billvon 3,109 #101 October 2, 2006 >Do you not think paying money to the families of suicide bombers is supporting terrorism? Yes it is. Giving islamic terrorists billions of dollars worth of guns, ammunition and Stinger missiles is supporting it in a much more direct way. Using the same sort of silly math, US = terrorists a lot more than Saddam = terrorists. Right now we support violence in the Middle East in a very big way. We supply Israel with weapons they use against Hezbollah. Iran supplies Hezbollah with weapons they use against Israel. Based on number of dead on both sides, we're doing a much better job of it than Iran. It's a mistake to supply _anyone_ with weapons to kill each other no matter what your nationality, both for moral reasons and for practical reasons (i.e. they can and do get used against us.) Those terrorists whose families Saddam later supported were probably using US-supplied weapons and explosives; the Middle East (especially Afghanistan) is awash in the arms we gave the Mujahideen. An odd alliance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #102 October 3, 2006 QuoteIt's a mistake to supply _anyone_ with weapons to kill each other no matter what your nationality, both for moral reasons and for practical reasons (i.e. they can and do get used against us.) Those terrorists whose families Saddam later supported were probably using US-supplied weapons and explosives; the Middle East (especially Afghanistan) is awash in the arms we gave the Mujahideen. An odd alliance. You're absolutely right, Bill... we NEVER should have given all those weapons out under Lend-Lease back in the early and mid-40's.... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #103 October 3, 2006 Quotewe NEVER should have given all those weapons out under Lend-Lease back in the early and mid-40's.... No doubt..........or used our Merchant Marine to ship all that materiel there. We should also have prosecuted all those evil "Mercenaries" that went to help Britain in the early days of the war. We should have just minded our own business so the Axis wouldn't get upset with us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #104 October 3, 2006 Quote[sigh] A professor's lot is a hard one... Etymology The word "mathematics" Sorry, it's all &#%%%$$$### to me ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #105 October 3, 2006 Actually, I think the proper term to use there would have been arithmetic, . . . or would that be arithmetics? A rith mu tiks - noun, a group of non-harmonious randomly flinching people." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #106 October 3, 2006 QuoteYes it is. Giving islamic terrorists billions of dollars worth of guns, ammunition and Stinger missiles is supporting it in a much more direct way. Using the same sort of silly math, US = terrorists a lot more than Saddam = terrorists. Two wrongs do not make a right. So you think it is OK for Saddam to do what he did based on something a different leader did? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,109 #107 October 3, 2006 >Two wrongs do not make a right. Exactly. Two wrongs make two wrongs. >So you think it is OK for Saddam to do what he did based on something >a different leader did? Not at all. It's wrong when we do it and it's wrong when he does it. We should keep that in mind when we condemn him for doing things like that, because others would be exactly as justified in condemning us for doing the same. As someone much wiser than me once said - "Judge not, lest you be judged. . . First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #108 October 3, 2006 Quote>Two wrongs do not make a right. Exactly. Two wrongs make two wrongs. Yes. But the difference was a guy was still in power against a guy that was no longer in power. Your comparison, while close, misses the fact that Saddam was still in power and supported terrorists. The US does not have the same leadership as it did back then. If the US invaded Iraq after Saddam was out of power, then I would agree with your analogy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #109 October 8, 2006 QuoteSo I hear everyone going on and on about how wrong everything has been done. What's your grand solution? If you were President today.......how would you fix all this. Please........don't say dumb shit "Pull out of Iraq" and then not provide a timeline of the repercussions of your actions. Since obviously.......something like that would have a rather large effect on the world. Have at it. I am really am interested in what you have to say. Well........except for one person that is mentally unstable. While I agree with the posters that have stated that the best idea was to not rush into a war with Iraq to start with, I realize that now that we are there, not invading is no longer an option in Iraq. It may seem unrelated, but I believe establishing a US monetary policy with a gold backed dollar would positively affect US relations with oil producing countries, such as Iraq. Iraq, Iran and Venezuela all either did, do, or have expressed a desire to discontinue accepting dollars for oil, preferring the Euro as the de facto global currency. Why does this matter? The US economy operates with a huge trade deficit. We buy a lot more than we sell, internationally. This leaves a lot of dollars in the hands of those countries we buy from. This is not a big deal as long as the dollar can be traded for things of value from other countries. One of the things of near universal demand that could traditionally be purchased with the dollar in the latter half of the twentieth century is oil. Since foreign countries could take their extra dollars to purchase oil, and they needed oil, they were no worse off for the US trade deficit. However, when oil producing countries refuse to accept dollars for their oil, favoring other currencies, those countries set the unbacked dollar up for failure. They reduce the international demand, and therefore the value, of the dollar. As long as the US uses its military might, instead of gold, to back the dollar, and to force its acceptance by those countries that would otherwise prefer to trade oil for Euros, we are going to have major problems with such countries. Of course, even our military might cannot save us forever. Sooner or later, like a New Orleans levee, a crisis will come along too great to be staved in such a manner. In the interim, if our leaders insist on reacting to international problems in the manner of a schoolyard bully, we will be wholly unprepared for such a crisis. The solution is not as simple as just pulling the troops out. We have to solve underlying problems that we have caused, and stop assigning blame to everyone else. Our irresponsible monetary policy is just one important example of these problems.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
