you think too much
nice theory mind.....

Vesa... that was really interesting...
But do you think that the US would go through all that trouble to exterminate these terrorists... spending billions of dollars on miltary invasion? I htink your theory actually plays the opposite. They are looking for "terrorists" and weapons of mass destruction, but really, they want to control the oil.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

vesa, i like you conspiracy theory for 2 reasons
1) its optimistic. it has a happy ending where the 'good' is the motivating drive.
2) it gives the bush and blair the benifet of the doubt. i honestly belive that they know more then me about this issue and are at hand to make a wise desicion than i. although i cant 100% ever trust them i will gladly give them the benifet of the doubt.

good thinking... hopefully its true... hopefully....

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

Heh, only one problem with the story. While I agree that the part after invasion of Iraq, I don't quite agree with the first part, and here's why. Bush had support from most nations and people of the world to hunt down and kill terrorists. He does not have any of this support for invading Iraq. Therefore if what you say is true, he'd be much better off just telling the truth.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Heh, only one problem with the story. While I agree that the part after invasion of Iraq, I don't quite agree with the first part, and here's why. Bush had support from most nations and people of the world to hunt down and kill terrorists. He does not have any of this support for invading Iraq. Therefore if what you say is true, he'd be much better off just telling the truth.

you couldn't actually tell the truth, as Saddam would kill the Baath members involved......
fuck I'm arguing for it now

quote:

"you ought never to suffer your designs to be crossed in order to avoid war, since war is not so to be avoided, but is only deferred to your disadvantage."

Machievelli would never recommend a war on Iraq were he alive.

Never. Machievelli belived that leaders should make decisions based on risk assessment not risk aversion.

If avoiding war empowers your enemies at your expense then you should attack to deny your enemy the advantage, because it is riskier not to attack a threat now because this allows it to become a bigger threat later on.

He believed that a decision should be made on the basis of looking at what the potential downside of every option is and then choosing the option that if things go bad will affect you the least.

Now in the Iraq scenario, not attacking Iraq has no real negative consequences for the USA, Iraq is not a threat to its neighbours let alone the USA, whereas attacking Iraq has a whole range of inevitable bad consequences.

Machievelli would way up the costs and the downsides. In this case alienating the arabs and the europeans is far worse than the upside of appeasing Israel and the oil lobby.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Skaya Evidence, please? The rule in this country is "innocent until proven guilty."

That "rule" only applies to U.S. citizens.

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Az On the contrary, I'd LOVE to see some evidence, but when it comes down to it, there are far more pressing matters to be looked at, like north korea for example. Hmmmm Saddam Hussein with no Nuclear Weapons, no way of getting them, and no way of delivering them, or North Korea, who we know have the capability to build at least 6 nuclear weapons (and all the recent intelligence is saying that they are building them),and are commiting far more Human Rights violations than Iraq...... so where should the priorities lay? Would America give a shit if Iraq didn't have any Oil? would they fuck.... there's 4 cents keep saving, you'll be able to buy a clue then Guetag

I agree to an extent....i beleive both N. Korea and iraq need to come down....your right though Korea should be first....but we found out about the Korean missiles being able to reach our wst coast long after we started with Iraq....

And even if we DID go for Korea first...your statements would be reversed...you would start saying why Korea..what have they done...so not sure of your point...no matter what , you dont want America to respond to what they feel is a threat to our national security...whether it be Korea or Iraq.

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Az Meanwhile we actually KNOW North Korea are transporting enough Nuclear Rods to create at least 6 Nuclear weapons, and are posing a very real threat to the world. now you tell me which is more the more important situation.....

Are you saying you WOULD support an American/British war on North Korea?...or when that time comes will you follow the leaders of all the pacifist floating around in their self righteaous ether proclaiming North korea should be left alone?

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Az I have absolutely no doubt that Tony Blair has lied to the British Population on a number of occasions, he's a politician, it's what they do. I'll be voting Liberal Democrat next time, a party that won't sell the British people up the river......

Hussein is also a politician....why do you feel he doesnt lied about the weapons hidden?....or does Hussein always tell the truth

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 I agree to an extent....i beleive both N. Korea and iraq need to come down....your right though Korea should be first....but we found out about the Korean missiles being able to reach our wst coast long after we started with Iraq.... And even if we DID go for Korea first...your statements would be reversed...you would start saying why Korea..what have they done...so not sure of your point...no matter what , you dont want America to respond to what they feel is a threat to our national security...whether it be Korea or Iraq.

how would they be reversed? I see North Korea as a threat, Iraq are nobodies in comparison.
I wouldn't be saying why korea, as I've stated why there should be military action against Korea
thats one of the stupidest things I've ever read....

quote:

Are you saying you WOULD support an American/British war on North Korea?...or when that time comes will you follow the leaders of all the pacifist floating around in their self righteaous ether proclaiming North korea should be left alone?

yes, and I've said that Korea is a far more pressing situation, and I'm pretty sure anyone with a clue agrees with me.....
I said there should be action of Korea, so why would I change my mind
yet again you're writing shit......

quote:

Hussein is also a politician....why do you feel he doesnt lied about the weapons hidden?....or does Hussein always tell the truth

thats twisting what I've said to ridiculous proportions, and I thought you had more sense than that, although I was obviously wrong.
Until you can actually show me (and the rest of the world), evidence that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, that he's planning to use them etc... he's not lying and we are?
it's called Innocent until Proven guilty, and I'm not sure about the states, but in the UK it's a pretty big thing, or at least it was......
now stop writing bullshit, and think about what you're saying......

quote:

Originally posted by Az how would they be reversed? I see North Korea as a threat, Iraq are nobodies in comparison. I wouldn't be saying why korea, as I've stated why there should be military action against Korea thats one of the stupidest things I've ever read....

dude WTF is your problem.....i simply asked you a question...

quote:

Originally posted by Az yes, and I've said that Korea is a far more pressing situation, and I'm pretty sure anyone with a clue agrees with me..... I said there should be action of Korea, so why would I change my mind yet again you're writing shit..........

relax.....i am not writing shit...again i only asked.

dude why must you persnally attack everyone that challenges your views.....are you that immature that you must resort to name calling?...grow up an enter adulthood where you can speak without getting so angry that you have to put down others.....

sorry if i offended you...i was just challenging your thoughts...isnt that what a debate is based on.

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!