Iraq

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
It's simple. I WASN'T arguing the pro-active argument. I was commenting on your isolationist arguments.

Ahhh! Okay, I see what you're saying now. And I actually tend to agree with you. Although it might sound nice to settle down in complete safety, earning money and protected by fine intelligence operations and a strong military, I personally hate to think what the consequences on the world would be if we took such a position. Because of that, I'd go against being isolationist, and think that would be selfish. Even if some don't appreciate us. If we need everyone to appreciate what we're doing, then we're acting to be heroes in the public eye, not to do what's right.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
My isolationist arguments were SATIRICAL. I keep hearing everyone say that we should be reactive with Iraq than proactive - I'm just pointing out how ridiculous that is. Sorry you missed the satire in it all.

You weren't serious in your isolationist arguments? Jeepers, either I'd better get off this thread to avoid making a fool of myself, or you and BeardofPants should try to be more straightforward. You fooled each other as to your points and both of you fooled me! Too witty to be understood .

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
You weren't serious in your isolationist arguments? Jeepers, either I'd better get off this thread to avoid making a fool of myself, or you and BeardofPants should try to be more straightforward. You fooled each other as to your points and both of you fooled me! Too witty to be understood .

I knew what BoP was getting at - I just wanted to make my point stick in a little more. Of course we couldn't act reactively in WWII or be isolationist. If we did we would have been fighting against the entire world. We should have probably have gotten into the war sooner - but before Pearl Harbor American public opion was 85% AGAINST going to war.

Being proactive - is not always a bad thing and is sometimes necessary. Which in the case of Iraq - I think it is since he refuses to fully comply with the UN resolutions.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I knew what BoP was getting at - I just wanted to make my point stick in a little more.

Hmm, somehow I recall you saying "I don't know how your statement that Germany was planning on allying itself with Mexico supports your argument against proactive attack."

We were in the same boat . Agh, anyway, this is petty. I'll sit out now and listen for a while. Talk to you more another time, jerseydevil.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Hmm, somehow I recall you saying "I don't know how your statement that Germany was planning on allying itself with Mexico supports your argument against proactive attack."

We were in the same boat . Agh, anyway, this is petty. I'll sit out now and listen for a while. Talk to you more another time, jerseydevil.

I wanted her to explain why a proactive attack was valid in her own words. Everyone is saying that we can't go proactively into Iraq even though they refuse to comply with inspections and the resolutions. I have been arguing that sometimes beig proactive is necessary.

She also made another point for me too. Everyone is saying that if we go into Iraq he MIGHT use his weapons. By going against Germany it MIGHT have given Hitler MORE reason to ally himself with Mexico. It doesn't mean we should have been afraid to go against hitler though and stayed on the sidelines of WWII until he actually did something against us.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I wanted her to explain why a proactive attack was valid in her own words.

Er. Did you miss something? I wasn't arguing the pro-active argument!!! At no point have I even delved into that argument!!! Please credit the arguments to the appropriate people.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Er. Did you miss something? I wasn't arguing the pro-active argument!!! At no point have I even delved into that argument!!! Please credit the arguments to the appropriate people.

If you say so.

[BeardofPants]

Okay. Really slowly:

You said:

I should hope it was since we fought TWO world wars which had NOTHING to do with us in all actuallity. We could have left you deal with Germany and we could have just have concentrated on Japan.

To which I said:

Actually, there is evidence to suggest that German was trying to ally with Mexico.

You responded:

But he didn't. So your point is?

And I replied:

Only because it was blown out of the water by the British Code-Breakers. And I would have thought my point was excruciatingly obvious.

I clarified further as Leif seemed a bit confused over my point:

Something like that.

http://www.disappearing-inc.com/Z/z...antelegram.html

http://www.pittstate.edu/services/s.../wwi/zimmer.htm



******

My point is that the US would not have been able to pursue an isolationist policy.

And then back to you:

But he didn't and based on what everyone has been saying - we should not have attacked Germany - even if he was planning on attcking us through Mexico. We should have basically have waited until he attacked California, New Mexico, Arizona or Texas.

I don't know how your statement that Germany was planning on allying itself with Mexico supports your argument against proactive attack.

[Note: the first usage of 'pro-active' between our debate comes from YOU not me.]

And my response:


It's simple. I WASN'T arguing the pro-active argument. I was commenting on your isolationist arguments.

[BeardofPants]

And then you claimed to "get" what I was saying:

I knew what BoP was getting at - I just wanted to make my point stick in a little more.

To which Lief said:

Hmm, somehow I recall you saying "I don't know how your statement that Germany was planning on allying itself with Mexico supports your argument against proactive attack."

We were in the same boat .

And you followed up with:

I wanted her to explain why a proactive attack was valid in her own words. Everyone is saying that we can't go proactively into Iraq even though they refuse to comply with inspections and the resolutions. I have been arguing that sometimes beig proactive is necessary.

And then it's back to me...

Er. Did you miss something? I wasn't arguing the pro-active argument!!! At no point have I even delved into that argument!!! Please credit the arguments to the appropriate people.

And finally:

If you say so.


To which I respond: Yes. I do say so. I said it a few times.

[Lief Erikson]

Jerseydevil, your PM Inbox is full.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
To which I respond: Yes. I do say so. I said it a few times.

You were at one point stating that Iraq actually had to do something to the US in order for us to take action...

Page 13
Until we are sure of what he's up to, I don't think we should invade Iraq because of mere speculation.

Page 15
So? I'll say it again. Saddam doesn't appear to have moved against the US since the gulf war. Heck, he's been isolated in Iraq!

You have yet to prove that he's moved against the US. You have yet to answer why this war is justified. All you have provided is speculation. Not good enough. SHOW ME THE MONEY!

Before that Hussein was refusing to allow inspectors in and you were saying that we needed proof of WMDs. Now we have a resolution from the UN - which it took a show of force from the US to make him accept the resolution and inspectors. This resotion even Hans Blix is declaring that Hussein is not complying with. Iraq has not accounted for ANY of the weapons which the United Nations KNOWS he had.


By the way - back then over 6 months ago - you were arguing we were rushing to war. It doesn't seem like that much of a rush to me. We've been giving Iraq chance after chance after chance to come clean.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You were at one point stating that Iraq actually had to do something to the US in order for us to take action...

So? That was then, this is now. Two separate arguments. Eesh, you're grasping at straws here.

I'll say it again: I brought up the Mexican reference purely in response to US isolationism. I was not at any point during TODAYS debate referencing to pro-activism. Now if you'll excuse me: I have a date with a brick wall....

[BeardofPants]

By the way: I'd like for you to actually point out where I mentioned the word "pro-active" in my arguments at any give point during this thread, apart from where I was diassociating myself from the argument.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
So? That was then, this is now. Two separate arguments. Eesh, you're grasping at straws here.

I'll say it again: I brought up the Mexican reference purely in response to US isolationism. I was not at any point during TODAYS debate referencing to pro-activism. Now if you'll excuse me: I have a date with a brick wall....

Please - knock your brains out.

[BeardofPants]

What brains? I'm blonde.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
What brains? I'm blonde.

Well I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But at least you admitted it.

[Millane]

Good News! australias foolproof against any air attacks if we go to war against iraq... it said on the news tonight about how leaflets were given out at an airshow showing all Military Bases, Explosives factories/storage, communication etc etc and its all available on the internet ohhh well alls good we got anti terrorist leaflets aswell one more for the stupid govt

[Elvellon]

Japan actually declared war on us by attacking us.

You said:

“Well except for Japan - they hadn't attacked us. So why should we get involved? You're saying we should wait until Saddam Hussein actually does something before doing anything.”

And I completed:

“And, if memory is right, you declared war to Japan and Germany declared war to you afterwards.”

Meaning that after Pearl Harbour you declared war and Germany answered by declaring it in turn. The point was simply to show war was unavoidable, but since you clarified your position it becomes irrelevant.

I don't have my head stuck in the ground. I have history to back me up on issues where IF we had taken PROACTIVE action - we could have saved millions and millions of lives.

Your perception of the situation makes you believe History backs you up, not proofs.

No it doesn't - but obviously you missed my point. Why should we have helped you with Germany - Germany didn't attack us. Maybe we should have just have contained him in Europe.

It seems we may both have missed each other’s points. You may recall that my argument was, quoting:

“Personally I believe that, under the current situation, containment, being viable, is the best solution by far.”

You will notice I’ve said, “under the current situation,” and not “in any circumstance.” That was a deliberate choice of words.

What was he doing to Europe or any other country other than his own? What country did he attack? I don't recall him moving tanks into Austria, Turkey, England, France, Germany or any other European country. We could have contained him and let him go on killing his own people - like Hussein does.

We went in there because we were afraid that it WOULD spill over into the rest Europe. In other words we acted PROACTIVELY. We should have acted far sooner though - we would have saved thousands of innocent lives.

JD, if he had not initiated a massive, systematic deportation program he would not have been attacked, DESPITE the fact that he DID represent a danger to his neighbours and WAS NOT contained.

[Sween]

Originally posted by Millane
Good News! australias foolproof against any air attacks if we go to war against iraq... it said on the news tonight about how leaflets were given out at an airshow showing all Military Bases, Explosives factories/storage, communication etc etc and its all available on the internet ohhh well alls good we got anti terrorist leaflets aswell one more for the stupid govt

lets hear it for the austrilians. But why would anyone want to attack you? Hav you ever had a war with anyone? everyone likes the ozzies!!!

[markedel]

Er...

Japan