Few people realize the demoralization taking place in the world economy. War has to be one of the most idiotic ideas ever concocted by man.

Guy 1: Hm. We seem to be running low on oil.

Guy 2: Yes, it seems that way. Let us ask our neighbors to lend us some oil.

A week later...

Guy 1: Our neighbors refuse to lend us oil! Let us rip off their heads in a bloody rage so that they will never refuse us again, even though doing such will more than likely drive our nation to financial ruin!

Guy 2: Yes, let's do that! Die, neighbors, die! We don't care about our nation's economy, we only want revenge! Countless thousands will suffer from starvation because of our acts, but at least we will take pride in that we have killed our neighbors!

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

Now America is attacking Pakistan for their oil (I think that's how it's spelled...). Politics is just a load of crap used to distract the general public from what's really going on, here. And that would be mass chaos, senseless destruction, morbid violence, and an unbelievable degree of stupidity on a global scale. The U.S. government is polluting the atmosphere with greed and selfish desires. And these foreign politics laws were INVENTED by the US government, which just happens to be one of the most morally bankrupt organizations in the history of mankind. It's sad that they actually believe they can bring about peace...


P.S. Humans should never have been created. God should have done away with them and started over immediately after Adam and Eve sinned. People don't realize just how much mercy and compassion God shows. They blame the world's problems on him. Well, guess what, world! GOD SPARED YOUR FREAKING LIVES!!!

No More Tears (http://www.jnj.com/)
http://www.homepharmacy.com.au/images/photos/288535.jpg

Well, Wielder, those things would be just awful, except that's not what happened. Our stated reasons for being in Afghanistan, Iraq etc., are quite different from what you've asserted. Would you care to offer some actual evidence that our invasions were for the purpose of securing oil? And if you ever come back and respond, do please try to stick to one topic instead of discussing many simultaneoulsy as in this post.

Well, guess what, world! GOD SPARED YOUR FREAKING LIVES!!!


...riiiight after we created him.

Brandon9000, what other reasons could there be? Weapons of mass destruction? The USA would not even have the right to attack for soch a reason, because they have WMD themselves, and quite a bigger and more dangerous arsenal of it than any other country in the world, and with it they could EASILY enough destroy the planet we live on, as well as a few others. Democratizing Iraq? Well they succeeded if that was their goal, but would YOU rather live in a dictatorship were you have enough food and drinkable water, and electricity for the hospitals, or you rather live in a democracy without food, water and electricity? I mean what is the use of democracy if you're busy all day long trying to fill your stomach, and that of your family, while a weak without terrorist attacks is rarer then a full solar eclips? I mean, I don't think that was the reason either, especially because there are tons of other dictatorships in the world, and the USA couldn't care less. To fight terrorism, then? Well, there is (or was) NO link betwean Saddam and Al-Qaida, so if that was the reason, then the USA government is a bunch of complete morons and retards. Any other reasons remaining, besides oil? Didn't think so either.

I asked you for a shred of evidence that our purpose in invasion was the pursuit of oil, and what you provide here is not evidence. Now, I repeat, give me evidence to back this assertion, or admit that it is your unsubstantiated speculation.

Brandon9000, what other reasons could there be? Weapons of mass destruction? The USA would not even have the right to attack for soch a reason, because they have WMD themselves, and quite a bigger and more dangerous arsenal of it than any other country in the world, and with it they could EASILY enough destroy the planet we live on, as well as a few others.
The USA's WMD would not protect it in the slightest from the WMD of a tiny dictatorship with a much lesser amount of WMD. Said dictatorship would only have to have one single WMD, sneak it into the US (perhaps in pieces), and use it from within, to strike an asbolutely crippling blow. Then they could deny any involvement. We do indeed have the moral right to protect ourselves from this. Furthermore, it is reasonable to say that latter day Hitlers, like Hussein, cannot be permitted to possess WMD

....I don't think that was the reason either, especially because there are tons of other dictatorships in the world, and the USA couldn't care less.
We didn't invade because Iraq was a dictatorship with an unusually evil ruler, we invaded because we believed that it was a dictatorship with an unusually evil ruler with WMD and programs to develop more. And, just in case you're going to mention North Korea, we didn't invade them because they already have atomic weapons which makes invasion unfeasible.

To fight terrorism, then? Well, there is (or was) NO link betwean Saddam and Al-Qaida, so if that was the reason, then the USA government is a bunch of complete morons and retards. Any other reasons remaining, besides oil? Didn't think so either.
There are numerous documented links between Iraq and Al-Qaida, just no evidence that Iraq was behind 9/11, however we didn't invade for that reason.

Now, once again, this is not evidence that we invaded for oil. Give me evidence.

Now America is attacking Pakistan for their oil



When did this happen...?

:confused:

Does Pakistan have oil?

You want evidence? ba ba booey. There's your evidence.

You want evidence? ba ba booey. There's your evidence.
You apparently cannot back up any of the things you have asserted, nor, apparently, are you inclined to debate on the level of evidence and logic.

We didn't invade because Iraq was a dictatorship with an unusually evil ruler, we invaded because we believed that it was a dictatorship with an unusually evil ruler with WMD and programs to develop more.
Mmm-hmm. And we are not involved in the sudan because? N. Korea?
And, just in case you're going to mention North Korea, we didn't invade them because they already have atomic weapons which makes invasion unfeasible.
mmm-hmm. Please provide link supporting the idea that N. korea has an atomic bomb, and not just an atomic program.
Also please provide casualty estimates which suggest that a nuclear defense would be more effective against and invading army than chemical or biological weapons. Keep in mind that the weapons would have to be used on the defenders home soil; also keep in mind that the leaders of both N. Korea dn Iraq are painted as power hungery leaders who would not think twice of killing their own, if it served their purposes.


Circumstancial evidence that we invaded for oil?
The fact that the Iraqi museum, a cultural center for the people we were 'liberating', was left un guarded, while the local oil refinery was heavily protected. That the Bagdad oil refinery was up and pumping oil (by Halliburton, illegally, mind you. a closed-door agreement between the Us government and Halliburton allowed for the pumping of oil even though the public no-bid contract specifically stated that no pumping was to occur.) a few weeks after the city was taken, while the main sewer treatment plant is *still* non-functional, and raw suage is being dumped directly into the Tigris river. A river used not only as a source of water in Bagdad, but also as a source of water and irrigation down river.

You are looking for direct evidence. Confessions, tapes, doccuments. If those sorts of things were public knowledge, the president would have been impeached all ready. As it has not happened, do not ask for evidence on a web chat forum from someone who is obviously venting.
Also, don't be foolish enough to eat the shit that they are feeding you. You appear to be a logical person, but just because Wielder's arguments were no more than rants does not let you off the hook. Do some research into the events as they happpened, not just what you are told about the events.

Wielder of the Sword: If you want to make a point, "ba ba booey" is going to do little to convince your detractors. The information for alot of your first post is availble across the web, and has been for years now. The pipefline through afganistan was a bone of contention even before 9/11 - it was the front of the original anti-war argument from day one.
If you want people to understand your position, convince them.
and the "attacking Pakistan for oil" comment pretty much ruined your credability. I have heard of no such thing, and I can only asume you ment Afganistan?

Pakistan does have some oil deposits:
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pak.htm

edit: Wielder: Howard Stern *has* provided alot of good info for America - much of which they would not know about without him.:
http://www.howardstern.com/bush.html
Is a heavily partisan site, but it was put up and organised by a guy who was once on of Bush's biggest major media supporters.

We didn't invade because Iraq was a dictatorship with an unusually evil ruler, we invaded because we believed that it was a dictatorship with an unusually evil ruler with WMD and programs to develop more.

Mmm-hmm. And we are not involved in the sudan because? N. Korea?

I am unaware of the Sudan's WMD programs. Could you provide a link? As to NK, it is discussed below.


And, just in case you're going to mention North Korea, we didn't invade them because they already have atomic weapons which makes invasion unfeasible.

mmm-hmm. Please provide link supporting the idea that N. korea has an atomic bomb, and not just an atomic program.

Here is your link. North Korea claims to have the bomb, which, while not proof, must be taken very seriously. From: http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501030505-447251,00.html

"That much was made clear to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, the U.S. envoy for the talks. During a break in discussions, while participants were milling around the Chinese government's Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, Li Gun, chief of the North Korean delegation, casually told Kelly that his country isn't just developing nuclear weapons-it already has them."


Also please provide casualty estimates which suggest that a nuclear defense would be more effective against and invading army than chemical or biological weapons. Keep in mind that the weapons would have to be used on the defenders home soil; also keep in mind that the leaders of both N. Korea dn Iraq are painted as power hungery leaders who would not think twice of killing their own, if it served their purposes.

Clearly one or several nuclear detonations could kill a number of people that would make invasion unacceptable. The North Koreans might well have an opportunity to use atomic weapons in such a manner as to do little damage to their own county, e.g. depopulating South Korea, or striking at our troops before they were near NK's population centers. One can equip a soldier with equipment to thwart biological or chemical weapons, but not to protect him from being in a nuclear blast.

Your requested casualty estimates would involve a lot of work on my part, as you well know, and are not required to support my case. I can, if I wish, ask you to provide tables, graphs, probability calculations, or whatever I estimate would take a great deal of your time, but you are only required to argue your case soundly and so am I. While it is possible to produce biological weapons that can easily be used to kill as many people as an atomic bomb, or even more than an atomic bomb, I do not believe that Iraq was suspected of having this type of weapon, and, then, there are those suits the soldiers can wear. Just to quote some plausible number, lets say that a modest atomic detonation could kill at least 100,000 people and injure many more. This is comparable to what happened at Hiroshima. This would be achievable with the detonation of one single bomb. It is my impression that the use of chemical weapons to kill this number of people would be more difficult and time consuming, and involve many more steps. When Hussein gassed the Kurds in 1988, it took several days, soldiers were deployed to block escape routes, and, I believe only about 5,000 people died.

Clearly, it is not very feasible to invade a country that can retaliate with nuclear weapons.


Circumstancial evidence that we invaded for oil?
The fact that the Iraqi museum, a cultural center for the people we were 'liberating', was left un guarded, while the local oil refinery was heavily protected. That the Bagdad oil refinery was up and pumping oil (by Halliburton, illegally, mind you. a closed-door agreement between the Us government and Halliburton allowed for the pumping of oil even though the public no-bid contract specifically stated that no pumping was to occur.) a few weeks after the city was taken, while the main sewer treatment plant is *still* non-functional, and raw suage is being dumped directly into the Tigris river. A river used not only as a source of water in Bagdad, but also as a source of water and irrigation down river.

This is at best a plausibility argument, and not evidence that our motivation in invading Iraq was to appropriate its oil. A belief that Iraq and its evil dictator had WMD and WMD programs, and could not be induced to disarm, would be more than sufficient reason for invasion.


You are looking for direct evidence. Confessions, tapes, doccuments. If those sorts of things were public knowledge, the president would have been impeached all ready. As it has not happened, do not ask for evidence on a web chat forum from someone who is obviously venting.

If, during someone's venting, he asserts things I believe to be erroneous, I have the legitimate option of replying. If he has no evidence, then it is all just unsubstantiated speculation. I am certainly entitled to ask for evidence to support his assertions on a Web chat forum where debating is common.


Also, don't be foolish enough to eat the shit that they are feeding you. You appear to be a logical person, but just because Wielder's arguments were no more than rants does not let you off the hook. Do some research into the events as they happpened, not just what you are told about the events.

You have no knowledge whatever of how I arrive at my opinions.

I think this Wielder person is just trying to make a cool first impression by jumping on the hate-USA liberal bandwagon, which is considered cool among the insipid and brainless who merely wait for some fad to fill up their heads because they're too lazy to go make original points of view.

Way to go. It's the equivalent of organized religion for the nonreligious.

Mainly because this is not the best thread to debate these issues due to many questionable arguments already discounted above, I'll concede all points.
In particular this point:
You have no knowledge whatever of how I arrive at my opinions.
You are quite correct. I should not have assumed.

I'm going to start a thread to compare nuclear to chemical/biological weapons; my intention was not to truly compare their effectiveness, but upon considering your response, I realize that that would *have* to be the discussion; I am honestly not prepared to have that debate, from either side. I don’t really know if supposed nuclear weapons would provide a better method than supposed chemical and biological weapons for protecting a nation against an invading force.

The one thing, however, that I would like to reply to specifically is this:
I am unaware of the Sudan's WMD programs. Could you provide a link?

The government has largely supported the Janjaweed, who have been directly participating in the rape, torture and killing of thousands. An ethnic cleansing, a genocide of non-Arab members of the western region of the Sudan.
Just because this WMD does not explode, but instead walks, talks, and watches its victims die does not make it any less of a WMD.
Tens of thousands are thought to be dead, and hundreds of thousands displaced. But we're not invading.

I'm not suggesting that we invade the Sudan, or N. Korea, or anywhere else. I'm suggesting that we appear to have an unequal set of rules when it comes to who we 'liberate' and who we don't.

If oil was not the purpose, then tell me why USA do not interfere with the Israel conflict?

The government has largely supported the Janjaweed, who have been directly participating in the rape, torture and killing of thousands. An ethnic cleansing, a genocide of non-Arab members of the western region of the Sudan.
Just because this WMD does not explode, but instead walks, talks, and watches its victims die does not make it any less of a WMD.
Tens of thousands are thought to be dead, and hundreds of thousands displaced. But we're not invading.

I'm not suggesting that we invade the Sudan, or N. Korea, or anywhere else. I'm suggesting that we appear to have an unequal set of rules when it comes to who we 'liberate' and who we don't.
Well, if we do, this case doesn't prove it, since our primary motivation for the invasion of Iraq was protect ourselves and our allies from a future consequence of allowing Saddam Hussein to acquire and stockpile WMD.

If oil was not the purpose, then tell me why USA do not interfere with the Israel conflict?
I could talk about our level of participation in the Israeli conflict, our attack on Kosovo, and many other things, but as someone who asserts that appropriation of Iraqi oil is the motivation for invasion, it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support your statement.

Words of wisdom from HAL 9000

The USA's WMD would not protect it in the slightest from the WMD of a tiny dictatorship with a much lesser amount of WMD.

So who, exactly, does America plan to shoot it's weapons at? China? France?

We didn't invade because Iraq was a dictatorship with an unusually evil ruler, we invaded because we believed that it was a dictatorship with an unusually evil ruler with WMD and programs to develop more.

Err but America was wrong.

A belief that Iraq and its evil dictator had WMD and WMD programs, and could not be induced to disarm, would be more than sufficient reason for invasion.

So the planned invasion of Iran takes place when?

Clearly, it is not very feasible to invade a country that can retaliate with nuclear weapons.

So America don't like to fight those with the means to defend themselves?
Well that seems like a shit hot reason for every tin pot dictator to start their own programmes.

I believe the thread topic was America is one of the most morally bankrupt organizations

Are you arguing for or against that point of view?
Dee Cee

Invading Iraq was stupid because George W. Bush is stupid. The U.S. government is only as moral and wise as the people of which it is composed. The organizational structure is pretty much neutral. The existence of state entities in the first place is based on their ability to wage war. Name one state without an army, or allies to fight on their behalf.

Words of wisdom from HAL 9000

The USA's WMD would not protect it in the slightest from the WMD of a tiny dictatorship with a much lesser amount of WMD.

So who, exactly, does America plan to shoot it's weapons at? China? France?
America's WMD would protect it, for instance, from another country, such as the former Soviet Union, attacking with its nuclear ICBMs. In that case, the identity of the perpetrator would be clear, and we could retaliate with our nuclear ICBMs. Our WMD do not protect us from a country sneaking a few WMD into our cities, perhaps in pieces, and using them from within, then denying responsibility, except to the extent that they might worry that we would obtain proof of who did it. Any country with WMD always has the option of sneaking a few into the US, using them, and then swearing that they were not responsible.


We didn't invade because Iraq was a dictatorship with an unusually evil ruler, we invaded because we believed that it was a dictatorship with an unusually evil ruler with WMD and programs to develop more.

Err but America was wrong.
What does that have to do with anything? We invaded because the totality of the history with Iraq led us to believe that it retained its WMD and WMD programs.


A belief that Iraq and its evil dictator had WMD and WMD programs, and could not be induced to disarm, would be more than sufficient reason for invasion.

So the planned invasion of Iran takes place when?
There are arguments both for and against invading Iran because of its WMD ambitions. One of the arguments against is that we have not been trying to induce them to disarm for 12 years. Another is that they are not ruled by someone quite like Saddam Hussein, who absolutely could not be allowed to acquire weapons of this sort. There are other arguments against too, and some for. However, when a particularly dangerous seeming dictator, with links to terrorism, starts building WMD, and a long series of attempts to negotiate a disarmament appears to have failed, and certain other criteria are met, we will have to invade again.


Clearly, it is not very feasible to invade a country that can retaliate with nuclear weapons.

So America don't like to fight those with the means to defend themselves?
Well that seems like a shit hot reason for every tin pot dictator to start their own programmes.
I suppose you think it prudent to invade a country that possesses the option of killing a million people during the first hour of the war? I do not. In my opinion, that is a situation in which no real option to invade exists. Yes, some dictators may see this as a reason to attempt to achieve near invulnerability by acquire WMD.


I believe the thread topic was America is one of the most morally bankrupt organizations

Are you arguing for or against that point of view?
Dee Cee
Absolutely against.

im with weilder. american leaders are demoralised terrorist bastards

thay say they want to fix iraqs govt., look at theirs

-voting is continually rigged because of stupid laws and loopholes
-you have to pay for life saving operations yourself
-the rich are the only ones able to have any major say in the running of the country so the poor get pushed lower and lower
-petrol companies have so much say in the gevernment that it is nearly impoosible for alternative fuels to take over meannig that they invade other countries for this polluting fossil fuel

as for their weapons

-america trained osama bin laden and provided im with weapons
-all even remotely destructive weapons hussein had, he purchased from the US
-the US has enough nukes to destroy the earth 40 times over
-the US secretly develops biological weapons that are hundreds of times worse than any they claim iraq had

America's WMD would protect it, for instance, from another country, such as the former Soviet Union, attacking with its nuclear ICBMs.


The keyword is former here I would think




However, when a particularly dangerous seeming dictator,

Unfortunately there is a small problem here. The US has no trouble supporting dictators that support the US regime. It doesn't really matter if these dictators commit genocide or not. Saddam aslo used to be a big buddy of the the US. He then did something that imbalanced the powerstatus in the middle east and the US and other dictatorial buddies of the US in the middle east didn't like that.
In the end the US only opposes dictators based on power decisions. It doesn't make any moral judgement. Could it be because the US government operates on similar principals as other dictatorships?

...Unfortunately there is a small problem here. The US has no trouble supporting dictators that support the US regime. It doesn't really matter if these dictators commit genocide or not. Saddam aslo used to be a big buddy of the the US. He then did something that imbalanced the powerstatus in the middle east and the US and other dictatorial buddies of the US in the middle east didn't like that.
In the end the US only opposes dictators based on power decisions. It doesn't make any moral judgement. Could it be because the US government operates on similar principals as other dictatorships?
No, this is no problem at all. As distasteful as dictatorship is, and as much as we believe in democracy, in the real world, where the stakes are often very high, we sometimes have to cooperate with dictatorships, e.g. China. It doesn't mean that we love them, it just means that the stakes are high. That in no way indicates that we want someone like Hussein to manufacture a stockpile of WMD. We don't want him to do that, because such weapons could be used against us down the road.

im with weilder. american leaders are demoralised terrorist bastards

thay say they want to fix iraqs govt., look at theirs
-you have to pay for life saving operations yourself
You actually have to pay for your own medical care? Those fiends!!!

-america trained osama bin laden and provided im with weapons
Yes, because Afghanistan had been invaded by the Soviets, and we were funding a rebel movement trying to force them to leave.

-the US has enough nukes to destroy the earth 40 times over
We spent decades in a doomsday arms race with the Soviet Union. We had little choice but to match their weapons development.

-the rich are the only ones able to have any major say in the running of the country so the poor get pushed lower and lower
To some extent, this has been true since the dawn of time, however, in America, everyone has the right to vote, rich people frequently go to jail if they break the law, and there are few barriers preventing anyone with the brains and the gut from becoming wealthy no matter where they start out in life.


-voting is continually rigged because of stupid laws and loopholes
-petrol companies have so much say in the gevernment that it is nearly impoosible for alternative fuels to take over meannig that they invade other countries for this polluting fossil fuel
-all even remotely destructive weapons hussein had, he purchased from the US
-the US secretly develops biological weapons that are hundreds of times worse than any they claim iraq had
What rot. You wouldn't care to document any of this, would you?

as for number 2 in vslayer's "rot list", there is a very well documented case of why oil-based vehicles became popular in the first place.

The Rockefellers supported the passage of prohibition with an estimated $4 million dollars; the outlawing of alcohol made gasoline the only legal major fuel source for the booming car industry. This is after 'helping' to support the continuance of the alcohol tax in 1894.

How much money does Esso (Exxon/Mobil to us Americans) give to campains of legislators who support their agendas?
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v4/alrtv4n5.asp
and who gets elected to office? the one who the people know about, more often than not. Who is more known? The canidate with ads on every TV station every day of the week.
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topraces.asp

as for number 2 in vslayer's "rot list", there is a very well documented case of why oil-based vehicles became popular in the first place.

The Rockefellers supported the passage of prohibition with an estimated $4 million dollars; the outlawing of alcohol made gasoline the only legal major fuel source for the booming car industry. This is after 'helping' to support the continuance of the alcohol tax in 1894.

How much money does Esso (Exxon/Mobil to us Americans) give to campains of legislators who support their agendas?
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v4/alrtv4n5.asp
and who gets elected to office? the one who the people know about, more often than not. Who is more known? The canidate with ads on every TV station every day of the week.
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topraces.asp
Well, first of all, lets talk about the present, not the 19th century. The question is the character of America in the present and recent past.

The fact that those with money are able to influence the world, hardly shows that the US is unusually corrupt. This is pretty much the way of the world. We try to pass laws, such as the anti-trust laws, to prevent the worst abuses. There are probably sinister things going on outside the view of the general public. Of course, just because special interests make contributions, doesn't necessarily mean that they get what they want. I wouldn't be surprised if the oil interests were suppressing the development of synthetic fuels, but neither do I have evidence of it. I doubt that the US is singularly bad with respect to the ability of the wealthy to use their money to obtain special treatment.

But regarding item 2 on the rot list, there is also the assertion that we currently invade other countries to appropriate their oil, and I still would like to see some evidence specifically of this.

There is one important factor which seems to be blocking my arguments here - information often takes years to become public knowledge. Alot of these sorts of dealings are morally and legally questionable, and those involved go to extreem lengths to hide their activities.

Part of the reason we know so much about the private and underhanded dealing of those in power up to the 1970's is that those people are now dead, and people finally feel free to talk about the issues.

You cannot expect alot of this information to be currently available about current situations; you have to read between the lines. However, I'll bet dollars to dougnuts that the evidence you are looking for now will be readily available in 5-10 years, when people are less afraid of retaliation for telling.
The lack of hard facts doesn't let us off the hook in the area of double checking everything the government does, though - if the War for Oil theory is correct, at least in part, then it will be *very* hard to find hard evidence; circumstancial evidence should be plentiful, and is. By keeping the pressure on the administration, they will have to deal very carefully, and possibly even avoid certain actions which could undermine their secrecy.
If the War for Oil theory is wrong, then the administration will have nothing to fear, and will provide those quesitoning them with full disclosure of policy reasonings.
The missing 32 pages of the 9/11 commision report, and the secret energy commision meetings w/ Dick Cheney suggests otherwise, however.

I wouldn't be surprised if the oil interests were suppressing the development of synthetic fuels, but neither do I have evidence of it.
And at this point, then, you have a choice to let the possibility slide because you don't have evidence, or to hammer away, in case there is some evidence to be had. I opt for the latter.

No, this is no problem at all. As distasteful as dictatorship is, and as much as we believe in democracy, in the real world, where the stakes are often very high, we sometimes have to cooperate with dictatorships, e.g. China. It doesn't mean that we love them, it just means that the stakes are high. That in no way indicates that we want someone like Hussein to manufacture a stockpile of WMD. We don't want him to do that, because such weapons could be used against us down the road.

What a cheap excuse.

What a cheap excuse.
Name calling is the lowest form of debate.

There is one important factor which seems to be blocking my arguments here - information often takes years to become public knowledge. Alot of these sorts of dealings are morally and legally questionable, and those involved go to extreem lengths to hide their activities.

Part of the reason we know so much about the private and underhanded dealing of those in power up to the 1970's is that those people are now dead, and people finally feel free to talk about the issues.

You cannot expect alot of this information to be currently available about current situations; you have to read between the lines. However, I'll bet dollars to dougnuts that the evidence you are looking for now will be readily available in 5-10 years, when people are less afraid of retaliation for telling.
The lack of hard facts doesn't let us off the hook in the area of double checking everything the government does, though - if the War for Oil theory is correct, at least in part, then it will be *very* hard to find hard evidence; circumstancial evidence should be plentiful, and is. By keeping the pressure on the administration, they will have to deal very carefully, and possibly even avoid certain actions which could undermine their secrecy.
If the War for Oil theory is wrong, then the administration will have nothing to fear, and will provide those quesitoning them with full disclosure of policy reasonings.
The missing 32 pages of the 9/11 commision report, and the secret energy commision meetings w/ Dick Cheney suggests otherwise, however.


And at this point, then, you have a choice to let the possibility slide because you don't have evidence, or to hammer away, in case there is some evidence to be had. I opt for the latter.
Well, then, anyone who claims that we went into Iraq to steal their oil should make it clear that this is speculation without evidence. The reason why I don't spend a lot of time speculating about the motive for the invasion is that I had, for some time, wanted us to invade Iraq to preclude the possibility of an Iraqi WMD being used in a US city one day, and it seems to me that that reason provides more than enough justification for invasion. Even if, we invaded Iraq for an ignoble reason, which I do not believe is the case, then it only means that we did the right thing for the wrong reason.

Name calling is the lowest form of debate.

i would have called you a shallow bastard if i had been name calling.

You claimed the US has to support dictatorships because there the stakes are really high in the reall world.

So the most powerful country is afraid suddenly. They must undermine democracies and reinstate dictatorships because the stakes in the real world are high. Because democracies are a threat to democracy.

Sounds like a very cheap argument to me.

I certainly never said that democracies are a threat to democracy. I said that there is a lot at stake in the real world, and that sometimes our best move is to cooperate to some extent with dictatorships. I presume, then, that you would like to see us break off all relations and trade with China?

Anyway, my main point was that we did not invade Iraq primarily to topple a dictator. That was a fringe benefit. We invaded Iraq because we believed that Hussein was probably still pursuing WMD, and that he had not destroyed all of the WMD that he had once owned, and that these weapons might be used against the free world sometime in the not too distant future.

An please try to restrain the personal insults. They contribute nothing to the discussion and usually say more about the person making them than about the person receiving them.

I certainly never said that democracies are a threat to democracy. I said that there is a lot at stake in the real world, and that sometimes our best move is to cooperate to some extent with dictatorships. I presume, then, that you would like to see us break off all relations and trade with China?

If you had some moral backbone.


Anyway, my main point was that we did not invade Iraq primarily to topple a dictator. That was a fringe benefit. We invaded Iraq because we believed that Hussein was probably still pursuing WMD,

Invade china then.



An please try to restrain the personal insults. They contribute nothing to the discussion and usually say more about the person making them than about the person receiving them.

i didn't insult anyone. I just gave an example of an insult.

If you had some moral backbone.
Well, I am hardly in charge of these things, but I believe that while we must always encourage democracy, we cannot practically refuse always to deal with dictatorships. The world is too complex a place with too much at stake. We ought to encourage the dictators we deal with to move towards democracy, although this is unlikely to be very effective.

Invade china then.
You misunderstand my beliefs. I am not saying that no one may have WMD (although it would certainly be better if no one did). Most of the major powers pursue risk averse policies, and will probably not do anything really risky with their WMD. I am only saying that the worst of the worst dictators, who seem unstable and crazy enough to use their WMD should not be allowed to have them. A prime candidate for invasion would be a dictator who has developed WMD and seeks to acquire more, who has used them, who has tried to annex neighbors, and who has ties to terrorism.

Well, I am hardly in charge of these things, but I believe that while we must always encourage democracy, we cannot practically refuse always to deal with dictatorships. The world is too complex a place with too much at stake. We ought to encourage the dictators we deal with to move towards democracy, although this is unlikely to be very effective.

The problem is more that the US government actively kills off democracies and puts dictatorships in their place.


A prime candidate for invasion would be a dictator who has developed WMD and seeks to acquire more, who has used them, who has tried to annex neighbors, and who has ties to terrorism.

The US would fit this description.

Well, I am hardly in charge of these things, but I believe that while we must always encourage democracy, we cannot practically refuse always to deal with dictatorships. The world is too complex a place with too much at stake. We ought to encourage the dictators we deal with to move towards democracy, although this is unlikely to be very effective.

The problem is more that the US government actively kills off democracies and puts dictatorships in their place.
Sounds bad. When did we do that?


A prime candidate for invasion would be a dictator who has developed WMD and seeks to acquire more, who has used them, who has tried to annex neighbors, and who has ties to terrorism.

The US would fit this description.
Wrong.

1. We are a democratic republic, not a dictatorship.
2. We used WMD only at the initial invention of the bomb and never again in the 60 years since then.
3. We certainly do not promote or support terrorism, which I define as the intentional targetting of non-combatants as the primary intended target of an attack.
4. We haven't tried to annex our neighbors in a very long time.

America has TWICE the amount of debt then EVERY SINGLE country in the world. 2 times!!!!!!!!!!

it if it did have morals (lol) then America would be broke anyway, either way they are either morally or financially broke :D

Sounds bad. When did we do that?

Chile, Nicuragua, etc etc etc.




Wrong.

1. We are a democratic republic, not a dictatorship.
So?

2. We used WMD only at the initial invention of the bomb and never again in the 60 years since then.
You used it. Or would it be ok if Saddam used the nuke twice? Agent orange, Daisy cutters, carpet bombing


3. We certainly do not promote or support terrorism, which I define as the intentional targetting of non-combatants as the primary intended target of an attack.
You trained them. You trained the death squads in latin America interrogation techniques...sorry..I mean torture techniques.


4. We haven't tried to annex our neighbors in a very long time.
First you say you didn't, and now it is ok because you didn't in a long time.

The problem is more that the US government actively kills off democracies and puts dictatorships in their place.
Sounds bad. When did we do that?
Chile, Nicuragua, etc etc etc.
Please provide a citation to the fact that we replaced a democracy with a dictatorship in any of these cases.


1. We are a democratic republic, not a dictatorship.
So?
So, you implied that we were a dictatorship in this exchange:

A prime candidate for invasion would be a dictator who has developed WMD and seeks to acquire more, who has used them, who has tried to annex neighbors, and who has ties to terrorism.
The US would fit this description.

Therefore, you were wrong, since we are a democratic republic and not a dictatorship.


2. We used WMD only at the initial invention of the bomb and never again in the 60 years since then.
You used it. Or would it be ok if Saddam used the nuke twice? Agent orange, Daisy cutters, carpet bombing
The point is that neither the US nor most of the major powers presents a clear danger of using its WMD in a reckless way, which someone like Hussein did. No human can really be trusted with WMD, but a latter day Hitler like Hussein simply cannot be allowed to have them.


3. We certainly do not promote or support terrorism, which I define as the intentional targetting of non-combatants as the primary intended target of an attack.
You trained them. You trained the death squads in latin America interrogation techniques...sorry..I mean torture techniques.
I don't believe that the US supports the practice of intentionally targetting non-combatants for attack. If you believe otherwise, please post a citation. My primary point, however, is that Hussein is very friendly with terrorist groups to whom he might give WMD. These terrorist groups might use those WMD to kill huge numbers of Americans or allies. I don't think that there is much risk of the US giving its WMD to a terrorist group. This is one factor in the determination that Hussein was not someone who ought could be allowed to amass WMD.


4. We haven't tried to annex our neighbors in a very long time.
First you say you didn't, and now it is ok because you didn't in a long time.
Where did I say that America has never tried to annex its neighbors? This is a complete fabrication on your part. Lots of things happend in the 19th and prior centuries. I am discussing America in the present era. No, I'm not saying it's okay. I'm saying that since this was something that Saddam Hussein seemed inclined to do, it is another factor in the determination that he was not someone who could be allowed to amass WMD.

everyone should take a basic course on South American history to really learn how much the US interferes with other countries, especially for their own personal gain.

so what happened to afghanistan? arent they the reason this whole thing started? Have we jus suddenly stopped looking for bin ladden and moved on?

Please provide a citation to the fact that we replaced a democracy with a dictatorship in any of these cases.

A whole lot of nasty stuff is in 'Upside Down', by Eduardo Galeano. References are in the back of the book.

it is strange that you never heard of the US intervening with the democratic processes in other countries. We heard about them through our free press.




So, you implied that we were a dictatorship in this exchange:

Dictated by the few.




Therefore, you were wrong, since we are a democratic republic and not a dictatorship.

i would rather use the term oligarchy.



The point is that neither the US nor most of the major powers presents a clear danger of using its WMD in a reckless way, which someone like Hussein did. No human can really be trusted with WMD, but a latter day Hitler like Hussein simply cannot be allowed to have them.

He wasn't a hitler when he was massacring kurds or Iranians. He only became a hitler when he invaded kuwait. Before that he was a good buddy of yours.




I don't believe that the US supports the practice of intentionally targetting non-combatants for attack.

'On september 10, 1996, the US Defense Department also made a public confession. The story earned little or no coverage from the major news media. That day the highest military authorities acknowledged that they had made "a mistake": from 1982 to 1991, they had trained Latin American military officers in the arts of threat, extortion, torture, kidnapping, and murder at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia, and at the Southern Command in Panama.'

Same book as before, references are in the back.

one example of straight up triggerhappyness by americans is when they invaded a country in order to ensure they would be able to get access to the spice used to make coke, for fucks sake, you dont kill people over a soda!!!

The problem is more that the US government actively kills off democracies and puts dictatorships in their place.
Please provide a citation to the fact that we replaced a democracy with a dictatorship in any of these cases.
A whole lot of nasty stuff is in 'Upside Down', by Eduardo Galeano. References are in the back of the book.
it is strange that you never heard of the US intervening with the democratic processes in other countries. We heard about them through our free press.
Thank you for the citation. Would you mind please mentioning one country that was a democracy that we replaced with a dictatorship and roughly when this happened?


So, you implied that we were a dictatorship in this exchange:
Dictated by the few.
i would rather use the term oligarchy.
The fact that the wealthy may be able to affect elections does not make us a dictatorship. In fact, the people have the right to vote without property qualifications, etc. If you feel that this oligarchy has such a strong influence on American elections as to render the peoples' vote meaningless, please document that.


The point is that neither the US nor most of the major powers presents a clear danger of using its WMD in a reckless way, which someone like Hussein did. No human can really be trusted with WMD, but a latter day Hitler like Hussein simply cannot be allowed to have them.
He wasn't a hitler when he was massacring kurds or Iranians. He only became a hitler when he invaded kuwait. Before that he was a good buddy of yours.
I have no need to argue our involvement with Hussein in the past, because it is not relevant to my point that his character and history made Hussein someone who would have presented a serious danger to the West if manufacturing, stockpiling, and developing WMD. If an American city were to be obliterated by a nuke, or a man-made plague started in America, the only factor of importance would be that we could have prevented it and didn't.


I don't believe that the US supports the practice of intentionally targetting non-combatants for attack.
'On september 10, 1996, the US Defense Department also made a public confession. The story earned little or no coverage from the major news media. That day the highest military authorities acknowledged that they had made "a mistake": from 1982 to 1991, they had trained Latin American military officers in the arts of threat, extortion, torture, kidnapping, and murder at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia, and at the Southern Command in Panama.'

Same book as before, references are in the back.
Of the things mentioned in your quotation, some might or might not include attacking non-combatants. I will have to investigate whether it did, based on the information in your quotation, and I will. However my point is that Hussein had an association with terrorists to whom he might have given WMD, which might then have been used against us. The US is unlikely to give its WMD to terrorists.

You got what you wanted. Start reading.

And please continue to nitpick over details so that the big picture is lost.

And please continue to nitpick over details so that the big picture is lost.
If by that, you are suggesting that I will continue to question posts I consider false, illogical, or unsubstantiated, you are correct. It is actually very common in debate to require other people to back up their ideas. I take it, then, that you are unable to respond to my other points?

I quite agree with spuriousmonkey in this thread.
just read the book, ok?

I quite agree with spuriousmonkey in this thread.
just read the book, ok?
Then you are equally wrong. I will not read a book to research a debate on a message board, nor will I require you to read any of dozens of books I could easily mention. I will, however, research "The School of the Americas" carefully.

I provided references. You should back up your own shit now.


http://www.tomveatch.com/dictatorships.html

I provided references. You should back up your own shit now.


http://www.tomveatch.com/dictatorships.html
Once again, you are off topic. I asked you to cite a democracy that the US replaced with a dictatorship, which was your claim.

Which of my statements would you like me to back up?

The U.S. role in Chile has been an ill-kept secret for over 25 years. In 1972, columnist Jack Anderson blew the lid off the International Telephone and Telegraph Co.'s involvement in coup-plotting there. The dirt on ITT, which was heavily invested in Chile, included offers of $1 million for CIA efforts to prevent Dr. Salvador Allende, the leader of the Popular Unity (Socialist-Communist) coalition and the winner of Chile's 1970 presidential election, from ever taking office. In 1975, the U.S. Senate report Covert Action in Chile, 1963-1973 revealed extensive U.S. government intervention in Chilean politics for a decade prior to the military coup of September 11, 1973. Among the exposed schemes were CIA attempts to block the results of Chile's 1970 presidential election by hook (bribing representatives to vote against him in the required congressional runoff election) or by crook (fomenting a military coup), courses of action known, respectively, as "Track I" and "Track II." The U.S. government's attitude towards democracy in Chile is best summed up with Henry Kissinger's famous words: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people."
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/USA-Chile.htm

also
U.S. overthrows Chilean democracy (1963-1973) (http://www.purochile.org/indexen6.htm)

CHILE: 16,000 SECRET U.S. DOCUMENTS DECLASSIFIED
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20001113/htm)

Thank you. I will study this.

Venezuela - The US supported a coup against the democratically elected (in 1998) government of Venezuela under President Hugo Chavez, an outspoken anti-Imperialist and the most popular Venezuelan president in history.

here is a funny read http://americanpeace.eccmei.net/ i especial like the killing of enermy iraq cows... or was it sheeps ;)

The question is not whether the US uses its military. Our military could be used either to do great good or great harm in the world. The question is whether it uses it in just and justifiable causes. I will check your Venezuela reference.

just and justifiable causes
there's a big difference between these, since lately everything seems justifiable, you only have to have a good PR.
all great evildoers justified their cause and methods
and "just" itself is a very relative term. just to whom -> yourself? the enemy? the rest of the world? some of the rest of the world?

I was saying that the mere fact that the US uses its military is not bad. It can be bad or good depending on how it uses it.

Let me conclude.


Your government has been acting highly immoral for decades and decades being the ultimate cause behind genocides, oppression, misery etc. And your defense is that the US has a military and it is good that the US uses it.

Let me conclude.


Your government has been acting highly immoral for decades and decades being the ultimate cause behind genocides, oppression, misery etc. And your defense is that the US has a military and it is good that the US uses it.
I find it very telling that you distort my words in an attempt to make your point. The most cursory view of our exchange will reveal:

What I said: Our military could be used for good or for ill.
What you say I said: It is good that we use our military.

Honest people on the right side of an argument don't usually resort to blatant distortion of the other person's words in an effort to win.

As to your other charges, they are nothing more than name calling, since you habitually fail to provide evidence. As to evidence regarding the actions of the CIA in Latin America in the 70s, I am looking at it, but it certainly wouldn't validate your charges.

You try to worm yourself out of this by pointing out my arumentative flaws.

That doesn't really change the facts though.

Actually for most of the claims above against the USA, I am unimpressed. I wouldn't even bother to argue if they were factual claims. Why because when piss ants go against us or are so intolerable to our human senses that the world finds it must intervene, you fight fire with fire. Only you hope to succeed by building a much bigger fire.

The idea that we should fight assholes with one hand behind our back is ludricrus. The idea that we should allow assholes to attack us and do nothing is ludricrus.

Show me one case (since we stole the USA from the indians) that the USA has overthrown a viable popular government for ulterior purposes or have raided the treasurary, obscounded with their resources or annexed their land.

I guess you can't bother reading posts you don't like.

also
U.S. overthrows Chilean democracy (1963-1973) (http://www.purochile.org/indexen6.htm)

CHILE: 16,000 SECRET U.S. DOCUMENTS DECLASSIFIED
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20001113/htm)

Venezuela - The US supported a coup against the democratically elected (in 1998) government of Venezuela under President Hugo Chavez, an outspoken anti-Imperialist and the most popular Venezuelan president in history.

here is a funny read http://americanpeace.eccmei.net/ i especial like the killing of enermy iraq cows... or was it sheeps ;)

You try to worm yourself out of this by pointing out my arumentative flaws.

That doesn't really change the facts though.
Yes, I pointed out (1) that you misprepresented my statements on a very elementary level that would almost have to be deliberate, and that (2) you rarely state the facts, but habitually engage in unsubstantiated name calling.

nor does it change the fact that the USA overthrew a Chilean democracy just because the people had chosen a government not friendly to the USA.
same happens in Iraq now. What freedom is there for the people of Iraq if they can't choose the regime they want? They don't want democracy, they don't know democracy, they have no history of it.
But the USA doesn't allow them to form a religious state, because it's not in its interests. Although it might be in the interests of the people.
the USA really hates that other countries are not friendly to it, so it takes a big stick and beats friendliness into them

nor does it change the fact that the USA overthrew a Chilean democracy just because the people had chosen a government not friendly to the USA.
same happens in Iraq now. What freedom is there for the people of Iraq if they can't choose the regime they want? They don't want democracy, they don't know democracy, they have no history of it.
But the USA doesn't allow them to form a religious state, because it's not in its interests. Although it might be in the interests of the people.
the USA really hates that other countries are not friendly to it, so it takes a big stick and beats friendliness into them
I will look at your charge about Chile. However, Iraq did not have a democracy. It was ruled by brute force by a group of thugs who would torture and/or murder any citizen who dared to express a contrary opinion. We have set up plans for an election in Iraq, and the people may vote for whomever they please in the forthcoming and all future elections.

and the USA won't mind if they from a zealot religious state like Iran?

and the USA won't mind if they from a zealot religious state like Iran?
Please cite proof that we plan to permit only certain outcomes in their forthcoming election.

I was asking a hypothetical question. :bugeye:
I was not even suggesting the USA is going to do smthing about it, I was asking if it wouldn't mind.
Read good before start jumping.

In my opinion, when we say that they will be a democracy, we mean it. Obviously there are outcomes that we would like more than others, but it would be gravely immoral to interfere, and completely unacceptable. We do, of course, always have the option of trying to convince others to agree with our views, but only by expressing our views publicly, as everyone is doing here on these message boards.

So, it is ok then for them in democratic elections to vote for a party that makes it clear it is for making a religious Islam state?

We do, of course, always have the option of trying to convince others to agree with our views, but only by expressing our views publicly
Didn't happen so in Chile. And it wasn't that long ago.

So, it is ok then for them in democratic elections to vote for a party that makes it clear it is for making a religious Islam state?


Didn't happen so in Chile. And it wasn't that long ago.
I think I just answered this. We shouldn't interfere in their elections, but we have the right, as does anyone, to try to persuade people to agree with our world view. I can't imagine how I can answer the question more directly than that.

ok, so now we just have to wait and see what happens.
meanwhile give us your judgement on the morality of messing with Chile.

ok, so now we just have to wait and see what happens.
meanwhile give us your judgement on the morality of messing with Chile.
Yes, we should wait and see.

Re.: Chile.
I certainly will, but let me do the research first.

How long can you go before it's not persuasion any longer?

I think it's before giving money or in some other way unequally helping one side/party.

as do i, but the question was directed at Brandon9000

but we have the right, as does anyone, to try to persuade people to agree with our world view.

same happens in Iraq now. What freedom is there for the people of Iraq if they can't choose the regime they want?

And just what do you think the scheduled elections are for. They get to pick who they want running their country. Damn sure couldn't do that before.

And we do have a right to render governments hostile to us ineffective.

And we do have a right to render governments hostile to us ineffective.
and who else has the right? only the usa? does china has that right too, or russia? maybe israel has these rights? why not egypt?

and who else has the right? only the usa? does china has that right too, or russia? maybe israel has these rights? why not egypt?
This is pretty elementary stuff. Every peoples has a moral right to have a democratically elected government.

How long can you go before it's not persuasion any longer?
I have said exactly what I mean in very clear terms, and I will not answer endless questions asking me to clarify what's obvious, or prove that I really mean what I say. Any peoples anywhere should have the right to vote into office anyone they want. The US has the right, as do you or I personally, to express our viewpoints in an effort to persuade others to agree with us. We do not have the right to do anything to interfere with an election. This is very elementary stuff and I will not cooperate with your efforts to imply that I mean something other than what I have said.

you didn't read the inital statement by MacM ->

And we do have a right to render governments hostile to us ineffective.

does this then give you the right to invade any country that has no such regime, blow up everything and then mercifully allow the people to elect?

this has nothing to do with democracy
with same backing you could attack any non-parlamentar monarchy or any other non-democratically elected government in the world hiding behind the banner of democracy.

you like to mess too much with other countries inner affairs on which you have no international right.

you didn't read the inital statement by MacM ->


does this then give you the right to invade any country that has no such regime, blow up everything and then mercifully allow the people to elect?

this has nothing to do with democracy
with same backing you could attack any non-parlamentar monarchy or any other non-democratically elected government in the world hiding behind the banner of democracy.

you like to mess too much with other countries inner affairs on which you have no international right.
Thanks for telling me my opinions.

how democratic an election can be with occupation forces/army still in the country's territory?

Thanks for telling me my opinions.
that is no answer

how democratic an election can be with occupation forces/army still in the country's territory?
Very, very democratic.

After invading another country, one ought to schedule fair, democratic elections, but one also ought to stay long enough to insure the minimal functionality and security of the new government. We have chosen to hold the elections soon, rather than delay them until we leave. What is it about our occupation forces being there that you think would prevent the voters from voting the way they want to?

The countries that we occupied after World War 2 became democracies, e.g. Japan and West Germany. The countries that the former Soviet Union occupied were in essence annexed. How much time, I wonder, did you spend protesting the Soviet practice of denying of democracy both to their own people and every other place they had the power to?

If you have some evidence that we are planning to force the Afghanistan or Iraq elections to come out our way, then cite it and stop all of this unsubstantiated inuendo.

and who else has the right? only the usa? does china has that right too, or russia? maybe israel has these rights? why not egypt?

Every civilized nation has a right to defend itself. The point you seem to miss is that nations not being threatened do not have a right to threaten other nations and attempt to develope weapons of mass distruction to carry out their ill advised ambitions.

The point you seem to miss is that nations not being threatened do not have a right to threaten other nations and attempt to develope weapons of mass distruction
so if Latvia chose to develop its own biochemical weapons program , the usa would have the right to invade us even though we have a democratically elected parlament?

you didn't read the inital statement by MacM ->


does this then give you the right to invade any country that has no such regime, blow up everything and then mercifully allow the people to elect?

Your ilk toward democracy is showing. What does giving the people a choice have to do with being merciful? Being merciful has been giving up a 1,000 american lives freeing these people from decades of tyrant killers and rapists.

this has nothing to do with democracy
with same backing you could attack any non-parlamentar monarchy or any other non-democratically elected government in the world hiding behind the banner of democracy.

Could? How about talking about what we do not what we could do. Granted we could become tyrants and impose our rule over many nations. We haven't so talk reality not nonsense.

you like to mess too much with other countries inner affairs on which you have no international right.

I suppose you think we should just sit back and let other countries harbor and encourage terroists and allow them to attack us without response. Ain't going to happen fella.

I suppose you think we should just sit back and let other countries harbor and encourage terroists and allow them to attack us without response. Ain't going to happen fella.
a pity :D

Yes, I pointed out (1) that you misprepresented my statements on a very elementary level that would almost have to be deliberate, and that (2) you rarely state the facts, but habitually engage in unsubstantiated name calling.

you are just playing it on the man now. You basically say that my arguments are wrong. You don't back up why. You call that a discussion.

I gave references. You gave nothing but contempt for publsihed facts and fancy your own opinion more. Give us some references then that show anything you are saying. What is this? A reflection of how the US treats the world. There are rules for us, but you can brake them, because you think you are right. Give it to us then. it shouldn't be so difficult to discredit for instance the claim that the US wasn't behind the coup in chile if it isn't true.

It was ruled by brute force by a group of thugs who would torture and/or murder any citizen who dared to express a contrary opinion.

I hope you can back up this statement (I know you can't).

read some of the stuff about Chile by isabel allende. Isn't very high brow stuff. Easy to get. You will get a personal and upclose view on the matter.

so if Latvia chose to develop its own biochemical weapons program , the usa would have the right to invade us even though we have a democratically elected parlament?

Only if you consider yourselves to fit the description of a piss ant making threats to us or your neighbors. Civilized nations have a right to build and use WMD in defense of the piss ants that want to impose their beliefs on others.

a pity :D

Perhaps: :D

You basically say that my arguments are wrong. You don't back up why.
Sure I do, as when I accused you of distorting what I said and showed how:

What I said: Our military could be used for good or for ill.
What you say I said: It is good that we use our military.

If you want a citation to prove anything else I said, just tell me which specific statement of mine, you'd like evidence for, and I will comply at once. I will not do 20 simultaneously, though. Give me one or two of my statrements that you'd like evidence for at a time, and I will provide it for you.

Give us some references then that show anything you are saying. What is this? A reflection of how the US treats the world. There are rules for us, but you can brake them, because you think you are right.
But I'm perfectly happy to. See my above comment. Just tell me a couple of my statements you'd like citations to prove. My only requirement is that you refer to specific statements of mine, and not more than a few at once, but within those limits, I will absolutely comply. I think that amongst your numerous proofs of your statements, you forgot to prove this one:

....being the ultimate cause behind genocides....

Give it to us then. it shouldn't be so difficult to discredit for instance the claim that the US wasn't behind the coup in chile if it isn't true.
I never claimed that. Once Chile was mentioned, I said very clearly that I'd look into it. This is another one of your blatant distortions of my words.

It was ruled by brute force by a group of thugs who would torture and/or murder any citizen who dared to express a contrary opinion.

I hope you can back up this statement (I know you can't).
Okay, if you will tell me that you are seriously claiming that Hussein was not a thug and that he didn't torture or murder people who dissented, I will be incredulous, but I will go and cite a few examples.


read some of the stuff about Chile by isabel allende. Isn't very high brow stuff. Easy to get. You will get a personal and upclose view on the matter.
Okay.

Since when the hell have we been attacking Pakistan?!?!?! lol, read the morning paper, it tends to give you a slight edge as to keep you from sounding like a complete idiot, but on a truthfully constructive side, yes, war is stupid, but i'm one of those who thinks God might have a plan. Think about it, if we go through our culture making weapons, and a thousand years from now we have much better weapons, and aliens try to take over our world (which, haha, might go the other way around, but hopefully we'd have some sence knocked into our heads), we'd have toe armaments to defend ourselves with! Now if we were peace loving peoples all the time, and OH MY GOD THE ALIENS ARE COMMING!!!, we'd be gone!!! I think war is just nature's way of keeping us on our toes just in case we run into aliens just as destructive and roudy as us, which might happen, we don't know!

although war has in the past been a nautral way to keep our population at a nominal level, with our advance into the space age we will be able to house near unlimited populations in space colonies and develop crops that are able to grow on uninhabited planets like mars, also space farms arent too far off

although war has in the past been a nautral way to keep our population at a nominal level, with our advance into the space age we will be able to house near unlimited populations in space colonies and develop crops that are able to grow on uninhabited planets like mars, also space farms arent too far off

Yea but are we going to also generate that culture of aliens that for need of resources in deep space that come back here and take over and inslave us to provide for there every need? :D

no, its the americans that will do that to the aliens most likely

Okay, if you will tell me that you are seriously claiming that Hussein was not a thug and that he didn't torture or murder people who dissented, I will be incredulous, but I will go and cite a few examples.


we were talking about chile.

weed_eater_guy:

The U.S. indirectly attacks Pakistan by providing arms and support to it's enemies. I'm on my way out so I can't look up everything now but it's definately there.

Brandon:

Read the book Spurious suggested. It's biased, but the factual bits are undeniable.