U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-03-2008, 02:53 PM
 
Location: At my computador
2,057 posts, read 3,091,146 times
Reputation: 510

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessica1000 View Post
How is Iran going to invade U.S. How is Iranian army going to cross the pacific or atlantic ocean.
It'll be terrorist.

The military is forcing Iran to use their resources in Iraq. Thos are resources that are not going towards direct attacks against the U.S. When the U.S. hits Iran directly, their ability to produce resources will be undermined.



Quote:
Ok, since you(mr. one Thousand) didn't answer them in the first place, I will ask them again.
There's no reason to answer them. You're not arguing from a position of open-mindedness anymore than I am. You're just anti-war. Even if I made an argument, you'd attack sources and, ultimately rely on "well you don't know the future."

I've had these discussions before. I believe you're an ideologue opposed to war whereas, I'm a pragmatist who recognizes that sometimes war is a necessity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-03-2008, 02:57 PM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,880,403 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand View Post
It'll be terrorist.

The military is forcing Iran to use their resources in Iraq. Thos are resources that are not going towards direct attacks against the U.S. When the U.S. hits Iran directly, their ability to produce resources will be undermined.





There's no reason to answer them. You're not arguing from a position of open-mindedness anymore than I am. You're just anti-war. Even if I made an argument, you'd attack sources and, ultimately rely on "well you don't know the future."

I've had these discussions before. I believe you're an ideologue opposed to war whereas, I'm a pragmatist who recognizes that sometimes war is a necessity.
Iran has enough sleeper agents in this country and has for years. They have hated us for so long if they are so good at terrorism does anyone doubt they are ready to strike us here there and everywhere. We can only hope their agents have gone deep asleep.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2008, 03:05 PM
 
Location: At my computador
2,057 posts, read 3,091,146 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Iran has enough sleeper agents in this country and has for years. They have hated us for so long if they are so good at terrorism does anyone doubt they are ready to strike us here there and everywhere. We can only hope their agents have gone deep asleep.
I dont' know how true that is. However, even if it is true, that doesn't mean that we just bend over and let whatever happens happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2008, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Charlotte
12,646 posts, read 13,920,849 times
Reputation: 1679
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand View Post
It'll be terrorist.

The military is forcing Iran to use their resources in Iraq. Thos are resources that are not going towards direct attacks against the U.S. When the U.S. hits Iran directly, their ability to produce resources will be undermined.





There's no reason to answer them. You're not arguing from a position of open-mindedness anymore than I am. You're just anti-war. Even if I made an argument, you'd attack sources and, ultimately rely on "well you don't know the future."

I've had these discussions before. I believe you're an ideologue opposed to war whereas, I'm a pragmatist who recognizes that sometimes war is a necessity.
Wouldn't a pragmatic approach recognize that war is not a necessity? Or am I mistaken because from a pragmatists point of view this is based in your belief and so all other arguments and reason cannot be considered because you have not transformed your beliefs nor considered the reality of a world without war?

Last edited by walidm; 05-03-2008 at 03:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2008, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,377 posts, read 55,190,768 times
Reputation: 15459
More than ever,
Im convinced he's the guy for the job.

Hopefully people out there will wake up and recognize this vicious smear campaign for what it is. But I wont hold my breath.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2008, 03:29 PM
 
403 posts, read 685,565 times
Reputation: 65
I oppose wars that give U.S no security. Iraq war has been a failure and we will continue to lose wars that are fought based on wilsionian or neo-conservative principles.

Quote:
One Thousand
Senior Member

It'll be terrorist.

The military is forcing Iran to use their resources in Iraq. Thos are resources that are not going towards direct attacks against the U.S. When the U.S. hits Iran directly, their ability to produce resources will be undermined.
Right. That's the argument that is used aganist Al-Queda(a organization with fewer resources that Iran) and they are fighting us in iraq, afghanistan, attack Britain, Spain and have their fellow related organization plot attack in U.S.

With regards to Iran. This idea that some how the cost of fighting a conventional war is the same as fighthing a non-conventional wars(like Iran giving supplies to groups attacking U.S military) is just plain wrong. Iran has supplied shia groups aganist U.S, they are supplying Syria and they are supplying terrorist group in lebonon aganist Israel.

It takes billions of conventional military to fight a few thousand spend by non-conventional groups. This is the reason why we won(by supporting afghan) aganist the soviet military in afghan war. This is why we lost in Vietnam aganist a inferior enemy with very little resources. The same goes with Israel recent defeat in lebonon aganist the hezbollah group. The same principle totally destroyed the moral of British during the Boer war. I could go on and on.......


Quote:
One Thousand
Senior Member

There's no reason to answer them. You're not arguing from a position of open-mindedness anymore than I am. You're just anti-war. Even if I made an argument, you'd attack sources and, ultimately rely on "well you don't know the future."


Lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2008, 03:35 PM
 
Location: At my computador
2,057 posts, read 3,091,146 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm View Post
arguments and reason cannot be considered because you have not transformed nor considered the reality of a world without war?
I have considered it. However, you have to look at the world around you as an individual being oppressed rather than looking at the world as the oppressor-- only the oppressor can conceive the oppressed not fighting.

The liberals in this election season are hell-bent on universal healthcare. Any act of the govenment is an act rooted in violence (because if there was no threat of force involved, it'd be a 503c or other organization.) What's happening is that a large segment of the population is willing to force another group to give them healthcare and no amount of reason can shake them from the sense of entitlement that justifies them into oppressing those who wish not to cooperate.

If our own people are willing to oppress another group, why would you think that fighting is not, sometimes, the solution?

Without the threat of force, many people don't cooperate and time is a factor in everything, so waiting for someone to come around just isn't always practical.

The only world without war that will exist is a world with only one in power. That's the unfortunate reality of life. Ghandi was only one man-- and even his closest followers didn't stay committed to his willingness for personal sacrifice-- it's just not consistent with average human nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2008, 03:44 PM
 
468 posts, read 1,516,512 times
Reputation: 191
I've been an Edwards supporter since the beginning, and I was pretty pissed when it became a two candidate race for the Democratic Nomination (even though it was inevitable).

I kept my options open between Hillary and Barack, but eventually sided with Obama.

I am behind him 110% now.

I am a hardcore liberal, and it's tearing me up because if Hilldawg wins the nomination, I'll have to think it over. I really, really dislike her, and would potentially consider voting McCain over her, as unbelievable as that would sound for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2008, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Charlotte
12,646 posts, read 13,920,849 times
Reputation: 1679
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand View Post
I have considered it. However, you have to look at the world around you as an individual being oppressed rather than looking at the world as the oppressor-- only the oppressor can conceive the oppressed not fighting.

The liberals in this election season are hell-bent on universal healthcare. Any act of the govenment is an act rooted in violence (because if there was no threat of force involved, it'd be a 503c or other organization.) What's happening is that a large segment of the population is willing to force another group to give them healthcare and no amount of reason can shake them from the sense of entitlement that justifies them into oppressing those who wish not to cooperate.

If our own people are willing to oppress another group, why would you think that fighting is not, sometimes, the solution?

Without the threat of force, many people don't cooperate and time is a factor in everything, so waiting for someone to come around just isn't always practical.

The only world without war that will exist is a world with only one in power. That's the unfortunate reality of life. Ghandi was only one man-- and even his closest followers didn't stay committed to his willingness for personal sacrifice-- it's just not consistent with average human nature.
Interesting. And so we have come to see a belief. A world can exist without one in power, and be free of war; however, this must become the overwhelming Belief.

Is there no truth in this? It is interesting.

If the government were obliged to come to the people for money instead of vice-versa, the people would keep government under control and operate their economy satisfactorily with prosperity and peace resulting. The peoples of the nations do not make war. For them peace is the natural and permanent order. Wars are planned and perpetrated by politicians and their diplomats; and the money power of government is the means by which the people are maneuvered into wars.
E. C. Riegel
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2008, 04:06 PM
 
Location: At my computador
2,057 posts, read 3,091,146 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm View Post
Interesting. And so we have come to see a belief. A world can exist without one in power, and be free of war; however, this must become the overwhelming Belief.
The point of citing liberals and universal healthcare demonstrates that people, in their "natural state," want more... always more and they're willing to oppress another to get it. The only world where there is no war-- by nations or organization such as al Qaeda-- is one where the oppressed accept their oppression.


Quote:
If the government were obliged to come to the people for money instead of vice-versa
Then it would not be a government-- it would be an organization of voluntary contributors. Our U.S. government allows for that in broad ways.

We have fifty such small governments that allow you to experiment with theories. We have corporations and co-ops that allow you to operate tax-free-- or nearly tax free-- if you like. However, all we have to do is look at the presidential election and see that people, in their natural state, will choose to control others. If they didn't wish to control-- oppress them and impose upon-- them, we'd see them imposing their values at the state level or within thier voluntary organizations.

However, average human nature is self-centered and oppressive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top