PDA

View Full Version : Red China invades and occupies the United States....


Logical
06-11-2006, 08:33 PM
They set up Communist government and we are now six months in. Over 50% of Americans have accepted this fate and feel they have no way to change the course of their country. However, small bands of Americans not united but having common bonds within each band and start using IEDs and other unconvential weapons as an insurgency against the new Red Communist American government now in place.

Do they have the right even the obligation to kill the Red Chinese occupiers even if that means fellow citizens will die as collateral damage?

Poll forthcoming to see if everyone can answer this one.

NewChief
06-11-2006, 08:35 PM
Depends... is the new Chinese puppet leader named Bush?

I keeeed. I keeeed.

Logical
06-11-2006, 08:38 PM
Depends... is the new Chinese puppet leader named Bush?

I keeeed. I keeeed.

For the sake of this poll the appointed leader is Jay Leno

Logical
06-11-2006, 08:40 PM
Aw shit how did I end up selecting both options. Damn

trndobrd
06-11-2006, 08:54 PM
WOLVERINES!!!!

memyselfI
06-11-2006, 08:59 PM
The ONLY reason I voted for no obligation is because the question didn't specify if the obligation was a moral, political, or legal one. Meaning, does the country's law mandate that the citizen is required to fight or is the obligation a moral and political one which the citizen chooses to fight.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2006, 09:02 PM
What a lame analogy....:rolleyes:

Go pay Zogby or Harris to poll, scientifically, the Iraqi people.

Your premise is bogus....

Logical
06-11-2006, 09:15 PM
What a lame analogy....:rolleyes:

Go pay Zogby or Harris to poll, scientifically, the Iraqi people.

Your premise is bogus....Not really so lame 2 billion plus Chinese with nukes and an economy that is on fire now could easily make this scenario true one day.

WoodDraw
06-11-2006, 09:57 PM
What a lame analogy....:rolleyes:

Go pay Zogby or Harris to poll, scientifically, the Iraqi people.

Your premise is bogus....

This entire debate is lame. Let's start by stopping this inane attempt to simplify complex moral questions into three option polls. If we move past that hypothetical bullshit and enter the world of reality, we can at least attempt to approach the still lame topic.

First, everyone is going to be colored by their own prejudices. The images of Americans being killed strongly counters feelings of empathy. Humans by nature view our position as the moral high ground; if we didn't, we wouldn't hold that position. That goes both ways though. Iraqis aren't removed from human emotions. Like we get enraged with the disgusting acts against Americans, they are equally impacted by the actions of Americans.

Building on that, American vs. the insurgency does not exist. On a macro level sure, but not in the sense that people here want to discuss it. The actions of one American don't represent the whole, and that is only magnified with the heavily divided Iraqis.

So that brings us to how the hell do you break down war into neat little easy moral decisions. Of course you can't. That's why this topic is lame. War sucks; people die. You can try to create a moral justification that makes you feel better, but war by its very nature is illogical. Is there a just war? Hell if I know, but you better make damn well sure you have a good argument before you get into it.

stevieray
06-11-2006, 10:01 PM
where is the part about America living under the rule of a murdering dictator? Or a dictator that ignored UN Resolutions for over a decade, resulting in War, even after he was given a date to comply that would've stopped the invasion?

WoodDraw
06-11-2006, 10:13 PM
where is the part about America living under the rule of a murdering dictator? Or a dictator that ignored UN Resolutions for over a decade, resulting in War, even after he was given a date to comply that would've stopped the invasion?

A leader surrenders sovereignty upon committing crimes against humanity. That's a far more convincing argument than the self defense crap. The US - and the world for that matter - have a moral obligation to intervene. Fine, I'll even agree with that. But that obligation is obviously qualified by an equal obligation to intervene in a responsible way, no? Immorality by one side does not give the other a free pass to do as they please. Saying Saddam was a horrible person is fine and good, but his actions don't become the bar that all other actions are measured against.

And as I post this, Lenon's "Give Peace A Chance" comes on. Fitting.

stevieray
06-11-2006, 10:24 PM
. But that obligation is obviously qualified by an equal obligation to intervene in a responsible way, no?



where sixty percent can and are willing put their life on the line to vote?

Pitt Gorilla
06-11-2006, 10:24 PM
where is the part about America living under the rule of a murdering dictator? Or a dictator that ignored UN Resolutions for over a decade, resulting in War, even after he was given a date to comply that would've stopped the invasion?It's not there; why would it be?

Logical
06-11-2006, 10:26 PM
where is the part about America living under the rule of a murdering dictator? Or a dictator that ignored UN Resolutions for over a decade, resulting in War, even after he was given a date to comply that would've stopped the invasion?Irrelevant, that would not take away the US citizens right to fight their oppressor.

Logical
06-11-2006, 10:30 PM
A leader surrenders sovereignty upon committing crimes against humanity. That's a far more convincing argument than the self defense crap. The US - and the world for that matter - have a moral obligation to intervene. Fine, I'll even agree with that. But that obligation is obviously qualified by an equal obligation to intervene in a responsible way, no? Immorality by one side does not give the other a free pass to do as they please. Saying Saddam was a horrible person is fine and good, but his actions don't become the bar that all other actions are measured against.

And as I post this, Lenon's "Give Peace A Chance" comes on. Fitting.There are as many regimes around the world as bad or worse than Saddam's so we better get busy we have a lot of intervening to do.

Boyceofsummer
06-11-2006, 10:45 PM
how does the Western world powers and America respond to military action by China against Taiwan? :hmmm:

WoodDraw
06-11-2006, 10:47 PM
There are as many regimes around the world as bad or worse than Saddam's so we better get busy we have a lot of intervening to do.

Sure, that's the other side. I'm sure I have different definition of intervention than most people though. War inevitably leads to more war. That doesn't mean you sit by while a million people in Rwanda are slaughtered. But is it not troubling that literally every conflict today can be tracked back to a past one? At what point does it stop?

stevieray
06-11-2006, 11:29 PM
Irrelevant, that would not take away the US citizens right to fight their oppressor.

it is totally relevant, because there has to be a reason for validating or invalidation occupation

oppressor? your thread is transparent and is slanted to validate your feelings on the Iraq war.

Logical
06-11-2006, 11:33 PM
it is totally relevant, because there has to be a reason to invade.

this poll is slanted more than a nike swoosh.Really history is filled with invasions without justification other than the desire for power. So there you have it China wants the World Domination and invades.

Taco John
06-12-2006, 12:33 AM
it is totally relevant, because there has to be a reason for validating or invalidation occupation




ROFL

So you actually need those, huh?

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 05:40 AM
Really history is filled with invasions without justification other than the desire for power. So there you have it China wants the World Domination and invades.

I think all invaders have had their justifications though. The purpose of all war by any aggressor is a restructuring of territory and power.

It's true all through history from Egypt, Rome, Persia, Greece, British Empire, Napoleon, Hitler, Russia......

patteeu
06-12-2006, 06:26 AM
This entire debate is lame. Let's start by stopping this inane attempt to simplify complex moral questions into three option polls. If we move past that hypothetical bullshit and enter the world of reality, we can at least attempt to approach the still lame topic.

First, everyone is going to be colored by their own prejudices. The images of Americans being killed strongly counters feelings of empathy. Humans by nature view our position as the moral high ground; if we didn't, we wouldn't hold that position. That goes both ways though. Iraqis aren't removed from human emotions. Like we get enraged with the disgusting acts against Americans, they are equally impacted by the actions of Americans.

Building on that, American vs. the insurgency does not exist. On a macro level sure, but not in the sense that people here want to discuss it. The actions of one American don't represent the whole, and that is only magnified with the heavily divided Iraqis.

So that brings us to how the hell do you break down war into neat little easy moral decisions. Of course you can't. That's why this topic is lame. War sucks; people die. You can try to create a moral justification that makes you feel better, but war by its very nature is illogical. Is there a just war? Hell if I know, but you better make damn well sure you have a good argument before you get into it.

Excellent post. :clap:

patteeu
06-12-2006, 06:31 AM
There are as many regimes around the world as bad or worse than Saddam's so we better get busy we have a lot of intervening to do.

There were many houses on the housing market that met all my criteria when I bought my home . Do I have to buy them all?

NewChief
06-12-2006, 07:11 AM
I still say that the responses of half of DC (from either side) will be dictated by whether the new leader's name is Bush or not. That's just how entrenched things are around here.

Duck Dog
06-12-2006, 07:24 AM
Drawing parallels between the US invading Iraq and Communist Red China invading America? Wow, you are brainwashed.

banyon
06-12-2006, 09:11 AM
I think this is a better poll than the other two.
(No offense to the other posters)

But this gives a concrete example to work with and helps you "step into the shoes" of what an American insurgency might be like.

stevieray
06-12-2006, 09:19 AM
So there you have it China wants the World Domination and invades.

That's not what's happening in Iraq. Looks like the parallel you were hoping for doesn't exist.

Taco John
06-12-2006, 09:28 AM
There were many houses on the housing market that met all my criteria when I bought my home . Do I have to buy them all?


No, but what happens why you search long and hard for the in-ground swimming pool that tipped your decision, only to find out it's not there afterall?

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 09:49 AM
I think this is a better poll than the other two.
(No offense to the other posters)

But this gives a concrete example to work with and helps you "step into the shoes" of what an American insurgency might be like.

Looked like this:
Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, John Adams, Samuel Adams, James Monroe, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, Thomas Pained, signers of the Declaration of Independence, militias etc. etc. etc. etc.

Pitt Gorilla
06-12-2006, 10:14 AM
That's not what's happening in Iraq. Looks like the parallel you were hoping for doesn't exist.Suppose it's not supposed to be a "parallel;" just answer the question as it is asked.

patteeu
06-12-2006, 10:18 AM
No, but what happens why you search long and hard for the in-ground swimming pool that tipped your decision, only to find out it's not there afterall?

That doesn't have anything to do with Logical's illogical point, but if that happened I'd be pretty pissed off at whoever gave me the bad intelligence.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 10:26 AM
... I'd be pretty pissed off at whoever gave me the bad intelligence.


An Iranian who was still connected to Iran with a vested interest in a destabilized Iraq?

Chief Faithful
06-12-2006, 10:37 AM
where is the part about America living under the rule of a murdering dictator? Or a dictator that ignored UN Resolutions for over a decade, resulting in War, even after he was given a date to comply that would've stopped the invasion?

China is freeing us from Bush the evil facist leader and allowing us to establish our own government based on democracy, freedom of the press, and religeous freedom. Get with the program! :banghead:

patteeu
06-12-2006, 10:58 AM
An Iranian who was still connected to Iran with a vested interest in a destabilized Iraq?

Is that who told me the house had a swimming pool?

Pitt Gorilla
06-12-2006, 11:24 AM
No, but what happens why you search long and hard for the in-ground swimming pool that tipped your decision, only to find out it's not there afterall?I'd wouldn't buy the house if some Remax agent told me, "It has a pool. You can't actually see it, but, trust me, it's probably there." A nice photo of the pool in the house certainly woudn't hurt.

Of course, there actually are other houses with pools.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 11:43 AM
Is that who told me the house had a swimming pool?

No of course not. Just makin' a comparison.
:) ;)

Logical
06-12-2006, 05:43 PM
Drawing parallels between the US invading Iraq and Communist Red China invading America? Wow, you are brainwashed.

Bigger country invades smaller country because it does not like its present form of government and views it as some sort of threat.

Sounds pretty damn similar if you ask me.

Logical
06-12-2006, 05:46 PM
That's not what's happening in Iraq. Looks like the parallel you were hoping for doesn't exist.
I would disagree as far as I can tell the only reason we invaded is to dominate some territory and establish a military stronghold. Otherwise the only reason would be to give payoffs to the admin's corporate buddies.

Taco John
06-12-2006, 06:42 PM
That doesn't have anything to do with Logical's illogical point, but if that happened I'd be pretty pissed off at whoever gave me the bad intelligence.



And you think correlating a decision to go to war with a housing purchase has some sort of relevancy? I was just drawing on your whacky metaphor.

Adept Havelock
06-12-2006, 06:56 PM
Looked like this:
Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, John Adams, Samuel Adams, James Monroe, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, Thomas Pained, signers of the Declaration of Independence, militias etc. etc. etc. etc.Freudian slip? ROFL ROFL ROFL

You mentioned Ben first, so as he was one of my favorite historical womanizers, I'll forgive the (intentional?) dig at dear old Thomas... :D

TJ- Great new avatar! Nice photoshop work!

listopencil
06-12-2006, 08:14 PM
It doesn't really matter how anyone words this poll. The insurgents in Iraq are not eqivalent to any honorable group because their aims are not honorable. You can try to equate them to hot dog vendors in NYC. You can compare them to dog packs fighting and urinating on trees to mark territory. You can make a case for the insurgents as the little spaceship in Asteroids and American forces as the asteroids themselves. It just doesn't matter.

listopencil
06-12-2006, 08:19 PM
BTW, I voted "Yes they have the obligation..." I believe that in this case the US population would fall under POW status and, as such, would have the obligation to fight against the Reds in any way they could.

patteeu
06-12-2006, 08:32 PM
And you think correlating a decision to go to war with a housing purchase has some sort of relevancy? I was just drawing on your whacky metaphor.

I think that my metaphor, as whacky as it might be, was on point and that your extention was as relevant as an ipod to an amish guy.

Logical
06-12-2006, 08:56 PM
I think that my metaphor, as whacky as it might be, was on point and that your extention was as relevant as an ipod to an amish guy.Your metaphor was just silly at best not the least on point. Now TJ did an admirable job of making your irrelevant point at least relevant to Iraq with no WMD like your home with no pool.

The original argument made was that there was an implied moral imperative for the US invasion of Iraq due to their brutal regime. I was simply pointing out that there are many other as brutal or more brutal so we would logically have a moral imperative to invade them all if that was our need to invade Iraq.

stevieray
06-12-2006, 09:08 PM
It doesn't really matter how anyone words this poll. The insurgents in Iraq are not eqivalent to any honorable group because their aims are not honorable. You can try to equate them to hot dog vendors in NYC. You can compare them to dog packs fighting and urinating on trees to mark territory. You can make a case for the insurgents as the little spaceship in Asteroids and American forces as the asteroids themselves. It just doesn't matter.

:clap:

stevieray
06-12-2006, 09:12 PM
I would disagree as far as I can tell the only reason we invaded is to dominate some territory and establish a military stronghold. Otherwise the only reason would be to give payoffs to the admin's corporate buddies.

you can't be serious..

are you playing the board for debate again, you evil mastermind?

stevieray
06-12-2006, 09:13 PM
Is that who told me the house had a swimming pool?


it was filled in with dirt.

Cochise
06-12-2006, 09:36 PM
Red China, hell no. Green China though, I would kill a hundred of those bastards. Yeah. I'll kill me some Green Chinamen.

Cochise
06-12-2006, 09:36 PM
Just kidding. I, for one, would welcome our new Communist overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted internet personality I could be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

Taco John
06-12-2006, 09:57 PM
I think that my metaphor, as whacky as it might be, was on point and that your extention was as relevant as an ipod to an amish guy.



Well, I think my exntention was as relevant as your metaphor. So there!

WilliamTheIrish
06-12-2006, 10:00 PM
I've always liked rice....

Jesus
06-12-2006, 10:30 PM
Turn the other cheek. As if you really understand what that means, apparently.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2006, 10:51 PM
I answered 1 and 3, which appears to be a contradiction, but bear with me: I believe I'm plagiarizing Jefferson here, but he believed that citizens had the right and obligation to enact Armed revolution approximately every generation. The reasoning behind such thinking is that it is the most efficient way to instill change in the power structure. I answered both because I think that people should fight against a foreign oppressor, but they shouldn't *have to* fight. Obligation is a bit of a sticking point, so I felt it best to preface it with the double choice, since it was so allowed.

patteeu
06-13-2006, 07:34 AM
Your metaphor was just silly at best not the least on point. Now TJ did an admirable job of making your irrelevant point at least relevant to Iraq with no WMD like your home with no pool.

The original argument made was that there was an implied moral imperative for the US invasion of Iraq due to their brutal regime. I was simply pointing out that there are many other as brutal or more brutal so we would logically have a moral imperative to invade them all if that was our need to invade Iraq.

OK. I see now that WoodDraw was indeed talking about a "moral obligation" as you say so I can understand your point. I mistakenly confused your post with all of those posts from people who present the ridiculous argument that American foreign policy has to be consistent on the basis of a single defining characteristic. (E.g. if we invade one dictatorship we have to invade all of them. Or if we invade Iraq because they are suspected of developing WMD we must invade Iran.) My mistake.

Taco's extension was still as bogus as a cap-cheating Bronco's Super Bowl victory though. :p

Logical
06-13-2006, 12:34 PM
OK. I see now that WoodDraw was indeed talking about a "moral obligation" as you say so I can understand your point. I mistakenly confused your post with all of those posts from people who present the ridiculous argument that American foreign policy has to be consistent on the basis of a single defining characteristic. (E.g. if we invade one dictatorship we have to invade all of them. Or if we invade Iraq because they are suspected of developing WMD we must invade Iran.) My mistake.

Taco's extension was still as bogus as a cap-cheating Bronco's Super Bowl victory though. :p:thumb:

BucEyedPea
06-13-2006, 02:13 PM
Taco's extension was still as bogus as a cap-cheating Bronco's Super Bowl victory though. :p

Dolts did the same thing. Whadya expect when you have Pay-me-a-ton Manning! :p

Radar Chief
06-13-2006, 02:51 PM
Dolts did the same thing. Whadya expect when you have Pay-me-a-ton Manning! :p

Did they spread Crisco all over their uniforms in a division playoff game also?

BIG_DADDY
06-13-2006, 05:13 PM
This has to be the skewed comparison I have ever seen in my entire life.

Logical
06-13-2006, 06:13 PM
This has to be the skewed comparison I have ever seen in my entire life.

I don't recall making any comparison when I created the poll. What comparison are you talking about.

WoodDraw
06-13-2006, 08:33 PM
OK. I see now that WoodDraw was indeed talking about a "moral obligation" as you say so I can understand your point. I mistakenly confused your post with all of those posts from people who present the ridiculous argument that American foreign policy has to be consistent on the basis of a single defining characteristic. (E.g. if we invade one dictatorship we have to invade all of them. Or if we invade Iraq because they are suspected of developing WMD we must invade Iran.) My mistake.

Taco's extension was still as bogus as a cap-cheating Bronco's Super Bowl victory though. :p

I'm a bit of a political anomaly in this area. I believe strongly in the free markets, free government approach. Both are absolute necessities for countries to make tangible progress towards first world status. That involves some type of intervention from countries like the US - both in the form of financial and military assistance.

The necessity of that intervention does fall under some sort of moral obligation, but this isn't White Man's Burden take two. The US isn't - and shouldn't act like - a knight riding around honorably rescuing countries from the horrors of dictatorships. Intervention must be balanced with the ability to actually do good. We all can agree that Iran and North Korea are run by horrible, repressive regimes. But would an invasion help things or make them worse? My guess is the latter.

That's my argument on Iraq, where you and I no doubt disagree. Saddam by all accounts was a repressive dictator, but the end result just hasn't been there. They're a "democracy" now, yes, but at what cost? Now I'm solidly on the record as saying the job must be finished now, but I'll disagree with the beginning decision to the end.

BIG_DADDY
06-14-2006, 11:58 AM
I don't recall making any comparison when I created the poll. What comparison are you talking about.

So you are not trying to create any comparison between this situation and Iraq?

penchief
06-14-2006, 06:58 PM
where is the part about America living under the rule of a murdering dictator? Or a dictator that ignored UN Resolutions for over a decade, resulting in War, even after he was given a date to comply that would've stopped the invasion?

You forgot, "a rising dictator enabled by......."

Just because the same Business Suits running things today did their very best back then to set Saddam up nicely with WMD and give him logistical support in the application of those WMD against Iran, doesn't mean we have the right to use his existence today as a reason to further impose our interests (political and business) in a part of the world that already hates us for both illegitimate and legitimate reasons.

Here's a poll: How many people believe that the Reaganites/pre-neocons were aware that Saddam was using our WMD against his own people? Do you think Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush1 knew?

Check one:

Yes ___

No ___

mlyonsd
06-14-2006, 07:30 PM
You forgot, "a rising dictator enabled by......."

Just because the same Business Suits running things today did their very best back then to set Saddam up nicely with WMD and give him logistical support in the application of those WMD against Iran, doesn't mean we have the right to use his existence today as a reason to further impose our interests (political and business) in a part of the world that already hates us for both illegitimate and legitimate reasons.

Here's a poll: How many people believe that the Reaganites/pre-neocons were aware that Saddam was using our WMD against his own people? Do you think Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush1 knew?

Check one:

Yes ___

No ___

Yes, yes, yes....your point that we gave Saddam WMD is well taken.

The thing you fail to admit is it took those same suits to take them away because it was determined he couldn't play nice in the sandbox.

What don't you understand?

alanm
06-14-2006, 07:39 PM
Ooh Oh!! I know the answer to this one. I saw it on Star Trek. Coms vs Yangs. Where we all turn into barbarians and Captain Kirk and Spock come down and kill all the Coms, and teach us the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. :thumb: :D

penchief
06-14-2006, 07:48 PM
Yes, yes, yes....your point that we gave Saddam WMD is well taken.

The thing you fail to admit is it took those same suits to take them away because it was determined he couldn't play nice in the sandbox.

What don't you understand?

Why they didn't already know that he didn't play nice. They knew who he was. They knew what he was capable of. What he did was not bad to them as long as he was their man in Baghdad.

How can anyone say that they believe the very same people in our government that turned their heads while Saddam was gassing his own citizens can be trusted now to do the right thing. I'd say it's more likely that they probably picked up right where they left off.

mlyonsd
06-14-2006, 07:53 PM
Why they didn't already know that he didn't play nice. They knew who he was. They knew what he was capable of. What he did was not bad to them as long as he was their man in Baghdad.

How can anyone say that they believe the very same people that turned their heads while Saddam was gassing his own citizens can be trusted now to do the right thing. I'd say it's more likely that they probably picked up right where they left off.

And I'd say it was a materialistic approach to protecting oil which in the long run would protect America's economy.

You could easily make the same argument for what is going on now, I can see the similarilies.

But I also see the decision to take Saddam's WMD capabilities away were made for the protection of the American people.

And I still say if Gore was elected President in 2000 Saddam by this point would not be in power. That's just my opinion but when you put the American people's security in the mix any President would have elminated Saddam after 911.

Adept Havelock
06-14-2006, 07:57 PM
Ooh Oh!! I know the answer to this one. I saw it on Star Trek. Coms vs Yangs. Where we all turn into barbarians and Captain Kirk and Spock come down and kill all the Coms, and teach us the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. :thumb: :D
"The Eeb Planista. It's words are only for Chiefs!"..... ROFL

Great avatar there, alanm!

listopencil
06-14-2006, 09:49 PM
Just kidding. I, for one, would welcome our new Communist overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted internet personality I could be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.



I'm printing up some I heart Green China placards. I'll E-Mail the pattern over as soon as I'm done with it.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 10:32 PM
Just kidding. I, for one, would welcome our new Communist overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted internet personality I could be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.underground sugar caves?

where's that?

one of my nephews is needing a job...

go bowe
06-14-2006, 10:47 PM
And I'd say it was a materialistic approach to protecting oil which in the long run would protect America's economy.

You could easily make the same argument for what is going on now, I can see the similarilies.

But I also see the decision to take Saddam's WMD capabilities away were made for the protection of the American people.

And I still say if Gore was elected President in 2000 Saddam by this point would not be in power. That's just my opinion but when you put the American people's security in the mix any President would have elminated Saddam after 911.protecting oil is a good thing, given our undeniable addiction to oil...

and taking away any crazy man's wmd capabilities away is another good thing...

but not everyone agrees that, in hindsight, the iraq war/occupation actually did either...

and as far as gore going to war against iraq, i kinda doubt it because democrats are sometimes prone to negotiate and try to solve things politically if they can, rather than militarily...

afghanistan? sure, gore (hell, even kerry) would have done that...

SBK
06-14-2006, 11:10 PM
They set up Communist government and we are now six months in. Over 50% of Americans have accepted this fate and feel they have no way to change the course of their country. However, small bands of Americans not united but having common bonds within each band and start using IEDs and other unconvential weapons as an insurgency against the new Red Communist American government now in place.

Do they have the right even the obligation to kill the Red Chinese occupiers even if that means fellow citizens will die as collateral damage?

Poll forthcoming to see if everyone can answer this one.

The question should be would Mexican and Canadian terrorists feel the obligation to bomb the Chinese that occupy America.

Bad premise dude. Lame poll.

BigMeatballDave
06-15-2006, 01:43 AM
So, you are assuming China would want to invade us? Who the hell would buy all the junk they make then?

penchief
06-16-2006, 12:21 PM
And I'd say it was a materialistic approach to protecting oil which in the long run would protect America's economy.

Not a bad point if you believe America is incapable of doing better than oil.

You could easily make the same argument for what is going on now, I can see the similarilies.

A very good point which I believe bolsters my point better than it does yours.

But I also see the decision to take Saddam's WMD capabilities away were made for the protection of the American people.

That is the most justifiable reason. It always has been and always will be. But I'm not sure it wasn't manipulated to be a "reasonable justification."

And I still say if Gore was elected President in 2000 Saddam by this point would not be in power. That's just my opinion but when you put the American people's security in the mix any President would have elminated Saddam after 911.

I'm apt to agree with you but I think the approach would have been so different with Gore that we wouldn't have alienated everybody in the world besides our closest ally and the easily purchased. A real world coalition would have been the biggest ingredient to success. Combine that failure with the arrogance and disrespect that this administration has projected from the start and it is no wonder that we are disliked and disrespected by more of the world than ever before. Our integrity for truth and humanity is taking such a huge hit that we may never recover; simply because of this administration's scorn for diplomatic solutions.

mlyonsd
06-16-2006, 12:43 PM
Not a bad point if you believe America is incapable of doing better than oil.



A very good point which I believe bolsters my point better than it does yours.



That is the most justifiable reason. It always has been and always will be. But I'm not sure it wasn't manipulated to be a "reasonable justification."



I'm apt to agree with you but I think the approach would have been so different with Gore that we wouldn't have alienated everybody in the world besides our closest ally and the easily purchased. A real world coalition would have been the biggest ingredient to success. Combine that failure with the arrogance and disrespect that this administration has projected from the start and it is no wonder that we are disliked and disrespected by more of the world than ever before. Our integrity for truth and humanity is taking such a huge hit that we may never recover; simply because of this administration's scorn for diplomatic solutions.

We come close to agreeing except for the last paragargh.

Saddam had 12 years to show us what he did with the WMD. If anything, dragging it out that long made him dig his heals in deeper. The argument could be made that if we had pushed the issue, say, a year or two after the first Gulf War and let him know then we were done fugging around he might have cooperated.

We let him play chicken for 12 years. After 911 and it's obvious (at least to me) now that AQ was operating from within Iraq it had to be done. He chose war.

penchief
06-16-2006, 04:32 PM
We come close to agreeing except for the last paragargh.

Saddam had 12 years to show us what he did with the WMD. If anything, dragging it out that long made him dig his heals in deeper. The argument could be made that if we had pushed the issue, say, a year or two after the first Gulf War and let him know then we were done fugging around he might have cooperated.

We let him play chicken for 12 years. After 911 and it's obvious (at least to me) now that AQ was operating from within Iraq it had to be done. He chose war.

But the reality was that Saddam was pretty much impotent. So something must have worked. The worst that could be said about the situation was that he was one helluva' bluffer. All he had was a pair a' nothin' and we countered with "Shock n' Awe!"

After 9/11 we had to show the world that we can be crazy and irrational muthers who won't hesitate to destroy a country just because we don't like the way they're lookin' at us. There's a chance that strategy could possibly deter future regimes from supporting terrorism but it seems more likely to spawn the type of resentment that leads to more terrorism, IMO.

Logical
06-16-2006, 08:04 PM
protecting oil is a good thing, given our undeniable addiction to oil...

and taking away any crazy man's wmd capabilities away is another good thing...

but not everyone agrees that, in hindsight, the iraq war/occupation actually did either...

and as far as gore going to war against iraq, i kinda doubt it because democrats are sometimes prone to negotiate and try to solve things politically if they can, rather than militarily...

afghanistan? sure, gore (hell, even kerry) would have done that...

It appears we are not taking advantage of the oil situation, which truly suprises me. WMDs is a topic best left off the table, it is now clear that was at best shoddy salesmanship and at worst an outright lie to garner support. I agree on Gore most likely we would not have invaded Iraq had Gore been President but we would have went after Al Quada in Afghanistan/Pakistand etc. Not being distracted by Iraq we probably would have got him also.

WilliamTheIrish
06-16-2006, 08:19 PM
It depends. Will I have to ride a bike? Pull a rickshaw? Will there be open air markets? Will the Chinese let me use a calculator or do I have to learn how to use an abacus?

Also, can we pick which Chinese province the soldiers will be from? If they are from Hunam provonce I'll let them occupy. Some of those provinces favor very spicy foods. I'm not partial to that.

StcChief
06-17-2006, 07:41 AM
Aw shit how did I end up selecting both options. Damn

Setup poll with radio button controls.... :p

ChiefFripp
06-17-2006, 07:57 AM
Well you can't expect the Iraqis not to defend their homeland. I'm sure many of them believe(rightly or wrongly), that the US is installing a puppet goverment for our own needs. And yes, I would fight if China invaded the US. I wouldn't however take part in killing my fellow Americans with suicide bombs or other dubious media attention seeking tactics.

Oh, I'd make sure I was a part of a fringe group that was in no way associated with a dumbass leader like Bush.

mlyonsd
06-17-2006, 08:55 AM
But the reality was that Saddam was pretty much impotent. So something must have worked. The worst that could be said about the situation was that he was one helluva' bluffer. All he had was a pair a' nothin' and we countered with "Shock n' Awe!"

After 9/11 we had to show the world that we can be crazy and irrational muthers who won't hesitate to destroy a country just because we don't like the way they're lookin' at us. There's a chance that strategy could possibly deter future regimes from supporting terrorism but it seems more likely to spawn the type of resentment that leads to more terrorism, IMO.

Can't argue with that....it's possible we won't know the results of invading Iraq for 15-30 years.

stevieray
06-17-2006, 08:58 AM
Can't argue with that....it's possible we won't know the results of invading Iraq for 15-30 years.


I can.

I'm tired of people blaming the US for others choosing to engage in terrorism..

mlyonsd
06-17-2006, 09:09 AM
I can.

I'm tired of people blaming the US for others choosing to engage in terrorism..

While I wouldn't have chosen Penchief's wording I agree with the underlying premise.

After 911 the administration decided it was time to show other countries that harbor terrorists we have the means and will to destroy percieved threats. A position I agree with btw.

It did wonders with Libya.

StcChief
06-17-2006, 09:54 AM
While I wouldn't have chosen Penchief's wording I agree with the underlying premise.

After 911 the administration decided it was time to show other countries that harbor terrorists we have the means and will to destroy percieved threats. A position I agree with btw.

It did wonders with Libya.

Yeah...The attack on Libya years ago 1986 started this....

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dr_ibrahim_ighneiwa/march86c.htm

Logical
06-17-2006, 04:11 PM
But the reality was that Saddam was pretty much impotent. So something must have worked. The worst that could be said about the situation was that he was one helluva' bluffer. All he had was a pair a' nothin' and we countered with "Shock n' Awe!"

After 9/11 we had to show the world that we can be crazy and irrational muthers who won't hesitate to destroy a country just because we don't like the way they're lookin' at us. There's a chance that strategy could possibly deter future regimes from supporting terrorism but it seems more likely to spawn the type of resentment that leads to more terrorism, IMO.

There might be some truth to what you say, it however does not explain the irrational occupation which has definitely led to the creation of more terrorists.

I also wonder if Stevie misworded his statement, not even I believe we chose to engage in terrorism, but if we ever did engage in terrorism I would certaintly be blaming our government for irresponsible actions.

patteeu
06-17-2006, 10:03 PM
There might be some truth to what you say, it however does not explain the irrational occupation which has definitely led to the creation of more terrorists.

I also wonder if Stevie misworded his statement, not even I believe we chose to engage in terrorism, but if we ever did engage in terrorism I would certaintly be blaming our government for irresponsible actions.

I'm confused about whether the majority of the insurgents are terrorists or freedom fighters.

Logical
06-17-2006, 10:10 PM
I'm confused about whether the majority of the insurgents are terrorists or freedom fighters.That would definitely be difficult to determine.