Order and Zimbabwe are two words that have yet to see each other.ZombieVampire! wrote:
So you're going to invade a country and destroy the only thing representing a semblance of order?Turquoise wrote:
Sounds like the military of Zimbabwe needs to be taken out then...ZombieVampire! wrote:
Interestingly there are now reports suggesting that Mugabe is powerless, and kept in place by the military as a useful figurehead.
Oh, I'm sorry for doubting, that's bound to work.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Would an invasion of Zimbabwe be justifiable?
Nothing in our constitution allows us "to bring order" to another country.M.O.A.B wrote:
Order and Zimbabwe are two words that have yet to see each other.ZombieVampire! wrote:
So you're going to invade a country and destroy the only thing representing a semblance of order?Turquoise wrote:
Sounds like the military of Zimbabwe needs to be taken out then...
Oh, I'm sorry for doubting, that's bound to work.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
How d'you figure?M.O.A.B wrote:
Order and Zimbabwe are two words that have yet to see each other.ZombieVampire! wrote:
So you're going to invade a country and destroy the only thing representing a semblance of order?Turquoise wrote:
Sounds like the military of Zimbabwe needs to be taken out then...
Oh, I'm sorry for doubting, that's bound to work.
True, but when's the last time we paid attention to that?...Kmarion wrote:
Nothing in our constitution allows us "to bring order" to another country.M.O.A.B wrote:
Order and Zimbabwe are two words that have yet to see each other.ZombieVampire! wrote:
So you're going to invade a country and destroy the only thing representing a semblance of order?
Oh, I'm sorry for doubting, that's bound to work.
So, did GWB violate the US Constitution by invading Iraq?Kmarion wrote:
Nothing in our constitution allows us "to bring order" to another country.M.O.A.B wrote:
Order and Zimbabwe are two words that have yet to see each other.ZombieVampire! wrote:
So you're going to invade a country and destroy the only thing representing a semblance of order?
Oh, I'm sorry for doubting, that's bound to work.
I guess order is highly present in a country that seems to have ever present demonstrations, riots, beatings, killings and general violence. Most of which is committed by that countries own police force.ZombieVampire! wrote:
How d'you figure?M.O.A.B wrote:
Order and Zimbabwe are two words that have yet to see each other.ZombieVampire! wrote:
So you're going to invade a country and destroy the only thing representing a semblance of order?
Oh, I'm sorry for doubting, that's bound to work.
Actually, the demonstrations and riots are fairly rare. Beatings and killings are common, but that's as a control measure.
So as a control measure that represents order?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Actually, the demonstrations and riots are fairly rare. Beatings and killings are common, but that's as a control measure.
They happen because no order exists to begin with. There's a reason why the cops over here aren't batting peoples heads in or shooting them because they stepped into the wrong area.
More or less. We've violated the Constitution so much that it's starting to look about as pointless as the U.N.sergeriver wrote:
So, did GWB violate the US Constitution by invading Iraq?Kmarion wrote:
Nothing in our constitution allows us "to bring order" to another country.M.O.A.B wrote:
Order and Zimbabwe are two words that have yet to see each other.
True, but maybe we can speed up the process by removing their government so that the beatings and killings escalate to the point that only one side remains alive, which then means peace again.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Actually, the demonstrations and riots are fairly rare. Beatings and killings are common, but that's as a control measure.
I always had a theory that Africa is like Europe in the middleages. Warring factions and what-not. But eventually we sort things out. Except it takes a long time.
Things fail when we give them guns and intervention. But what if intervention can help?
Things fail when we give them guns and intervention. But what if intervention can help?
BingoKmarion wrote:
As far as Americans..
Q:Would an invasion of Zimbabwe be justifiable?
A: Not if you read our Constitution.
He sold the idea Iraq was a direct threat. Congress agreed and authorized force. Direct and immediate threats are worthy of military action in our constitution. There is no way in hell someone could make a case for Zimbabwe being a direct threat to the United States. Of course congress hasn't officially declared war since WWII.sergeriver wrote:
So, did GWB violate the US Constitution by invading Iraq?Kmarion wrote:
Nothing in our constitution allows us "to bring order" to another country.M.O.A.B wrote:
Order and Zimbabwe are two words that have yet to see each other.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
How to kill a country.
I'd say I can imagine a time when private corporations start staging their own invasions.
Imagine if one of the big companies hired mercs to over throw the government and got massive farms going and turned Africa into the bread basket of the world.
http://www.agra-alliance.org/news/pr060408.html
I'd say I can imagine a time when private corporations start staging their own invasions.
Imagine if one of the big companies hired mercs to over throw the government and got massive farms going and turned Africa into the bread basket of the world.
http://www.agra-alliance.org/news/pr060408.html
He sold an idea, so he violated the US Consitution.Kmarion wrote:
He sold the idea Iraq was a direct threat. Congress agreed and authorized force. Direct and immediate threats are worthy of military action in our constitution. There is no way in hell someone could make a case for Zimbabwe being a direct threat to the United States. Of course congress hasn't officially declared war since WWII.sergeriver wrote:
So, did GWB violate the US Constitution by invading Iraq?Kmarion wrote:
Nothing in our constitution allows us "to bring order" to another country.
wise words.ATG wrote:
I think Africa should solve Africas problems.
Yes, because your laws prevent it.M.O.A.B wrote:
They happen because no order exists to begin with. There's a reason why the cops over here aren't batting peoples heads in or shooting them because they stepped into the wrong area.
Just because there lots of death and violence doesn't mean there isn't order. By that logic Australia could accuse the US of lacking order.
You miss the larger point. Perceived threats are just that, perceived.. There is a big difference between Zimbabwe and Iraq. If you cant see that I really can't help you.sergeriver wrote:
He sold an idea, so he violated the US Consitution.Kmarion wrote:
He sold the idea Iraq was a direct threat. Congress agreed and authorized force. Direct and immediate threats are worthy of military action in our constitution. There is no way in hell someone could make a case for Zimbabwe being a direct threat to the United States. Of course congress hasn't officially declared war since WWII.sergeriver wrote:
So, did GWB violate the US Constitution by invading Iraq?
If you need clarification as to where I stand . http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2127389 .
Last paragraph and sentence.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Would an invasion of Zimbabwe be justifiable?