Thread: americans/Brits using depleted uranum in bombs and shells

Originally Posted by Alric

So basicly its ok to decide how small countries should be ran. Instead of allowing them to work out their own problems we should kill off the leadership and place our own puppets in power to control and make sure they have freedom?

Yes. The people are not going to overthrow a government on their own when that government tortures and rapes people in front of their family members for merely being suspected of being oppositional. The need for overthrow in such situations is even stronger when the government is a threat to world security.

Alric, that is exactly how I feel about the US.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes. The people are not going to overthrow a government on their own when that government tortures and rapes people in front of their family members for merely being suspected of being oppositional. The need for overthrow in such situations is even stronger when the government is a threat to world security.

Oh really? There have been cases like this where the PEOPLE of a country of that type of government have overthrown there government. Why was it so amazingly hard? There was this country called the USA that supplied that government with its weapons, there soldiers training, and even tried to secretly destroy that government. When Reagen couldn't leagely supply them any more, this thing called the Iran-contra affair happened. So the PEOPLE DID SUCCEDE! We tried our hardest to make sure they didn't, because we would lose MONEY!!! We didn't give a shit about Kuwait, we were losing MONEY because of Sadam. Its all about MONEY!!!

Edit- oh, and about Hitler, Japan ATTACKED US! Of course we got into the war!

I knew you would agree to it. I also knew you would totally ignore the part about making it a puppet government, because your so brainwashed you actually believe we do this stuff for freedom. No we do it so we can control their government.

Its just like Iraq. We said we freed them yet we control their government. Why didn't we allow them to choice their own government? Because if we allowed them to split iraq into 3 countries it would cause chaos. The only problem is that is what they want, and they have chaos right now anyway.

We overthrew their government, we put in our own puppets to control them, and we call it freedom. What a sick joke.

Originally Posted by Alric

I knew you would agree to it. I also knew you would totally ignore the part about making it a puppet government, because your so brainwashed you actually believe we do this stuff for freedom. No we do it so we can control their government.

Its just like Iraq. We said we freed them yet we control their government. Why didn't we allow them to choice their own government? Because if we allowed them to split iraq into 3 countries it would cause chaos. The only problem is that is what they want, and they have chaos right now anyway.

We overthrew their government, we put in our own puppets to control them, and we call it freedom. What a sick joke.

Try to show enough decency to not initiate personal attacks just because you are losing the argument. If you act civil, I will too. If you don't, I will just report you because I agreed to not go off with hostility even in the face of people like you. If I were brainwashed, I would not have arguments like I am making. I would be chanting slogans and acting unresponsive. Also, go to the Religion forum and read all about how brainwashed I am. Your personal attack was weak, unfounded, and false.

Now let's get into your actual arguments. Requiring a new government that we set up after much turmoil and expenditure is justifiable and necessary, and it is not proof that we only had one objective. However, that objective does result in our other objectives, such as the loss of threat and the spreading of democracy and prosperity over time.

Iraq is in a transition phase. Not having control of their government during the transition phase would be foolish and catastrophic. Our ultimate goal is to bring them to a point where they no longer need us. I don't believe they are there yet. Do you? What do you think would happen if we suddenly and completely abandoned them right this second? You are vastly generalizing when you say that chaos is what they want. Their future generations will be very glad that we got rid of the chaos. Will you?

Again... transition phase. It is fallacious to leap to the conclusion that it is representative of the entire future of Iraq.

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Alric, that is exactly how I feel about the US.

Oh really? There have been cases like this where the PEOPLE of a country of that type of government have overthrown there government. Why was it so amazingly hard? There was this country called the USA that supplied that government with its weapons, there soldiers training, and even tried to secretly destroy that government. When Reagen couldn't leagely supply them any more, this thing called the Iran-contra affair happened. So the PEOPLE DID SUCCEDE! We tried our hardest to make sure they didn't, because we would lose MONEY!!! We didn't give a shit about Kuwait, we were losing MONEY because of Sadam. Its all about MONEY!!!

Edit- oh, and about Hitler, Japan ATTACKED US! Of course we got into the war!

The fact that healthy economy is a consideration is not proof that healthy economy is the only consideration. Please explain why you assume it is such proof.

You used a lot of pronouns in your post, so I am not sure what people under the conditions I described freed themselves. Who are they? Also, what would have been your prediction on the year the people of Iraq would have overthrown the Hussein regime on their own, in the face of the conditions I described?

How does the fact that Japan attacked us prove that we were not a necessary part of the stopping of Nazi world conquest?

So then you admit that we set up the government and are controling it? I mean you just said that. Is there even an arguement here? They are free as long as they go along with what we say? What kind of freedom is that?

How can a country be free if they are not allowed to act as themself? Your basicly talking about a military occupation of a country and how it is acceptable as long as they eventually become free.

Transition phase, what a joke. Either they are free or they are not. Clearly they are not and so I have to ask the question, what the heck are we doing there?

As for the brainwashed thing, that wasn't a personal attack on you but on your idea. The idea that you can some how give freedom to people by occupying their country and building up their government. Its a brainwashed idea, not because I disagree with it but because its totally flawed down to the core.

How can someone be free in any sense of the word if your are controling them?

Transition phase.

Yet, they did just elect a prime minister. I don't think that was happening when Hussein was torturing the genitals of innocent old ladies.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The fact that healthy economy is a consideration is not proof that healthy economy is the only consideration. Please explain why you assume it is such proof.

You used a lot of pronouns in your post, so I am not sure what people under the conditions I described freed themselves. Who are they? Also, what would have been your prediction on the year the people of Iraq would have overthrown the Hussein regime on their own, in the face of the conditions I described?

How does the fact that Japan attacked us prove that we were not a necessary part of the stopping of Nazi world conquest?

Nicaragua was the country that I was talking about. Look up the contras, and you will find they were a group of revolutionaries who were trying to destroy the new government of Naragua, after they fought a civil war with a harsh dictator supported by the US.

Also, Japan attacking us changes everything. When they attacked us, it meant they were going to try to take over the US. So of course we declared war! Germany also declared war on us I believe, not the US declaring war on them.

My point about the economy is that it doesn't matter if people are being killed, as long as we get money off of it then we don't care. Our government is not about freeing people, its about making money.

why was everyone getting so mad at me? I never said it was OK for a President to police the world, but it is an implied job.

Its all about MONEY? I think the wars cost more than the money we gain. Plus, i dont think bush is having trouble putting grub on the table.

I am an semi-isolationist. I just wish every country could become like the US, it would be SO awesome.

However, forcing freedom on people is, in fact, the opposite of freedom. Let these dictators kill their own people.

Btw, why do so many people here hate America? I have seen a lot of misconceptions and lies.

Personally I love america, which is why I feel compelled to speak up when the government does something stupid or wrong. And still no, policing the world is not an implied job. If a president thinks that it is, its because he a moron.

There is nothing to backup your statement other than the fact the last few presidents were idiots. I mean I could also say its an implied job for the president to expand his power but no thats not a job, its just what they do because their jerks. And I could say its an implied job of congress to find new ways to waste money but no they are just asses. Thats not a real job they have.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

why was everyone getting so mad at me? I never said it was OK for a President to police the world, but it is an implied job.

Its all about MONEY? I think the wars cost more than the money we gain. Plus, i dont think bush is having trouble putting grub on the table.

I am an semi-isolationist. I just wish every country could become like the US, it would be SO awesome.

However, forcing freedom on people is, in fact, the opposite of freedom. Let these dictators kill their own people.

Btw, why do so many people here hate America? I have seen a lot of misconceptions and lies.

The government loses money, not Bush. But who gains money? Well, after we bombed Afganistan, the oil company Dick Cheney is a part of built a pipeline through the country they were no alowed to make before. This made a lot of money. I bet were doing the same thing in Iraq.

Also, people are greedy. Bush and co. don't need more money, but they want it. Almost every president is guilty of trying to make money off of the law, even George Washington, and Lincoln let his cabinet members except bribes.

Also, America is a great country, with great people, and we have great potential to help the world. Currently, we are only contributing to the problem.

Originally Posted by Alric

Basicly my point is that we are screwing them over, and we are screwing them over hard. Their country is in chaos, we are dumping radioactive waste all over the country in the form of depleted uranum. People are getting shot and blown up all over, people dying from cancer. Our own troops are suffering, coming back sick and injured. We are bankrupting our country.

And for what? The country is worse off now than under saddam. They are no more free now than then. And its been proven he didn't have any WMD and there was no link to terrorists.

I mean its all well and good to say saddam is scum. No one is going to argue over that. But what is your point? We can't kill every scumbag in the world nor should we try.

Again... Iraq is in a transition phase. That is why the insurgent terrorists are doing what you are describing and forcing us to fight back. Yet, the people of Iraq just elected a prime minister. They have a democracy. The fact that the insurgent terrorists are acting out against democracy does not mean that the freedom is not there, and most of the insurgency is in Baghdad. I said more than that Saddam is scum. I talked about how his government was run and how there was no end in sight. Now Iraq has a very good chance at a good future. Under the Hussein regime, they did not have any chance. It has not been proven that there were no WMD's, just that no active ones have been found. They did have the programs, and five other governments, the U.N., our CIA, our Senate, and the Clinton Administration all insisted that he did have WMD's, and our acting on that was very understandable. The Hussein regime did have meetings with representatives of Al Qaeda and provide sanctuary to Al Qaeda members, and they also funded Hamas and offered incentives to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. What we were dealing with was serious business. The Hussein regime was not just some regular Joe scumbag regime.

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Nicaragua was the country that I was talking about. Look up the contras, and you will find they were a group of revolutionaries who were trying to destroy the new government of Naragua, after they fought a civil war with a harsh dictator supported by the US.

Also, Japan attacking us changes everything. When they attacked us, it meant they were going to try to take over the US. So of course we declared war! Germany also declared war on us I believe, not the US declaring war on them.

My point about the economy is that it doesn't matter if people are being killed, as long as we get money off of it then we don't care. Our government is not about freeing people, its about making money.

You assume way too much, and you didn't answer my questions. I don't see the relevance of what you are saying about Japan and Germany. We played a major role in saving the world's ass. What you are saying does not contradict that. War is a huge move, and there is a lot to consider before engaging in it. Being attacked is often the straw that breaks the camel's back. What about it?

"Formed alliance with" and "made deal with" are not synonymous with "fully supported". Think about how we allied with our supreme enemy (U.S.S.R.) in World War II. Would you throw the simple label of "supported" on that? We considered going to war with them as soon as World War II ended. Also, please tell me about the wonderful utopia of freedom the Contras were trying to form in the midst of our cold war considerations. Then tell me about how the Contras were in a more difficult sitation than the one I described regarding Iraq. Then please answer the questions I asked you in the other post, particularly the one about what your prediction would have been on when the people of Iraq would have somehow overthrown the Hussein regime without our help despite the circumstances I described.

Again... Iraq is in a transition phase. That is why the insurgent terrorists are doing what you are describing and forcing us to fight back. Yet, the people of Iraq just elected a prime minister. They have a democracy. The fact that the insurgent terrorists are acting out against democracy does not mean that the freedom is not there

you know its easy to call a person who shoots at an american soldier, a terroist . As for IED's. what would you do if you had limited capablities and teh enemy had more advanced weaponry and seemingly unending resources? You would plant bombs ofcourse. It just makes sense and calling people who use methods so as not to be killed terrorists dont work. Although those who kill other iraqi's in sectarian violence and otherwise, i would call "terrorist"

And to call Iraq a democracy wouldnt work so good i dont think. I dont think an occupied country should be called a "democracy" in any sense. There are just to many issues involving the occupying country(ies) to outright say it is a democracy.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You assume way too much, and you didn't answer my questions. I don't see the relevance of what you are saying about Japan and Germany. We played a major role in saving the world's ass. What you are saying does not contradict that. War is a huge move, and there is a lot to consider before engaging in it. Being attacked is often the straw that breaks the camel's back. What about it?

"Formed alliance with" and "made deal with" are not synonymous with "fully supported". Think about how we allied with our supreme enemy (U.S.S.R.) in World War II. Would you throw the simple label of "supported" on that? We considered going to war with them as soon as World War II ended. Also, please tell me about the wonderful utopia of freedom the Contras were trying to form in the midst of our cold war considerations. Then tell me about how the Contras were in a more difficult sitation than the one I described regarding Iraq. Then please answer the questions I asked you in the other post, particularly the one about what your prediction would have been on when the people of Iraq would have somehow overthrown the Hussein regime without our help despite the circumstances I described.

What I meant about Japan is that they attacked us, in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, and other countries did not attack us first, we attacked them first, and only in Iraq there was a good reason to attack them, but that doesn't change the fact that there were better ways to handle it. Iraq had a very weak military, so bombing them was pointless and just killed lots of civilians.

Nicaragua had an oppresive regime that was supported by the USA, because we were making a profit. The people of that country were fed up with it, and huge movements to place to change that and war broke out. US business interest was threatened, so we came to the aid of that government. The US supplied them with weapons, gave their soldiers training, and did all that we could to stop the revolution. In the end, the government failed, and the people started to make their own government. The people were happy with it and were trying to make it better.

The US didn't give up yet though. The CIA helped form the Contras, who were mainly made up of the former Nicaraguan National Gaurd (they carried out the killings and such). There was virtually no support in Nicaragua, so their base was in a neighboring country. The US gave them aid to take out the new country. But, congress passed a law stopping the president from aiding the Contras. So, the president needed a new way to get them the money. Our government then sold weapons to Iran, who would sell them, and then give Nicaragua part of the profit, and they would release the hostages.

This is all true, and personally, it makes me sick that we did this. It would be like some other super power helping Britain stop the American Revolution.

About how long it would take the people of Iraq to overthrow Saddam, I have no idea. But, they would eventually do it and when it is the people uniting together to overthrow him, then perhaps they would have a plan of how to run their new government before it was over. When the Iraqies defeated their own government by themselves like Nicaragua, then they may have been able to establish their own government.

Perhaps if a revolution took place, a new form of government could be invented. Maybe even one that was truly fair, and impossible to corrupt. America, despite what we would like to think, doesn't have that type of government. But, if we force others to have a government like our own, we are stopping humanity to progress. We need to be open to new ideas.

I don't know how long it would take Iraq to have overthrown Saddam, but they would have done it. No tyrant has ever held power for a long period of time. King Taurquin of Rome was defeated when the people revolted and overthrew him, despite the fact Eturia was helping Taurquin. They overthrew him and invented a new form of government, one that brought them into a golden age, and for a century the people were free. But then it became corrupt, and in the end it didn't work and the people were oppresed. So a new one was formed. This cycle will probably repeat for a long time, and it will not end with America's form of democracy.