But does that mean you don't help the innocent family of the dead man just because the cop didn't make the proper judgment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Printable View
But does that mean you don't help the innocent family of the dead man just because the cop didn't make the proper judgment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Off course you help em.
What you dont however is helping them out if the end result will be that the cop who insulted you when you first had doubts about the gun will gain from it.
The cop has a history of being abusive and is known to have shot first and witouth warning at unarmed offenders and bystanders so the cop has lost all credibility from the community he claims to be serving and aaaargh fuck this cop shit.
Okay, so we're nowhere near perfect. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
But we won't gain anything from the help. We look humiliated and the helpers look all pristine and dignified.
One hopes that democracy is a good solution. Unfortunately, democratic societies are at the mercy of the masses, and a badly educated/easily influenced public can really screw things up. South America provides some good examples of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Democracy isn't a magic remedy for societies' problems; it's something that requires a solid foundation in order to work and getting there is half the battle.
Urm have you seen US demands?Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
They want help yes but witouth giving away ANY control.
Basicaly they just want Germany, France, Sweden etcetera to send peace keeping soldiers, pay part of the bill and risk their lives UNDER FULL U.S. CONTROL.
Oh and Sttone, Turkey has a democracy as sound as the Israeli one.
Iran had an excellent democracy that worked for the people until the CIA helped overthrow it and put a Christian dictator in its place.
What democracies have existed there have been destroyed by the west.
Okay, yes the current republican government is acting like a bunch of crypto-fascists who don't seem to make a public relations move without consulting Joseph Goebbel's papers first (well, I guess I have to admit the guy was good at what he did). And yes, Jimmy is way too trusting of them (exactly how well hidden are those WMDs supposed to be, man? And if your government really believes they're there, why did they start pulling out inspectors months ago?).
But lay off guys, Jimmy & Stone are decent, reasonable guys who do make some good points here. Getting personal is just weak. .
Hey, you're back! The problem is, the abstaining countries were cajoled, threatened, insulted and worst of all publicly lied to in US attempts to garner support for the war, and now they should spend money to clean up a mess they opposed creating so that the US can have a nice, safe oil colony? Ceding power is the best way to show that US intentions really were completely honourable, and not a power grab. Honestly, if I were a leader, I'd be telling Dubya the same thing - don't make my people pay for your bad planning, when they'll have nothing to show for it and you'll get rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Why is the word guerilla now synonymous with terrorist? Not that I'm on their side or anything, but they're fighting a legitimate war. Bombing mosques and civilian government buildings is poor form yes, but if you haven't noticed, unfortunately the US started doing that first.Quote:
We've shifted our battle against terrorism from US shores to Iraq. If a terrorist wants to attack Americans, where is he going to get the most benefit for his cost - the US or Iraq? Iraq. Our soldiers are now in a position to bear the brunt of terrorism's evils, which IS a benefit - it's their job.
I read Time and Newsweek on occasion, and I have a friend who's always got CNN on. And if those are any indication of the coverage in the states, you're doing much worse than your media is leading you to believe. Coverage up here makes things look much worse than those do.Quote:
I believe we're doing better in Iraq than the media's lead me to believe.
But that could be biased, so just examine the facts - large areas of the country are still not under US control, wherever Saddam is they either can't find or get control of, there is currently a 30 000 man partisan Iraqi army formed (the official US controlled Iraqi army is 5000 men), US soldiers continue to be picked off with little anti-guerilla headway being made and it's costing your government $1 billion a week to keep men there. None of those things are good, whatever your political stripe.
I don't see what Iraq has to do with terrorism, aside from "well, they don't like us so they could" guesswork, but I agree with everything else you say. The problem is that they did not, do not, and may not ever want a US led democracy. I think for it to work, your country has to step very far back out of the spotlight, to the point where their populace can believe they have self-determination. You know, like we do in Canada ;)Quote:
We've taken a forward position in the fight against terrorism, and I still believe we can give the Iraqis the ability to create a democracy in the Middle East, an event which will have a resoundingly positive effect on the area's future.
Heh, well, hey, we're all entitled to whatever we want to say. I was just a bit surprised. You and Stone (who is nice to see return) always seemed to be the ... well, really can't think of a good comparison, but let's say Eisenhower and Rommel; only, I'm not laying names to either of you. I'll let you bicker. They both fought with some respect for the other guy, if I remember my history correctly. I probably didn't, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Anyway, the both of you being good, responsible, reasonable people in debate. I am no longer surprised ;)
Here's the dealio, I agree with you completely here. I don't know if we'll find them in Iraq (I may have implied this, though), but I'm very sure we're going to find them.Quote:
As for the second point, unfortunately, this is where I disagree. Albeit, the disagreement is limited, but there. I don't believe we'll find any weapons in Iraq. Either they were never there (unlikely) or they were shipped somewhere else a long time ago. And if we do find them, I bought one of those gag legs you stick in your car door around Halloween so I can shove the foot in my mouth. ;)
Well, the thing is, I most likely implied that I thought weapons were now hidden in Iraq, whereas I meant weapons hidden period. I personally think they've shipped out to the ... I forget the name, a valley quite popular with terroriosts and their ilk. In any case, I should have watched my post a little more closely, as I clearly stated something I hadn't intended to.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
Cause the first thing you do right before you get invaded is hide all the weapons in another country.
I like what StriderKyo had to say. Pretty nice form. It would be nice to see the U.S. give up some power. That would be a big step in showing the world that the U.S. does have good intentions.
BTW, I fully support regime change in Iran. Then maybe we can get that guy with the fruit cart out of the middle of the street.
SC
Am I Ike? My real name is Mike, so that would be totally sweet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
See, I don't care if someone is a liberal arguing with a conservative or vice-versa: any argument looks better if you remain level-headed and don't resort to name-calling. You could still be completely wrong, but at least the people proving you wrong will be civil about it. :)Quote:
Anyway, the both of you being good, responsible, reasonable people in debate. I am no longer surprised ;)