ABC News Blotter: Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

[Koolblue13]

But you see Predicto; that's exactly what AFC wants, you eliminate those you fear by killing them all and letting God sort them out, regardless of whether or not they are guilty or innocent. You carpet bomb the whole place and when they are all dead you carpet bomb it again to make sure. Then when someone has the audacity to stand up and say that this is wrong, then you bomb them too, until you have acheived world domination.

Now thats how you wage war. I think we are still figuring out how to wage democracy.

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is how the world works, has worked, and will work after you and I are gone. It is just the way things are. .

To blindly accept the status quo is both lazy and unimaginative.

here's my sig, I hope its not an X now.

[Popeman38]

Oh, BTW, you pro-war jockeys will be the death of everyone else and possibly even yourselves. The world has tried your approach and look what it has gotten us, its time for a new strategy.

When you can convince the rest of the world to become peaceful, hand holding hippies who s*** roses and sing campfire songs together, we can look at the world through your rose colored glasses. There are millions, if not a billion people on this earth who would lpve to see the USA be no more. And what it has gotten us is a better world than there has ever been....

[Popeman38]

To blindly accept the status quo is both lazy and unimaginative.

here's my sig, I hope its not an X now.

Still an x.

Let us here you revolutionairy plan. Enlighten us, oh wise one.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Now thats how you wage war. I think we are still figuring out how to wage democracy.

The problem is that we keep using all the old tools. I think our founders were very right in fearing a nation with a standing army.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

The greatest threat to world security since 1973...hmmmm, I thought that was 9/11, or maybe it was Iraq. Why is it that you feel that it is perfectly ok for the US and her allies to have nuclear weapons and yet it is not ok for the rest of the world. Because by my count only one country has ever used its nuclear arsenal in war. Maybe the rest of the world is afraid of US, and maybe that's why they react the way that they do....like we haven't given them enough reason to fear us.

Oh, BTW, you pro-war jockeys will be the death of everyone else and possibly even yourselves. The world has tried your approach and look what it has gotten us, its time for a new strategy.

You should relax. You'll be safe in Kentucky whatever happens. :laugh:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Still an x.

Let us here you revolutionairy plan. Enlighten us, oh wise one.

How about actually working with nations instead of against them. How about actually addressing the areas where our nation has been wrong in the past and working to right/correct those wrongs. How about not treating everyone as an enemy. Those are good starting points IMO.

For the last several decades we have used the Middle East as our own little pawns. We used the Iraq vs Iran war as a shadow war with the Soviet Union, the same in Afghanistan. We blindly back up Israel regardless of their actions, and now we see anyone from the middle east as an enemy, this is especially so when they call us out for only caring about the region because of the oil.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You should relax. You'll be safe in Kentucky whatever happens. :laugh:

I know that I should be ok, if a strike happens but you live in Reston, VA, so maybe you shouldn't relax so much.

[AsburySkinsFan]

There are millions, if not a billion people on this earth who would lpve to see the USA be no more.

Ever wonder why? Oh, I know "they hate us for our freedoms." Whatever.:doh:

[Koolblue13]

I know that I should be ok, if a strike happens but you live in Reston, VA, so maybe you shouldn't relax so much.

I can get into manhatten in under 45 min and into philly in 80 min. Don't think i'de be so lucky.

[Sarge]

The greatest threat to world security since 1973...hmmmm, I thought that was 9/11, or maybe it was Iraq. Why is it that you feel that it is perfectly ok for the US and her allies to have nuclear weapons and yet it is not ok for the rest of the world. Because by my count only one country has ever used its nuclear arsenal in war. Maybe the rest of the world is afraid of US, and maybe that's why they react the way that they do....like we haven't given them enough reason to fear us.

Oh, BTW, you pro-war jockeys will be the death of everyone else and possibly even yourselves. The world has tried your approach and look what it has gotten us, its time for a new strategy.

Here you show your true leftist loon ideaology

We have nukes because we invented them first. And it's OK for us to have them and them to not have them because for one, generally, we don't say we're going to use nukes to commit genocide, or wipe a nation off the earth

For starters

[Popeman38]

How about actually working with nations instead of against them. How about actually addressing the areas where our nation has been wrong in the past and working to right/correct those wrongs. How about not treating everyone as an enemy. Those are good starting points IMO.

Umm, we tried that. We support how many governments around the world with our aid? How many debts have we forgiven? When we were isolationists, we were castigated for not helping more. When we try to help everyone, we are sticking our noses where it doesn't belong. They want our money with no strings attached and for us to mind our own business. You act like we haven't changed foreign policy 10 times....

For the last several decades we have used the Middle East as our own little pawns. We used the Iraq vs Iran war as a shadow war with the Soviet Union, the same in Afghanistan. We blindly back up Israel regardless of their actions, and now we see anyone from the middle east as an enemy, this is especially so when they call us out for only caring about the region because of the oil.

And have they not also used their relationships with us in the same way? Don't they hold oil over our heads? If it were not for us, Israel would not exist.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here you show your true leftist loon ideaology

We have nukes because we invented them first. And it's OK for us to have them and them to not have them because for one, generally, we don't say we're going to use nukes to commit genocide, or wipe a nation off the earth

For starters

LOL, and here you show your insanity. Its ok for us to have them because we invented them. What is that nonsense. Oh, and we did threaten to use them to commit genocide, heck we threatened to committ human-cide we threatened to wipe the face of the earth off the earth, or don't you remember the ideology of Mutually Assured Destruction. Talk about madness.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Umm, we tried that. We support how many governments around the world with our aid? How many debts have we forgiven?

and how many debts do we still retain, and use against governments when they try to exert their own independence. Remember the coalition of the willing? The majority of those nations were the nations that owe debts to us, or are receiveing lots of aide from us. This is why it was the coalition of the coerced.

When we were isolationists, we were castigated for not helping more. When we try to help everyone, we are sticking our noses where it doesn't belong.

This isn't a matter of being an isolationist nation, its a matter of actually helping in a way that actually helps, instead of selecting those people whom we help from those places where the US has "national interests". Remember this was the excuse given by both Clinton and Bush for ignoring the Rwandan and Sudanese genocides, respectively.

They want our money with no strings attached and for us to mind our own business. You act like we haven't changed foreign policy 10 times....

You're going to have to get specific here, because what I see is not so much a foreign policy change, but instead a change in how the same foreign policy is enacted.

And have they not also used their relationships with us in the same way?

Again, don't excuse one wrong because of another. 2 wrongs don't equal....

Don't they hold oil over our heads?

And who's fault is it that we have allowed ourselves to be in that position?

If it were not for us, Israel would not exist.

How P.O'd would you be if a group of nations gathered together and simply removed a large portion of the east coast of the United States, and then claimed for the next 50 years that you had no right to be upset?

[Popeman38]

and how many debts do we still retain, and use against governments when they try to exert their own independence. Remember the coalition of the willing? The majority of those nations were the nations that owe debts to us, or are receiveing lots of aide from us. This is why it was the coalition of the coerced.

So, what you are proposing is a United States of the World. Where we are responsible for providing their wants and needs, but have no right to interject what we feel would benefit us in any way. This is called a one world government. And it will never work.

This isn't a matter of being an isolationist nation, its a matter of actually helping in a way that actually helps, instead of selecting those people whom we help from those places where the US has "national interests". Remember this was the excuse given by both Clinton and Bush for ignoring the Rwandan and Sudanese genocides, respectively.

You need to put the peace pipe down. We are not responsible for every wrong in the world. Had we interfered in those instances, there are people like you who would tell us to get out.

You're going to have to get specific here, because what I see is not so much a foreign policy change, but instead a change in how the same foreign policy is enacted.

I am not going to give a class on US history. There are plenty of readily available resources that clearly demonstrate the shifts in foreign policy over the course of 200+ years.

Again, don't excuse one wrong because of another. 2 wrongs don't equal....

I don't excuse it, I just understand how the world works. What you are suggesting for us would make us dependent on every other country in the world to cooperateand not use our willingness to help against us. This doesn't even happen in elementary school, yet you expect it to work in international relations. Again, back away from the peace pipe...

And who's fault is it that we have allowed ourselves to be in that position?

:doh: It is always our fault. No one in the rest of the world has ever wronged us....

How P.O'd would you be if a group of nations gathered together and simply removed a large portion of the east coast of the United States, and then claimed for the next 50 years that you had no right to be upset?

Please explain who this land belonged to? The British? So shouldn't the UK be mad at us? What, they agreed to do this, even voted for it? oy vey!

[Popeman38]

How P.O'd would you be if a group of nations gathered together and simply removed a large portion of the east coast of the United States, and then claimed for the next 50 years that you had no right to be upset?

This is the way the world works. How else would you determine nationl boundaries? Holding a giant Woodstock where all the indiginous people got to decide? The UN (that would be the United Nations, not the United States) decided on this. Who else would you propose do it?

[#98QBKiller]

T. Roosevelt would call that a "big stick". It's destructive power is only matched by it's diplomatic power.

Money can't buy "speaking softly".

It's a shame your post has been ignored throughout this entire thread. Good points.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So, what you are proposing is a United States of the World. Where we are responsible for providing their wants and needs, but have no right to interject what we feel would benefit us in any way. This is called a one world government. And it will never work.

I've advocated for no such thing.

You need to put the peace pipe down.

I don't smoke.

We are not responsible for every wrong in the world. Had we interfered in those instances, there are people like you who would tell us to get out.

Actually, it is these very instances that I have actually questioned whether or not force should be applied, and I for one (even as a pacifist) would rather see the military used to help these people than to fight Bush's war for oil.

I am not going to give a class on US history. There are plenty of readily available resources that clearly demonstrate the shifts in foreign policy over the course of 200+ years.

Oh, I thought you had something particular in mind. I'm not going to debate in generalities.

I don't excuse it, I just understand how the world works.

Again the status quo, is both lazy and unimaginative. The whole line of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", applies here, because it is broke.

What you are suggesting for us would make us dependent on every other country in the world to cooperateand not use our willingness to help against us. This doesn't even happen in elementary school, yet you expect it to work in international relations.

It's called not looking to our own self interests first. And you're right it doesn't work in elementary school, but then those are children and we're supposed be adults. "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways." --1 Corinthians 13:11

Again, back away from the peace pipe...:doh:

Again, I don't smoke.

It is always our fault. No one in the rest of the world has ever wronged us....

This is not what I'm saying and you know it. But, it seems that you simply want to dismiss all the things that are our fault.

Please explain who this land belonged to? The British? So shouldn't the UK be mad at us? What, they agreed to do this, even voted for it? oy vey!

Under British Imperialism?! Surely you aren't going to defend Britian's right to hold land just because they put a boat on it years before. You act like they bought the land from Century 21.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's a shame your post has been ignored throughout this entire thread. Good points.

Well, I for one didn't ignore it, I just think that Teddy was wrong.

[Popeman38]

Under British Imperialism?! Surely you aren't going to defend Britian's right to hold land just because they put a boat on it years before. You act like they bought the land from Century 21.

No, they took over the land after the Ottoman Empire collapsed. The League of Nations provided for Britain to maintain control. Surely you will not argue that the "Palestinians" should have been given the land? The land had not gone any form of the name since before the Ottoman Empire (before 1500).....

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is the way the world works. How else would you determine nationl boundaries? Holding a giant Woodstock where all the indiginous people got to decide? The UN (that would be the United Nations, not the United States) decided on this. Who else would you propose do it?

Looks like Britian abstained from voting. Its interesting that those who voted in favor were the US and her allies during WWII, the rest of the world including British colonies either didn't vote, had no representation at all or voted against.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947 UN Partition Plan)

██ In favor

██ Abstaining

██ Against

██ Absent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UNGA_181_Map.png

[AsburySkinsFan]

No, they took over the land after the Ottoman Empire collapsed. The League of Nations provided for Britain to maintain control. Surely you will not argue that the "Palestinians" should have been given the land? The land had not gone any form of the name since before the Ottoman Empire (before 1500).....

Why not Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia all of whom probably had a more legitimate claim than the British who gave up the land only reluctantly.

[Sarge]

Why not Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia all of whom probably had a more legitimate claim than the British who gave up the land only reluctantly.

Because,as Popeman has been sayig, those in power make the rules. At the time, the Brits had power. It's why they did what they did with Israel, it's why they did what they did with India/Pakistan as well as Iraq

[Popeman38]

Popeman38][/b]So, what you are proposing is a United States of the World. Where we are responsible for providing their wants and needs, but have no right to interject what we feel would benefit us in any way. This is called a one world government. And it will never work.

I've advocated for no such thing.

You need to put the peace pipe down.

I don't smoke.

We are not responsible for every wrong in the world. Had we interfered in those instances, there are people like you who would tell us to get out.

Actually, it is these very instances that I have actually questioned whether or not force should be applied, and I for one (even as a pacifist) would rather see the military used to help these people than to fight Bush's war for oil.

I am not going to give a class on US history. There are plenty of readily available resources that clearly demonstrate the shifts in foreign policy over the course of 200+ years.

Oh, I thought you had something particular in mind. I'm not going to debate in generalities.

I don't excuse it, I just understand how the world works.

Again the status quo, is both lazy and unimaginative. The whole line of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", applies here, because it is broke.

What you are suggesting for us would make us dependent on every other country in the world to cooperateand not use our willingness to help against us. This doesn't even happen in elementary school, yet you expect it to work in international relations.

It's called not looking to our own self interests first. And you're right it doesn't work in elementary school, but then those are children and we're supposed be adults. "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways." --1 Corinthians 13:11

Again, back away from the peace pipe...:doh:

Again, I don't smoke.

It is always our fault. No one in the rest of the world has ever wronged us....

This is not what I'm saying and you know it. But, it seems that you simply want to dismiss all the things that are our fault.

Please explain who this land belonged to? The British? So shouldn't the UK be mad at us? What, they agreed to do this, even voted for it? oy vey!

1) You suggest we work with other countries and help them without using our own self interest. They, of course, would never take advantage of that

2) :doh:

3) War for oil argument is insane. To use this argument is tired and old. We tried the peace keeping schtick. It didn't work. People complained about deploying too much, weakening our military....

4) If you don't know enough US history to identify at least 3 changes in foreign policy you are blind.

5) Dude, if it were so easy to change the world, don't you think someone would have done it by now? It ain't simple, and if the rest of the world doesn't cooperate with us we will be left behind and become obsolete. Of course, as long as we don't have to fight a war you would be cool with this....

6) As a nation, you have to look after your self interests first, otherwise you soon become a non-nation. Quoting a Bible verse does not make the world a peachy place. As a matter of fact, in some places you will lose your head for doing just that....

7) Again, :doh:

8) No, I want the US to be recognized for all the good it has done for the world, like preventing world domination twice. We have screwed the pooch on several occasions, but that does not make us the scourge of the earth.

[Popeman38]

Looks like Britian abstained from voting. Its interesting that those who voted in favor were the US and her allies during WWII, the rest of the world including British colonies either didn't vote, had no representation at all or voted against.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947 UN Partition Plan)

██ In favor

██ Abstaining

██ Against

██ Absent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UNGA_181_Map.png

Gee, you mean the entire ME didn't want a Jewish state? Wonder why? We have to carry a big stick. many cultures in this world don't do diplomacy.