give the US back to the Brits because Washington allied with the French to help win the Revolution? [rolleyes] Bonehead questions like this don't merit an answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 11:49:24 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: Yep, everyone knew it, [i]including them[/i]. So what's their beef? I look forward to the day someone makes an alliance with you, then turns on you, to MAKE SURE you cut them as much slack. If I enter into an alliance, I'll go into it with my eyes wide open, realizing all alliances are "marriages of conveniance" and none are forever. Your view above doen't cut it in the real world. Uh, Garandman? My view IS the real world. Wake up and smell the cordite. originally by raf originally by garandman: And the very reason G. Washington admonished to avoid foreign alliances. Really? He sure had NO problems accepting an Alliance with the French, did he? You're really off your game today, Garandman. [:D] Washingtons first term as president began in 1789 - AFTER the alliance with the French in the War for Independence had been created. He was just a general in the army, at the time. He had no say in the matter. [b]Just a General[/b]???? Washington was the Commanding General of the entire Continental Army and the Assembled State Militias. Garandman. And let me assure you, a man who vehemently refused a [b]kingship[/b], and defused a serious coup attempt had plenty of influence in the new American nation. Washington argued loud and long for a French alliance, as he knew damn well it was the only way for the Revolution to have a prayer of sucess. And you say I'm off my game. Yikes. Yes. [i]Very off[/i]. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 11:53:12 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: So what should we do? Give the US back to the Brits because Washington allied with the French to help win the Revolution? [rolleyes] Bonehead questions like this don't merit an answer. OK. I take it, then, that you concede all your previous points refuted? [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 12:02:24 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So what should we do? Give the US back to the Brits because Washington allied with the French to help win the Revolution? [rolleyes] Bonehead questions like this don't merit an answer. OK. I take it, then, that you concede all your previous points refuted? [:D] No. More like, bonehead questions come from people who make bonehead arguments. [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 12:28:31 PM EDT
[#19]
Come, come, Garandman, I expected a [i]much[/i] more snappy retort than that!
But as I said, you are obviously "off" today, so I won't press you to [i]attempt[/i] to refute me. Keep trying, perhaps one day, you'll win one. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 12:30:06 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Same with Saddam and Iraq. We used them to kill Iraqis, a mutual enemy. Then cut and ran. Remember how after the UN/Iraq conflict that the Kurds were urged to rebel against Saddam by the bush sr. admin with hints of military aid? The Kurds that did go on offensives were decimated by the Iraqis and learned that bush sr gave them empty assurances. That is a fine way to make friends. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 12:33:45 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Quoted: Same with Saddam and Iraq. We used them to kill Iraqis, a mutual enemy. Then cut and ran. Remember how after the UN/Iraq conflict that the Kurds were urged to rebel against Saddam by the bush sr. admin with hints of military aid? The Kurds that did go on offensives were decimated by the Iraqis and learned that bush sr gave them empty assurances. That is a fine way to make friends. Same with the Hungarian Freedom Fighters in the 1950's. We promised them arms and aid. We shipped them containers of milk. I tremble for my nation when I consider that God is a JUST God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 12:38:27 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Same with Saddam and Iraq. We used them to kill Iraqis, a mutual enemy. Then cut and ran. Remember how after the UN/Iraq conflict that the Kurds were urged to rebel against Saddam by the bush sr. admin with hints of military aid? The Kurds that did go on offensives were decimated by the Iraqis and learned that bush sr gave them empty assurances. That is a fine way to make friends. The Kurds had been rebelling repeatedly against the Saddam regime for many years. They chose a demonstrable moment of weakness of the Saddam regime to try it again. It's likely they would have rebelled anyway, "hints" of aid or not. The same people who fault us for not aiding the Kurds/wiping out the Saddam regime also advise against foreign entanglements/alliances, what have you. So which is it? Should we leave the Kurds to the tender mercies of Saddam, or get "entangled' again? Can't have it both ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 12:41:40 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Same with Saddam and Iraq. We used them to kill Iraqis, a mutual enemy. Then cut and ran. Remember how after the UN/Iraq conflict that the Kurds were urged to rebel against Saddam by the bush sr. admin with hints of military aid? The Kurds that did go on offensives were decimated by the Iraqis and learned that bush sr gave them empty assurances. That is a fine way to make friends. Same with the Hungarian Freedom Fighters in the 1950's. We promised them arms and aid. We shipped them containers of milk. I tremble for my nation when I consider that God is a JUST God. So let me see if I've got this straight: You, who argue for NO foreign entanglements would have us embroiled in WW III over Hungary? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 12:44:49 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: The same people who fault us for not aiding the Kurds/wiping out the Saddam regime also advise against foreign entanglements/alliances, what have you. So which is it? Should we leave the Kurds to the tender mercies of Saddam, or get "entangled' again? Can't have it both ways. This is a disingenuous question. We're not trying to have it both ways. The fundamental principle is NO foreign entanglements. But if you violate that principle, have the integrity to live up to your words and promises of aid. Preferrably, you don't violate the fundamental principle. If we hadn't in the case of the Kurds, THERE WOULD BE NO OPPORTUNITY violate our word re: the promises of aid we made them. Questions like this, IMO, are INTENDED to muddy the waters, and to APPEAR to win the argument, cuz you already knew the answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 12:54:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Let's go step back in time and re-write history. No help for Iraq = Iran kicks their ass & has larger control. No help for Saudia Arabia (via technology sales or direct involvement) = Iran decides to kick their ass. Hhmm, looking good huh??? Now all Muslims say, 'lets stomp Isreal!' Well, no help for them either. Wow, the middle east sure looks good now, they've got most of the world's oil production & would be getting a helluva a lot of money for it!!! I figure they'd be close allies with the [b]still thriving USSR[/b] and would be looking to buy some nukes. Hey, all of that looks great though, we're sitting here at home watching MTV and talk about what the next door neighbor did that pissed us off. What? The above isn't worthy of a response? I happen to think it is because it is a very probable scenario. Like it or not 'foreign entanglements' are required to survive as a nation, w/out such we might be a pathetic, crumbling country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 1:01:23 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Quoted: The same people who fault us for not aiding the Kurds/wiping out the Saddam regime also advise against foreign entanglements/alliances, what have you. So which is it? Should we leave the Kurds to the tender mercies of Saddam, or get "entangled' again? Can't have it both ways. This is a disingenuous question. We're not trying to have it both ways. Sure you are. You're just annoyed that I pointed it out. The fundamental principle is NO foreign entanglements. I understand, so far. But if you violate that principle, have the integrity to live up to your words and promises of aid. So, the end justifies the means, even if it violates "fundamental principals"? Can you supply a real world instance wher violating "fundamental principals" was the correct thing to do? Preferrably, you don't violate the fundamental principle. If we hadn't in the case of the Kurds, THERE WOULD BE NO OPPORTUNITY violate our word re: the promises of aid we made them. I see. So it was a good thing that we kept our word to South Vietnam, even though it cost the lives of many thousands of Americans, right? Questions like this, IMO, are INTENDED to muddy the waters, and to APPEAR to win the argument, cuz you already knew the answer. No, questions like this are designed to illustrate hypocracy, double-standards, and muddy thinking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 1:06:58 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: The same people who fault us for not aiding the Kurds/wiping out the Saddam regime also advise against foreign entanglements/alliances, what have you. So which is it? Should we leave the Kurds to the tender mercies of Saddam, or get "entangled' again? Can't have it both ways. Plain and simple: bush sr. should have kept his mouth shut. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 1:10:31 PM EDT
[#28]
Kevin -
History doesn't bear you assertion out about foreign entanglements being necessary. Quite the opposite is true. From 1776 to 1900, a mere 125 years, the US became the world MOST proserous nation. This was a time period in which we essentially followed GWashington's advice of "avoid[ing] foreign entanglements." (And don't call this isolationism - it isn't. Washington allowed for treaties - just NOT getting embroiled into micro managing other nations) Converesely, from the 1920's to the present, the US has become more and more involved in EVERYONE elses affairs. And a pretty strong case can be made that its drained Americas resources, and prosperity - NOT TO MENTION soveriegnty to bodies like the UN. IMAGINE what all he $$$ we send all over the globe to bolster up banana republics and mini dictators would do if kept at home. We'd be invincible. Foreign entaglements mean choosing sides. CHoosing one side REQUIRES alienating the other side. Alienating one side means often making an enemy of that one side. For this reason, foreign entanglements invariably lead to war. Just compare the # of foreign wars we fought in in the period of 1776 to 1900, compared to 1920 to the present. Foreign entanglements ONLY serve to drag us down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 1:16:43 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: The same people who fault us for not aiding the Kurds/wiping out the Saddam regime also advise against foreign entanglements/alliances, what have you. So which is it? Should we leave the Kurds to the tender mercies of Saddam, or get "entangled' again? Can't have it both ways. Plain and simple: bush sr. should have kept his mouth shut. But he didn't. And even if he had, the Kurds most like would have revolted anyways. It was their best opportunity in a long while; they revolted many times prior with less chance of success. So quit stalling, and answer the question above. Which will it be? Massive Kurdish deaths, or entanglement? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 1:22:35 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: So quit stalling, and answer the question above. Which will it be? Massive Kurdish deaths, or entanglement? That's an easy one. NO ENTANGLEMENTS. The Kurds can do whatever they want WITHOUT false promises from us. If that results in massive deaths, then that was the Kurds choice. We are NOT the worlds policeman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 1:33:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: So quit stalling, and answer the question above. Which will it be? Massive Kurdish deaths, or entanglement? That's an easy one. NO ENTANGLEMENTS. The Kurds can do whatever they want WITHOUT false promises from us. If that results in massive deaths, then that was the Kurds choice. We are NOT the worlds policeman. So what you are saying is: We (the new-born US) should have adhered to "fundamental principles" (as you put it), and refused the entangling French Alliance which allowed us to win the Revolution. Is that right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 1:37:55 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Foreign entanglements ONLY serve to drag us down. Our position in WWII started out as a 'foreign entanglement'. Had we not gotten involved the world be a far different place today. WWII changed the level of production in this country in mind blowing ways!!! The gains we made in the '40's are what propelled us to being as strong as we are. Okay, say we stop all 'foreign entanglements' after WWII, once again the world would be a different place. To sit by and let communism run rampant would not benefit us. Communism would've thrived if we would've taken an isolationist stance. Isolationism wouldn't have helped us economically nor would it have helped us preserve our defensive capabilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 1:39:56 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: So what you are saying is: We (the new-born US) should have adhered to "fundamental principles" (as you put it), and refused the entangling French Alliance which allowed us to win the Revolution. Is that right? You can't compare the Kurds vs. Saddam to the USA vs. Britain. Accepting aid from others is a far cry from giving aid to others. "Foreign entanglements" DOES NOT INCLUDE a struggle for your survival. Then you do whatever you've gotta do. "Foreign entanglements" is defined as meddling in others internal, civil affairs, ESPECIALLY when theres no need to. CLEARLY alliance with France is not what Washington was LOUDLY against re: "foreign entanglements. In essence, GWashington's policy is very Machiavellian. Take from everyone when it aids your cause, give to no one. Ruthless Americanism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 1:45:46 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Communism would've thrived if we would've taken an isolationist stance. Isolationism wouldn't have helped us economically nor would it have helped us preserve our defensive capabilities. Typical. Yer trying to paint this as "isolationism." It ain't. And you clearly don't understand 20th Century history. The ONLY reason communism survived as long as it did was because of the USA. Hint: think Stalin's Five Year Plans. Think detente. The whole premise of "Animal Farm" was the American infatuation with Communism during teh first half of the 20th century. "Foreign entanglements" allowed Soviet Communism to survive, and not collapse under its own weight YEARS earlier. And AGAIN, it was during the period 1776 - 1900, during a period when we followed GW's policy, that America becasme THE most propserous nation on earth. Yer all wet here, dude. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 1:51:52 PM EDT
[#35]
Because Saddam would love to see all of us with a memorial web site like this:
[url]http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-name/index.html[/url] So what if we screwed up by helping him in the past. The logic that we are now prevented from dealing with him because we helped him in the past is ridiculous. They are separate issues used by the media and liberal appeasers to confuse the sheeple. Don't be distracted by the pretty lights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 2:01:50 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: So what you are saying is: We (the new-born US) should have adhered to "fundamental principles" (as you put it), and refused the entangling French Alliance which allowed us to win the Revolution. Is that right? You can't compare the Kurds vs. Saddam to the USA vs. Britain. Accepting aid from others is a far cry from giving aid to others. Oppressed group struggles for freedom from oppressor. Sounds similar to me. "Foreign entanglements" DOES NOT INCLUDE a struggle for your survival. Then you do whatever you've gotta do. "Foreign entanglements" is defined as meddling in others internal, civil affairs, ESPECIALLY when theres no need to. CLEARLY alliance with France is not what Washington was LOUDLY against re: "foreign entanglements. So much for fundamental principles. So the end DOES justify the means, after all. Sounds like your "fundamental principles" are mighty pliable. In essence, GWashington's policy is very Machiavellian. Take from everyone when it aids your cause, give to no one. Ruthless Americanism. As your friend Imbroglio said :"That is a fine way to make friends". Maybe you and Imbroglio can sort this out, but I gotta go. Bye. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 2:54:34 PM EDT
[#37]
Garandman, you have your opinions I have mine. I know people have racked up quite a post count going round & round with you but there are too many other things to do than to take swipes at your theory of what U.S. evolution should've been. All I can say is I'm glad we didn't go the route you would've chosen. History hasn't been perfect and involvements haven't always been simple (or right) but hey, THAT IS LIFE HERE ON EARTH!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 5:37:02 PM EDT
[#38]
At this point in time I am not very interested in the mistakes America has made. I KNOW I don't give a RAT'S ASS why the vermin responsible for 9/11 did it! I am not concerned what things Israel may have done to the "Palestinian" murderers.
What I DO know is that we have been attacked and war declared against us by moslem maggots, that Iraq is likely involved (or wishes he was) and that another country with many American citizens (Israel) is under near constant attack by the same creeps that cheered the day this war started. I further know that certain apologists for these VERMIN reside on this board and advocate policies that resulted in 9/11 and other lesser atrocities. Time to choose sides. You are either pro American and LOYAL or you are the enemy. Fish or cut bait. No waffling. Past errors of judgement may be forgiven but this is a WAR of survival between US and "them". It can be fought in America with OUR civilians being murdered or it can be fought in countries like Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia and others. We get to choose - our civilians die or we try to subdue those who would kill them with as little loss of life among their civilians as we can manage while achieving our goal of totally subduing these maniacs. This is a fucking war!! We did not start it, we are not reponsible for those who did. It is evil, like all wars. People are going to die. Us or them. We did the right thing in Aug 1945 and need to do it again. Same tools, same resolve, similar result. Which side are you on, Garandnan? You want to fight in S. Carolina or Iraq? The choice to fight is not ours to make. Where, is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2002 6:54:12 PM EDT
[#39]
Well, Garandman, I am waiting for a direct answer! WHICH side are you on?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
