By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The Missile Shield is shelved! Huzzah!

Kasz216 on 22 September 2009
MontanaHatchet said:
Sqrl said:
MontanaHatchet said:
No, you wrote too much and over-analyzed a point, again. Why do I ever bother...

I don't know...your point was pretty vague and now you seem to be upset with me because you failed to explain it well.

The irony is you seem annoyed with my over-explaining myself....which I do to avoid having the exact problem you have on a regular basis.

 

No, I'm upset with you because you feel that every post should be a 3 paragraph argument.

Pacifism is only a poor policy when one side follows it and the other doesn't. In this case, these aggressors aren't going to cause serious harm just because of the absence of the Missile Shield. Now, expanding on my earlier point, bringing up Hitler was a really random excuse for war. The reason Hitler rose to power was not just because he was unopposed, but because of hardships that Germany had faced from the aftermath of World War I. If Germany had avoided starting World War I in the first place, they likely never would have faced those hardships. The German people were willing to accept anything after the economic collapse and humilation. The U.S. has had a habit of getting in unfruitful wars, so it would be in its best interest to avoid them whenever possible. Now obviously, the U.S. can't let other nations walk all over it. But the costs of war aren't always worth the pride.

If a dictator seems to be rising to power, I'll be calling for war with everyone else. But in a case like this, removing the missile shield was a good idea, and not being pacifist isn't a good enough reason against it.

Germany didn't start WW1.... the side we were on did.



Around the Network
Sqrl on 22 September 2009
MontanaHatchet said:
Sqrl said:
MontanaHatchet said:
No, you wrote too much and over-analyzed a point, again. Why do I ever bother...

I don't know...your point was pretty vague and now you seem to be upset with me because you failed to explain it well.

The irony is you seem annoyed with my over-explaining myself....which I do to avoid having the exact problem you have on a regular basis.

 

No, I'm upset with you because you feel that every post should be a 3 paragraph argument.

Pacifism is only a poor policy when one side follows it and the other doesn't. In this case, these aggressors aren't going to cause serious harm just because of the absence of the Missile Shield. Now, expanding on my earlier point, bringing up Hitler was a really random excuse for war. The reason Hitler rose to power was not just because he was unopposed, but because of hardships that Germany had faced from the aftermath of World War I. If Germany had avoided starting World War I in the first place, they likely never would have faced those hardships. The German people were willing to accept anything after the economic collapse and humilation. The U.S. has had a habit of getting in unfruitful wars, so it would be in its best interest to avoid them whenever possible. Now obviously, the U.S. can't let other nations walk all over it. But the costs of war aren't always worth the pride.

If a dictator seems to be rising to power, I'll be calling for war with everyone else. But in a case like this, removing the missile shield was a good idea, and not being pacifist isn't a good enough reason against it.

And there will always be someone who won't follow pacifism...so in reality it is always a poor policy.  So we would seem to agree on that much.

As for the rest of what you are saying...my 3 paragraphs you are upset about went over most of it...so now I'm not sure why the 3 paragraphs were a problem.  In them I explained how this would be used by other nations as a cue for how Obama would handle things going forward and thus how it was more important than just the missile shield.  I explained that I wasn't saying Hitler rose to power purely because of pacifism.  I went over the issue that war is not a cure-all foriegn policy but rather the option you prepare for and hope you never use. I added all of that to my last post for clarity..ironically enough.

Your last bit is nonsensical to me.  Who is calling for a war? Or are you operating under the assumption that failure to comply with Russia would have meant a war?  As for the rest of it, I'm not saying we shouldn't move the shield in order to "not be pacifists".  I'm saying that unless we get concessions we should keep the shield because it will protect our allies and we told them we would.  I still have yet to hear a single reason why we should back off of that promise without recieving concessions from Russia in return.

If you think removing the shield was in our best interests regardless of whether we got something for it you have yet  to give a reason why that would be true.  I think with concessions it might be a good move depending on the concessions made...and if there are no concessions it is an "epic fail" moment in presidential foriegn policy. 

PS - I have no interest in changing the length of my posts to suit you...I'm going to say what I have to say the way I want to say it.  And that won't change for anyone.  I have no idea why I have to explain that to someone but apparently I do.  If you don't want to discuss it with me then don't.....but don't expect me to express my thoughts in a way that suits you....I'm not fond of your writing style (which is clearly the opposite of mine) but I don't expect you to change it for us to have a discussion (and I would have more ground to do so since asking for more information is relevant to the discussion).
To Each Man, Responsibility
halogamer1989 on 22 September 2009

Foreign policy is this: a whole bowl of spaghetti thrown on the table. Each country is a strand of pasta. What we do about negotiating and resolving conflicts does not involve "just" two countries. Leaders need to look at the whole aspect of the situation.

Btw, if someone tries to zing me with the Bush+Iraq argument, I would say this: Bush did a thing to free people from Saddam but from what the media reported (I always take them w/ a grain of salt) he did not take the triangle of Iran+Iraq+Saudi Arabia into consideration. I will look forward to comparing Bush and Cheney's books next year on this.



ultima on 22 September 2009
halogamer1989 said:
Foreign policy is this: a whole bowl of spaghetti thrown on the table. Each country is a strand of pasta. What we do about negotiating and resolving conflicts does not involve "just" two countries. Leaders need to look at the whole aspect of the situation.

Btw, if someone tries to zing me with the Bush+Iraq argument, I would say this: Bush did a thing to free people from Saddam but from what the media reported (I always take them w/ a grain of salt) he did not take the triangle of Iran+Iraq+Saudi Arabia into consideration. I will look forward to comparing Bush and Cheney's books next year on this.

No, no, no, you're wrong. Bush claimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which as it has been discovered, he never did. And Bush never cared about Iraqis, as can be seen by the civilian casualties number. Don't try to justify his actions.



           

halogamer1989 on 22 September 2009
ultima said:
halogamer1989 said:
Foreign policy is this: a whole bowl of spaghetti thrown on the table. Each country is a strand of pasta. What we do about negotiating and resolving conflicts does not involve "just" two countries. Leaders need to look at the whole aspect of the situation.

Btw, if someone tries to zing me with the Bush+Iraq argument, I would say this: Bush did a thing to free people from Saddam but from what the media reported (I always take them w/ a grain of salt) he did not take the triangle of Iran+Iraq+Saudi Arabia into consideration. I will look forward to comparing Bush and Cheney's books next year on this.

No, no, no, you're wrong. Bush claimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which as it has been discovered, he never did. And Bush never cared about Iraqis, as can be seen by the civilian casualties number. Don't try to justify his actions.

Saddam did have them and used them on the Kurds in Halabja.  The UN inspecters viewed a site with nothing in it b/c the Ba'ath Party leaders and Saddam knew that if you give them something decent to look at then the dirty stuff like VX is "nonexistent" in the mind of the UN.

In the end whether Saddam had nukes 2003 or wanted to try and get them so he could use them years down the road, one cannot deny that he was a danger to the world.  Here's proof for you to ponder:



Around the Network
pastro243 on 22 September 2009



- Our album on spotify https://open.spotify.com/album/56mEbEgyBYGzcDyZ1eMQ1v?si=hYKgir5YRSCrzywgGmV4oQ

- Our videoclip 

- My manga: https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/blanca-the-world/list?title_no=313068

ultima on 23 September 2009
halogamer1989 said:
ultima said:
halogamer1989 said:
Foreign policy is this: a whole bowl of spaghetti thrown on the table. Each country is a strand of pasta. What we do about negotiating and resolving conflicts does not involve "just" two countries. Leaders need to look at the whole aspect of the situation.

Btw, if someone tries to zing me with the Bush+Iraq argument, I would say this: Bush did a thing to free people from Saddam but from what the media reported (I always take them w/ a grain of salt) he did not take the triangle of Iran+Iraq+Saudi Arabia into consideration. I will look forward to comparing Bush and Cheney's books next year on this.

No, no, no, you're wrong. Bush claimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which as it has been discovered, he never did. And Bush never cared about Iraqis, as can be seen by the civilian casualties number. Don't try to justify his actions.

Saddam did have them and used them on the Kurds in Halabja.  The UN inspecters viewed a site with nothing in it b/c the Ba'ath Party leaders and Saddam knew that if you give them something decent to look at then the dirty stuff like VX is "nonexistent" in the mind of the UN.

In the end whether Saddam had nukes 2003 or wanted to try and get them so he could use them years down the road, one cannot deny that he was a danger to the world.  Here's proof for you to ponder:

Saddam did have chemical weapons that he used on Kurds, but guess where he got it from? I think you might know.

The UN inspectors didn't inspect "a" site. They inspected hundreds, and Saddam cooperated by giving them access to the sites they wanted. And VX is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the UN, so it definitely would've triggered something. No weapons of mass destruction were found in the half a year the UN spent inspecting Iraq.

Now I agree that Saddam had to be overthrown. Dictatorship is never good, even if the dictator is benevolent. But even a good thing done for the wrong reason is a bad thing. So, I think, invading Iraq for oil was not fair or justified.



           

halogamer1989 on 23 September 2009
ultima said:
halogamer1989 said:
ultima said:
halogamer1989 said:
Foreign policy is this: a whole bowl of spaghetti thrown on the table. Each country is a strand of pasta. What we do about negotiating and resolving conflicts does not involve "just" two countries. Leaders need to look at the whole aspect of the situation.

Btw, if someone tries to zing me with the Bush+Iraq argument, I would say this: Bush did a thing to free people from Saddam but from what the media reported (I always take them w/ a grain of salt) he did not take the triangle of Iran+Iraq+Saudi Arabia into consideration. I will look forward to comparing Bush and Cheney's books next year on this.

No, no, no, you're wrong. Bush claimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which as it has been discovered, he never did. And Bush never cared about Iraqis, as can be seen by the civilian casualties number. Don't try to justify his actions.

Saddam did have them and used them on the Kurds in Halabja.  The UN inspecters viewed a site with nothing in it b/c the Ba'ath Party leaders and Saddam knew that if you give them something decent to look at then the dirty stuff like VX is "nonexistent" in the mind of the UN.

In the end whether Saddam had nukes 2003 or wanted to try and get them so he could use them years down the road, one cannot deny that he was a danger to the world.  Here's proof for you to ponder:

Saddam did have chemical weapons that he used on Kurds, but guess where he got it from? I think you might know.

The UN inspectors didn't inspect "a" site. They inspected hundreds, and Saddam cooperated by giving them access to the sites they wanted. And VX is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the UN, so it definitely would've triggered something. No weapons of mass destruction were found in the half a year the UN spent inspecting Iraq.

Now I agree that Saddam had to be overthrown. Dictatorship is never good, even if the dictator is benevolent. But even a good thing done for the wrong reason is a bad thing. So, I think, invading Iraq for oil was not fair or justified.

Sand and Syria do wonders if you want to hide something.

So you think Delta or DEVGRU sniper teams would have been better that a full scale CENTCOM offensive?