|
|
Post by Buddy on Jun 29, 2004 16:11:44 GMT -5
And based on your comment, why haven't we attacked Syria, Iran, Jordan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and all those other countries harboring terrorists and having WMD's? Why ONLY Iraq, who was the LEAST threat of them all. And let's not forget North Korea. They fit ALL the categories Dubya used. IMHO, North Korea is a far bigger threat to us than Iraq ever was. North Korea actually has a real military. They actually do have WMD - as well as the capabliities of using them. They're military, on many levels, rivals ours. And with China, another major world and military power on their side, well, I'd prefer not to think of the consequences of they ever choose to take us to war... |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 29, 2004 21:18:25 GMT -5
Well, Pat, I can't think of a way to respond to keep my argument afloat. I think it's fair to say you won this small debate and pwned me.  But I still think you're wrong. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Jun 29, 2004 22:00:12 GMT -5
Well, Pat, I can't think of a way to respond to keep my argument afloat. I think it's fair to say you won this small debate and pwned me. But I still think you're wrong. ;D XD Funny how that works, eh? I'm keeping my views, too. It's funny - the debates that I absolutely LOATHE are the ones that touch the subjects of politics and religion, because people will NEVER change their views. They argue endlessly. What's funny about that, though, is that those are the debates that I usually take part in XD. Not to mention that I'm a 14-year-old girl and I still look to my parents for political views, because politics don't really interest me, so I don't bother to go and research and try to seek out the truth myself. In the end, no one really knows all of the facts. There are still quite a few mysteries surrounding everything that will take a while for us to crack, so for the time being, I'll just agree to disagree and claim Pat the winner for putting up a good argument. But I still think she's wrong. ^_~ |
|
|
|
Post by Patjade on Jun 30, 2004 8:17:30 GMT -5
Call me wrong if you will, I have thrown out the observed facts, and the reason for it.
But the eggs have been broken and the souffle has fallen.
Now we declare Iraq a "Sovereign" nation, which means they have TOTAL control, or do they?
They can TRY Saddam Hussein in court, but are not trusted to hold him.
They can manage their own defense and police, under US supervision...
They can do a LOT of things, as long as Dubya says it is OK.
I see it this way, it's as if Iraq is a 17 year-old kid, who has been given a car. He has to pay insurance, keep the tank filled, wash it, change the tires, keep it in good running shape, but can't DRIVE the car until he is proven absolutely worthy of it. Good Ol' Daddy USA will do the driving and determine where the car will go. Iraq just maintains it. But it IS Iraq's car! He's responsible for it. He just can't drive it.
Heh.
|
|
|
|
Post by KittyKadaveral on Jun 30, 2004 9:20:32 GMT -5
Call me wrong if you will, I have thrown out the observed facts, and the reason for it. But the eggs have been broken and the souffle has fallen. Now we declare Iraq a "Sovereign" nation, which means they have TOTAL control, or do they? They can TRY Saddam Hussein in court, but are not trusted to hold him. They can manage their own defense and police, under US supervision... They can do a LOT of things, as long as Dubya says it is OK. I see it this way, it's as if Iraq is a 17 year-old kid, who has been given a car. He has to pay insurance, keep the tank filled, wash it, change the tires, keep it in good running shape, but can't DRIVE the car until he is proven absolutely worthy of it. Good Ol' Daddy USA will do the driving and determine where the car will go. Iraq just maintains it. But it IS Iraq's car! He's responsible for it. He just can't drive it. Heh. LOL I never thought of something in that kind of description but it really makes sense and I love it...I think I'll have to use something like that in one of my many verbal wars at work  |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Jul 1, 2004 22:42:03 GMT -5
The point of those debates isn't to make people think like you (though you try), it's to get to a point where you agree to disagree because you believe the other side has done their best and really has made you think about their point of view, and they agree that you've done well to. It's kind of like, you almost had them, but they refuse to agree with you.
My favourite's though, because you never CAN come to a consensus. You just leave thinking you've done your best, made your point, and know that you really made someone sweat trying to come up with a way to argue.
They're also about trying to be last to give in and say that you can't come up with something. Having the most points in your favour. Doesn't mean you're right, even though technically you won, outwitting your opponent, it just means that well, you played a great fight. Why aren't you right? Because each person has their super strong points that crush your own.
|
|
|
|
Post by althechia on Jul 26, 2004 2:16:01 GMT -5
I really, really wish I were in Canada right now.  |
|
|
|
Post by ashketchum173175 on Aug 13, 2004 2:27:57 GMT -5
I would spend as much time in the U.S. as is needed to learn how to fluently (sp?) speak Japanese, then move to Japan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Aug 13, 2004 19:34:47 GMT -5
Yeah, if I had my way, I'd either be... here in Canada, Austrailia, or Japan. After I learn Japanese.
|
|
