Israel pounds Gaza

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Quiet Chris

The US built up Saddam. And thousands of members of the military died in a pointless war to get rid of him.

I don't think it was pointless to get rid of him, but I don't know if we should of been the ones doing it(especially the way it was sold to us.) I totally disagreed with us staying there, and trying to put bibs on people acting like savages. Now that was indeed a pointless waste of American lives. That's what happens when a guy is stupid enough to think everybody wants freedom. They don't. They want hardcore religion and/or hardcore ruthless leaders. That's why they can't wait for us to get the hell out. We don't satisfy their needs.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Quiet Chris

Great. He can stay on his little ship while my brother fights the wars. My brother is technically part of the navy too, but he is part of the navy that fights the wars, they are called Marines.

Well, QC, you wear your brothers courage to fight very well! Unfortunately, it's sagging a bit since you apparently aren't the man your brother is.
btw.....are you, like, 14yrs old or what?

[Bigsmc]

My head hurts.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

My head hurts.

I've done enough

[AeWingnut]

Just curious - am I the only one that knows about the weapons of mass destruction they found in Iraq.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

LOL....You all thought I was nuts?

[GPK]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

LOL....You all thought I was nuts?

Early nom for 2009 post of the year

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Well, QC, you wear your brothers courage to fight very well! Unfortunately, it's sagging a bit since you apparently aren't the man your brother is.
btw.....are you, like, 14yrs old or what?

don't forget, he is in rotc. oh, wait...i shouldn't criticize, having only been on a little ship in the navy-that counts for nothing...

[miraja2]

Okay, I'm going to take an unususal step here and actually defend Quiet Chris.....a little bit. I certainly don't agree with a lot of the stuff the guy has had to say in this thread, but I think the idea of isolationism has at least some merit, and I don't exactly understand why so many Americans today - particularly Conservatives - scoff at the idea. Does isolationism mean that the U.S. should have no state department, or defense department? Of course not, but in the decades after WWII the United States has generally operated under the assumption that "my enemy's enemy is always my friend," and that the U.S. is always best served by intervening. How has that worked out? While it could be argued either way, there are certainly a LOT of negatives that have come out of this approach for both Americans and people around the world. How much did the U.S. involvement in Guatemala, Turkey, Greece, Afghanistan, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, etc really have to do with "winning" the war against "Communism", or helping any American citizens? By most accounts, not much. How many people - both U.S. soldiers and civilians of those countries - died from those actions? By all accounts, a lot.

Before they were taken over by the neo-cons, the Republican Party used to be (and people like Ron Paul still are) a bastion of isolationism. Is the basic idea that the U.S. should NOT be the policemen of the world that insane? I don't think so.
Personally I'm not an isolationist or an old-school conservative, but perhaps people that are those things simply deserve a better spokesperson than Quiet Chris. I do think strict isolationism is a reasonable foreign policy that makes cogent points which thoughtful and intelligent people could believe in.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Chris could be Pat Buchanon's lil nephew or something. I just object to him considering Israelis and Arabs to be about the same. You're right though, the Isolationism is not that unique. The reasons he used (in describing it's benefits) are a bit unusual. If you look at the hi tech methods the Israelis have used in intelligence, then, I think it's odd to say they haven't evolved. If we had evolved a little more, then we may have listened to them when they told us(a month before it happened) that terrorists were planning that thing in 2001. Did you ever think it may be a situation of us needing them, too? For all we know, we haven't had any new attacks, because Israel has helped us stop a lot of those attacks. I think we get good value from the friendship. We may not see the value exposed in front of the public though. I think it's a good friendship. I don't doubt we are helping the right people. Not in this particular conflict. They appreciate the help. Do the Iraqis? I see a big difference.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Okay, I'm going to take an unususal step here and actually defend Quiet Chris.....a little bit. I certainly don't agree with a lot of the stuff the guy has had to say in this thread, but I think the idea of isolationism has at least some merit, and I don't exactly understand why so many Americans today - particularly Conservatives - scoff at the idea. Does isolationism mean that the U.S. should have no state department, or defense department? Of course not, but in the decades after WWII the United States has generally operated under the assumption that "my enemy's enemy is always my friend," and that the U.S. is always best served by intervening. How has that worked out? While it could be argued either way, there are certainly a LOT of negatives that have come out of this approach for both Americans and people around the world. How much did the U.S. involvement in Guatemala, Turkey, Greece, Afghanistan, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, etc really have to do with "winning" the war against "Communism", or helping any American citizens? By most accounts, not much. How many people - both U.S. soldiers and civilians of those countries - died from those actions? By all accounts, a lot.

Before they were taken over by the neo-cons, the Republican Party used to be (and people like Ron Paul still are) a bastion of isolationism. Is the basic idea that the U.S. should NOT be the policemen of the world that insane? I don't think so.
Personally I'm not an isolationist or an old-school conservative, but perhaps people that are those things simply deserve a better spokesperson than Quiet Chris. I do think strict isolationism is a reasonable foreign policy that makes cogent points which thoughtful and intelligent people could believe in.

altho it's true that we don't always need to intervene, and there are times we have not, chris' contention that we shouldn't be involved in middle eastern goings on would be incorrect. his argument that it has always been a certain way over there, and that they are whackos who only care about religion is overly simplistic. ignoring the realities of the situation is a mistake.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

altho it's true that we don't always need to intervene, and there are times we have not, chris' contention that we shouldn't be involved in middle eastern goings on would be incorrect. his argument that it has always been a certain way over there, and that they are whackos who only care about religion is overly simplistic. ignoring the realities of the situation is a mistake.

I certainly agree with you on all of these highlighted points.
However, I think the argument that the U.S. has involved itself too much in the region over the last thirty years might actually be quite correct. I see no reason why the United States needed to involve itself in the Iraq-Iran dispute, or then invade Iraq, or back - with military force - nearly every single move of the Saudi government....etc.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I certainly agree with you on all of these highlighted points.
However, I think the argument that the U.S. has involved itself too much in the region over the last thirty years might actually be quite correct. I see no reason why the United States needed to involve itself in the Iraq-Iran dispute, or then invade Iraq, or back - with military force - nearly every single move of the Saudi government....etc.

We could of avoided that. We couldn't stay away from them damn bushes. We hadn't evolved enough.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

Just curious - am I the only one that knows about the weapons of mass destruction they found in Iraq.

No, you're not alone!

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

No, you're not alone!

Of course he isn't alone! A lot of people have heard about how the military discovered a bunch of WMDs in the lair of the Easter Bunny. It seems that terroist bastard was stockpiling the things and was planning a major assault on the Tooth Fairy.
Luckily that plan was thwarted.

What in the f.uck is going on in here?

[hi_im_god]

ae's going to pop on here eventually to talk about the "stockpile of chemical weapons" that were "discovered".

what he's talking about are degraded 1980's era chemical weapons (same one's dropped on the kurd's) which after their short shelf life had expired, and were no longer usuable got buried in a dump by saddams military.

so the world is now safe from unusable chemical weapons thanks to our intervention.

this story had a shelf life of about 5 minutes on conservative talk radio before it dissapeared in a chorus of laughter and dropped jaws. Even the bush admin had enough sense avoid suggesting this was justification for the invasion.

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

ae's going to pop on here eventually to talk about the "stockpile of chemical weapons" that were "discovered".

what he's talking about are degraded 1980's era chemical weapons (same one's dropped on the kurd's) which after their short shelf life had expired, and were no longer usuable got buried in a dump by saddams military.

so the world is now safe from unusable chemical weapons thanks to our intervention.

this story had a shelf life of about 5 minutes on conservative talk radio before it dissapeared in a chorus of laughter and dropped jaws. Even the bush admin had enough sense avoid suggesting this was justification for the invasion.

no, I am talking about Yellow Cake

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

no, I am talking about Yellow Cake

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

no, I am talking about Yellow Cake

I'm no expert, but does that really qualify as a WMD? Isn't that just some kind of enriched uranium that could be used for a whole host of things? Granted one of those things could be a nuclear weapon, but has there ever been any evidence that they possessed the technolgy to weaponize the stuff?