UT you know Saddam was just trying to save the environment from the pollution that oil causes. He's a good person like that.

Saddam did it for fun...he seems like one of those Type-A personality folks. He just wanted to see you shit on yourself.

Anyway, your application of these principles requires nations to basically commit suicide. To defend what, exactly? The principles? Doubt they'd survive; they'd lie amongst the wastes of all the systems of thought that died out from having no cultures left to think them.

These are not problems that Americans have had to think about. But they aren't problems that are just going to go away if we ignore them. The world is getting smaller; the distance between nations is smaller, and technology brings us closer, much earlier than we would have hoped. And if the bombs proliferate there will be no one not at constant risk.

For thier own energy needs while they sell the high quality oil.

Who said anything about ignoring problems. But starting unconstitutional wars against countries that pose no threat to America (Iraq poses no threat to America) isn't in the defense of America which is the only valid use of our military.

Being military non-interventionists isn't being isolationist and it's not ignoring problems.

Neither America, nor the U.N. has the legal or moral authority to tell any nation what weapons they may or may not have. America doesn't choose who can have nukes. And if Iraq had nukes they'd probably just have them to ensure they're not the victims of unwarranted attacks such as those in 1991. They'd use them to make sure our planes stopped making illegal "no fly" zones, and to get our troops out of thier country. They'd use the principle of mutually assured destruction to get the respect thier sovereign nation deserves.

Lather Rinse Repeat

You have got to be fucking me, you really think Saddam is going to spend millions of dollars on a nuclear plant when he already has power plants that use oil. It costs him pennies to make electricity out of oil. I don't care how much he can sell a barrel of oil for there was now way in hell he could cover the cost of the Nuclear plant with the oil he uses to make electricity.

Oh yeah and for the rest of your argument what UT said.

Iraqi nukes

Nuclear energy is cheaper than oil. Less than the pennies. And Iraq knows that since they're selling all their oil eventually they will run out of it.

Like everything else, the FBI claims they've got evidence of a nuclear weapons program but have offered none. All they know is that Iraq had a nuclear reactor. They've got no proof of a nuclear weapons program. And even if they did have proof that Iraq was building Nuclear weapons, Iraq is a sovereign nation and can have any weapons they choose. They don't require the permission of the U.N., Israel, or America to have nuclear weapons. Israel was wrong to attack Iraq.

Griff, let's just discount the Iraqi nuke details from Nigeria (and the FBI's competency) and just use the ones Blix's team found in the home of an Iraqi scientist.

Re: Re: A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing
 

1. Because "original thought" and "radar" are mutually exclusive terms.

2. He hasn't figured out how to link to an external article yet. This isn't the first time he's done this.

wolfs back! and awesome as ever! :)

~james

This is simply wild historical speculation. And I do mean wild. True, _ANY_ major change in history at that time would have made it unlikely for Hitler to come into power in Germany. But perhaps instead Russia, defeated in WWI, would have become wildly expansionist on its own, producing similar problems -- or even worse, without a strong opponent to balance Stalin. Remember that Russia surrendered BEFORE the US entered the war -- and the November 1917 Communist Revolution probably would have happened either way.

Not even close. Although I do a lot of reading from great minds like Lysander Spooner, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexis de Tocqueville, Benjamin Franklin, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, Frederic Douglas, Harry Browne, Milton Friedman, Frederic Bastiat, and many others, I often express my own original, intelligent, rational, and witty thoughts on this and other boards. You on the other hand have yet to have any thoughts, let alone an original one.

It's easy to make links. Even an idiot like you could do that. But then if I used a link many of you would be too lazy or stupid to follow it. Instead I copied it here and even formatted it like it was originally posted.


That is no less wild and no less speculation than the thoughts I expressed.

Contempt for one's audience, Mr. Outreach?

It's not exactly straight outta "How to Win Friends and Influence People".

That's called "violation of copyright".

If folks are insufficiently fascinated by things that fascinate you to follow the link, why bother posting it in plain text? That can be ignored equally well.