U.s. policy of "striking first" - Page 8

Scorponok · 02-01-2003, 08:29 AM

[quote

ost_uid0="Squall87"]That's true, but I still ask the question. "Why?" doesn't the Elected officals listen to those of us that write, or e-mail them our comments? Yes, there is many letters and E-mails I'm sure, but meh. if there is a opposing side, then meh, shouldn't that hint them in that some people don't want us to do that?[/quote]
Rephrase that, and fix some of your grammar too...

Squall87 · 02-01-2003, 08:35 AM

Ok, sorry. My English writing skills suck. :biggrin:

I said that your quote about the US having people represent us is true. BUT! why don't they listen to, Those of us that write/e-mail them and say that there choice is "a bad idea"? Wouldn't that give them the idea that some people think the idea is wrong, and that they should go back to the drawing board? No. They simply ignore us and go on stepping on other country's toes. So point is, the US is only, a quater-democratic.

Scorponok · 02-01-2003, 08:41 AM

Oh, I see your question now. 'Cuz they're stupid.

Squall87 · 02-01-2003, 08:47 AM

Exactly, what most everyone here is saying. My point is, in the politcal scale, we are communist. Because the people that oppose the idea don't get thier say.

and Nantuko, what about Mr. "There ought to be limits to freedom." Bush that said that quote when he saw an anti-him site, due to many poeple laughing at how right it was? He wants to take our First Admendment and shove it, so everyone becomes mindless drones. and Homeland security is just Bush's "Big Brother" plan in disguise.

Then agian, these ideas are from a 15-year-old Honor American that comes from a screwed up State of old people. So go ahead and flame me. I could care less.

Scorponok · 02-01-2003, 09:04 AM

Communist isn't properly put into practice in these supposed communist countries.

02-01-2003, 02:57 PM

For the Republic/Democracy debate...
*Pulls out an encyclopedia*

"DEMOCRACY is a form of government, a way of life, and a goal or ideal. The term also refers to a country that has a democratic form of government. The word democracy means rule by the people. Abraham Lincoln described such self-government as "government of the people, by the people, for the people.
The ciitizens of a democracy take part in goverment either directly or indireectly. In a direct, or pure democracy, the people meet in one place to make the laws for their community. Such democracy was practiced in Athens, and still exists today in the form of the New England town meeting.
Most modern democracy is representative democracy. In large communityes--cities, states, provinces, or countries--it is impossible for all the people to meet as a group. Instead, they elect a certain number of their fellow citizens to represent them in making decisions about laws and other matters that affect the people. An assembly of representatives may be called a council, a legislature, a parliament, or a congress. Goverment by the people through their freely elected representaives is sometimes called republican government."

"REPUBLIC is the form of government in which the citizens elect representative to manage the government. The people give their elected represtentatives authority to maintain opower for specific terms of offic. The word republic may also refer to a country that has a republican form of government."

I hope that's enough to convince most of you... (for the others I'm affraid there's no hope left :biggrin: ).

And now for the actual debate going on...

Solidsnake76: I don't want to see you making a single ####### racist comment in here again. You hear me? For what you say it's probably true... but that's not what this topic's about, and I detest the whole aspect of pitting one race against the other (####### social darwainists).

SSJKarma: Uh... you might consider throughing in a few facts to make your arguements more convincing (ie: saying the US has "hidden agendas" over and over doesn't cut it).

Nantuko Joe: Are you one of those "50%" of the american population that believes that Iraqis hijacked the planes in 9/11? 'cause there wern't any.

As for Russians starting the Vietnam War.. sure, they were supplying weapons to North Vietnam. Are you so naive to thinnk the US wasn't doing the same thing? You remember the Cuban missle crisis? It was all about the USSR putting missles right in the US' "back door", when all the while, it was perfectly fine for the US to have missles in Turkey (right in the USSR's "backdoor"). Communism was/is a facist/dictorial regime... And by no means am I trying to defend communist those brutal dictors' actions.

But Russians were just as affraid of a nuclear holocaust as the US was. It wasn't just the USSR's fault the Cold War broke out. It was the US and the USSR's faults. The US "built the bomb" first, and of course, after WWII, was ready to spearhead an assault on Communism. However, after the Communists started building bombs to counter the US', what does the US do? Build more bombs of course! And that certainly would get them out of the mess... right? Wrong. The USSR just built theirs in response to US massive bomb buildings. Somewhere along the line, some jackass got the idea to start shipping bombs to other countries and building missle silo's where one country could nail the other... and so the other follows... and everyone's scared poopless the other's gonna nuke the hell out of them... so everyone just kept at a stalemate until one country caved in.

As far as "hidden agenda's" go... well I'm pretty shabby on my Cold War history, so I'll just state a few things here that I know from other memories...
- The Philipines. While the US is busy siding with the rebels down in Cuba, why not free the poor oppressed people of the Philipines as well? As a matter of fact, why not give the local admiral in Hong Kong the word to mobilize for an assault on the Philipines before the war even breaks out? And after the US is done, why not brutally rule the Philipines and put the rebels in reconcentration camps? Thus totally hypocracizing the whole proclaimed reason the US went to war in Cuba in the first place. Not like the US wanted an "open door" to China or anything... :biggrin:
- WWI. Sinking British liners and killing a some American passengers too?! And while in a state of war?! Truely an admirable cause for "freeing Europe" of the German threat. Oh wait, the trade seemed to be suffering at the time as well... since the US wanted to maintain it's neutrality and trade with both Germany and England, it decided to not get involved right away. However, since England had the stronger navy, it's blockade of Germany proved more effective then the ones around England... and a bit of English propaganda... the US sides with Germany. Not much to say there but keepin' the trade is vital. It goes, your economy goes... your next election goes.
- WWII. Ever heard of Stalin? Not like the US or Russia ever got extremly freindly during the war (ie: after Normandy, it was a race to get to Berlin first in order to hault the communist threat). I'm not saying the US did a bad thing... Hitler needed to be put in his place... killing 6 million Jews, and what was it again? 7 million+ Russians? On a side note, the US bombing on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which killed off roughly 130,000 civilians is incomparable to the attack on Pearl Harbor, which didn't even amount to 5,000. A state of war and state of peace doesn't change the amount of people who get slaughtered purposelessly.
- Civil War. Free the slaves? Right... if you read the emancipation proclamation, you'd be careful to note that Loncoln didn't mention #### about freeing slaves that were in states still belonging to the Union. Only slaves from the Confederacy were freed... thus staving off the menacing threat of British interfearence. But I'm not saying any more on this war...

*cough* that seems to be about it...
Just 1 more thing before I quit typin'...

If you check out Iraq's actual military capabilities instead of just assuming since Bush says they've got ####, they pose a threat to the US... you'll dicover Iraq has NO aiforce. Iraq has NO navy. Iraq has NO long-range deploying capabilities. Saddam has NO intention of attacking the US. No... this isn't "overconfidense", it's logic. Remember, Saddam let the UN inspectors into Iraq, right?? The US didn't just shoot their way in... he bought himself quite some time, and with that time, he's been turning world oppinion against the US (ie: get the UN not to back the US in an Iraqi invasion).

However, if you want to get real technical and say "he's got weapons he could use, and tests on his own people". Well, I never said he didn't use chemical/biological weapons on his own people... because he does. Does that mean he'll use them on the US? Not really... He can push his own people around, but if he starts using them on US citizens, then he's really fliped because the US will attack. If he uses them against his neighboring countries, the US will attack. He knows this, and therefor, hasn't used them on other countries. And all because of why? He's trying to stay in power. However, since Bush is pressing his way into war, Saddam will be removed from power, right? And he knows he can't win, right? So what's to stop him from burning his oil feilds and using those weapons while he goes down? No reason to leave them for the US.

The reality of this war is, the US has Saddam cornered. He doesn't have any capability to launch his ####, but he's got plenty of it, and if the US keeps pushing on him, there's no telling who he'll set it lose on. Wouldn't the US look bad if he decided to send them over to the Palistine terrorist orgs. in Isreal... Some terrorist catchers the US would look like then...

Anyways, I'm done talking to Nantuko_Joe at this point 2000-Joe convo ends here...

For the rest of you, might I pose a few questions for those who are so sure the US should strike first at Iraq?

As mentioned above, preasuring Saddam might make him let lose his baddies as a form of "going all out". Whereas if the US doesn't attack, he's more likely to leave the US alone (when was the last time you heard headlines that "Iraq is invading the US" :biggrin: ).

Another question comes to mind when considering one world "super-power" that polices the world the way the US is doing. What if other countrys try to emulate what the US is doing and wage their own "wars on terrorism" or "war on communism", or something of the sort... It doesn't seem to be going too well in Isreal. And if India and Pakistan all of a sudden decided one or the other posed a threat to each other, so they should "strike first"... And I doubt South Korea or Japan really want to put the preasure on North Korea right now (which btw is more powerful/dangerous then Saddam). But for some reason that brutal dictator with his 1 million in arms must be less of a threat to the US... :biggrin:

And my last statement here is about the nations the US is controling. I know a lot of you live in the US, and would probably think it very abnormal to have a Chinese base in your town. But that's what the US does around the world. It exerts it's authority around the world and in this sense "coerces" others to comply. I know a lot of you think the US is past that "age of imperialism" type of extortion... But why do you think the US is able to get away with invading Iraq? If the UN doesn't support the US, do you really think that'll be enough to stop it? Honestly, imagine if Ireland was the nation invading Iraq. Without UN support... it couldn't do ####. But since nations give up their autonomy for a smaller military budget, the US gets its way around things.. regaurdless of who's right.

Anyways, that's all I'm saying... hope it wasn't too long for catching up on 8 pages of debating :biggrin:

Edited By 2000warrior on Feb. 01 2003 at 17:58

Nantuko Joe · 02-01-2003, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Are you one of those "50%" of the american population that believes that Iraqis hijacked the planes in 9/11? 'cause there wern't any.

No sh!it

Quote:

As for Russians starting the Vietnam War.. sure, they were supplying weapons to North Vietnam. Are you so naive to thinnk the US wasn't doing the same thing? You remember the Cuban missle crisis? It was all about the USSR putting missles right in the US' "back door", when all the while, it was perfectly fine for the US to have missles in Turkey (right in the USSR's "backdoor"). Communism was/is a facist/dictorial regime... And by no means am I trying to defend communist those brutal dictors' actions.

We did not begin supplying South Vietnam with weapons until we actually sent our troops. not our advisors, but our troops.

And don't get started on the Cuban crisis. We were in the middle of the Cold War. Tensions were high with the USSR, and Cuba hated us. Then we discover that they were HIDING nuclear silos in Cuba. Lemme see...a communist country that we were having a tension between is HIDING nuclear silos 20 miles away from the US in a country that hated us. Hmmm...

Quote:

But Russians were just as affraid of a nuclear holocaust as the US was. It wasn't just the USSR's fault the Cold War broke out. It was the US and the USSR's faults. The US "built the bomb" first, and of course, after WWII, was ready to spearhead an assault on Communism. However, after the Communists started building bombs to counter the US', what does the US do? Build more bombs of course! And that certainly would get them out of the mess... right? Wrong. The USSR just built theirs in response to US massive bomb buildings. Somewhere along the line, some jackass got the idea to start shipping bombs to other countries and building missle silo's where one country could nail the other... and so the other follows... and everyone's scared poopless the other's gonna nuke the hell out of them... so everyone just kept at a stalemate until one country caved in.

We made the first bomb. Not to be outdone by the US, the USSR said "Hey, they've got some pretty strong sh!it, stronger than any of our weapons" and not only created their A-Bomb, but they invented the H-bomb too. Then the US said "Hey, they've got some pretty strong sh!it, stronger than our A-bomb" and built something stronger, and so on...

And the shipping of the nukes to other countries wasn't due to USSR's direct government, I don't think. When they finally did an inventory of their nukes, there was something like 16 missing or something. It was an inside job. And USSR put their nukes in Cuba before we put our nukes in Turkey.

Quote:

- The Philipines. While the US is busy siding with the rebels down in Cuba, why not free the poor oppressed people of the Philipines as well? As a matter of fact, why not give the local admiral in Hong Kong the word to mobilize for an assault on the Philipines before the war even breaks out? And after the US is done, why not brutally rule the Philipines and put the rebels in reconcentration camps? Thus totally hypocracizing the whole proclaimed reason the US went to war in Cuba in the first place. Not like the US wanted an "open door" to China or anything...

I have no knowledge of the phillipines and any US involvement, so I'll just take yer word for it

Quote:

WWI. Sinking British liners and killing a some American passengers too?! And while in a state of war?! Truely an admirable cause for "freeing Europe" of the German threat. Oh wait, the trade seemed to be suffering at the time as well... since the US wanted to maintain it's neutrality and trade with both Germany and England, it decided to not get involved right away. However, since England had the stronger navy, it's blockade of Germany proved more effective then the ones around England... and a bit of English propaganda... the US sides with Germany. Not much to say there but keepin' the trade is vital. It goes, your economy goes... your next election goes.

Actually, Germany sunk the Lusitania as it crossed the Atlantic carrying food and supplies for Britain...THAT'S why (i believe) we entered the war.

Quote:

WWII. Ever heard of Stalin? Not like the US or Russia ever got extremly freindly during the war (ie: after Normandy, it was a race to get to Berlin first in order to hault the communist threat). I'm not saying the US did a bad thing... Hitler needed to be put in his place... killing 6 million Jews, and what was it again? 7 million+ Russians? On a side note, the US bombing on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which killed off roughly 130,000 civilians is incomparable to the attack on Pearl Harbor, which didn't even amount to 5,000. A state of war and state of peace doesn't change the amount of people who get slaughtered purposelessly.

Actually, i believe it was 6 million Jews, and 6 million combined of Russians, gypsies, and gays. And there was no race to get to Berlin to stop a "communist threat." If I'm not mistaken, some of the US forces crossed a bridge somewhere in Germany, i believe, saw the remains of a group of Russians...and celebrated their victories with them and helped tend to their wounded. Tensions between the USSR and the US didn't begin until about a year after the war was over.

And the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was 100% unprovoked. The first a-bomb we hit them with was a bit overkill, i'll admit, but we gave them a chance to surrender, and told them that if they didn't, we'd a-bomb them again. They refused to surrender. They knew the consequences of their actions before we even bombed them. If they had just surrendered when we told them to, Nagasaki would be in one piece, and the casualties woud only be around 70 thousand.

Quote:

Civil War. Free the slaves? Right... if you read the emancipation proclamation, you'd be careful to note that Loncoln didn't mention #### about freeing slaves that were in states still belonging to the Union. Only slaves from the Confederacy were freed... thus staving off the menacing threat of British interfearence. But I'm not saying any more on this war...

Um...actually, there were NO slaves in the Union...they were ALL indentured servants. As in: if they worked for their "emplyers," they'd get paid, have a place to live with their families, and if they worked for them long enough, they were given a % ownership of their employer's crops. They were fighting mainly to free the slaves. ALL blacks in the north were free (unless you think indentured servitude is slavery). Yes, they were still discriminated against, but they were free.

Quote:

If you check out Iraq's actual military capabilities instead of just assuming since Bush says they've got ####, they pose a threat to the US... you'll dicover Iraq has NO aiforce. Iraq has NO navy. Iraq has NO long-range deploying capabilities. Saddam has NO intention of attacking the US. No... this isn't "overconfidense", it's logic. Remember, Saddam let the UN inspectors into Iraq, right?? The US didn't just shoot their way in... he bought himself quite some time, and with that time, he's been turning world oppinion against the US (ie: get the UN not to back the US in an Iraqi invasion).
However, if you want to get real technical and say "he's got weapons he could use, and tests on his own people". Well, I never said he didn't use chemical/biological weapons on his own people... because he does. Does that mean he'll use them on the US? Not really... He can push his own people around, but if he starts using them on US citizens, then he's really fliped because the US will attack. If he uses them against his neighboring countries, the US will attack. He knows this, and therefor, hasn't used them on other countries. And all because of why? He's trying to stay in power. However, since Bush is pressing his way into war, Saddam will be removed from power, right? And he knows he can't win, right? So what's to stop him from burning his oil feilds and using those weapons while he goes down? No reason to leave them for the US.
The reality of this war is, the US has Saddam cornered. He doesn't have any capability to launch his ####, but he's got plenty of it, and if the US keeps pushing on him, there's no telling who he'll set it lose on. Wouldn't the US look bad if he decided to send them over to the Palistine terrorist orgs. in Isreal... Some terrorist catchers the US would look like then...

Iraq most likely has hidden airfields around the country, and even if not, he most likely has underground silos and such. Plus, Iraq has allies: ppl that Saddam could supply his weapons to so THEY can attack US forces in other countries. If Saddam is so harmless, then why has he kicked the UN out of the country each time they have either stumbled onto or come close to finding or found evidence pointing towards him owning bio-chem weapons? Think about that.

02-01-2003, 07:23 PM

About the cold war... yeah, everything you said is 100% true. Just 1 big ####hole neither side wanted to be in.

WWI: Lusitania was the British liner carrying US citizens (128) and was destroyed as were a lot of other British liners on their coasts. US got mad... after another one gets shot down (the Sussex), and due to American protests.. Germany issues the Sussex pledge (not to shot merchant ships without proper warning). Note, German violations of international laws of the seas were equally shared by allied nations (mostly on the part by Britain, but who controls the news back to America now?). I think Britain publicly announced a while back that they knew about German intentions to sink the Lucitania before it happenend... (they wanted the US in the war). Not certain about that... could just be something else.

The US didn't enter the war on that basis alone however. Although there were protestors against the war, there was a considerable amount of British propaganda (if I failed to say it enough times :biggrin: ). Belgium being overrun didn't help the German case either... or that Zimmerman Telegraph.

Civil War: I thought indentured servents ceased to exist by 1860 ??? . Wern't they the people who paid British merchants/middle class by "servitude" for a free ride over to the new world in the 1500's and 1600's?

As for slavery, I suggest you refresh your memory on it. When the Confederacy seceeded, Missisouri, West Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky all stayed in the Union (all of which were slave states).

WWII: Don't make me get out my encyclopedia again... rarely do allied troops know of the battles between their commading officers. The US was helping Russia because they were allied at the time, and needed Russia's help to take down Hitler... after that was all said and done, it was time to get down to the real war. Look at an old map sometime and note where the USSR had control and where it didn't... it's sphere of influence stops right at Berlin. That wasn't really a bad secondary cause for fighting the war (and really was low priority until it was obvious that Hitler was finished). BTW, while I'm at it, that was another reason the US used the a-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of a direct invasion. Bulstering US might on the Russian's back door was intended to scare them out of US vs. USSR confrentation... and so they stepped up their efforts to build a bomb themselves. Anyways... I type too much.

On Iraq: Yeah, underground silos and airfields you have no proof of... and yet doesn't the US have all these satilites looking down on the Earth right now? How long has the US been running spy planes over his territory? And yet not so much as a rumor of these underground silos? I think you're giving the man way too much credit. And who are these allies of which you speak? I don't see any nations boldly stepping out and supporting Saddam's cause right now. If you're reffering to terrorists, he's probably gonna do just that because the US is acting so aggressivly.

And lastly... Saddam's not "so harmless", he's just harmless to the US because he's way the hell over there and has no long range capabilitys of nailing any of the US's great trading buddies. Thus the entire reason the US is willing to stop this terrorist supplier and not the one in North Korea.

Edited By 2000warrior on Feb. 01 2003 at 22:24

bloodpack · 02-01-2003, 08:46 PM

ok, let's just say (assume) that Iraq possess these biological CRAP
waging war on Iraq would only provoke them in using these stuffs
instead of letting them be...

THIS DEBATE GETS BETTER AND BETTER
BTW, WHO'S ON SIDE A AND WHO'S ON SIDE B
I MEAN WHO'S NANTUKO'S TAG ON THIS DEBATE??? :biggrin:

Yasback · 02-04-2003, 08:30 AM

stopped posting? ???

Yes.	4	33.33%
No.	8	66.67%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Plagerism - What is your policy on plagerism	Ryuli	General	18	07-03-2004 02:02 PM

02-01-2003, 08:29 AM	#71
Scorponok Senior Member Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 1,650 Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given): 0 Thanks (Received): 0 Likes (Given): 0 Likes (Received): 0 Dislikes (Given): 0 Dislikes (Received): 0 Points: 0 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s)	[quoteost_uid0="Squall87"]That's true, but I still ask the question. "Why?" doesn't the Elected officals listen to those of us that write, or e-mail them our comments? Yes, there is many letters and E-mails I'm sure, but meh. if there is a opposing side, then meh, shouldn't that hint them in that some people don't want us to do that?[/quote] Rephrase that, and fix some of your grammar too...

02-04-2003, 08:30 AM	#80
Yasback Member New Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 92 Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given): 0 Thanks (Received): 0 Likes (Given): 0 Likes (Received): 0 Dislikes (Given): 0 Dislikes (Received): 0 Points: 0 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s)	stopped posting? ??? __________________ MARVEL, TAKE A NAP! TMYAPP AND YASBACK RULE!!! WE ARE THE TEAM :P

02-01-2003, 08:35 AM	#72
Squall87 Senior Member Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 212 Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given): 0 Thanks (Received): 0 Likes (Given): 0 Likes (Received): 0 Dislikes (Given): 0 Dislikes (Received): 0 Points: 0 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s)	Ok, sorry. My English writing skills suck. :biggrin: I said that your quote about the US having people represent us is true. BUT! why don't they listen to, Those of us that write/e-mail them and say that there choice is "a bad idea"? Wouldn't that give them the idea that some people think the idea is wrong, and that they should go back to the drawing board? No. They simply ignore us and go on stepping on other country's toes. So point is, the US is only, a quater-democratic.

02-01-2003, 08:41 AM	#73
Scorponok Senior Member Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 1,650 Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given): 0 Thanks (Received): 0 Likes (Given): 0 Likes (Received): 0 Dislikes (Given): 0 Dislikes (Received): 0 Points: 0 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s)	Oh, I see your question now. 'Cuz they're stupid.

02-01-2003, 08:47 AM	#74
Squall87 Senior Member Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 212 Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given): 0 Thanks (Received): 0 Likes (Given): 0 Likes (Received): 0 Dislikes (Given): 0 Dislikes (Received): 0 Points: 0 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s)	Exactly, what most everyone here is saying. My point is, in the politcal scale, we are communist. Because the people that oppose the idea don't get thier say. and Nantuko, what about Mr. "There ought to be limits to freedom." Bush that said that quote when he saw an anti-him site, due to many poeple laughing at how right it was? He wants to take our First Admendment and shove it, so everyone becomes mindless drones. and Homeland security is just Bush's "Big Brother" plan in disguise. Then agian, these ideas are from a 15-year-old Honor American that comes from a screwed up State of old people. So go ahead and flame me. I could care less.

02-01-2003, 09:04 AM	#75
Scorponok Senior Member Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 1,650 Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given): 0 Thanks (Received): 0 Likes (Given): 0 Likes (Received): 0 Dislikes (Given): 0 Dislikes (Received): 0 Points: 0 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s)	Communist isn't properly put into practice in these supposed communist countries.

02-01-2003, 02:57 PM	#76
Guest Posts: n/a Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given): Thanks (Received): Likes (Given): Likes (Received): Dislikes (Given): Dislikes (Received): Points: 0 Mentioned: Post(s) Tagged: Thread(s) Quoted: Post(s)	For the Republic/Democracy debate... Pulls out an encyclopedia "DEMOCRACY is a form of government, a way of life, and a goal or ideal. The term also refers to a country that has a democratic form of government. The word democracy means rule by the people. Abraham Lincoln described such self-government as "government of the people, by the people, for the people. The ciitizens of a democracy take part in goverment either directly or indireectly. In a direct, or pure democracy, the people meet in one place to make the laws for their community. Such democracy was practiced in Athens, and still exists today in the form of the New England town meeting. Most modern democracy is representative democracy. In large communityes--cities, states, provinces, or countries--it is impossible for all the people to meet as a group. Instead, they elect a certain number of their fellow citizens to represent them in making decisions about laws and other matters that affect the people. An assembly of representatives may be called a council, a legislature, a parliament, or a congress. Goverment by the people through their freely elected representaives is sometimes called republican government." "REPUBLIC is the form of government in which the citizens elect representative to manage the government. The people give their elected represtentatives authority to maintain opower for specific terms of offic. The word republic may also refer to a country that has a republican form of government." I hope that's enough to convince most of you... (for the others I'm affraid there's no hope left :biggrin: ). And now for the actual debate going on... Solidsnake76: I don't want to see you making a single ####### racist comment in here again. You hear me? For what you say it's probably true... but that's not what this topic's about, and I detest the whole aspect of pitting one race against the other (####### social darwainists). SSJKarma: Uh... you might consider throughing in a few facts to make your arguements more convincing (ie: saying the US has "hidden agendas" over and over doesn't cut it). Nantuko Joe: Are you one of those "50%" of the american population that believes that Iraqis hijacked the planes in 9/11? 'cause there wern't any. As for Russians starting the Vietnam War.. sure, they were supplying weapons to North Vietnam. Are you so naive to thinnk the US wasn't doing the same thing? You remember the Cuban missle crisis? It was all about the USSR putting missles right in the US' "back door", when all the while, it was perfectly fine for the US to have missles in Turkey (right in the USSR's "backdoor"). Communism was/is a facist/dictorial regime... And by no means am I trying to defend communist those brutal dictors' actions. But Russians were just as affraid of a nuclear holocaust as the US was. It wasn't just the USSR's fault the Cold War broke out. It was the US and the USSR's faults. The US "built the bomb" first, and of course, after WWII, was ready to spearhead an assault on Communism. However, after the Communists started building bombs to counter the US', what does the US do? Build more bombs of course! And that certainly would get them out of the mess... right? Wrong. The USSR just built theirs in response to US massive bomb buildings. Somewhere along the line, some jackass got the idea to start shipping bombs to other countries and building missle silo's where one country could nail the other... and so the other follows... and everyone's scared poopless the other's gonna nuke the hell out of them... so everyone just kept at a stalemate until one country caved in. As far as "hidden agenda's" go... well I'm pretty shabby on my Cold War history, so I'll just state a few things here that I know from other memories... - The Philipines. While the US is busy siding with the rebels down in Cuba, why not free the poor oppressed people of the Philipines as well? As a matter of fact, why not give the local admiral in Hong Kong the word to mobilize for an assault on the Philipines before the war even breaks out? And after the US is done, why not brutally rule the Philipines and put the rebels in reconcentration camps? Thus totally hypocracizing the whole proclaimed reason the US went to war in Cuba in the first place. Not like the US wanted an "open door" to China or anything... :biggrin: - WWI. Sinking British liners and killing a some American passengers too?! And while in a state of war?! Truely an admirable cause for "freeing Europe" of the German threat. Oh wait, the trade seemed to be suffering at the time as well... since the US wanted to maintain it's neutrality and trade with both Germany and England, it decided to not get involved right away. However, since England had the stronger navy, it's blockade of Germany proved more effective then the ones around England... and a bit of English propaganda... the US sides with Germany. Not much to say there but keepin' the trade is vital. It goes, your economy goes... your next election goes. - WWII. Ever heard of Stalin? Not like the US or Russia ever got extremly freindly during the war (ie: after Normandy, it was a race to get to Berlin first in order to hault the communist threat). I'm not saying the US did a bad thing... Hitler needed to be put in his place... killing 6 million Jews, and what was it again? 7 million+ Russians? On a side note, the US bombing on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which killed off roughly 130,000 civilians is incomparable to the attack on Pearl Harbor, which didn't even amount to 5,000. A state of war and state of peace doesn't change the amount of people who get slaughtered purposelessly. - Civil War. Free the slaves? Right... if you read the emancipation proclamation, you'd be careful to note that Loncoln didn't mention #### about freeing slaves that were in states still belonging to the Union. Only slaves from the Confederacy were freed... thus staving off the menacing threat of British interfearence. But I'm not saying any more on this war... cough that seems to be about it... Just 1 more thing before I quit typin'... If you check out Iraq's actual military capabilities instead of just assuming since Bush says they've got ####, they pose a threat to the US... you'll dicover Iraq has NO aiforce. Iraq has NO navy. Iraq has NO long-range deploying capabilities. Saddam has NO intention of attacking the US. No... this isn't "overconfidense", it's logic. Remember, Saddam let the UN inspectors into Iraq, right?? The US didn't just shoot their way in... he bought himself quite some time, and with that time, he's been turning world oppinion against the US (ie: get the UN not to back the US in an Iraqi invasion). However, if you want to get real technical and say "he's got weapons he could use, and tests on his own people". Well, I never said he didn't use chemical/biological weapons on his own people... because he does. Does that mean he'll use them on the US? Not really... He can push his own people around, but if he starts using them on US citizens, then he's really fliped because the US will attack. If he uses them against his neighboring countries, the US will attack. He knows this, and therefor, hasn't used them on other countries. And all because of why? He's trying to stay in power. However, since Bush is pressing his way into war, Saddam will be removed from power, right? And he knows he can't win, right? So what's to stop him from burning his oil feilds and using those weapons while he goes down? No reason to leave them for the US. The reality of this war is, the US has Saddam cornered. He doesn't have any capability to launch his ####, but he's got plenty of it, and if the US keeps pushing on him, there's no telling who he'll set it lose on. Wouldn't the US look bad if he decided to send them over to the Palistine terrorist orgs. in Isreal... Some terrorist catchers the US would look like then... Anyways, I'm done talking to Nantuko_Joe at this point 2000-Joe convo ends here... For the rest of you, might I pose a few questions for those who are so sure the US should strike first at Iraq? As mentioned above, preasuring Saddam might make him let lose his baddies as a form of "going all out". Whereas if the US doesn't attack, he's more likely to leave the US alone (when was the last time you heard headlines that "Iraq is invading the US" :biggrin: ). Another question comes to mind when considering one world "super-power" that polices the world the way the US is doing. What if other countrys try to emulate what the US is doing and wage their own "wars on terrorism" or "war on communism", or something of the sort... It doesn't seem to be going too well in Isreal. And if India and Pakistan all of a sudden decided one or the other posed a threat to each other, so they should "strike first"... And I doubt South Korea or Japan really want to put the preasure on North Korea right now (which btw is more powerful/dangerous then Saddam). But for some reason that brutal dictator with his 1 million in arms must be less of a threat to the US... :biggrin: And my last statement here is about the nations the US is controling. I know a lot of you live in the US, and would probably think it very abnormal to have a Chinese base in your town. But that's what the US does around the world. It exerts it's authority around the world and in this sense "coerces" others to comply. I know a lot of you think the US is past that "age of imperialism" type of extortion... But why do you think the US is able to get away with invading Iraq? If the UN doesn't support the US, do you really think that'll be enough to stop it? Honestly, imagine if Ireland was the nation invading Iraq. Without UN support... it couldn't do ####. But since nations give up their autonomy for a smaller military budget, the US gets its way around things.. regaurdless of who's right. Anyways, that's all I'm saying... hope it wasn't too long for catching up on 8 pages of debating :biggrin: Edited By 2000warrior on Feb. 01 2003 at 17:58

02-01-2003, 07:23 PM	#78
Guest Posts: n/a Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given): Thanks (Received): Likes (Given): Likes (Received): Dislikes (Given): Dislikes (Received): Points: 0 Mentioned: Post(s) Tagged: Thread(s) Quoted: Post(s)	About the cold war... yeah, everything you said is 100% true. Just 1 big ####hole neither side wanted to be in. WWI: Lusitania was the British liner carrying US citizens (128) and was destroyed as were a lot of other British liners on their coasts. US got mad... after another one gets shot down (the Sussex), and due to American protests.. Germany issues the Sussex pledge (not to shot merchant ships without proper warning). Note, German violations of international laws of the seas were equally shared by allied nations (mostly on the part by Britain, but who controls the news back to America now?). I think Britain publicly announced a while back that they knew about German intentions to sink the Lucitania before it happenend... (they wanted the US in the war). Not certain about that... could just be something else. The US didn't enter the war on that basis alone however. Although there were protestors against the war, there was a considerable amount of British propaganda (if I failed to say it enough times :biggrin: ). Belgium being overrun didn't help the German case either... or that Zimmerman Telegraph. Civil War: I thought indentured servents ceased to exist by 1860 ??? . Wern't they the people who paid British merchants/middle class by "servitude" for a free ride over to the new world in the 1500's and 1600's? As for slavery, I suggest you refresh your memory on it. When the Confederacy seceeded, Missisouri, West Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky all stayed in the Union (all of which were slave states). WWII: Don't make me get out my encyclopedia again... rarely do allied troops know of the battles between their commading officers. The US was helping Russia because they were allied at the time, and needed Russia's help to take down Hitler... after that was all said and done, it was time to get down to the real war. Look at an old map sometime and note where the USSR had control and where it didn't... it's sphere of influence stops right at Berlin. That wasn't really a bad secondary cause for fighting the war (and really was low priority until it was obvious that Hitler was finished). BTW, while I'm at it, that was another reason the US used the a-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of a direct invasion. Bulstering US might on the Russian's back door was intended to scare them out of US vs. USSR confrentation... and so they stepped up their efforts to build a bomb themselves. Anyways... I type too much. On Iraq: Yeah, underground silos and airfields you have no proof of... and yet doesn't the US have all these satilites looking down on the Earth right now? How long has the US been running spy planes over his territory? And yet not so much as a rumor of these underground silos? I think you're giving the man way too much credit. And who are these allies of which you speak? I don't see any nations boldly stepping out and supporting Saddam's cause right now. If you're reffering to terrorists, he's probably gonna do just that because the US is acting so aggressivly. And lastly... Saddam's not "so harmless", he's just harmless to the US because he's way the hell over there and has no long range capabilitys of nailing any of the US's great trading buddies. Thus the entire reason the US is willing to stop this terrorist supplier and not the one in North Korea. Edited By 2000warrior on Feb. 01 2003 at 22:24

02-01-2003, 08:46 PM	#79
bloodpack Senior Member Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Philippines Posts: 1,706 Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given): 0 Thanks (Received): 0 Likes (Given): 0 Likes (Received): 0 Dislikes (Given): 0 Dislikes (Received): 0 Points: 0 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s)	ok, let's just say (assume) that Iraq possess these biological CRAP waging war on Iraq would only provoke them in using these stuffs instead of letting them be... THIS DEBATE GETS BETTER AND BETTER BTW, WHO'S ON SIDE A AND WHO'S ON SIDE B I MEAN WHO'S NANTUKO'S TAG ON THIS DEBATE??? :biggrin: