Hansui Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 you see, even we have emotions but we don't think on what are we doing we could be like ants Things ants don't have: Morals Value Systems Governments Religion Terrorism Democracy Willpower Nukes If ants did have these, then we could probably relate to them. But we don't. When a leader decides for / against going to war, whether you like it or not, it's as much about his approval rating as it is about National Security. and you think early humans do have those too? aside from Religion and Government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connor Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 No, but we do now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLlamaLlama Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 good example is Bush, he only thinks that he will pwn all the terrorists in just matter of months, and look now, his expensive wars damaged American economy a lot gaining nothing except criticisms and shoes. Didnb't realise we were talking about the war in iraq going on now, well of course stone age Bush didn't have nukes, but then then stone age Saddam didn't kill his people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansui Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 good example is Bush, he only thinks that he will pwn all the terrorists in just matter of months, and look now, his expensive wars damaged American economy a lot gaining nothing except criticisms and shoes. Didnb't realise we were talking about the war in iraq going on now, well of course stone age Bush didn't have nukes, but then then stone age Saddam didn't kill his people. oh well, but all of these would not happen if Bush didn't foolishly initiated a war against Iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLlamaLlama Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Ok, imagine you're the US president, deciding what to do in the same situation Bush had to. What would you do? (We're not in the sarcastic stone age metaphor now...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansui Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 I will just strengthen the security of my country, I wouldn't wage war against terrorists because I know it will not end immediately... because it is very difficult to hunt down terrorists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLlamaLlama Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Ok, so Saddam continues to mercilessly kill people for no reason in particular. I guess that's all fine, then. As long as we don't die, it doesn't matter. And i thought Christians frowned upon greed? because I know it will not end immediately... No, no, you're not in he future... Bush thought it would end far more swiftly than it has been, but..you're the expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansui Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 (edited) then why would intervene there? It's not my country, the US president's duty is just to serve his country, not to intervene on other countries. No, no, you're not in he future... Bush thought it would end far more swiftly than it has been, but..you're the expert. yes, but didn't he learned from previous wars... I'm sure he read some history before Edited January 1, 2009 by Unnamed Noodle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connor Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Maybe because if Saddam carried on, it would pose a threat to your fucking country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLlamaLlama Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 But he has a responsibility as the world's most important, and powerful politician to provide people the world over with fundamental human rights. Whether or not it's in his job description... (To quote myself) ...whether you like it or not, it's as much about his approval rating as it is about National Security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansui Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 (edited) Maybe because if Saddam carried on, it would pose a threat to your fucking country. i have to agree with that but Bush turned into a paranoid But he has a responsibility as the world's most important, and powerful politician to provide people the world over with fundamental human rights. Whether or not it's in his job description... I thought, everyone is equal according to the American Declaration of Independence... but he saw himself as the MOST powerful and important leader... he should see himself as equal of others Edited January 1, 2009 by Unnamed Noodle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connor Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 No, as Llama said, it's his duty to make sure other countries are running properly, and not killing their own fucking people. Paranoia is not a just cause, you can't justify a war with 'yeah I was scared so I tried to own him before he owned me'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLlamaLlama Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Maybe because if Saddam carried on, it would pose a threat to your fucking country. i have to agree with that but Bush turned into a paranoid But he has a responsibility as the world's most important, and powerful politician to provide people the world over with fundamental human rights. Whether or not it's in his job description... I thought, everyone is equal according to the American Declaration of Independence... but he saw himself as the MOST powerful and important leader... he should see himself as equal of others Doesn't stop him having the responsibility of protecting others from danger. Oh, and i never said he was any better than anyone else, nor did I imply he and other were not equals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansui Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 (edited) No, as Llama said, it's his duty to make sure other countries are running properly, and not killing their own fucking people.Paranoia is not a just cause, you can't justify a war with 'yeah I was scared so I tried to own him before he owned me'. then why he had to intervene? It is Saddam's decision, if I were the president of US, I would not intervene until it affected me Doesn't stop him having the responsibility of protecting others from danger. Oh, and i never said he was any better than anyone else, nor did I imply he and other were not equals. he should respect fellow leader's decision... Edited January 1, 2009 by Unnamed Noodle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLlamaLlama Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 BUT IT DID AFFECT THE US. It affected national security, America could have been seriously targeted by terrorists. (moreso that it already has) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansui Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 BUT IT DID AFFECT THE US. It affected national security, America could have been seriously targeted by terrorists. (moreso that it already has) oh, so Saddam DID planned the 9/11 attacks. I thought we are talking about Saddam btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connor Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 (edited) No, as Llama said, it's his duty to make sure other countries are running properly, and not killing their own fucking people.Paranoia is not a just cause, you can't justify a war with 'yeah I was scared so I tried to own him before he owned me'. then why he had to intervene? It is Saddam's decision, if I were the president of US, I would not intervene until it affected me He had to intervene because Saddam was killing his own people, and that's not fair at all, it's against human rights shiz. ...and that's exactly why you're not the fucking president of the US, because you'd be dead very soon and your country would be fucked because you didn't decide to take action when things started to go wrong. Edited January 1, 2009 by Twisted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansui Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 No, as Llama said, it's his duty to make sure other countries are running properly, and not killing their own fucking people.Paranoia is not a just cause, you can't justify a war with 'yeah I was scared so I tried to own him before he owned me'. then why he had to intervene? It is Saddam's decision, if I were the president of US, I would not intervene until it affected me He had to intervene because Saddam was killing his own people, and that's not fair at all, it's against human rights shiz. ...and that's exactly why you're not the fucking president of the US, because you'd be dead very soon and your country would be fucked because you didn't decide to take action when things start to go wrong. they are not American citizens, why should I take others' responsibility? And thank God I'm not the US president... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLlamaLlama Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 BUT IT DID AFFECT THE US. It affected national security, America could have been seriously targeted by terrorists. (moreso that it already has) oh, so Saddam DID planned the 9/11 attacks. I thought we are talking about Saddam btw. I said nothing of 9/11, I'll have you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connor Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 They're still people...American citizens or not, they shouldn't be killed, and maybe taking Saddam's responsibility, is because he was fucking killing them, much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansui Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 (edited) BUT IT DID AFFECT THE US. It affected national security, America could have been seriously targeted by terrorists. (moreso that it already has) oh, so Saddam DID planned the 9/11 attacks. I thought we are talking about Saddam btw. I said nothing of 9/11, I'll have you know. then how Saddam did offended Bush or how he affected US? They're still people...American citizens or not, they shouldn't be killed, and maybe taking Saddam's responsibility, is because he was fucking killing them, much? let say every country needs to protect their people, but US did put TOO MUCH effort on it and that "effort" is too expensive Edited January 1, 2009 by Unnamed Noodle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connor Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 He didn't affect the fucking US, but if he carried on killing people it would surely get worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansui Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 (edited) like what I said before "I would not intervene until it affects me" What the fuck has that got to do with anything I've just said? I was talking about that he could be right in protecting other people from tyrannical rule, but Bush waged a very expensive war unlike other countries that joined his war Edited January 1, 2009 by Unnamed Noodle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connor Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 They're still people...American citizens or not, they shouldn't be killed, and maybe taking Saddam's responsibility, is because he was fucking killing them, much? let say every country needs to protect their people, but US did put TOO MUCH effort on it and that "effort" is too expensive What the fuck has that got to do with anything I've just said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLlamaLlama Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 but US did put TOO MUCH effort on it and that "effort" is too expensive So, what's the price of life nowadays. It's not $1.40 a gallon, I'll tell you that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now