Guest Crazy Dan Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 I hope we don't go to war, just because I am a pacifist by nature, and I don't want to see our boys engage in military campaign that could end in bloodshed on both sides. The South Koreans who would also caught in the cross fire. Also, my guess is that the North Koreans are much better trained and will not run at first sight leading to a longer war. I do think that the US will eventually overtake the North Koreans, but it will be at the cost of many lives. Being that the North Korean military is at about 2 million soldiers, all trained since childhood. This is an army that has been bred to kill. North Korea will not be such a push over.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 As I've said about 10,000 times, we should NOT go into Iran. If we let their democracy grow for a few years, the people will overthrow the Ayatollah themselves with the young, progressive movement. If it doesn't happen soon and the human rights violations continue, that's different... but right now, they're on the right track and don't need our military to ravage their country with bombs.
Guest Downhome Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 North Korea will not be such a push over. I do not understand how anyone could even think that.
Guest cobainwasmurdered Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 But is it our job to feed the world? Save it from poverty? So many people have heaped that role on America. No it is not. That is not the job of any Nation. Only a Orginization such as the League of Nations or the U.N. has anything approaching that right. Because no matter how much it's said that you're doing it to help those people that's not completely true. America, and to be honest every other nation does not do anything with out a little Quid Pro Quo. We free you...you give us free acsess to your oil...
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 The moment we go into North Korea, we all know they'll trample over the South. That is completely and utterly unacceptable. Thus, even though it's not right and even borderline hypocritical of our administration, diplomacy is the correct tool with North Korea.
Guest Downhome Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 As I've said about 10,000 times, we should NOT go into Iran. If we let their democracy grow for a few years, the people will overthrow the Ayatollah themselves with the young, progressive movement. If it doesn't happen soon and the human rights violations continue, that's different... but right now, they're on the right track and don't need our military to ravage their country with bombs. I agree 100%, thus my reasoning for saying that if we DO go after anyone, we deal with Syria first. I must ask this though... ...if we did go after Syria, would Iran just sit on the sidelines? Would the rest of the middle east? They see what we did to Afghanistan, now Iraq, but what will the thinking be over there if we do so once again?
Guest MrRant Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 And you Canadians give us your beer... and we won't make you into the 51st state.
Guest Krotchenjudge Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Beer is nasty dude. I only drink wine spritzers. Have the Canadians send us some of their lesbian strippers and we won't conquer them.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Canadia isn't the 51st state??? But uh, Iran has actually been rather pro-USA in the Iraq conflict... if we go into Syria, I'm not so sure they'd really care all that much. That being said, it'd certainly be provoking them a bit.
Guest cobainwasmurdered Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 And you Canadians give us your beer... and we won't make you into the 51st state. Most of you think we are anyway
Guest Anglesault Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 But is it our job to feed the world? Save it from poverty? So many people have heaped that role on America. Do our soldiers die when we send money and aid to other countries? Very true. But I still strongly, strongly disagree with the mentality that it is America's job to feed and give aid to the world, but not remove the dictators and oppressors that may be causing those problems to begin with.
Guest Powerplay Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 But is it our job to feed the world? Save it from poverty? So many people have heaped that role on America. No it is not. That is not the job of any Nation. Only a Orginization such as the League of Nations or the U.N. has anything approaching that right. Because no matter how much it's said that you're doing it to help those people that's not completely true. America, and to be honest every other nation does not do anything with out a little Quid Pro Quo. We free you...you give us free acsess to your oil... Well, the problem is that since the UN does nothing about anything the U.S. goes ahead and acts on the problem instead. Oh, please, give us a lesson in ethics. I'm sure that the UN is a perfect example of outstanding morals and the delegates there NEVER do anything because of their own national interests *coughbullshitcough*. And since you say "We free you, you give us oil" is not morally correct, do you support the French/Russian standpoint of "We allow you to stay in power, you give us oil" more? We freed them, and we ask if they could give us an oil contract. It helps both countries (Gets Iraq a massive contract which will bring tons of money in for them, lowers oil prices in the US that will help the economy get back on track), so why not?
Guest MrRant Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Its wrong because we get something in return.
Guest Anglesault Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 But is it our job to feed the world? Save it from poverty? So many people have heaped that role on America. No it is not. That is not the job of any Nation. Only a Orginization such as the League of Nations or the U.N. has anything approaching that right. Because no matter how much it's said that you're doing it to help those people that's not completely true. America, and to be honest every other nation does not do anything with out a little Quid Pro Quo. We free you...you give us free acsess to your oil... Well, the problem is that since the UN does nothing about anything the U.S. goes ahead and acts on the problem instead. Oh, please, give us a lesson in ethics. I'm sure that the UN is a perfect example of outstanding morals and the delegates there NEVER do anything because of their own national interests *coughbullshitcough*. And since you say "We free you, you give us oil" is not morally correct, do you support the French/Russian standpoint of "We allow you to stay in power, you give us oil" more? We freed them, and we ask if they could give us an oil contract. It helps both countries (Gets Iraq a massive contract which will bring tons of money in for them, lowers oil prices in the US that will help the economy get back on track), so why not? Because it's America, and America is evil. We should free, them, and give them all the money in the oil contract, but refuse to actually accept the oil.
Guest cobainwasmurdered Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 But is it our job to feed the world? Save it from poverty? So many people have heaped that role on America. No it is not. That is not the job of any Nation. Only a Orginization such as the League of Nations or the U.N. has anything approaching that right. Because no matter how much it's said that you're doing it to help those people that's not completely true. America, and to be honest every other nation does not do anything with out a little Quid Pro Quo. We free you...you give us free acsess to your oil... Well, the problem is that since the UN does nothing about anything the U.S. goes ahead and acts on the problem instead. Oh, please, give us a lesson in ethics. I'm sure that the UN is a perfect example of outstanding morals and the delegates there NEVER do anything because of their own national interests *coughbullshitcough*. And since you say "We free you, you give us oil" is not morally correct, do you support the French/Russian standpoint of "We allow you to stay in power, you give us oil" more? We freed them, and we ask if they could give us an oil contract. It helps both countries (Gets Iraq a massive contract which will bring tons of money in for them, lowers oil prices in the US that will help the economy get back on track), so why not? I said a organization "Such as" the U'n. NOT theUN. I am just as aware of the flaws of the UN as anyone else. And don't even try to sound hard done by because America has manipluated the UN just as many times as any other country. No it isn't right that France and Germany did that, and I never said it was. Also, Of COURSE the Iraqi's will give you a contract. They'll give you whatever you want because they HAVE to. If America doesn't support the government that takes over it will collapse so they'll agree to anything.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Perhaps so. However, a lot of it can be contributed to the fact that we can afford *most* of the aid and it's somewhat like giving money to charity. Actually, it's a lot like giving money to charity. On the other hand, overthrowing a dictator, while it will be beneficial in the long run, still ravages the country we have to invade. Giving money is a lot easier to justify, really... as long as the people are getting the money. Edit - Wow, that took a long time to write.
Guest Anglesault Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Perhaps so. However, a lot of it can be contributed to the fact that we can afford *most* of the aid and it's somewhat like giving money to charity. Actually, it's a lot like giving money to charity. On the other hand, overthrowing a dictator, while it will be beneficial in the long run, still ravages the country we have to invade. Giving money is a lot easier to justify, really... as long as the people are getting the money. Now, hypothetically, I'm a vicious dictator starving the people of Anglesaultia. America gives food and money to the Anglesaultians, but does not remove me. Where is, at the very least, all of that money going? (Hint: Me)
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Sure, but name a case where we've sent money and aid to people and, after it's intercepted, we don't send in troops to make sure it gets to the citizens.
Guest Anglesault Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 And who's to say a troop isn't (somehow) going to get killed doing that? Which kind of brings us back to square one with not wanting soldiers to die while liberating a country.
Guest Powerplay Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Sure, but name a case where we've sent money and aid to people and, after it's intercepted, we don't send in troops to make sure it gets to the citizens. Well, arguably, we are still sending in troops. If we have to take that sort of action, why should we allow that government to survive? I mean, we could send aid to Iraq, but it'd only end up in Saddam Hussein's hands. He wouldn't allow troops into the country and if he did he'd probably attack them anyways. Then we'd just end up with something like Somalia. These things are like weeds. You don't go after the leaves, you go after the roots. Otherwise the problems themselves will still be there.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 True. However, most of the cases in which we send aid are, in fact, victims of natural diasasters and whatnot. We do send aid to countries whose dictators are evil n'stuff, but not even remotely as much as the other case. Our aid DOES do a lot of good in most cases.
Guest Powerplay Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Oh yes, agreed. But in the cases with dictators and such, it will inevitably escalate into a full military action if anything meaningful is to be achieved. Aid doesn't work to dictators, it's just a fact.
Guest Some Guy Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 "had to" in what way? The Government literally forced them into the armed forces. I know quite a few of my friends who were forced into the military by their parents. But is it our job to feed the world? Save it from poverty? So many people have heaped that role on America. Do our soldiers die when we send money and aid to other countries? Forced by theirs parents. OK, then it's time for these kis to grow a pair and stand up to their parents if they don't want to go. But is it our job to feed the world? Save it from poverty? So many people have heaped that role on America. Do our soldiers die when we send money and aid to other countries? Uh... yeah they do. We go into a countyr give them money, food, and protection and protection and our soldiers dead bodies get dragged through the street by the people we're trying to help.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Uh... yeah they do. We go into a countyr give them money, food, and protection and protection and our soldiers dead bodies get dragged through the street by the people we're trying to help. Sorry, must've missed that one where we sent money to help earthquake victims and they dragged our soldiers' bodies through the streets. Fucking loon.
Guest Some Guy Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Somalia. We gave millions in relief, medicine, and food. We had our boys in there to protect them and get rid of a tyrant and the people who we were helping dragged our soldiers dead bodies through the streets. Fucking asshole.
Guest Some Guy Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 US money, US food, US Medicine, US soldiers.
Guest SP-1 Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 I'm not quite sure how pointing out that it was affiliated with the UN makes a point. I'm not saying that in an assholish way, I just don't see how it counters.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Because it wasn't like we initiated the conflict, the UN did. We got shat on because of it, but it's not as if we're the ones who went to liberate their country, it was a UN mission to deliver aid. Also, SG, I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. Are you going through and trying to dispute all of my posts for the sake of disputing them, or do you have a real point in trying to say that we shouldn't send aid to these countries? If so, why should we go through and kill their dictators?
Guest Krotchenjudge Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Fucking asshole. Some guy is my friend
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now