quote:

---

Originally written by Dervish Malachai:

"Okay, let's say there were no WMDs in Iraq. Let's say we left Saddam Hussein and his terrorists alone. Let's say we were still combing the mountains of Afghanistan in search of Osama Bin Laden. Does that mean that Saddam would never have generated enough power and technology to build WMDs?"

He had that capacity, as evidenced by his chemical trucks and actions of Chemical Ali. He didn't use that capacity, as evidenced by the pervasive lack of WMDs. He actually followed the commands of the world when asked- unlike a certain American president who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty.

If he had that capacity, he would have used it, and he probably did. As cfgauss said, he consciously kept the UN weapons inspectors out of many areas. I wonder why that was.

"Those two African countries are were not near as much as a threat as far at terrorists go."

How Christian of you- "Screw the other guys unless it benefits me in some way." I suppose the Africans will have to ravage some of your white women before you even think of looking in their direction, hunh? Or what if they have a hidden supply of underground deuterium?

The point is that, nationality be damned, the same amount of money dumped in Iraq could have actively saved millions upon millions lives in a far more effective way than your war without the intense machievellian side-effects.

Let me say that oil was far from the reason we went into Iraq. It was to unseat Saddam Hussein and his gang of terrorists and actively save the lives of millions upon millions of people without having to do it on our home soil after more important buildings are destroyed.

"Of course, if Bush were a Muslim, I wouldn't be supporting him as I am now, and my family'd probably be living in Canada."

I was thinking you'd sepukku instead, but the Canadians will politically outnumber you, so I suppose the nonsense would be diluted either way.

All I'll say here is: sepukku? :confused:

"However, Bush does not force you to pray to God before every meal or anything either, does he? I just said that he bases his Presidency on religion because that what he believes is right. You may choose not to support his religion or anything he believes, but he is the President, elected by a majority of American voters, and griping about this sort of thing is not going to help."

That is a theocracy. What does "freedom" mean? It means, "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action." I wonder what anonymous tenet will be violated by pushing religious values onto a person's life? If you can find a justification for some of the religiously-based nonsense your impotent avatar preaches on a regular basis, I'd like to know. PS- Bible verses do not count.

If you force religious tenets on people, son, you violate the constitutional ammendment of freedom of religion because those people not of your religion are now coerced to follow its ways. Apparently, you don't understand this concept until it comes time to pray in public schools (which I honestly don't care about) or put your religious teachings in your courthouses (which is disgustingly imperialist).

Are you being forced to follow any religion? No.

"What do you suggest we do then? America as it is needs electrical power, needs food, and needs gasoline, and currently, we cannot meet those needs without polluting, heating up the Earth, and killing people, if that's the way you want to think about it. If there's another, more efficient way to provide the energy we need, tell me right now."

Nuclear.

(Although admittedly, I did not tell you this right now. I told you this a goddamned page ago, but you seemed to have developed dyslexia in the interrum.)

I'm pretty sure that someone said a while back that atmospheric pollution of greenhouse gases is preferable to radioactive nuclear waste.

"As the population of our Earth nears capacity, people are going to die, and there's no denying. It's just a natural cycle."

Good attitude. I'm not sure how it justifies active murder, though.

Er, active murder? How do you get that from people dying because there isn't enough land to support the population? Not that we need to worry about it in our lifetimes anyway.

"I'm not going to deny global warming. But for now, it's inevitable."

Especially when there's no source of power whose only real wastes are steam and materials less radioactive than coal.

I never knew coal was radioactive.

oh wai

EDIT:

As a forewarning, I actually want you to directly address the points I make whilst not repeating yourself or disregarding what I have said in other places.

Okay, well there you go. Enjoy. Now you can have your fun reading what I said and formulating clever manipulations of them to contradict it all.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Custer XVI:

quote:

---

Originally written by 4.808 x 10^3:

We left Afghanistan because Iraq was becoming more of a priority with the threat of WMDs (which may or may not have existed; Saddam wouldn't tell people if he had them and certainly wouldn't leave them out in the open for everyone to see.

---

Which is why we had weapons inspectors in the country. Hans Blix. Remember Hans Blix? The weapons inspector your entire side of the fence mocked for declaring there was no sound reason to believe there to be WMDs in Iraq?
Who was right on that one, ben? Was it George Bush or Hans Blix?

Okay, let's say there were no WMDs in Iraq. Let's say we left Saddam Hussein and his terrorists alone. Let's say we were still combing the mountains of Afghanistan in search of Osama Bin Laden. Does that mean that Saddam would never have generated enough power and technology to build WMDs?

quote:

---

You must understand that we still need to keep soldiers in Iraq because the country is still largely unstable. Since we've already gone in, took down Saddam's regime, and had elections, we may as well finish what we started and give the new democracy a strong foothold in stability as the insurgents are cleared out. You'll have to agree that Iraq is both a better place to live and less of a threat to other countries without someone like Saddam Hussein ruling.

---

There are other priorities. With the kind of money and manpower we pissed into Iraq, we could have stabilized and rebuilt the infrastructure of any two African countries which had less invested into hating us. But no: we had to pick a fight with a religious community which already sees us as an adversary.

Those two African countries are were not near as much as a threat as far at terrorists go.

quote:

---

Finally, I'd just like to say that Bush bases much of what he does on religion because that's what he believes is right. If you choose not to follow his religion (I'd encouage following it though), I can't really stop you and neither can he. But since he finds confort and leadership in God, he bases his Presidency on that. That's all I'll say there.

---

Okay, here's the problem: he can base whatever he likes in his personal life on whatever the hell he believes in. He believes abortion is wrong, he can carry his children to term. He believes homosexuality is wrong, he and Dick can remain chaste. But it becomes something else entirely when he decides, as a President, to focus on his religion. Just because he believes something is right doesn't mean I should be forced to abide by it.

How would you feel if Bush were a Muslim and he were forcing you to pray five times daily in the direction of Mecca, forego pork, and refuse to wear gold or silk? Maybe pushed laws penalizing your mother for not wearing a burqah? Would you still be so damn enthused about the subject of a fundamentalist President if he weren't your kind of fundamentalist?

Of course, if Bush were a Muslim, I wouldn't be supporting him as I am now, and my family'd probably be living in Canada.

However, Bush does not force you to pray to God before every meal or anything either, does he? I just said that he bases his Presidency on religion because that what he believes is right. You may choose not to support his religion or anything he believes, but he is the President, elected by a majority of American voters, and griping about this sort of thing is not going to help.

ALSO!
I do not consider the first part of what Mind said credible - I've never heard of any such thing, personally, and doubt it is or even could be true - but look up the word 'desertification'. There are huge belts of farmland in areas which need farmland badly which can dry up and die based on an annual change of fractional degrees - global warming is killing millions of people, and Bush won't even acknowledge it as a valid scientific observation.

As has been pointed out, no credible ecologist says global warming isn't happening. A few (largely on the payroll of major companies, might I add) will tell you it's natural, but TM's lovely graph tends to disagree with that, along with all collected observational data (Antarctic pack ice, stuff like that). None are going to tell you it won't have a realistic impact, either.

People are going to die. Quality of life is going to decline. We have known this since the Reagan Administration, and George W. Bush is the first President since then to try and reverse our attempts to fight it. At the behest not of ecologists - people who go out and collect real data and apply them to the real world - but of think tanks.

What do you suggest we do then? America as it is needs electrical power, needs food, and needs gasoline, and currently, we cannot meet those needs without polluting, heating up the Earth, and killing people, if that's the way you want to think about it. If there's another, more efficient way to provide the energy we need, tell me right now.

As the population of our Earth nears capacity, people are going to die, and there's no denying. It's just a natural cycle.

The policies of Bush I and Clinton were to talk to ecologists and address the problem - looking at experimental and observational data to get results. Bush's policy is to consult 'think tanks', which are basically corporate-bankrolled organizations to produce logically sound 'theories' for a factually bankrupt cause. Essentially, they're professional excuse-makers.

I don't think this is a political issue. I can't even see it as one. Do you just enjoy being wrong? Because the facts are not on Bush's side on this one at all, and acting as if they are or even could be is disingenious.

I'm not going to deny global warming. But for now, it's inevitable.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dolphin:

quote:

---

Originally written by 4.808 x 10^3:

Yeah, Spring has posted on this thread before too. Kel missed two of em'. Any more?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

Everyone who has posted so far on this page of the thread is from the U.S.

---

Spring posted after Kel's post.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by I Sprung the Spring:

...
Its stupid.
...

---