Reply With Quote
I agree with WH, but I don't believe anyone has advocated leaving them alone. Being in the country with a sizeable force is not nessecary to keep Al Qaeda down.
Doubt it. This overstates the potency of Al Qaeda and the unity of the Taliban IMO.
I agree with WH, but I don't believe anyone has advocated leaving them alone. Being in the country with a sizeable force is not nessecary to keep Al Qaeda down.
MIG: Do you mean a missile defense system, of some kind? Maybe we could set them up from our Naval ships, since we have a larger navy than all the other naval forces in the world combined. Also given the fact that we keep all the world's waterways safe for trade.
What is our long term goals for Islam extremists? IMO, they should include, keeping the Muslim countries from uniting, unless it is a free market trading coalition
2. Breaking up the OPEC cartel's power base. Having countries like Mexico, America, Canada, and Iraq selling their oil at prices from a free market determination and not the OPEC's determined price.
3. Maintaining a presence in these countries. IMO, our presence in Europe is why there has been peace there for so long, longer than any other time in Europe's history.
Yes, I think a missile defense system is necessary to fight off insurgents with fight with improvised bombs and explosives. It makes absolutely perfect sense.
Yeah we should tell them they can't hang out with each other. We - the mighty United States who keeps the worlds oceans safe for trade - says so.What is our long term goals for Islam extremists? IMO, they should include, keeping the Muslim countries from uniting, unless it is a free market trading coalition
Yeah, we should get a lawyer to draft up a letter telling them to cease and desist these actions2. Breaking up the OPEC cartel's power base. Having countries like Mexico, America, Canada, and Iraq selling their oil at prices from a free market determination and not the OPEC's determined price.
3. Maintaining a presence in these countries. IMO, our presence in Europe is why there has been peace there for so long, longer than any other time in Europe's history.
ABSOLUTELY. I'm hoping we can just invade every country in the world. They'll welcome us in as liberators.
Jesus ing Christ. Are you this re ed? Really?
Yet you gave nothing, just belittled mine. https://www.eztestonline.com/325646/index1.tpx WH also started a thread on this. I should have known not to respond to what you had written.
Tell me one President who didn't have this policy? Dem or Repub...Yeah we should tell them they can't hang out with each other. We - the mighty United States who keeps the worlds oceans safe for trade - says so.
This was a Dem talking point in the Bush years. Look up what a cartel is. Then look at the past OPEC decisions on the supply and demand of oil.Yeah, we should get a lawyer to draft up a letter telling them to cease and desist these actions
It's not about them. It is about America and the world's safety. Afghanistan did [edited]attack us. Iraq was a threat to this country. I asked you before what "invasion" do you consider acceptable to your views, and you cowardly never answered. I'll ask again.ABSOLUTELY. I'm hoping we can just invade every country in the world. They'll welcome us in as liberators.
[/QUOTE]
Good luck in your political debates in your Theatre Arts college course professor.
You remind me of my finite class or accounting 1 class teachers. This same type of nonsense. I remember thinking then too "where is the logic?"
Last edited by spursncowboys; 10-30-2009 at 02:20 PM.
Afghanistan invaded us now?
Man, the you put out just gets better and better. Please continue.
typo. Way to show your class. Still nothing. predictable.Afghanistan invaded us now?
Man, the you put out just gets better and better. Please continue.
What war or invansion was ok for you? In the past 100 years?
Last edited by spursncowboys; 10-30-2009 at 02:30 PM.
wow
No, a typo is misspelling something. Using the word invade in the place of attack is not a typo but your misuse of a word in a horrible sense. To follow that up, Afghanistan never attacked us so your apparent correction isn't much of a correction at all.
I can't respond seriously to what you post because what you post is so ing inaccurate. You talk about missile defense shields to stop Al Qaeda and you talk about forcing OPEC to offer free market prices in a discussion about the future of Afghanistan. It is simply mind blowing. How the do I seriously respond to that?
As for which wars were justified for me in the past 100 years, WW1 and WW2 were obviously justified. The Korean Action was a fine. Vietnam was not. I'm not very familiar with the actions of the 80s including Operation Just Cause, but I think the 1st Persian Gulf war was fine. Our invasion of Afghanistan was obviously justified and the invasion of Iraq was not.
You cannot respond seriously because they would have to involve facts. As far as the beginning, I said a Missile defense of some kind. I thought maybe you could use your brain and see that was pretty vague. I wanted to know if you wanted to have some kind of defense against this country you are willing to leave, even though you think it was justified to go there in the first place. Afghanistan did attack us. Their dictators ruling that country were directly responsible for 9-11. You have a distorted idea of what the definition of attack is.
I have tried to keep this about a topic and you keep getting personal. Stop trolling.
About OPEC, I never said forcing OPEC to do free markets. That would make no sense to force a cartel to price oil at the open markets price. Why would the cartel be around. I reiterate that you need to look up what a cartel is.
I think the word you're looking for is indirectly. Al Qaeda was directly responsible for 9/11; their hosts, the Taliban were indirectly responsible.
Answer me this, SnC: how many of the 9/11 attackers were Afghani?
No. But their countries govts did not have training bases, and when they did it was not state sponsored like Afghan and Iraq. I say directly because I believe the Taliban were just as responsible. Al Qaeda used Afgan's land, equipment, and men. the Afghanistan people were controlled by the Taliban who sponsored the terrorist activities. Clinton and Bush both said to these type of countries " With us or against us".
*Directly responsible* implies they actually did it. Misleading.
SnC makes the mistake of too often believing political rhetoric is policy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
