How do you have a world without war with sociopaths running countries?

Status
Not open for further replies.
evince said:
sold to him by Ronny rayguns and then ronny just laughed when he gassed people.

that was like 20 years before Bush did his shit
Click to expand...

For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter where he got the gas.

If he used gas, according to you - it was not only okay that we used our military against him: it was necessary.
 
evince said:
The only way we will ever see a world without war is if there are no sociopaths allowed near the levers of power.

we are not there yet
Click to expand...

It's kind of self-selecting though, right? In most countries in the world, getting to power takes ruthlessness and blood-thirst -which tends to favor sociopaths. Even in hereditary monarchies, the surviving kid is the one who will inherit which again favors the sociopath.

In democracies, it's not quite so bad - we seem to avoid electing sociopaths, and the leaders elected are somewhat controlled by their party and other legislators. I don't think anyone would call Merkel a sociopath, to pick a more neutral example than our own country. (I don't think most of our Presidents have been sociopaths, by the way, with the possible exception of Bush Jr who had some kind of screw loose). But even in a democracy, it takes a lot of drive and desire for power to become the leader. This self-selects for certain types (Carter might be the exception to this in our country).

In non-democracies, even if a sociopath isn't the leader, he/she is often surrounded by people who may be sociopaths. And even Assad didn't seem so crazy until he faced a popular resistance- and then he went into sociopath mode. Who would have thought before the civil war that he was this hideous? Sociopaths hide themselves well.

anyway, guess I'm saying - it's human nature; there will always be war, because we can't get rid of those who want to get power any way they can.

Sucks though.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Settle down. I did not quote you. I was making a statement about your general argument and it is accurate.

We won't be able to remove their chemical weapons ability with missile strikes.
Click to expand...



fuck you very much.


settle down?


fuck off.

You will be treated like you deserve when you fucking lie
 
evince said:
his gassing of people was NOT why Bush hit him was it
Click to expand...

Well, no; we didn't go to war in Iraq because years before they had gassed the Kurds. But - because they had gassed the Kurds - Bush Jr was able to convince everyone that Iraq might still have WMDs even though all evidence pointed against it; he then made it seem like Iraq would use those against the US. So preventing use of chemical weapons against us was one of the ways he sold the war, even though it was a bunch of malarky.

Bush's real motives remain murky, even to him I bet.
 
I hope Obama bombs them no matter what you talk congress the chicken shits into.


If they do not hand over these weapons without delay then they need to have no weapons with which to deliver them with.


You tell me HOW the world benefits by telling this assad asshole that no one will say anything to him gassing babies.


The right in this country has no fucking morals left
 
You people DONT FUCKING CARE!


you think its none of our business.


then you claim to be all christainy
 
tekkychick said:
Well, no; we didn't go to war in Iraq because years before they had gassed the Kurds. But - because they had gassed the Kurds - Bush Jr was able to convince everyone that Iraq might still have WMDs even though all evidence pointed against it; he then made it seem like Iraq would use those against the US. So preventing use of chemical weapons against us was one of the ways he sold the war, even though it was a bunch of malarky.

Bush's real motives remain murky, even to him I bet.
Click to expand...

Oh - this differs from Syria because in Syria weapons WERE used (even if we aren't sure which side used them) and the intelligence does show that Assad has chemical weapons stockpiled - the "poor countries' nuclear weapon" as I heard them described lately.

Syria isn't threatening us with them; but there is no doubt there are chemical weapons there.

So - there is a case for missile strikes against Syria while there was not a case for invading Iraq and overthrowing Hussein. Note: Pres. Obama is NOT asking to put troops on the ground; he's not saying it's a threat against us; he's not doing all the things Bush did with Iraq. These are two very different situations and each should be judged accordingly.

Obviously not everyone agrees the case is strong enough for striking Syria; but there is at least a case to be made that's based on reality.

While the same case could have been made to strike Iraq when they were actually gassing the Kurds - well, obviously at the time the USA did not think it was a priority to stop chemical weapons.
 
Thing1 said:
Was Saddam's use of gas less morally corrupt because he got help from the Reagan admin?
Click to expand...



now if you want to pretend that is why Bush went after him 20 years after the fact then you will.

the right is full of fucking lies right up to their scalps
 
Thing1 said:
Was Saddam's use of gas less morally corrupt because he got help from the Reagan admin?
Click to expand...

It was morally corrupt. We chose not to do anything about it.

Because we stood by and did nothing once, does that mean we should stand by and do nothing now?

But again - Iraq's actions against the Kurds had NOTHING to do with why Bush Jr eventually went to war against Iraq. Nothing.
 
evince said:
now if you want to pretend that is why Bush went after him 20 years after the fact then you will.

the right is full of fucking lies right up to their scalps
Click to expand...

Again - what difference does it make why Bush went after him?

He used gas. When dictators use gas, YOU support military intervention, regardless.

Right?
 
tekkychick said:
It was morally corrupt. We chose not to do anything about it.

Because we stood by and did nothing once, does that mean we should stand by and do nothing now?

But again - Iraq's actions against the Kurds had NOTHING to do with why Bush Jr eventually went to war against Iraq. Nothing.
Click to expand...

That's not the argument I'm making, tekky.

Desh's hypocrisy on this issue is staggering to me; I don't think I've ever seen its equal.
 
right on tecky.



they backed Bush and make up all kinds of lies for him.


Now they refuse to back Obama when the world needs him backed.



The right in this country doesn't want our country to survive.

they are in the Grover plan to kill this country from within
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top