| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
idonojacs
Joined: 07 Jun 2007
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Wrote:
..........[/quote]
You've lost me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
[
But you are implying humanitarian reasons in this sentence..
| Quote: |
| if Saddam wasn't the great killer he was the US would not have been so concerned about him becoming powerful |
|
Yes if he wasnt' so cruel then the US would have not be "As" concerned about him being powerful.
The key word is AS.
Which would the US want less all things considered equal ?
A regular leader with power and oil?
A ruthless mass killer with power and oil?
If Kuwait (with the weapons they got from aliens) had invaded Iraq in 1990 , would the US have been JUST AS concerned as if Iraq had invaded Kuwait?
If Oman had invaded Kuwait in 1990 would the US have been JUST AS concerned as if Saddam had invaded Kuwait?
If Kuwait had invaded Saudi Arabia in 1990 would the US have been JUST AS concerned as when Saddam invaded Kuwait?
If Egypt had invaded Libya and taken their oil would the US have been as concerned?
Or if Morroco had invaded Algeria and taken their oil would the US have been just as concerned?
IF Uganda had invaded Angola and taken its oil would the US have been just as concerned?
Thanks for your time. |
I don't see the point. All this confirms is that they did not go into the war for humanitarian reasons. What are you trying to say?
Btw, if I post a rhetorical question would the US be concerned? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo, poor little dear, gets a little mixed up. Because he was telling me that I shouldn't deny the grounds of the war on humanitarian reasons. But it is now the justification for the war. My problem being as mentioned by JMO, is that the US has not intervened in many wars which have by far worse humanitarian disasters, and they didn't intervene.
And if BUsh had declared this as his reason to go to war, he's have a slightly more legitimate reason for the war in Iraq. He lost all credibility when he mentioned WMDs, then the 'Kurdish Genocide', then Al Qaeda links then Regime change and now humanitarian grounds. This is FIFTH on the list. People knew he was lying after the second and lost interest, but hey, he attacked anyway. Rest is history.
I oppose the war on humanitarian reasons because the US don't seem to be doing any better, under Saddam, they had water and electricity. Lack of foresight or deliberate? Many countries resisted the war because they knew the US had a timetable to keep to and no post war plan. This to me is worse especially for such a 'great' advanced nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dome Vans"]
| Quote: |
| Joo, poor little dear, gets a little mixed up. Because he was telling me that I shouldn't deny the grounds of the war on humanitarian reasons. But it is now the justification for the war. My problem being as mentioned by JMO, is that the US has not intervened in many wars which have by far worse humanitarian disasters, and they didn't intervene. |
Just don't object on humanitarian grounds
| Quote: |
| And if BUsh had declared this as his reason to go to war, he's have a slightly more legitimate reason for the war in Iraq. He lost all credibility when he mentioned WMDs, then the 'Kurdish Genocide', then Al Qaeda links then Regime change and now humanitarian grounds. This is FIFTH on the list. People knew he was lying after the second and lost interest, but hey, he attacked anyway. Rest is history. |
You don't think the Kurdish genocide happened?
| Quote: |
| I oppose the war on humanitarian reasons because the US don't seem to be doing any better, under Saddam, they had water and electricity. Lack of foresight or deliberate? Many countries resisted the war because they knew the US had a timetable to keep to and no post war plan. This to me is worse especially for such a 'great' advanced nation. |
so you say you oppose the war on humanitarin grounds. See we have an example.
Anyone who opposes the war on humanitarian grouds is either disingenous or ignorant which one are you?
Lets see Saddam won't gas the Kurds and more.
He would have killed many more if his sons weren't contained,
Notice that the Kurds and the Shias are glad the US took down Saddam.
He wont threaten Kuwait any more
He wont threaten Israel any more
Also had Saddam not been contained then he would have many more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="JMO"][
| Quote: |
| I don't see the point. All this confirms is that they did not go into the war for humanitarian reasons. What are you trying to say |
?
Why was the US concerned with containing Saddam in particular? Why don't you tell us.
IF Saddam hadn't been the killer he was then they US would have been less concerned about containing him and their might not have even been a war. That is what I am trying to say.
His evil record showed that it would be too dangerous to let him have power - oil nuclear , weapons whatever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
He wont threaten Kuwait any more
He wont threaten Israel any more
Also had Saddam not been contained then he would have many more. |
What business is this of America? Is America allowed to be the only country that is allowed to threaten others?
| Quote: |
| Just don't object on humanitarian grounds |
I objected to the war before it started. It's not as if now I'm going to say it's justified, because it is not being fought for the original reasons stated. That doesn't make me ignorant. It makes me consistent.
| Quote: |
| IF Saddam hadn't been the killer he was then they US would have been less concerned about containing him and their might not have even been a war. That is what I am trying to say. |
Nonsense. America took him out because they could. The justifications for the war were false and a smokescreen. Plenty more killers in the world who are still IN power. Where's the knight in shining armour for those countries?
| Quote: |
| His evil record showed that it would be too dangerous to let him have power - oil nuclear , weapons whatever. |
SO dangerous in fact that he was found in a small hole in the ground. Man that's dangerous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| idonojacs wrote: |
Wrote:
.......... |
You've lost me.[/quote]
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Dome Vans"][
| Quote: |
| What business is this of America? Is America allowed to be the only country that is allowed to threaten others? |
why ought the US allow Saddam to become much more powerful at the expense of the US by taking Kuwait ? He didn't have a right to Kuwait and the US didn't have to let him have it.
Futhermore Bathism is an evil cause . There is no moral equivalance between the US governmetn and Saddam's government.
The US might not be especially good, but Saddams government was especially evil. And everything it stood for was sinister and illegitimate.
| Quote: |
| I objected to the war before it started. It's not as if now I'm going to say it's justified, because it is not being fought for the original reasons stated. That doesn't make me ignorant. It makes me consistent |
On those reasons your argument fails.
The US could not contain Saddam forever. A free Saddam would kill off the Kurds and probably others.
Thanks
| Quote: |
| Nonsense. America took him out because they could. The justifications for the war were false and a smokescreen. Plenty more killers in the world who are still IN power. Where's the knight in shining armour for those countries? |
If Saddam wasn't the Killer then they US would not have been so concerned about him being pwoerful.
Saddam was worse than most other mass killers.
and he was (potentially ) more dangerous than other mass kilers.
He had the chance to become more powerful with Kuwaiti oil under his control .
A powerful evil dictator is more dangerous than a regular evil dictator. No?
| Quote: |
| SO dangerous in fact that he was found in a small hole in the ground. Man that's dangerous. |
If Iraq wasnt' contained Iraq would have been much more powerful than it was
Remember at the time of the first gulf war Iraqs nuclear program was more advanced than North Koreas was at the time.
Iraq with nuclear weapons would be far more powerful than North Korea with nuclear weapons because oil , especailly Kuwaiti oil (if Saddam ever got a hold of it ) would have given Saddam the abilty to fund a powerful miltary .
Iraq is surronded by weak rich nations. Like Kuwait and the UAE
North Korea is surrounded by powerful nations Russia , China Japan and even South Korea. Powerful nations without a lot of natural recources .
North Korea at worst takes South Korea , but they gain nothing . Since South Korean industry is destroyed , North Korea is still poor and can go no further.
Iraq with Kuwaiti oil is a powerful nation which would have the funds to become even more powerful and go on from there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]
| JMO wrote: |
[
| Quote: |
| I don't see the point. All this confirms is that they did not go into the war for humanitarian reasons. What are you trying to say |
?
Why was the US concerned with containing Saddam in particular? Why don't you tell us.
IF Saddam hadn't been the killer he was then they US would have been less concerned about containing him and their might not have even been a war. That is what I am trying to say.
His evil record showed that it would be too dangerous to let him have power - oil nuclear , weapons whatever. |
Oil. thats the reason. Not humanitarian so you seem to be agreeing with me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Oil. thats the reason. Not humanitarian so you seem to be agreeing with me. |
Are you saying the US invaded Iraq to steal Iraq's oil?
Why don't you spell out why the US i took down Saddam since you are here now.
Again if Saddam wasn't the mass killer he was the US would not have been so concerned about containing him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
No to gain control of an important country in the most oil rich area of the world. There might have been a bit of a grudge passed down from father to son also.
Why should I do it step by step. You havn't even answered the question. Are you claiming that the US entered the war for humanitarian reasons? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="JMO"]
| Quote: |
| No to gain control of an important country in the most oil rich area of the world. There might have been a bit of a grudge passed down from father to son also. |
I am sorry why would the US want to control important country in the most oil rich area of the world? For what purpose?
| Quote: |
Why should I do it step by step. You havn't even answered the question. Are you claiming that the US entered the war for humanitarian reasons? |
Step by Step?
I don't think the US entered the war for humanitarian reasons - though it was a rationalization for the war in the minds of the US planners. At the same time were Saddam not the killer he was the US would not have been so concerned about containing him , and there might not even have been a war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I don't think the US entered the war for humanitarian reasons - though it was a rationalization for the war in the minds of the US planners. At the same time were Saddam not the killer he was the US would not have been so concerned about containing him , and there might not even have been a war. |
this is double speak? You are saying they didn;t and they did at the same time.
| Quote: |
| I don't think the US entered the war for humanitarian reasons - though it was a rationalization for the war in the minds of the US planners |
Translation: It wasn't a reason for entering but it would be a fall back excuse?
I agree. I'm not sure what we are arguing about as you seem to agree with me. America didn;t enter for humanitarian reasons. Until you make a statement such as "America entered the war for humanitarian reasons' I'll assume you have my back on this one, Joo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="JMO"]
| Quote: |
| I don't think the US entered the war for humanitarian reasons - though it was a rationalization for the war in the minds of the US planners. At the same time were Saddam not the killer he was the US would not have been so concerned about containing him , and there might not even have been a war. |
| Quote: |
this is double speak? You are saying they didn;t and they did at the same time.
|
an accurate description of what went on.
| Quote: |
Translation: It wasn't a reason for entering but it would be a fall back excuse? |
No they probalby wouldn't have done it if Saddam wasn't the great killer he was.
| Quote: |
I agree. I'm not sure what we are arguing about as you seem to agree with me. America didn;t enter for humanitarian reasons. Until you make a statement such as "America entered the war for humanitarian reasons' I'll assume you have my back on this one, Joo.[ |
There is a difference. Saddam's record convinced the US that it would be very bad for him to be powerful. If here were not what he was the US would not have been so determined to contain him.
If he was just an annoyance and not the killer he was the US probably would not have gone to war. The US figured that at least as innocents would be saved by taking down Saddam as invading Iraq would kill . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
S. Korea has a fall guy.
Kim Man-bok director the National Intelligence service.
It looks like he will be taking the fall for the $$$$ for hostages scandal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
