Who Profits from War?

You know, Naisy is a witch... and the old testament says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" ....should we kill him?

I'm beginning to like you, Django.... for the record. You're a good sport and you've argued your points.

You're sort of like Piddzilla. Wrong, but somewhat likeable for it.

Jesus "love thy neighbor as thyself"--I think that's a more Christian philosophy than the witch-hunting philosophy, personally.

Toose, thanks for the compliments. I appreciate them. Glad to see you're open-minded enough to at least listen to my point of view! Gives us all hope!

Take it easy.

Clearly you haven't followed this discussion very closely...

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Read Caitlyn's comments on this above.

Also:

Why do you think the headlines on CNN and everywhere else were USA under attack and such after 9-11? Because they wanted to calm down the masses? I don't understand the meaning in your argumentation. What is the point in trying to prove that 9-11 was harder to handle for the american people than Pearl Harbor? You are constantly talking about the families of the victims. What about the rest of the 280 million people?? What did Pearl Harbor lead to?? WWII for heaven's sake!! 250.000 dead!! I can't believe I am even having this discussion... It's so totally of no relevance. A national tragedy is a national tragedy - why do you have to grade it???

Well, the difference is simple: Saddam Hussein. As you know the official reason for USA invading Iraq wasn't any connection with Al Quaeeda but the supposed weapons of mass destruction.

It takes less time to say Axis of Evil than it takes to say Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

You mean, letting another couple of hundred thousands die because the next guy in line maybe is a nice man with democracy in mind?

Yeah, well... I really don't find the phrase "Axis of Evil" very manipulating.

Oh, that's your point.... I think the differences outnumbers the similarities though.

Explain to me why Israel's occupation of palestinian land is "better" than USA and their allies' removal of the Saddam regime, please!

USA has stated that they intend to leave Iraq within years. Israeli settlers do not intend to leave palestinian land. Ever.

That still doesn't explain how this:

Piddzilla: About the similarities between Pearl Harbor and the attack of Iraq, I suggest you see Tora! Tora! Tora! and get back on the subject.

Django: Maybe I will, at some point. But from where I stand, there are more differences than similarities between the two.

goes together with this:

The very concept of a preemptive attack of self-defense is a contradiction in terms, as preemption implies aggression--how is it different, essentially, from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? I would argue that if you study the mindset of the Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor, it was probably not very different from the American mindset when they attacked Iraq.

No, I haven't. It's become boring to me. It's a 'who can look up more sh*t' one upmanship contest that's lost it's point.

I told Django from the beginning if he would take the focus off of himself and post what he believes then people would be more accepting of him.

He's done that. I don't agree with over half of what he says, but I do believe he's posting his beliefs which makes him no better or no worse than me.

Carry on

And read my comments to Caitlyn's comments above.

I'm not trying to grade a national tragedy. I am trying to assess the psychological impact of 9/11 on the nation as opposed to Pearl Harbor. My argument is that because 9/11 was primarily a civilian tragedy, as opposed to Pearl Harbor, which was primarily a military tragedy, the ensuing psychological impact will probably be greater. Add to it the numbers lost during 9/11. You make a valid point about Pearl Harbor, though--add the casualties of WWII to it and the fact that Pearl Harbor drew the US into WWII, the combined impact of the two probably outweighs the impact of 9/11. I didn't think of it that way. Sorry for my clinical approach to a sensitive issue.

My point, however, is that, firstly, there is no proven connection (beyond a circumstantial one) between Saddam and Al Quaeda and, secondly, that the claim pertaining to weapons of mass destruction has yet to be proven, and the Iraq War has long since been declared over.

True, but "Axis of Evil" is a term loaded with connotations that tend to oversimplify an otherwise more complicated issue and create the mental impression of an international anti-American conspiracy, which is simply not true. Or, at least, there is no evidence for it.

I'm saying that killing a couple of hundred thousands to depose a dictator through a full-scale military invasion might not be the best course of action to take.

As I said above, it is a phrase loaded with connotations.

I disagree. At the very least, the differences are so significant that they cannot be ignored.

I'm not trying to make a qualitative judgment on this issue. I am not qualified to do so. What I am saying is that it is a completely different scenario--there are no parallels between Israeli occupation of Palestine and European colonialism. The territory occupied by Israel is, historically, the homeland of the tribes of Israel--territory that was robbed from them by the Romans during the Sack of Jerusalem circa 50 A.D. From one school of thought, at least, the Israelis are justified in returning to their homeland--the "Promised Land" to which God delivered them to under the leadership of Moses. Furthermore, after the holocaust and a history of anti-semitic persecution, Israelis want a homeland that they can call their own territory--their own nation. It seems logical, to me, for them to establish such a nation on territory that was, formerly, their own land. I don't see why the Palestinians should make such a big deal of relocating a few people to give the Israelis a tiny smidgin of territory upon which they can establish a sovereign nation of their own. After all, the Islamic world has plenty of territory of its own. European colonialism, on the other hand, was about the occupation and exploitation of foreign territory with a profit motive in mind. It thrived on the enslavement and control of huge populations and imperialistic authoritarianism. It's a whole different ball game. For example, look at the history of the nations of South Africa and Zimbabwe.

I'm sorry. My mistake. When I said "there are more differences than similarities between the two," what I had in mind was Pearl Harbor vs. 9/11. I guess I wasn't paying close attention to what you said.

Thanks for the supportive comments, Toose.

WW2 was under way for quite a while before Pearl Harbor. Don't blame America's involvement for 'leading' to the war. America was reluctant and very late to the party.

Essentially it is vastly different. Japan attacked the US for cutting off their supplies that were used to fuel their aggression. The premptive strike against Iraq wasn't really that at all.

The US had never agreed to peace with Iraq, it agreed to a cease fire contingent upon terms. Iraq FAILED to meet those terms yet the US under Clinton turned a blind eye to the cease fire agreement as did the rest of the signatories (Germany, France, Russia etc...you know them... they dragged the US into the first Gulf War). With the destruction of the WTC, the US saw fit to enforce the cease fire agreement (THE UN agreement). The reason that France, Germany et al didn't climb on board is because they had lucrative contracts with Saddam & Sons should that regime stay in power.

Look up who was first to bid on the clean-up in Iraq. Seems hypocrisy knows no bounds.

That was Django, not Pidd...

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Thanks, Steve.

I'm arguing with somebody, dammit! I don't care who!

It's not a sensitive issue for me - I'm not american. I just don't see what this has to do with anything.

You're right about the weapons of mass destruction, but just because there was no proven connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda the Bush administration couldn't use that one. Even if they implicitly used the memory of 9-11 to scare the **** out of the american public.

All I can say is that I disagree and I've told you several times before why I disagree.

That doesn't answer my question.


This is just a big pile of crap. Religion justifies colonialism but democracy doesn't justify "temporary colonialism"?

Ok, where do I start...

I don't see why the Palestinians should make such a big deal of relocating a few people to give the Israelis a tiny smidgin of territory upon which they can establish a sovereign nation of their own. After all, the Islamic world has plenty of territory of its own.

"The Islamic world has plenty of territory of its own"??? Yeah, and I don't understand why the african-americans bitch about racism - why don't they just go back to Africa!?

Look, you obviously haven't got the history quite right. In 1948 the what was then Palestine was supposed to be split into two halfs, Israel and Palestine. But, and I don't know how you could have missed this, Israel wasn't satisfied with that but occupied the other half too bit by bit. You might have heard about territories like the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Israel is occupying Palestine, Django. They have robbed the palestines of their land with the support from most of the western world and USA in particular. And you are using the same arguments as the orthodox jews: it's theirs because the bible says so. Jeez... The palestines that are not muslims, can they stay? Or do they have to go to a christian country (if they are christians)? The christian world has plenty of territory of its own, right?

Ok, that straightened that out.

Please set us straight, wise man. When do you think it started to become boring? About the same time as you joined it?

What's your point? Have you ever seen me attack Django personally on this site?

Well, thank you...

Sir Toose, I know that WWII started in 1939 and not in 1941. When I said that it lead to WWII I meant that it lead to America getting dragged into the war. I am perfectly aware of that they were reluctant and very late to the party, something that would have labelled them "unthankful cowards" today if they were frenchmen or germans.

It's a two-way street. Check out what the american company Halliburton lead by Dick Cheney did in the 90's.

Yeah, you're shooting from the hip, cowboy.

What did I not do??

What possesses us to believe otherwise isthis fascinating website at Scifi.com where you openly admit to liking science fiction and the same sex while giving out your toll free number, home address, and stating that you think more gays should be represented in science fiction.

Cheap shot. Sadly below your norm... and a bit beneath what I would have expected.


Please quote me where I said you did. My point was more or less directed at Django. I was giving him some positive feedback because, while I don't agree with him, at least he's arguing objectively (or trying to).

BTW, your tone above is pretty sh*tty, a personal attack? maybe... my skin is very thick, I can't tell.
Those unthankful cowards are just that. Can you really not see the difference? If not, there's no point in arguing with you.... you're further gone than Django.


Do tell. I hear lots-o-rumors... where's the proof of any real wrongdoing? You're so adamant about 'proof' when it suits your arguments.


Or straight between the eyes.

I've done my best to demonstrate why an al Qaeda connection is irrelevant. Clearly you would rather the US remove itself completely from Iraqi affairs - what you refuse to acknowledge is the implication of such an act. There was no reason to believe Saddam wouldn't do something drastic again. You oppose the sanctions, but you also oppose the removal of the party responsible for those sanctions - you can't have it both ways.

The term 'Axis of Evil' doesn't create any such impression - it didn't in WWII, which is what you're basing it on. It's just a category of countries the US has deemed hostile. Any conspiracy nonsense exists in your head & isn't solely provoked by the term 'Axis of Evil.'

The number of civilian casualties was miniscule when compared to GWI - a testament to the leaps and bounds made in weaponry and technology in the past 13 years, and the advent of weapons with the ability to discriminate. A couple hundred thousand? Please.

Israel oppresses and kicks out Palestinians daily, and has made innumerable advances to 'retake' land that was theirs 5000 years ago. The profit-motive in this case is territory, and instead of exploitation and enslavement, it's simply removing people from their homes and forcing them into refugee camps. It's a lot like the Manifest destiny policies of the US during the 19th century and the treatment of Native Americans in that period.

I'd be more than happy to run down the history of Israeli aggressions within the past 10 years, for starters - Their human rights record in that time frame is nearly unmatched in its awfulness. All you have to do is ask.

I'll let Pidd take this one, though - the Israel/Palestine conflict probably deserves its own thread & I've tried to stick to the Iraqi conflict on this thread.

LOL!

For the last time, Jason, ol' buddy, I am a confirmed heterosexual. Honest! I can't help it if you are gay! Be happy! Be gay! I, on the other hand, am happy to be straight as an arrow.

Regarding that website that you unearthed from somewhere--that isn't me. Honest! That is someone playing a cheap practical joke at my expense. Obviously, they got the name, address and toll-free number from one of the websites I had set up and were trying to get back at me in a lame fashion. Sorry to disappoint you, but I AM straight or heterosexual.

I can’t imagine why anyone would feel the need to play such a trick on you…

__________________

Not even after Silver Bullet's antics on this thread and message board--with all his underhanded editing of my posts, deletion of my threads, etc.?

Everything I have done to you has been warranted, Zorro.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

I just lowered myself to your standards. Hey, it's lonely down here!

I just think it's funny that you decided to join a discussion not at the time when you thought it was actually interesting but you waited until it was getting boring. The way I see it you are more interested in being a smartass than giving your real opinion, which is cool with me but you should be able to get some back in return.

I was asking you - do I need to quote you for that?

I don't think he's always very objective. But that is why we are having the discussion we are having probably. But he has been very civilized and polite and that's all one can ask for...

I think Steve is a good example of someone being objective judging from the discussions I have had with him.

Oh honey, please... Do I have to include a or a everytime not to hurt your feelings?

I can see the difference between why America didn't join the WWII and why Germany, France and others didn't want to support the attack on Iraq. And it has nothing to do with cowardness in any of the two cases. Now that's why it's no point in arguing with you about this because you are the one who can't see neither the difference nor the reason. Django is Mr Objectivity compared to you.

Oh, I almost forgot....



Ok, you start. First show me the proof of that France, Germany et al didn't join the alliance only because of lucrative business deals. I am sure every european nation that didn't join did it by seperate reasons - Europe is not a federation of states like USA and each country acts independently. Are the business deals worse than the ones that american companies have cut? Companies like Halliburton that under Dick Cheney were in business with iraqi companies in spite of the UN sanctions. They did this legally since they got around the sanctions by doing it through daughter companies situated in countries not affected by the sanctions (if I remember it correctly). What would Cheney have been in your eyes if he was a frenchman?

Or straight between your hips....

Are you pissed yet, Tooster???

That remark convinces me that you are in dire need of psychiatric help, Matt. You are beginning to get on my nerves.

I'm not going to bother with at least half of your post because it's just plain childish. It's typical Piddzilla, throwing a tantrum and yes I can quote it.

Problem #1

UN Resolution #687.

Peace was never declared in Iraq. A cease fire was agreed to under certain conditions. This cease fire was agreed to and in fact written by the UN security council in 1991. I quote it below:

Decides that, in accordance with resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent related resolutions and until a further decision is taken by the Security Council, all States shall continue to prevent the sale or supply, or the promotion or facilitation of such sale or supply, to Iraq by their nationals, or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of:

(a) Arms and related materiel of all types, specifically including the sale or transfer through other means of all forms of conventional military equipment, including for paramilitary forces, and spare parts and components and their means of production, for such equipment;


Iraq HAD a military in place in 2003, Iraq had a paramilitary, Iraq had conventional weapons, Iraq had nuclear facilities (yet did fall short of producing a nuke). I can point by point show how Iraq over the course of a decade violated almost all of the 34 items in this resolution. All of the nations in question signed this agreement. They ALL thought it was a great idea. Why, after a decade, is it NOT a good idea anymore? What changed?


Problem #2

Halliburton, USA, evildoings, the great Satan, et al.

I'm sure the US cuts oil deals with everyone in the mid-east. The fact is that the US is the number one consumer of oil in the world. I'll even go so far as to say that I've read statistics that the US uses as much as the other four in the top five combined. Good alternatives to fossil fuels are being explored everyday, but have not been discovered yet (yes there is progress, but nothing that can provide the same benefits). All that being said, the US has to get oil from somewhere. Internally our hands are tied. Folks like GWB want to use native sources and our environmentalist contingent wigs out. Same with nuclear power. So we buy external oil... and when we do, people have a problem with it.

Contrary to contemporary belief...the US does a lot of good in the world. That oil money alone could feed countries, yet the way governments are constructed it all goes into the hands of a few.

That's beside the point. The point is you say that Halliburton cut illegal deals. Illegal by what law? Un resolutions? That's not law, if it were, then everyone who signed resolution #687 is in violation of international law for not holding up their end if the agreement that they signed except the US and Britian (who are guilty of being tardy).

On one hand you want the UN to be iron clad international law. And on the other hand you want to disregard what was signed into action. Read the resolution I referenced above
HERE and tell me if you still think so. If so, then you should have no problems with the US going back to Iraq, nor should you have any problems with the other signatories being held responsible for their actions.


Oh, and no, I'm not pissed. I deal with children every day and they are incapable of the necessary thought\reasoning etc that it would require to get under my skin. You'll have to do MUCH better if that's your intent.