|
|
|
Dear guest,
Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.
This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.
All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)
|
 |
|
05-06-2008, 12:09 AM
|
#21 (permalink)
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,670
Country: 
Country: 
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PayingAttention
I think it is an extreme stretch of the word to say that we have successfully invaded two countries. I suppose once again it depends on the criteria for success. - Getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his cronies? Yes
- Finding WMDs? No
- Establishing a working government and its intitutions? Not really
- Establishing law and order? Definitely not
- Improving the life of the average Iraqi? Absolutely not
- Stabilising the region? Quite the opposite
If we have been successful, why don't we now get out now. |
None of those objectives have anything to do with the invasion.
__________________
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen… it is declared… The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-Treaty of Tripoli, 1794.
|
|
|
|
05-06-2008, 12:24 AM
|
#22 (permalink)
|
|
Baron
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,180
Country:
Country: 
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe
What makes you say that? About 170,000 American soldiers are currently in Iraq or Afghanistan (mostly Iraq). The U.S. military has around 2.9 million active and reserve personnel. We have more than enough troops to satisfy our needs in both countries.
They signed up for it knowing that they could be called back for additional tours of duty. As far as stop-loss goes, cry me a river.
Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with the other 2.7 million soldiers we have. If McCain wants to increase troop levels, I don't see why he wouldn't pull from them.
|
I fail to see the logic of your arguments here. One of your points was that the troops in signing up knew they could be called back for a half dozen consecutive tours, as well as making fun of them for resenting it or their increased possibility of being killed or maimed.
Your next point contends there are plenty of other soldiers. Why, logically then, would we abuse the troops so if it was not necessary to maintain their numbers? |
|
|
|
|
05-06-2008, 12:31 AM
|
#23 (permalink)
|
|
Baron
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,180
Country:
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe
None of those objectives have anything to do with the invasion.
|
ice is right this time, those objectives didn't have anything to do with the invasion.
Those are just the lies the administration devised to hide the fact it was always about the oil. |
|
|
|
|
05-06-2008, 12:32 AM
|
#24 (permalink)
|
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 150
Country: 
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe
None of those objectives have anything to do with the invasion.
|
We are playing with words here, but I'm OK with that.
If none of these objectives have anything to do with the invasion then:
- what was the objective of the invasion?
- what is the definition of sucess in reaching that objective?
- has such objective been successfully acheived?
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2008, 03:37 AM
|
#25 (permalink)
|
|
Conscript
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 29
Country:
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PayingAttention
What do you think justifies the statement that America is the greatest democracy?
|
For one thing, it is the greatest democracy simply because it's the only one that is a Superpower. For another, it is simply the greatest country on the face of the earth, period! The fact that it's also a democracy is purely incidental...
__________________
The Dream Ticket 
An idea whose time has come |
|
|
|
|
05-06-2008, 11:14 AM
|
#26 (permalink)
|
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 150
Country:
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spin
For one thing, it is the greatest democracy simply because it's the only one that is a Superpower. For another, it is simply the greatest country on the face of the earth, period! The fact that it's also a democracy is purely incidental...
|
A fairly held opinion, but it doesn't make much of a debtaing point, does it?
I would genuinely like to know how you judge these things. |
|
|
|
|
05-06-2008, 12:09 PM
|
#27 (permalink)
|
|
Conscript
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10
Country: 
|
You could have just Googled the facts yourself. It's like calling off brand tissue papers a Kleenex, it's a term that got used so much we just say it naturally now.
The term Leader of the Free World originated with World War II when the US did indeed lead the victory. Many slogans have risen and fallen with countries throughout the ages; are you going to get your panties in a twist because they called Alexander of Macedonia "Alexander the Great"?
OMG! Alexander is NOT the great! I HATE it when they call him that!
__________________
"Just 1 presidency Per Household PLZ!" 
"Hold on ma'am, the abortion is almost complete. I just have to count and make sure I got all the finger's and toes out of there."
RAPE is not a good reason to MURDER an innocent being.
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2008, 12:34 PM
|
#28 (permalink)
|
|
Baron
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,180
Country:
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BratWurst
You could have just Googled the facts yourself. It's like calling off brand tissue papers a Kleenex, it's a term that got used so much we just say it naturally now.
The term Leader of the Free World originated with World War II when the US did indeed lead the victory. Many slogans have risen and fallen with countries throughout the ages; are you going to get your panties in a twist because they called Alexander of Macedonia "Alexander the Great"?
OMG! Alexander is NOT the great! I HATE it when they call him that!
|
Just as with Kleenex, upon closer inspection we see the Leader of the Free World is just a brand name that used to dominate the market. |
|
|
|
|
05-06-2008, 12:48 PM
|
#29 (permalink)
|
|
Mercenary
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cowal Peninsula
Posts: 320
Country: 
|
For me, the greatness of America is only in its size and that of its population.
The American President is put there my the people of the country but that does not mean he is the greatest person on earth, merely the head of one of the largest country's on earth.
Bratwurst.
America did not lead the WW1 victory. There were at least 16 nations involved in the defeat of the Reich. America only came into that war after the bombing of Pearl harbour, by which time the UK had been fighting the Nazis for several years, and then the Japanese.
In spite of all the movies made in USA which made it look as if the USA had done it all, it just didn't happen that way.
__________________
 The Bluebell of Scotland is hanging her head
The lion, once rampant, is lying like dead
Last edited by mairead; 05-06-2008 at 12:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2008, 01:51 PM
|
#30 (permalink)
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 4,950
Country: 
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BratWurst
You could have just Googled the facts yourself. It's like calling off brand tissue papers a Kleenex, it's a term that got used so much we just say it naturally now.
The term Leader of the Free World originated with World War II when the US did indeed lead the victory. Many slogans have risen and fallen with countries throughout the ages; are you going to get your panties in a twist because they called Alexander of Macedonia "Alexander the Great"?
OMG! Alexander is NOT the great! I HATE it when they call him that!
|
Terms can become anachronistic. I mean the Habsburger empire was once called the one "where the sun never sets". (and it was actually the first empire of global dimensions that could have such a label justifiably). But even back then in the early 20th century when the Habsburger still ruled a considerable chunk of Europe, this was already very anachronistic.
Times change.
While the US is still the most powerful country that exists currently, its moral claim of leadership has largely vaporized in the meanwhile, also within what is often called "the west".
Your comparision is also wrong as well. There is nothing wrong with calling Alexander "the great". Saying Branko Crvenkovski the great however would sound weird, wouldn't it? (Branko Crvenkovski is currently the head of the modern Macedonian Republic)
Last edited by Slartibartfas; 05-06-2008 at 01:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:10 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.1.0
A vBSkinworks Design
 |
|
