Thread: Vp Debate!

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by reject_wolf

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by reject_wolf

Okay, I understand your WWII analogy, and I totally agree with it Bigdog, except for one part, Iraq was no where near the threat that Iran or North Korea appear to be. So why start with Iraq, when Nazi Germany and 2003 Iraq do not cast any sort of resemblance ?

YES my turn!!!

Reason for that is simply, chronology. At the time Iraq was deemed to be the preeminent threat. At the time, Iran was not that powerful and was not seeking nuclear technology. It was only in the past year or so that it occurred. Out of the problems in Iraq, Iran became a powerhouse because it was the last stop for terrorists before Iraq. As for North Korea. Again, chronology. North Korea did not start making waves until 2005 when they announced they had nuclear weapons and the missiles needed for delivery

As for the Nazi Germany and Iraq 2003 connection, Germany was not seen as a threat until they unleashed their army. Europe acted on appeasement which we all know is beyond stupid. By that point Germany was too strong. Again it has to do with pussy footing leaders not willing to do what is necessary. We learned our lesson. We took out Saddam before we had to resort to appeasement.

Nazi Germany was a whole different story than Iraq though. Germany was (and still is) a country with a history scientists and innovators. Many of them made innovations in fields like calculus (Leibniz), engineering (Daimler), and physics (Einstein, Planck.) This history of innovation contrasts with Iraq's non-existent innovation. While they still have scientists and such, they lack the brains the Germans always seem to have on hand. I really couldn't see a country becoming a powerhouse by buying old Russian tanks and planes. Seems like Iraq was just he easiest way to get in the M.E., and I would agree with them if that is why they are there.

You are correct that Iraq doesn't have the intellectual capitol that Germany has. But what would stop Iraq from importing knowledge? Hell that's what the US did up and through the late 1800's. That does not make them any less powerful. They just imported the technology. Hell the reason Pakistan became nuclear is because one of their scientists came here, studied, went back headed up their research program got them nukes. Then he sold his expertise to the highest bidder. Yes Pakistan is bit of a joke in the minds of the west. But the fact that they are nuclear makes them a major player. My point is, you nip the potential problem (another state with WMD's) in the bud and things in the long run are much better.

I would say Iraq's economy would prevent that. Germany's intellect got them through tough economic times. Developing nuclear arms is NOT cheap and easy. So why don't the United States attack North Korea or Iran who admitted there claims in the public, and have many more resources than Iraq?

hawgballs......your argument here is about 5 years out of date. where have you been? Saying the weapon inspectors on the ground didn't find anything.......seriously man, what planet do you live on?

If history, to you, means monday morning quarterbacking, with no chronology or relevance.......then you can't be debated with. If we knew sadaam was full of shit, totally bluffing, and simply being the egotistical prick ass we have found out he is....then perhaps the war was not necessary. Are you willing to accept that same bluff from North Korea? Or how about from Iran?

and what are the consequences of being wrong for both sides?

In the current situation, we remove a dick from power, free his people, set up a government, stabilize their infrastructure, and win some hearts and minds. Are we finished doing that yet.....no. Did we do it perfectly? irrelevant. That's like criticizing the allies sectoring and seperation of Germany following the 2nd world war, leading to some of the major standoffs and points of contention in the Cold War, and dividing Europe. AT THE TIME...it was the right thing to do. And GIVEN TIME, it has turned out to be good that it was done. Same goes for the brainwashing and history re-writing we had to do for Japan to become what it is today.

So, TODAY, the monday morning quarterbacks can complain about how the war started, and what's going on now...but they don't apply that same monday morning criticism to themselves when....for example......somalia is left to rot, implodes on itself, dissolves any form of government, and is now holding the Gulf of Aden hostage through piracy. Or for leaving Sudan and Darfur to themselves, assuming they're just going to get along.

That blood is on your 'war is bad, peace is good' hands. those people die because you're too worried about looking stupid than helping people. too busy trying to sound smart, rather than be right.

Iraq is a better place, and will be a better country than it ever had a chance to be within the next 10 years. A bastion of free thought and religion in the middle east. A place where FINALLY, it can be shown that middle easterners CAN show discipline, stop killing eachother, and be civilized. something that is not being shown in Syria, lebanon, palestine, israel, jordan, yemen, Saudia Arabia, Iran.....hell, even Turkey.

So get some perspective, and start taking some fault for your ideals. Hands-off, "let god sort em out" mentalities like yours are the same kinds of bullshit that causes things like WWII. Let things spiral out of control, and then blame everyone else but yourself for being caught up in the whirl wind.

Even now....you're going to ignore everything I've said up here, and bring up some "where are the WMD's" bullshit rhetoric, when I've already explained that it's not about the WMD's. It's about doing what's right. Legally.
************************************************** *****
Five years old, and still very valid ands relevant. Did they find any WMD's? No, they didn't. What they found were INERT artie rounds. That surpassed thier shelf life. The "chemicals" that were in the artie rounds were deemed less dangerous than table salt. Invading a soveriegn country, expending $10 billion a month and a loss of 4000+ lives, is a little too much to pay for a couple of inert artie rounds.

We had Iraq on lock-down for years. They were not capable of making nuclear missiles. They weren't close. No Iraq was not a necessary war. Comparing Iraq and North Korea is like comparing apples and oranges. Iraq never had the capability of neither making nuclear arms nor the capability of delivering them to the US. Whereas, we knew of North Korea's capabilities. Iran, would not be as powerful as it is today, if we did not invade Iraq.

In the current situation, we remove a dick from power, free his people, set up a government, stabilize their infrastructure, and win some hearts and minds. Are we finished doing that yet.....no. Did we do it perfectly? irrelevant.

Yeah, we removed a dick from power, the same dick that kept Iran in check. The same dick that never proved to be an imminent threat to the US. The type of job that we do in Iraq is irrelevent? How do you propose we win over the hearts and minds, if we we do a shitty job? How do we do that, when a majority of the population does not want us thier? How can you do that when there are possibly hundreds of thousands of civilian death? What we are doing is helping AlQeada recruit and fill thier ranks. Your comparison of WW2 Germany and Iraq is a far far stretch of logic.

Iraq is NOT a better place than it used to be. And I higthly doubt that it will be much better in 10. A bastion of what? We replaced a somewhat secular Sunni leader, and replaced him with a Shiite government closely aligned with Shiite rulers of Iran. I have a simple question, have you ever been to the middle east? You are really showing your ignorance with this statement......

it can be shown that middle easterners CAN show discipline, stop killing eachother, and be civilized. something that is not being shown in Syria, lebanon, palestine, israel, jordan, yemen, Saudia Arabia, Iran.....hell, even Turkey.

I have been to 4 of these countries, and I would hardly describe them as undisciplined. But I digress........

So get some perspective, start taking some fault from YOUR ideals. Maybe get off of your fat ass, leave Texas for a lil bit, do some traveling. Get out of the country for a while, and see how we Americans are truly seen. Maybe get real life experience and some knowledge of those "undisciplined" countries. In short, inform yourself, that way you won't come off as an wholly ignorant ugly american.

But you are right about one thing though, I am going to completely ignore the drivel that you spewed in your last post. And moving the goal posts by saying "it's not about the WMD's" is bullshit. That was THE reason we were told as to why we were going to invade, it wasn't correct then and it certainly isn't correct now.

I'm done

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

That's like criticizing the allies sectoring and seperation of Germany following the 2nd world war, leading to some of the major standoffs and points of contention in the Cold War, and dividing Europe. AT THE TIME...it was the right thing to do. And GIVEN TIME, it has turned out to be good that it was done.

Actually it was the wrong thing to do. We, U.S., England and it's allies, should have told Russia it could go back to it's borders and have a nice life.

So that we could start a war with Russia then and there? That would have been a bad choice. We *might* have been able to win a war with Russia at that point, but it was iffy, and it would have been huge and bloody after an already massive war.

It wasn't the right or wrong thing to do. It was the only thing to do. We couldn't tell Russia to go to hell, and we couldn't give them Germany because we knew what they'd do to it. So we had to compromise.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by reject_wolf

Okay, I understand your WWII analogy, and I totally agree with it Bigdog, except for one part, Iraq was no where near the threat that Iran or North Korea appear to be. So why start with Iraq, when Nazi Germany and 2003 Iraq do not cast any sort of resemblance ?

that's a pretty big assumption. And you get that based on......what you see on the news?

if the UNSC is going to pass resolutions, bring up sanctions, blockade your trade, force inspections, and declare you in material breach, then you are a dangerous nation. Does it matter if you kill 10 million people, or 1 million? or even 100,000? Because you see it in terms like that is the reason we aren't giving a shit about what's going on in Africa. Or is it because they aren't white, wealthy, business loving jews and europeans? Is that why they matter less (and in their minds, that is the answer, and a source of HATE and empowerment for the terrorists to feed on).

You can't pick and choose who is bad and who is not. In the beginning days of appeasementalism and weakness in addressing the Nazi threat in Europe, I'm sure there were many...if not a majority of voices like yours, saying "well, germany now isn't what it was in WWI....there's no reason to start a war with germany now".

You assume everything is going to be fine, so you do nothing. And that, in any situation....life....business....politics....war.. ...is stupid.

1. What is my information based on? The fact that Iraq has been beaten in there own country easily by the US led coalition force on two occasions. A country that is a large threat should be able to put up a better fight then that. Not saying that Iraq should not have been invaded, but they sure didn't look like our countries worst fear.

2. Number 1 answers the first half of the paragraph, the second half makes little sense, unless it was not directed towards me?

3. The Great Depression hit, and it was just after the Great War, I don't think countries had the ability to fight or wanted to fight. They were more or less hoping it would all just go away after the horrors of World War I. Obviously if they would have acted earlier the war would have been a much smaller scale then it ended up being.

4. I don't recall saying "do nothing" anywhere. I said there were bigger fish to fry if they could only pick one other country