Page 37 of 44 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 436

Thread: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

  1. #361
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    You mean the isolated and impotent North Korea? You mean besides sinking S.Korean Subs and provoking the s. Koreans at the border? Yes.

    They are sharing material and tech with enemy nations around the world. Hopefully former pres. Clinton will make a statement about how isolated and impotent Syria and Iran are- so we don't have to worry about that anymore. Won't that be a relief.

    N.Korea 'giving nuclear material to Iran, Syria' - Yahoo! News
    Yes, the invasion of Iraq did promote and encourage nuclear proliferation. Remember, this was done under Bush. Just saying . . .

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #362
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    How much time money and lives was it costing to keep Saddam "contained"? (Are you aware of operation provide comfort and others? Are you aware of the cost to Iraqi lives?)

    What do you suppose would have happened had we NOT invaded? The saddam would play nice and we could bring all our troops home despite his repeated violations of UN resolutions?
    Yep. And on top of that we added at least a 100,000 lives, and 4-6 million displaced and suffering. Had we not invaded, we could have pursuded a different less harmful approach. We had him pressured, the world was with us, time and options could have produced similar results without the high cost. What would not have happened would have been 4,000 plus American and colation deaths, billions spent (trillions), and any action by Saddam taken against us.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #363
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You mean other than develop and profilerate nuclear and ballistic missile technology. Other than constantly threaten to bring us into WW3 on the Korean Penninsula? You mean other than starve and brainwash its people in order to keep their military machine and regime in power?
    ?
    And did so with Bush as president.
    the point isn't about which president did what. The point is that trying to contain an enemy can be more expensive and costly in lives, money, and power than removing them from power earlier.

    Apathy has its own costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    But agian, have they done anything?
    YES! As stated above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Invaded anyone?
    so unless a tank rolls into our country or until there is a mushroom cloud with the countrys name on it, you propose that any military action is off the table?

    If not, then at what point do you propose taking military action? 1) When the WMDs are being developed?
    2) When the technology or weapons is sold to others (including stateless militias)?
    3) When a bomb explodes on our soil or an allies?
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  4. #364
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    the point isn't about which president did what. The point is that trying to contain an enemy can be more expensive and costly in lives, money, and power than removing them from power earlier.

    Apathy has its own costs.
    No one has argued apathy, only wisdom and legal action, and maybe honesty.

    YES! As stated above.
    Again, as stated above, nothing of of consequence. And we won't invade NK.

    so unless a tank rolls into our country or until there is a mushroom cloud with the countrys name on it, you propose that any military action is off the table?

    If not, then at what point do you propose taking military action? 1) When the WMDs are being developed?
    2) When the technology or weapons is sold to others (including stateless militias)?
    3) When a bomb explodes on our soil or an allies?
    You can't really pre-empt and avoid all risk. In fact, our last premptive effort likely made the world less safe, encouraging nuclear proliferation. Even if we conquored the wrold, the risk would still exist. So, you have to be smarter than recklessly swinging a hammer, and start thinking a little more strategically.

    Miltary action is best left for imminent threats. It's like spanking a child. The threat of it is often more powerful than actually spanking them. The more you use the rod, the less power it actually has.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #365
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Yep. And on top of that we added at least a 100,000 lives, and 4-6 million displaced and suffering. Had we not invaded, we could have pursuded a different less harmful approach. We had him pressured, the world was with us, time and options could have produced similar results without the high cost. What would not have happened would have been 4,000 plus American and colation deaths, billions spent (trillions), and any action by Saddam taken against us.
    Perhaps if we did NOT invade then in the long run less lives, money and power would be spent. And perhaps things would have been FAR worse such as the buildup and war the occurred following the great depression.

    You are free to disagree. But the fact remains is that a majority of our leaders believed the risk was too great, thus they acted.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  6. #366
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Again, as stated above, nothing of of consequence.
    developing and proliferating ballistic and nuclear technology is "not of consequence????

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And we won't invade NK.
    probably not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You can't really pre-empt and avoid all risk.
    no one claims to prevent ALL risk. Do you believe I was claiming that it would eliminate ALL risk or are you just being obtuse?

    Pre-emption, in particular circumstances, is a gamble to reduce risk. Just as NOT pre-empting is gamble believed to reduce risk. Do you understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    In fact, our last premptive effort likely made the world less safe, encouraging nuclear proliferation.
    How so?
    How did the invasion of iraq encourage nuclear proliferation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Even if we conquored the wrold, the risk would still exist.
    I agree. Risk cannot be completely eliminated.

    Do you believe I was claiming that it would eliminate ALL risk or are you just being obtuse?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Miltary action is best left for imminent threats. It's like spanking a child. The threat of it is often more powerful than actually spanking them. The more you use the rod, the less power it actually has.
    This is your OPINION. An opinion that others disagree with.

    Do you understand that others disagree with your opinion?

    Do you claim your opinion is infallible truth?
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  7. #367
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Perhaps if we did NOT invade then in the long run less lives, money and power would be spent. And perhaps things would have been FAR worse such as the buildup and war the occurred following the great depression.

    You are free to disagree. But the fact remains is that a majority of our leaders believed the risk was too great, thus they acted.
    I see nothing to support the position that things would be far worse. It would take a lot to match 100,000 deaths (and these don't count those who died due to the consequences of war) and some 4-6 million displaced. If we're objective and consider evidence over supposition, I think you would be hard pressed to support your position. And I don't accept that a majority believe it. Passing the buck doesn't equal belief.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #368
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I see nothing to support the position that things would be far worse. It would take a lot to match 100,000 deaths (and these don't count those who died due to the consequences of war) and some 4-6 million displaced. If we're objective and consider evidence over supposition, I think you would be hard pressed to support your position. And I don't accept that a majority believe it. Passing the buck doesn't equal belief.
    So you claim that NOT invading Iraq would have, in the long run, absolutely, completely, without a doubt, cost less lives, money, and resources than what occurred?

    How do you claim to know alternate futures in such complex things as world politics?
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  9. #369
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    So you claim that NOT invading Iraq would have, in the long run, absolutely, completely, without a doubt, cost less lives, money, and resources than what occurred?

    How do you claim to know alternate futures in such complex things as world politics?
    He has his head in the clouds of an ideal world that doesn't really exist. Where nuclear ambitions are curbed with just a declaration that "they are isolated" and Jimmy Carter actually has a clue about foreign policy. I can only assume that those clouds must choke off oxygen and act like a hallucinogenic.

  10. #370
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Yes, the invasion of Iraq did promote and encourage nuclear proliferation. Remember, this was done under Bush. Just saying . . .
    Yeah.. nothing occured under Clinton to cause the result. Clinton dealt wonderfully with N.K. and his policies regarding them were unmitigated successes. It's all bush's fault. What would I do without your wonderful pearls of wisdom?

Page 37 of 44 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •