<p>
[quote]
And Xanatos, I still think saying that such people make you "sick" didn't help.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well hypocrites make me sick. I think I have a right to say that.</p>
<p>"....when a child gets old enough he leaves his mother when a country is strong enough it leaves its <em>mother</em> country.....if foreign support was so important we wouldnt have had an american revolution you idiots....."</p>
<p>And who helped us win the American Revolution?</p>
<p>The French. </p>
<p>We weren't fighting the Revolution because we had decided that "foreign support" was unnecessary, but because we wanted our independence. Being a sovereign nation and being an aggressively unilateral nation does not HAVE to be the same thing, although you'd never know it by looking at the US.</p>
<p>i plan on joining the military (preferably air force, but any of the service academies will do (if i get in))</p>
<p>sourire, the french did it more as a way to defeat their enemy than to help the cause of democracy. We would still have had the American Revolution, but it might not have been successful.</p>
<p>Of course we still would have had the Revolution. My point was that in the same sentence, he first attacked multilateralism, then alluded to a war in which we benefited greatly from the aid of another country (regardless of its motives). And like you said, you're not sure how successful we would have been without their help....</p>
<p>ahhh i see, thanks for clarifying.</p>
<p>hahaha but we did have aid in Iraq. remember the debates? lol</p>
<p>oooh, yes. the infamous "Coalition." I'm sure the terrorists are petrified :-)</p>
<p>OK, I'm tired, and feeling too sarcastic for my own good. Time to sleep.</p>
<p>TO THE MODS:</p>
<p>why was this thread moved from the Dartmouth board?</p>
<p>More or less, this conversation was being driven by Dartmouth applicants/students with their prespectives...</p>
<p>that i so true i mean i did post it at first ABOUT Dartmouth but i think its starting to slow down a bit...</p>
<p>Hey, an Ivy educated officer. Good deal ElCommando.
<em>thumbs up</em></p>
<p>"it remains a conspiracy theory, nothing more. Even for Kennedy, they had puffs of smoke from the grassy knoll."</p>
<p>Wisconsinguy,</p>
<p>Comparing conspiracies surrounding Kennedy's assassination and War for Oil in Iraq is a flawed analogy.
If Oswald claimed he shot Kennedy because men from mars told him to, and later we find out there are no men on Mars, it is very likely that men on mars did not tell him to shoot Kennedy. You would not be a conspiracy theorist to think it was not Men on Mars after-all and instead start looking for more obvious and logical explanations.
If the President says Iraqi has WMD's that it plans to use either against its neighbors (Israel, Saudi Arabia--though, as we know, using them on Iran is just peachy) and against the USA through his terrorist networks, and it later becomes known to us that Saddam did not have the WMD's or the terrorist networks it would behove a rational person to consider the known historical reasons for past interventions in the Middle East.
I don't suppose any of us would be shocked-shocked to find it was oil. The overthrow of the Mosedeh Gov and instalation of the Pahlavehi dynasty (the Shah's family) in Iran in '48 (through T. Roosevelt's nephew Kermit Roosevelt), the proping up of the Saud family and the establishment of Wahabism as the exclusive religion of Saudi Arabia, the collaboration with the Talabani and Northern Alliance in Afganistan during the Soviet occupation: all for oil, no one disputes it.</p>
<p>But of course, this war was not for oil, it was for WMD's and 9-11 with some clauses attached by people like Rumsfeld who noted there would be additional benifits to removing Saddam like installing a democratic system after the war. Every bill in congress has amendments too, but there is normally a single issue that drives the bill, not the amendments to the bill (clauses). This bill was sold as the get rid of WMD's bill.</p>
<p>fighting with Afghanistan against the Soviets was not for oil it was to kill the commies cuz they are commie bastards</p>
<p>i do not wish to sound smart-alecky... do you even know what communism is?</p>
<p>sorry if this sounds a little mean, but i've heard numerous people say they hate communism, but i ask them what is it... and they don't know</p>
<p>...disgusting, they just get caught up in the popular opinion... i despise those kind of people</p>
<p>El Douche</p>
<p>You need to pick up a history book or two. Afganistan was a key to the region for the USSR.</p>
<p>Question: were we only after the commies with indeterminate paternity?</p>
<p>ilvoetocamp Communism basically makes everyone equal not only socially but economically as well.....the world would suck if 'true' communism was around which the USSR was not because Stalin took over and made it more of a dictatorship.</p>
<p>Hey fountainSIren i love all those historical facts from above which you probably looked up becuz ur a nerd. </p>
<p>You need to pick up a history book or two. Afganistan was a key to the region for the USS</p>
<p>EXACTLY we tried to stop communism and afghanistan was important to them.</p>
<p>Answer: No we just didnt want them in Afgan land</p>
<p>El Douche(thats such a more accurate name than your sn),</p>
<p>What would be so bad if everyone one was equal, i.e. true communisim. Its not pratical of course, but if humanity was able to create something like that how could that possibly be bad?</p>
<p>Just to make sure you know, any of the past or present communist regimes are NOT true communist regimes.</p>
<p>"What would be so bad if everyone one was equal, i.e. true communisim."</p>
<p>Ummm, because everybody is not inherently "equal."</p>
<p>El Douche,</p>
<p>Your kill me: reading books=nerd, lol
Try this: not reading books=jack*** going nowhere.
You need to watch a few less Rambo/007 movies and pick up a few more books. Life is not an X-Box, Douche.</p>
<p>Just to make sure you know, any of the past or present communist regimes are NOT true communist regimes.</p>
<p>Thats what i said in the above post hence me commenting "true" communism was never arround.</p>
<p>Your kill me: reading books=nerd, lol</p>
<p>i never said that I said he probably researched it just for this thread</p>
<p>You need to watch a few less Rambo/007 movies and pick up a few more books. Life is not an X-Box, Douche</p>
<p>I rarely play X-Box or watch movies and stop calling me Douche its very childish...besides you liberal f<em>gs are just jealous that someone else has the b</em>lls to put their life on the line while ur sitting at home watching me on the news saving you all....i wish the draft were imposed so people like you who would never join have to and then realize what its all about</p>
<p>El Commando,</p>
<p>When do you ship out to Iraq?</p>
<p>Good luck and thanks for fighting for all us f-somethings while you put your ______ on the line.
You, El, are a hero. No.... you are my hero. No doubt about that. A lot of guys would just talk about the glory of war--like Rush, O'Reiley or Shawn Hanity--and killin' bad guys, you are actually going to go out and put your stuff on the line; you are no chicken-hawk, you are no Ghandi or Thoreau, No MLK or Jesus, you are a man!</p>
<p>By the way, I'm not, I'm a woman.</p>
<p>not to mention the fact that bin laden, saddam and countless other known "terrorists" and dictatorships have been put into place due to US intervention for capitalist motives. Right... liberals are "idealists" when they believe the US would be better off not ****ing in people's back yards and the conservatives are the only "realists" because you know, of course nothing can go wrong if the U.S. government places someone as the leader of the country and tries to control him...</p>
<p>and by the way, this whole war on iraq has done nothing to increase the security of this country. perhaps we should have focused on countries that are known terrorist sponsor states (Syria and Iran) or rogue nations that have acquired wmds (NK)... but then again, those countries dont have personal history with W do they?</p>