Do you think this is true? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

RubySparkles -> Do you think this is true? (6/5/2008 4:53:04 PM)

Is it likely that the reason so many countries got off their behinds to attack Iraq, but are not doing the same over Zimbabwe is that Iraq was seen to be a threat to us but Zimbabwe is not. Terrible as things are in Zimbabwe as long as they're only hurting themselves, the world will tut tut but not start firing up the fighter jets?

Also could it be true that the rest of the world is hoping that Zimbabwe might be turned around politically like South Africa?



Jenny-Fair -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/6/2008 9:38:22 AM)

quote:

Is it likely that the reason so many countries got off their behinds to attack Iraq, but are not doing the same over Zimbabwe is that Iraq was seen to be a threat to us but Zimbabwe is not.

I don't know about other countries, but that is pretty much how it is supposed to work here in the US. We aren't the world police--we can't go around country to country, choose a side, and sacrifice our soldiers for it. Our military is here to protect OUR country.



SonInMe1 -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/6/2008 7:26:06 PM)

Did Zimbabwe have a cease fire agreement with us they violated?

It just seems today truth has been totally lost in our country. Its just emotional claptrap.



RubySparkles -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/8/2008 6:14:40 PM)

Thank you Jenni but I think you've missed the question. The question is why Iraq and not Zimbabwe?

I don't get Soninme1's reply.



FurGodWurLivin -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/8/2008 8:07:37 PM)

(A) Zimbabwe isn't seeking the means to destroy the rest of the world. Nor are they claiming they want to.

(B) Zimbabwe does not have a history of aggression with the West, so we pay less attention to it.

(C) Everybody (including the intelligence community) believed that Iraq either had an active nuclear weapons program or was well on their way to one.

(D) Zimbabwe is not threatening world security.

(E) We cannot interfere every time we think something is amiss in another country. Iran is a more pressing issue anyway.

Adam



Kat_D -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/8/2008 8:13:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RubySparkles

Thank you Jenni but I think you've missed the question. The question is why Iraq and not Zimbabwe?

She told you why...we went to Iraq to protect our country. That is what our military does. Zimbabwe is no threat to our country.



Jenny-Fair -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/8/2008 9:10:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kat_D

quote:

ORIGINAL: RubySparkles

Thank you Jenni but I think you've missed the question. The question is why Iraq and not Zimbabwe?

She told you why...we went to Iraq to protect our country. That is what our military does. Zimbabwe is no threat to our country.

Precisely. I understood and answered the question. It isn't the job of the US military to do anything in Zimbabwe.



mikeman2 -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/8/2008 10:04:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RubySparkles

Is it likely that the reason so many countries got off their behinds to attack Iraq, but are not doing the same over Zimbabwe is that Iraq was seen to be a threat to us but Zimbabwe is not. Terrible as things are in Zimbabwe as long as they're only hurting themselves, the world will tut tut but not start firing up the fighter jets?

Also could it be true that the rest of the world is hoping that Zimbabwe might be turned around politically like South Africa?

Zimbabwe needs to find an oil reserve of some kind and the US will be there as of yesterday!! Until then, its a big old yaaaawn.



RubySparkles -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/9/2008 4:39:09 PM)

Ok I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend anybody.



galadriel2 -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/9/2008 6:01:29 PM)

Its because of the oil. That is why we went into Iraq. Our government didn't want the oil supply threatened. Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam Hussayn, as far as I can tell.

God bless all abundantly,
Galadriel2



Kat_D -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/10/2008 1:40:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: galadriel2

Its because of the oil. That is why we went into Iraq. Our government didn't want the oil supply threatened. Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam Hussayn, as far as I can tell.


Oh, please![sm=aside.gif]



SonInMe1 -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/10/2008 7:45:30 AM)

quote:

Its because of the oil. That is why we went into Iraq.


Saddam broke the Gulf Wat cease fire agreement. When you break a cease fire agreement, a state of war exists. Essentially Saddam declared war with the usa by breaking the agreement and Bush had the guts to do something about it.

In doing so he sent a message to those who found comfort in Saddam's thumbing his nose at us for twelve years. We will not take this bolonga. These were the terrorists and those who hate us.

Teddy Roosevelt said walk softly and carry a big stick. We were talking too softly and had no stick. Now, we do. This may not have made the USA popular, but it does make us safer.

Zimbabwe has no agreement with us to break. No war...unless you support the USA taking over the world, which I think is not possible and not warrented.



bereanman_7 -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/10/2008 8:30:46 AM)

quote:

Iraq
The world seems to be living in a mass delusion concerning Iraq. The U.S.A. did not invade for it's rich oil resources that was just a calculated bonus, they went into Iraq for it's strategic value.
Tell me what would it aid them to have troops and air bases in Zimbabwe
when their military ambitions are focused elsewhere ?



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/10/2008 10:04:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SonInMe1
Saddam broke the Gulf Wat cease fire agreement.

Yeah, yeah-- by developing WMDs. We've all heard this one.
You still buy it? You and about two other people . . .

quote:

Bush had the guts to do something about it.

So did Clinton. The difference was that Clinton's administration was before 9-11, therefore he did not enjoy Congress's cooperation.

quote:

These were the terrorists and those who hate us.

Just about every country in the world hates us at this point. Should we stop taking their "bolonga" and invade all of them as well?

quote:

We were talking too softly and had no stick. Now, we do.

How did we come into possession of this "stick" that you say we did not have in the first place?

quote:

This may not have made the USA popular, but it does make us safer.

How so? Our troops are stretched to the max, our national debt is now a nightmare, and our economy is faltering under the weight of it all.
Oh yeah-- and terrorism has still not been eradicated by any means.

quote:

Zimbabwe has no agreement with us to break.

You mean they don't interest us. Let's face it: we don't care about terrorism and human rights violations in Africa.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bereanman_7
The U.S.A. did not invade for it's rich oil resources that was just a calculated bonus, they went into Iraq for it's strategic value.

This sounds reasonable. However, I think that we still give way too much credit to the Bush administration by saying that they have any sort of covert plan.
There is no rabbit in the hat, nothing up their sleeve. They messed up-- it's as simple as that.



ladyingrace1979 -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/11/2008 12:21:26 PM)

[:@] There was only one reason for this OIL. Iraq was contained and no threat to us. Alquada was not welcome in Iraq. The reason we do not intevine in Affrica is there is nothing for corporate ameica to gain there.
Now isf Dufar struck oil we woul be there tomarow.[8|]
FurGod's claim that everybod, including the intelagence comunity beleived that Iraq had a nuclear program or was on its way to it is not true. Most of the european countries intelagence told us other wise. This was based on badly forged intelagence from Ittaly, and the addminastration new it was forged. The fact is From the beginning Vice President Slick Chaney was looking for any reason to atack Iraq.



ljmac -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/11/2008 1:00:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ladyingrace1979

[:@] There was only one reason for this OIL. Iraq was contained and no threat to us. Alquada was not welcome in Iraq. The reason we do not intevine in Affrica is there is nothing for corporate ameica to gain there.
Now isf Dufar struck oil we woul be there tomarow.[8|]
FurGod's claim that everybod, including the intelagence comunity beleived that Iraq had a nuclear program or was on its way to it is not true. Most of the european countries intelagence told us other wise. This was based on badly forged intelagence from Ittaly, and the addminastration new it was forged. The fact is From the beginning Vice President Slick Chaney was looking for any reason to atack Iraq.


The US government and it's people have given lots of aid to the people of Dafur. GWB has developed multiple foreign aid programs specifically for Africa. AIDS relief and battling malaria are two of the largest initiatives. We help lots of people who can do nothing for us in return.

truth matters

John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and just about every American in leadership all said that Iraq either had a WMD program or WMD weapons. Some of their statements and actions preceded GWB.

Iraq was a terrorist nation. The other Hussein, not Barak, had a program to financially reward families of relatives killed in terrorist attacks.



davemiller7 -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/11/2008 1:46:28 PM)

Thank you! Someone got it right! You get lots of gold stars.
-Dave

quote:

ORIGINAL: FurGodWurLivin

(A) Zimbabwe isn't seeking the means to destroy the rest of the world. Nor are they claiming they want to.

(B) Zimbabwe does not have a history of aggression with the West, so we pay less attention to it.

(C) Everybody (including the intelligence community) believed that Iraq either had an active nuclear weapons program or was well on their way to one.

(D) Zimbabwe is not threatening world security.

(E) We cannot interfere every time we think something is amiss in another country. Iran is a more pressing issue anyway.

Adam



rlj -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/11/2008 2:05:24 PM)

quote:

(A) Zimbabwe isn't seeking the means to destroy the rest of the world. Nor are they claiming they want to.


There are only two countries that can do that right now. The next in line would have to be China. That is as far fetched as those who said that we can't allow South Vietnam to democratically vote to unify with the North because it would be the end of democracy and civilization as we know it.

quote:

(B) Zimbabwe does not have a history of aggression with the West, so we pay less attention to it.


When were they aggressive to the west? Kuwait isn't a western nation. Perhaps during the crusades?

quote:

(C) Everybody (including the intelligence community) believed that Iraq either had an active nuclear weapons program or was well on their way to one.


Ah yes the Nigerian yellow cake which has been so thoroughly debunked over and over and over... do I even need to pull up what Colin Powell had to say about it as it was happening?
quote:


(D) Zimbabwe is not threatening world security.


Iraq was never a threat to world security and they weren't much of a threat to regional security. The countries that had the technology who could have made them a threat would have been North Korea, Russia and/or China. Fire up the Humvees were gonna drive on Moscow and simultaneously send a bunch of steroid loaded athletes to Beijing this summer to take them out?

quote:

(E) We cannot interfere every time we think something is amiss in another country. Iran is a more pressing issue anyway.


They were more pressing in 2003.

The reason we don't help out Zimbabwe is in order to be considered for your country to become a protectorate or colony under Manifest Destiny it has to meet one of two criteria 1)Have an abundance of resources that we covet or potential areas we want and 2)Lots of Americans must desire to go live there. Zimbabwe meets neither of the two criteria.

As for giving money to any country in need I don't care. As Jesus told the Samaritan woman I'll say the same to the rest of the world- let the dogs lap up the crumbs from the table. It isn't the governments job to send out free medical, free this, free that to anyone inside of the US or out. If I had to choose- since I have to since that's what the government is about anyway is taking money and spending it on something - I'd rather see the money spent on Americans. There are many oppourtunities for us as christian Americans to aid the rest of the world just like there are to aid those in the US. The government has as much business sending free stuff out as it does in spending it inside the borders.

As Walter Williams once said there is no difference between a Republican and a Democrat except who they want to give YOUR money to. Republicans want to give it to farmers and Democrats want to give it to people on Welfare. I guess we can change that to free health care to foreigners and free health care to natives?



fiat_lux -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/11/2008 3:33:08 PM)

quote:

Terrible as things are in Zimbabwe as long as they're only hurting themselves, the world will tut tut but not start firing up the fighter jets?

There are a lot of countries where terrible things are going on. You want us to "fire up" our bomber forces and start killing people in Sudan, or the Congo, or any number of other places? Myanmar, perhaps, where the government's first response to a disaster was to refuse aid to the stricken?

It's easy to talk about war. It's a lot more difficult, and a lot more ethically questionable too, to fight it every time there's a wrong, and to fight it in such a way that some good may result.

The war in Iraq, I do believe, started for a mix of reasons - humanitarian and democratic concern about Saddam's dictatorship, a test of the preventive war doctrine, a removal of a country which (along with Iran) had been a stumbling block to American strategic hegemony in the Middle East, maybe some control of the oil resources too, though more to prevent anyone else (read: China) from getting favoured access to Iraqi oil than because America itself really needs Iraq's oil. Whether or not that mix is justifiable, it certainly doesn't apply to Zimbabwe, so it would probably be impossible to collect the same mixed coalition.

Now, I'm biased, since personally I didn't favour the Iraq war either; I don't think all those conditions listed by FurGodWurLivin applied to Iraq either, and I was one of the exceptions to the "everyone" on the subject of nuclear weapons. However, I also don't really accept this semi-conspiratorial theory about resources and tourist destinations - I don't think a lot of Americans were eagerly lining up to move to Iraq in 2003, any more than they aren't lining up to go to Zimbabwe today.



freakofnature -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/11/2008 3:44:46 PM)

quote:

Jenny-Fair:I

don't know about other countries, but that is pretty much how it is supposed to work here in the US. We aren't the world police--we can't go around country to country, choose a side, and sacrifice our soldiers for it. Our military is here to protect OUR country.


Oh I know, I know... Send the U.N.... the worse they can do is (The remainder of this statement has been determined to be a complete and utter violation of the TOS and has been prevented from being displayed)



Jenny-Fair -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/11/2008 9:12:40 PM)

Don't be silly. I would never sic the UN on a poor, struggling country!



Jeff_from_Kentucky -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/11/2008 9:37:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ladyingrace1979

There was only one reason for this OIL.


A quick look at the math will show that is NOT true. We've already spent more money in five years of war than every drop of oil in Iraq will ever bring. Saying that we went in for the oil is just another liberal lie.



Jeff_from_Kentucky -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/11/2008 9:42:28 PM)

One of the things that just amazes me is that the rest of the world, and many people in this country, expect the US to take action whenever their is a problem around the world. And then when we do, they condemn us for it, and when we don't they condemn us for it. That's why I am all for isolationism, or as close as we can get to it. Once we're done in Iraq, bring the troops home from all around the world, take care of our own problems and let the rest of the world fall apart.



fiat_lux -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/12/2008 1:13:45 AM)

quote:

A quick look at the math will show that is NOT true. We've already spent more money in five years of war than every drop of oil in Iraq will ever bring. Saying that we went in for the oil is just another liberal lie.

If the oil was involved at any point, I suspect it was more about making sure that America could control who had access to Iraq oil, and who didn't (i.e. China), then about whatever the profits from the oil would net over the short term. Still, check the math here - Iraq has (http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2003/0512globalenvironment_luft.aspx) 112 billion barrels in proven reserves, and oil is hovering just shy of $140 a barrel or so right now, which does mean that if the U.S. were somehow to capitalize the entire oil supply in the country tomorrow, it would do far more than pay the entire costs of the war. (Mind you, if it could do that, it would probably crash the oil markets.)

Without getting into a conspiracy about oil, I think it's pretty reasonable to acknowledge that there was a very important strategic reason for going into Iraq, one that simply is not present in Zimbabwe, or for that matter in a number of other African countries with severe internal problems. And I think you're right that the U.S. military shouldn't be called on to right every wrong.

Give us a little credit, though. I doubt we'd "fall apart" again if the U.S. turned isolationist.



freakofnature -> RE: Do you think this is true? (6/12/2008 10:26:09 AM)

I am in tears. This is just honestly, the most deplorable thing I have ever read:

Robert Mugabe's militia burn opponent’s wife alive



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI