Interventionism in the East. - Page 4

On January 29 2012 22:35 NewbSaibot wrote: Saying the USA has raped the world with repeated wars is like saying the police are constantly killing people. The USA has never made an outright attempt to mass murder civilians and destroy a country simply because they dont like their neighbor. However that is exactly what Iran has threatened to do. No country that isnt already a piece of shit is actually afraid the US is going to attack them. Which country do you prefer having nukes, NK or the USA? NK has its issues, but as you mentioned earlier they are in no position to destroy themselves. You will not be finding 9/11 hijackers of NK descent, that is simply not their thing. However there is a sect of the muslim world which WOULD produce a 9/11 every day if given the means and opportunity. It's simply too risky to allow nukes to proliferate in that region of the world. The United States is seen as a rational war mongerer. They have their own best interests at heart when causing shit, which is more than we can say for the middle east. Iran? Afghanistan? There are too many fucking lunatics who would crack the planet in half if they could and do so laughing hysterically all the way. It's like giving a handgun to a child. You just dont do it until they've proven themselves responsible enough to hold it.

except that the US is not the world police, if such thing exists is the UN, so you are not a police arresting people, you are just a civilian with a big gun taking whatever it needs from anyone through violence, so again if this is somehow not clear to you yet, the US is not the world police.

You cant say shit about Irans intention for genocide unless you openly oppose Israel, they have the same religious genocidal tendencies, except that they are actually doing it and not just threatening, you chose to ignore this again, how convenient.

Its obvious that you are not familiar with NK, they are far crazier and more radical than any muslim nation by far, there is no government in this world that would casually use a nuclear weapon as i said its an entire country suicide and if NK hasnt done it yet, nobody else would, i dare you to name one country leader who is crazier than the "Kims"

Its amazing how childish your view of the world is, you see things black and white and you are so naive that you think that the US has the peoples best interest in wars rofl.

If giving nuclear weapons to Iran is like giving a gun to a child, then giving nukes to USA is like giving a gun to the school bully

On January 30 2012 23:22 Baalim wrote: except that the US is not the world police, if such thing exists is the UN, so you are not a police arresting people, you are just a civilian with a big gun taking whatever it needs from anyone through violence, so again if this is somehow not clear to you yet, the US is not the world police. You cant say shit about Irans intention for genocide unless you openly oppose Israel, they have the same religious genocidal tendencies, except that they are actually doing it and not just threatening, you chose to ignore this again, how convenient. Its obvious that you are not familiar with NK, they are far crazier and more radical than any muslim nation by far, there is no government in this world that would casually use a nuclear weapon as i said its an entire country suicide and if NK hasnt done it yet, nobody else would, i dare you to name one country leader who is crazier than the "Kims" Its amazing how childish your view of the world is, you see things black and white and you are so naive that you think that the US has the peoples best interest in wars rofl. If giving nuclear weapons to Iran is like giving a gun to a child, then giving nukes to USA is like giving a gun to the school bully

Of course the US shouldnt be a world police, but they have thrust themselves into this position because we now have too many enemies, and a general intolerance for a lot of bullshit that goes on in the world. We're more like corrupt police, we do some good on occasion, and the bad we do goes under the radar.

I do oppose Israel, I think they're fucking retarded and need to stfu. I am well aware of the suffering they have caused to the palestinian world, but thats beside the point, because now sects of that world hate us due to our support of Israel, and their style of retaliation involves randomly killing civilians and plots to destroy America, so fuck them anyway. Israel is willing to tolerate a muslim presence, but muslims are not willing to do the same.

The Kim family would never blow themselves up in a car bomb to take out a foe. However there are too many muslims right now willing to do just that. If given a nuclear weapon they would be happy to destroy their own country if it meant destroying ours. From their point of view it's win/win since their religious beliefs are far more realistic to them than any other nations. Like I said, you cant play fair vs an enemy who doesnt give a shit. NK has ambition. The Taliban just wants to see the world burn.

And I never said the US has the peoples best interest at heart, I said they have their own best interests at heart, meaning for example invading a country for oil revenue. At least there was a fucking goal somewhere in there. If the U.S. is a bully, they've at least reached puberty and recognize picking unwinnable fights is useless.

You have too many enemies because you have been bulling the world for decades, obviously many countries would like to watch you burn, and rightfuly so.

Also you dont do good, sure Hussein was a sick guy but every single poll after the war says that Iranians say they are worse now than they were before, so no, your media creates the illusion of good and people justify this shit on "collateral good" well its not remotely as good you think it is, the wrong you do far outweights any good.

Well its good you oppose Israel at least you are slightly congruent that fundamentalist violent countries shouldnt have nukes, however you are wrong that muslims are less tolerant than israelites, they are both equally insane, in Israel you see kids signing boms to kill palestinians, they are both irrational rabid dogs.

No country leader is willing to do that, sure many random guys would do it, but not somebody in the lead of a country because they have a lot to lose, tell me exactly one country leader in the middle east that you think would be willing to destory his country to harm USA.

An evil intelligent and goal oriented mind is far more dangerous than a irrational chaotic one, that being side you would be too naive to think the leaders of those nations ultimate goal was that irrational, obviously they are just seeking to increase their personal wealth and power through religios bullshit, thats what they preach, not what they seek just as in the US.

Also you dont do good, sure Hussein was a sick guy but every single poll after the war says that Iranians say they are worse now than they were before, so no, your media creates the illusion of good and people justify this shit on "collateral good" well its not remotely as good you think it is, the wrong you do far outweights any good.

i assume u meant iraqis? Confused why a poll on Iran has to do with Saddam since iranian well being has more to do with internal politics and economics then saddam removal. But that is an incorrect statement about iraqis.

Looking back at the removal of Saddam in 2003, Iraqis are easily the most enthusiastic about it, with 74 percent saying it was the right decision. At the same time, 75 percent believe that it has increased the risk of terrorist attacks around the world.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/incl/printable_version.php?pnt=172

In the first rigorous, scientifically conducted sampling of public sentiment in Iraq, residents of the country's capital say -- by a 2-to-1 margin -- that the ousting of Saddam Hussein was worth any hardships they might have personally suffered since the U.S. and British-led invasion (62% yes, 30% no).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9334/ousti...hardships-endured-since-invasion.aspx

The US government has long maintained its involvement there is with the support of the Iraqi people, but in 2005 when asked directly, 82–87% of the Iraqi populace was opposed to the US occupation and wanted US troops to leave. 47% of Iraqis supported attacking US troops. However, in the same poll 77% of Iraqis said that ousting Saddam Hussein had been worth the hardships brought on by the war.[7]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_the_Iraq_War

The Taliban just wants to see the world burn.

Also that took bout 5 mins with my phone during my lunchbreak to find 3 opinion polls. If I had an actual computer Id go back and find the last time I found polls that backed up what Nmnasty said and Baals immediate response was "polls dont prove anything". Either well conducted polls show evidence of public opinion or they r all worthless, u (baal) cant just dismiss evidence repeatedly b/c it doesnt fit with ur opinion of the world

If you are killed by a guy on the street would you like his interrogation to be conducted by his father and be judged in court by his mother? Wouldn't be biased at all, right?

As usual, people feel the need to have really strong opinions on topics they've hardly researched or thought about. Palak is the only exception. I disagree with many of the things he says, but I have mad respect for the guy just because he is able to back them up with actual evidence, and he is capable of changing his mind when the evidence isn't what he thought it was.

"he is capable of changing his mind when the evidence isn't what he thought it was" so correct I jizzed my pants.