Listen, I've got nothing more to say on this matter. All we're doing is going in circles, and it's why I generally avoid political debates like this to begin with, because when you have two people coming from two radically different view points (myself being extremely leftist, while you're to the opposite extreme) there isn't much ground to be gained in either direction.

If you want to go on and chalk this debate up like it's a football match, be my guest, I'm really past the point of having pride about things like this, and it's certainly not as though it's a formal debate, and it's not as though it's going to have any ramifications on what happens in the coming months.

I'm against military action against Iraq, I think the US stance is questonable, and I think it's going to result in yet more unnecessary deaths.

More than enough said, way more than enough.

edit:
On a final, final note I do feel that you *do* deserve clarification on my point concerning re-election.

Traditionally war has been a very effective means for raising rating points, hence I can easily see it as a partial motivation for an attack (combining with other lovely traits like a personal vendetta over reports that Saddam was attempting to have Bush Sr. assasinated, financial gains from having a friendly regime in control of oil fields, and yes, the same fear that he's trying to push on the American citizenry)

My point about it being a possible election coster was releated to the poll numbers today, which clearly show that *this particular* action could end up being very unpopular, thus bucking the general trend. I don't know if this'll be the case, but I certainly hope so.

In short, historically war boosts ratings, my hypothesis, in this case it could hurt them. :shrug:

Last edited by CortexBomb on Sep-08-2002 at 19:13

quote:

this is becoming a ridiculously bad analogy if people are talking like having a discussion with a cat is a plausible thing.

quote:

No that's why you back up.. and start to talk to the cat and explain that it needs to cut it's claws... and the cat won't listed it you claws if 5 times bigger and you don't have to cut it.

wtf dude? whatever you've been smokin, i want some. thats like saying if i throw a toothbrush at my dog, he's going to brush and floss every morning and night from now on.

...this is going absolutely nowhere...give it up already, a concensus will never be reached about how this matter should be handled, just LET IT GO

___________________
.

hey bluNine got your scanner yet? I'd still like to see that issue, and it isn't available up here.

ok well i thought this argument was dead.... didn't we all agree I won?

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 i am not getting into another debate... but all i gotta say is that if we dont take out Huseein soon then America will have a great threat from Iraq in the future...we are trying to prevent what will happen..... maybe if out last president Clinton had any balls he would of taken out Osama bin Laden when he had the chance...then who knows maybe 9.11 would not of happend...so Bush is putting America best interest at hand before we suffer a greater loss then 9.11.

Even tho you're not here anymore, I will still ask;

Lets say Clinton did take out Osama when he had the chance (and enlighten me to when this was, because I have no idea), if he did kill him...then what would that change? Sure, 9.11 wouldn't have happend most likely...but then 10.29 would have, or 11.06...or 12.24...this was sadly inevitable for the USA. The whole US culture, form of life, everything that remotely deals with the US is hated by the mid-east culture and terrorism. And this will go on, no matter what Bush or any other future president does, this will go on, and as much as I hate to say it, another terrorist attack in which innocent civilians will die, will occur. Maybe not in the States, maybe up here in Toronto it will...but it will happen again. No one can take out a whole underground organization. This is unfortunately what happens when you stick your dick in pussy that isn't yours, America

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb Not to mention the fact that your overall sample size is tiny...democracy has only existed about 200 years, and certainly wasn't the "norm" at the beginning. I fail to see how democracies not fighting democracies often proves *anything* since it obscures the obvious fact that democracies are still getting into, and causing wars for their own, often selfish ends, just like dictatorships. Do you honestly think that if the entire world was a democracy that there wouldn't be any war? And people accused the Soviets of plotting for world domination....

Democracy has existed for 200 years only? Athens, my friend, was the first democratic state in history. Sorry for not giving you an exact date, but its from 500BC to 1000BC

Last edited by infinity HiGH on Sep-10-2002 at 05:20

just got it, ill be scanning and uploading soon

___________________
.

quote:

Originally posted by infinity HiGH Democracy has existed for 200 years only? Athens, my friend, was the first democratic state in history. Sorry for not giving you an exact date, but its from 500BC to 1000BC

Geeze, good point mate, I don't know how I lost sight of that...I feel more than a little silly now!

This actually makes me realize that the whole point of what *does* constitute a democracy could in and of itself become a large debate...