WAR ON IRAQ:BIG mistake [Archive]

Sir Toose

03-20-03, 09:13 AM

Oh God, here we go again.

1). Bush is NOT an idiot (capitalized or otherwise), nor is he a moron. Tell you what, scan and post your degree from Harvard and I may take your word a bit more seriously.

2). Let me clear something up for you on our status with Iraq. We entered the gulf war because of Saddam's tyrannical behavior toward Kuwait (in a nutshell). That conflict was NEVER resolved. The US called a cease fire contingent upon Iraq disarming. Iraq NEVER followed through, in fact they did the opposite. While Clinton was getting off in the White House and reducing OUR military forces (while forwarding his socialist policies) Saddam was laughing at us and buying ohhh 600 liters or so of plutonium/uranium from Russia along with chemical/bio weapons. We got fat, lazy and stupid and we paid for that on 9/11... bottom line. We didn't have intelligence (CIA,FBI) in great enough numbers to head it off due to the budget cuts by Captain Blojob.

You should be shaking in your idealistic little shoes on the face of that alone. Saddam has had 12 years to disarm while living under a SUSPENDED not ENDED war effort. He's done the polar opposite and some of you are still too stupid even after 9/11 to pull your heads out of your arses and see wtf is going on.

There are MANY nations out there who do NOT share your sense of fair play.

3). thats fine but what about Israel..they have alot of nuclear bombs.. but noooooooooo ...we the U.S. need to quickly stomp on any country that gains some power and opposes american policies.

Are you serious? Sincerely, are you that brainwashed? READ and OPEN your eyes. What has Saddam been doing these past 12 years? I'll tell you. He's gearing up to kill you and everyone else who opposes him. He said last night in his address "long live Jihad". Go look up what that means. He has mass torture chambers, 'rape rooms', and everything else that the Germans had in WW2. Ask the Kurds, they'll tell you. Who is more innocent than them?

If we don't head this off NOW 9/11 will be forgotten in the smoke and debris of much bigger incidents. You take your freedom, your country and your countrymen (especially those who wear the uniform) for granted.

I don't know what you people need for further proof. I can list the sixteen violations of the UN contract for you. I can list the evidence presented by Colin Powell. I can cite past history but I think some of you are so far gone down the path of apathy that you can't see what's right in front of your faces.

I see and hear the protestors and it makes me sick to my stomach. WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE HOPING TO PROTECT? You live in your little worlds of idealism bought and paid for by the blood of your countrymen and you are oblivious to it all.

THINK!

Oh and Bravo Danger Diabolik... I've enjoyed your posts. They give me hope that there are still people out there who think this country is worth defending.

Danger Diabolik

03-20-03, 02:26 PM

Right back at ya' Sir Toose. Big hug!!!

Thank you for that.

You have proven to me that for every 3
people you tell something to, at least
one of them will have listened, and you
are that one. I appreciate your comments.

You're right that this generation should appreciate the freedoms that good men and women in uniform gave them thru personal sacrifice and mortal wounds. But no, we have a generation of drugged out punk ass mofo's who think they real tough every time they knock over an 80 year old lady for her purse or knock their parents around for drug money or the keys to the car.

To be honest, I LMAO when I see these kids going to juvenile detention boot camp. They're not so tough with correction officers and drill sergeants in their face, are they? :D Most of them deserve it.

Anyway, thanks again Sir Toose.
See you around on the message boards. Yer buddy, D.D.

Naisy

03-21-03, 12:43 AM

Noone wins in a freaking war, the winner is determined by having the least loses.

The "allies" aim for military targets while Iraq will aim at civilian targets. hmmm I wonder which side will be hurt more?

America is avoiding civial casualties but hey soilders arent human, its ok to blow the cr@p out of them.

These are just my thoughts on war because i can, whether it is on subject or not i dont know, i havent read anything above because im sure that its been said before (just in another way).

Nothing will ever justify destroying human life for me, nothing justifies war to achieve peace. I just ask this: why now? why not before all this crap? why wait until the threat is suposedly as large as it is?

As far as im concerned, im just going to tell my girlfriend I love her every day, because I can no longer feel safe in this world again. This world where we kill for peace and where our lives are determined by a few people who pay power games with each other.

theshape82

03-21-03, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Naisy
America is avoiding civial casualties but hey soilders arent human, its ok to blow the cr@p out of them.

ok..as i understand it soldiers know what they're doing when they sign the contract
just as i know what i'm doing
soldiers go to fight for our rights and our freedom and our ideals
and to be quite honest(even tho this may sound bleak) i would be damned proud to die for my country

Naisy

03-21-03, 12:50 AM

well thats great, but I bet you would prefer not to die even better.

theshape82

03-21-03, 01:13 AM

of course i would prefer to live
but if uncle sam asked for me to die for my country i would
and gladdly at that
to die fighting for m country....my family....my friends....my ideals is something worth far more then sitting at home doing nothing
the risk is all part of the job

Yoda

03-21-03, 02:11 AM

Heh.

Danger Diabolik

03-21-03, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by Naisy
well thats great, but I bet you would prefer not to die even better.

Noone wants to die, Naisy, but you have to remember, that we are free to speak and act without oppression because men and women went out and died for us. It is NOT a crime to defend your homeland or it's ideals, overseas or at home, where enemy nationalists plot terror on our own soil. This is defense of one's homeland.

Terrorists have no rights, and they deserve to die. After we get the info we need from them we should just simply waste them.
They would do it to you, and you know it.

You all talk of innocent civilians, yet forget that the 3,000 people in the World Trade Centers were also innocent civilians. 3,000 families lives changed forever because of a fundamentalist belief that the West is evil and corrupt. I think the shoe is on the other foot, and we know who is truly evil.

Lastly, over 100,000 Kurds and 2,000 Afghans have pledged to fight alongside the US. What does that tell you about how the rest of the Mid-East feels about Saddam? And the Kurds have a reason, as hundreds of thousands of them were murderd by Saddam's Republican Guard.

We have a chance to make the world better, and hopefully our alliances will be stonger after this. I hope and pray that American foreign policy holds togteher and we do the right thing after this is over by sticking with the people who helped us.

As to France and Germany and Russia, screw them. They think their way is better, and that the game should be played their way. Just remember this: When the game is over, the king AND the pawn both go back in the same box....

Danger Diabolik

03-21-03, 02:21 AM

LMFAO Yoda!!! You're GREAT!!!

Cutting and pasting this one for my collection.

Monkeypunch

03-21-03, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by theshape82
of course i would prefer to live
but if uncle sam asked for me to die for my country i would
and gladdly at that
to die fighting for m country....my family....my friends....my ideals is something worth far more then sitting at home doing nothing
the risk is all part of the job

Why is it that people who aren't in any sort of military branch always say this? Because they know they're in no risk of actually doing it? If you honestly feel that way, join up. do something about it! We'd be glad to have ya! Put your money where your idealism is! Speaking as a man with 3 years of service and counting, if I'm getting called, I'm not gonna "Gladly Die for My Country," I'm gonna make some other poor bastard die for his.

theshape82

03-22-03, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Monkeypunch

Why is it that people who aren't in any sort of military branch always say this? Because they know they're in no risk of actually doing it? If you honestly feel that way, join up. do something about it! We'd be glad to have ya! Put your money where your idealism is! Speaking as a man with 3 years of service and counting, if I'm getting called, I'm not gonna "Gladly Die for My Country," I'm gonna make some other poor bastard die for his.

before talking why don't you go read the later days thread on here
i have joined up
thanks for asking
have a nice day

jrs

03-22-03, 01:06 AM

I'm with you man 110% of the way! Be careful, be brave and heck boy....win!!!!

Godspeed and God bless America!!!

Naisy

03-22-03, 09:04 AM

I might be willing to die for my country but to say i'd be happy or even proud to die, that just sounds like suicide.

My point was, soilders are civilians too, whether they sign up or a conscripts, they are still human life, stop seperating them from the civilians

theshape82

03-22-03, 01:55 PM

they are different then civilians
sure...they're human like us all but they go into a service where it's accepted that they could be called off to combat any second and where they could die at any given time
it's accepted knowledge as they sign

and no it's not suicide...i don't want to die
but if situation called for it...sure...i'd do it

Danger Diabolik

03-22-03, 03:43 PM

And shape82 is right when he says that they know and accept that they may have to go into combat at a second's notice. They sign up for the job and know full well the dangers, and this is why I accept and respect the men and women who are serving our country. Because they know the danger but they accept it.

John Wayne said "Courage is being scared ****less, but grabbing your horse and saddling up anyway." How true.

Also, add reporters and journalists to the liset as well: 1 American, as well as Kurd and Australian journalists and reporters were killed in seprate car bomb incidents the other day.

So if all the mamby-pamby protesters want to talk about the murder of innocent civilians, let's start with THIS-the Iraqi soldiers new they were unarmed reporters and journalists, but yet chose to kill them. Now that is definitely NOT America's fault.

And this should tell the protesters how much Iraqi soldiers, as well as Saddam, REALLY care about innocent civilians...

theshape82

03-22-03, 05:07 PM

i've said it before and i'll say it again
hoo-rah

Sexy Celebrity

03-22-03, 06:37 PM

We interrupt this war thread for a music video....

As he came into the window
it was the sound of a crescendo.
He came into her apartment.
He left the bloodstains on the carpet.
She ran underneath the table.
He could see she was unable.
So she ran into the bedroom.
She was struck down, it was her doom.

Annie, are you okay?
So, Annie, are you okay?
Are you okay, Annie?
You've been hit by
You've been hit by - A Smooth Criminal

Da-da, da-da! Da-da, da-da! Da-da, da-DA-DA-DA-DA!

Sexy Celebrity

03-22-03, 06:43 PM

Annie, are you okay?
Will you tell us that you're okay?
There's a sign in the window
That he struck you - a crescendo, Annie.
He came into your apartment.
He left the bloodstains on the carpet.
Then you ran into the bedroom.
You were struck down, it was your doom.
Annie, are you okay?
So, Annie are you okay?
Are you okay, Annie?
You've been hit by
You've been struck by - a smooth criminal!

OWWW!!!

jrs

03-22-03, 08:28 PM

Thats the best Ive ever seen! Whered ya find it???

Sexy Celebrity

03-22-03, 08:56 PM

It came from Sexy's Secret Stash. Enjoy!

jrs

03-22-03, 09:31 PM

Yeah but where did you find it?

n7of9

03-23-03, 12:12 AM

Sexy, you're a star...that was brilliant...first time i've smiled all weekend :D thanks

Caitlyn

03-23-03, 01:29 AM

Those are great Sexy… thanks for the war break… :laugh:

jrs

03-23-03, 01:53 AM

He still wont tell exactly where he got 'em from. :laugh:

Sexy Celebrity

03-23-03, 02:41 AM

I got them from another message board. I don't know where the person got them, or who made it, etc. I just collect things I see on the way.

jrs

03-23-03, 02:43 AM

i see....i just like those silly things. they make me laugh. :laugh:

Sexy Celebrity

03-23-03, 02:47 AM

Well, if I find anymore, I will not hesistate to post them here. :yup:

Monkeypunch

03-25-03, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by theshape82

before talking why don't you go read the later days thread on here
i have joined up
thanks for asking
have a nice day

My bad. Anyway, my respect for you has gone way up. You have the courage of your convictions and I salute you, brother.:yup:

Golgot

08-04-03, 06:06 PM

Sorry to dredge this thread up, but what do people think about criminals facing a jail sentence who are given the "choice" of military service instead? Monkey, the Shape, Lord Slaytn, Spud and others who have seen service - what do you think about this phenomenon? What percentage of the army would you say is made up in this way? Do you think they have a different opinions and actions within the army and war as a whole? Are they equally loyal to the flag as a rule? What's your experience of all this?

An interested party (who as you may know isn't convinced that Iraq has threatened america recently [or at all - were they proven to be involved in funding the first trade-towers attack? I know there were rumours, but were they confirmed?] For example they weren't involved in any way in 9/11 as far as we know - sorry, just not as convinced as some of you are. Still looking to keep an open mind tho...)

I'm a brit, so i'm in on this trip in some ways too (and further terrorist action that might follow against our countries)

Sutter Kain

08-05-03, 05:48 PM

Golgot

08-05-03, 06:17 PM

Um, not what i asked. If you want a discussion about those points, (but i suspect you want a rant) have a look at the Words of Mass Distraction, Dr Kelly or is-bush-a-bit-iffy threads. (or any of the ones with iraq in the title)

I don't want to start another thread on this. WHAT ARE YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT CONVICTS GIVEN THE CHOICE OF PRISON OR THE ARMY? DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS?

oh sod it, i'll start a new thread....

EDIT: incidently, who told you you're close to finding Saddam? Udie's ghost?

Sutter Kain

08-05-03, 08:14 PM

who told you you're close to finding Saddam? Udie's ghost?

First of all I wanted to express my opinnion on the war in Iraq not awnser your question. Secondly I didn't say we are close to finding Saddam. I said we where well on track on finding him meaning that we are on his trail.

Golgot

08-05-03, 08:22 PM

says who?

Sutter Kain

08-05-03, 08:58 PM

no has said it yet but we have cought his body guards and leaves me to believe that we are on the right track

Golgot

08-05-03, 09:16 PM

Which body guards? Just some body guards or ones very close to him? He had loads. He was paranoid as hell [and with reason]

Monkeypunch

08-06-03, 12:27 AM

I have heard alot of people say that this war is all about the Oil wells in In iraq and to them I say YOU ARE FULL OF S***. This war is about geting rid of the evil dictator and his two sons.

I am glad to say that we have got both Uday (or Udie as I like to call him) and his brother. I have heard that we are well on track to finding saddam!

As far as the WMD's go I am NOT at all suprised that we have not find them yet because think of how many years he was had to hide them.

Actually, the war wasn't just about the oil...There's defense contractors to think about too! The good old Millitary-industrial complex that "ike" Eisenhower tried to warn us about back in the 50's is back in full swing! Like Country Joe once said: "There's plenty good money to be made supplying the army with the tools of the trade." Think about who's profiting since we invaded Iraq. Did they contribute money to the government? More than likely. Do you think the government really gives a sh*t about the poor oppressed Iraqis? they don't even care about the poor people in this country! They went into this knowing there were no WMD's and now our Elected (and selected) Officials are scrambling to find a cover story to hide the fact that it's all a sham. The war is real, the deaths are real, but the reasons for it aren't.

Yoda

08-06-03, 12:50 AM

Actually, the war wasn't just about the oil...There's defense contractors to think about too! The good old Millitary-industrial complex that "ike" Eisenhower tried to warn us about back in the 50's is back in full swing!
Oh, I know you didn't just misrepresent my boy Ike. ;) From the same speech (his farewell address) in which he used the now famous "military-industrial complex" line:

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction."

Eisenhower recognized that such a thing was necessary, but was generally distrustful of any government expansion...a fact which is often, I feel, abused by the left in matters like these. I suppose I also have a distaste for the old "HISTORICAL FIGURE X would've taken THIS side..." claims.

Think about who's profiting since we invaded Iraq. Did they contribute money to the government? More than likely.
There are six primary contractors, I believe. From 1999 to 2002, they gave a combined $2.4 million to the GOP, and $1.2 million to the Dems (I presume it's standard to play both sides). This $2.4 million made up less than 2% of the $190+ million that the Bush/Cheney campaign raised during the last election.

Of course, even if they'd given more (or even if you consider the sum substantial as-is), that still leaves us with one crucial question: which came first, the donation, or the policy? Did they construct policies to please those who had helped them, or did people help them because they knew they'd be pleased with their policies? The former is shady...the latter is not, and is rather the entire point of campaign contributions: to support the candidates who will implement what you believe are the best policies.

Do you think the government really gives a sh*t about the poor oppressed Iraqis? they don't even care about the poor people in this country! They went into this knowing there were no WMD's and now our Elected (and selected) Officials are scrambling to find a cover story to hide the fact that it's all a sham. The war is real, the deaths are real, but the reasons for it aren't.
1 - Why are motivations more important to you than results? And even if you do believe the war was fought for selfish reasons, do you honestly believe those in power are so cold-hearted so as to be completely indifferent to Iraqi suffering?

2 - I think it's a stretch to imply that they knew they wouldn't find any WMDs. Making such a HUGE deal out of something they know is a lie is a bonehead move, politicially, and one that the administration is probably too savvy to make. You don't get into The White House on luck...I think the worst you can say about the WMD claim, if none are found, is that they were mistaken.

Monkeypunch

08-06-03, 01:06 AM

1 - Why are motivations more important to you than results? And even if you do believe the war was fought for selfish reasons, do you honestly believe those in power are so cold-hearted so as to be completely indifferent to Iraqi suffering?

Here's the thing that bothers me. The government does not care about the suffering of others. Proof: Tibet. Since the 1940's, Tibet has been under the opressive and murderous thumb of the chinese government. all these years and our "Compassionate" government hasn't done a thing to help them. Not just Bush, but ANY government. The Tibetans have nothing to offer us, but hey, did you ever see how much stuff in stores is made in China? Now Iraq has oil. So they get freedom. that doesn't make you a little wary of the motivation in "liberating" Iraq? And motivation does count. The ends do not justify the means.

2 - I think it's a stretch to imply that they knew they wouldn't find any WMDs. Making such a HUGE deal out of something they know is a lie is a bonehead move, politicially, and one that the administration is probably too savvy to make. You don't get into The White House on luck...I think the worst you can say about the WMD claim, if none are found, is that they were mistaken.

if none are found, who will be surprised? Bush's State of the Union Address quoted intelligence that Iraq was buying weapons materials from Nigeria, intellegence that was a KNOWN forgery. Boneheaded? Damn right! They lied, and they're getting caught on it. Meanwhile the bodies of Americans keep piling up. But hey, oh well, "they were mistaken."

Steve

08-06-03, 01:26 AM

A few things before I get back into it:

First, I'd like to say the 'classified information' in the 9/11 report concerning Saudi Arabia is outrageous and everyone, hawks and doves alike, deserve to know what is in that report.

Next, it's hardly news to anyone that the UN needs to be sent in, pronto. Americans aren't exactly equipped to deal with paid children throwing hand grenades from the tops of buildings.

And finally, Liberia. If anyone has any thoughts on this, please post them. Start a new thread if you have a lot to say.

Now Iraq has oil. So they get freedom. that doesn't make you a little wary of the motivation in "liberating" Iraq? And motivation does count. The ends do not justify the means.

So, let me ask you a question: did the oil belong to Saddam? Saudi Arabia has oil, why haven't we invaded them? What about Venezuela?

if none are found, who will be surprised? Bush's State of the Union Address quoted intelligence that Iraq was buying weapons materials from Nigeria, intellegence that was a KNOWN forgery. Boneheaded? Damn right! They lied, and they're getting caught on it. Meanwhile the bodies of Americans keep piling up. But hey, oh well, "they were mistaken."

They've found massive numbers of casings and chemical suits, as well as documents lifted recently and older intelligence reports from the mid-1990s, so nobody is denying that there was a WMD program at some point during those twelve years of sanctions.

As for the Niger claims, I'll remain skeptical until the brits prove it - it doesn't matter, anyway, because it's already been proven that Saddam was trying to acquire a nuclear weapon in 1991, and there's no reason to believe he's had a change of heart.

Monkeypunch

08-06-03, 01:37 AM

So, let me ask you a question: did the oil belong to Saddam? Saudi Arabia has oil, why haven't we invaded them? What about Venezuela?

Well, not Venezuela, but we certainly are trying to build a case against the saudis with that 9-11 "report" now aren't we? Except the Saudis aren't falling for it. I truly believe we still may invade them soon enough.

They've found massive numbers of casings and chemical suits, as well as documents lifted recently and older intelligence reports from the mid-1990s, so nobody is denying that there was a WMD program at some point during those twelve years of sanctions.

As for the Niger claims, I'll remain skeptical until the brits prove it - it doesn't matter, anyway, because it's already been proven that Saddam was trying to acquire a nuclear weapon in 1991, and there's no reason to believe he's had a change of heart.

Yes, but it sure looks like their WMD program was dismantled a long time ago, not at all the huge stash of WMD's that we were told were pointed at the U.S.A. and ready to strike at any minute. And that is what I'm on about. How the hell could Saddam have gotten a huge stash of weapons built up with the U.N. constantly up his ass since the first gulf war? It's impossible!

Sutter Kain

08-06-03, 02:27 AM

HOW HOW I will tell u how he buried them in the desert before the UN got there so they couldn't find them and Saddam told the scintist to lie to the UN inspectors by threating to to kill there familys so the scintist showed the UN inspectors everything they where allowed to show.

As far as american troops dieing I don't know if you have heard but like a day or two after we got Saddams sons that has decreasd.

Mary Loquacious

08-06-03, 02:27 AM

Okay. I really, really wish I'd been here for all of this.

My feelings about the war and the occupation of Iraq are mixed. Very mixed. But I feel I have to weigh in.

Iraq's connection to the World Trade Center attacks has never been proven, and you know--whether you believe in this war or not--that the government has been trying like hell to make those connections. And if they had made them, by God they would've been all over the news.

So we go into Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction. However, Saddam Hussein--crazy power-mad man that he is/was--didn't have any such weapons. The purpose of a government having a nuclear weapon is not to use it; it's to have it as a threat, a bargaining tool, an intimidation. The Cold War taught us that. If Saddam had had a nuclear weapon, chances are excellent that we would've known about it immediately, because he would have made sure of it. When India and Pakistan developed nuclear weaponry, we knew about it soon enough. Weapons of mass destruction equal power, a kind of power Saddam would have jumped all over.

And if he'd had a nuclear weapon, we might not have gone charging in. You only use a weapon like that if you feel you have no other choice, and the destruction of your regime would seem like the prime time.

His regime, too, was not of Hitler proportions, and didn't look to be progressing in that way any time soon. Taking over small, undeveloped, poor countries/people that neighbor you is not the same as waging all-out war on a superpower like the United States. I've said it before and I will say it again: Iraq posed no threat to us. And don't give me any twaddle about "future power"--they didn't have it, and it would have taken them years and another World War to get it, if they ever could; Saddam's history doesn't indicate it. Taking out Iraq now isn't going to save us from WWIII down the road.

So much of this is tied to money--every war is, to some extent. We take control of Iraq; we have first dibs on one of the largest oil reserves in the world. But it isn't just about the oil. It's about having a power center in one of the most American-hostile areas, it's about making money. Nothing makes money like a war, and Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton--plus so many other of our main-guy officials' ties to big business--is just too much of a coincidence for me to overlook.

But it can't be denied that the Iraqi people were in need of help. Saddam Hussein is not a good man, and he sure as hell wasn't a good leader. His people were horribly oppressed and tortured. And if Iraq's a better place for them now, that's all to the good. However, and this is an extremely valid point that I'm certain has been made before--Monkeypunch, I think--there are people who are living in that kind of state, who are dealing with oppressive dictators worse than Saddam, all over the world. Why now? Why Iraq? This is overly simplistic, but it boils down to three main things: we had Desert Storm, we had 9/11, and they had the oil.

What we live in is a nation of fear. We're taught to fear so many things, folks. And that isn't to say there's a helluva lot to fear out there, but living in the United States--the land of the free, built on immigrants from other countries--is rapidly falling into an us-or-them mentality. How are we supposed to love our neighbors if we're afraid of them? And I'm talking about the people next door as well as the people in other countries.

Do I think America is horrible? Hell, no. I love this country, and I love living here. But when a war is so contested by the public that free speech freedoms become an issue, you have to think about it. You have to consider it.

Christ. I really didn't mean to go on so long, but I had to say something. It feels all jumbly to me, but I'm going to go ahead and post it. If things need further explanation or expansion, I'm sure I'll be told. :D

Sutter Kain

08-06-03, 02:42 AM

I agree with u that saddam was not a threat to the US but think about the other countrys around Iraq he has proven that he will attack them.

I disagree with you as far as saddam not using WMDs he has proven that he will us chemical weapons on his OWN no less what makes u think that he won't us the WMDs?

I know that we haven't found them but I am going to make the point that I made in my first post about this think about how many years he has had to hide them.

Mary Loquacious

08-06-03, 02:49 AM

I agree with u that saddam was not a threat to the US but think about the other countrys around Iraq he has proven that he will attack them.

One of that Saddam attacked Kuwait--well, one of the given reasons--was that Iraq suspecte Kuwait of drilling under the border and tapping into Iraq's oil.

What other countries has he taken over? This is a sincere question--I don't know. I haven't heard anything about it; I'll try and look this up for later discussion.

I disagree with you as far as saddam not using WMDs he has proven that he will us chemical weapons on his OWN no less what makes u think that he won't us the WMDs?

Chemical weapons and nuclear weapons are very different things, not that the two don't have any similar effects. However, a key word in your statement is "own." He used them on his own people. Not on other countries. He used them as an oppressive tactic, not an offensive tactic. And part of having those chemical weapons was rather like the point I made: power. Over his people. His own people.

I know that we haven't found them but I am going to make the point that I made in my first post about this think about how many years he has had to hide them.

Yes, he's had time to hide them. But if he had them, we would have known--not because of U.N. weapons inspectors, but because of him.

Sutter Kain

08-06-03, 02:54 AM

One of that Saddam attacked Kuwait--well, one of the given reasons--was that Iraq suspecte Kuwait of drilling under the border and tapping into Iraq's oil.

What other countries has he taken over? This is a sincere question--I don't know. I haven't heard anything about it; I'll try and look this up for later discussion.

Chemical weapons and nuclear weapons are very different things, not that the two don't have any similar effects. However, a key word in your statement is "own." He used them on his own people. Not on other countries. He used them as an oppressive tactic, not an offensive tactic. And part of having those chemical weapons was rather like the point I made: power. Over his people. His own people.

Yes, he's had time to hide them. But if he had them, we would have known--not because of U.N. weapons inspectors, but because of him.

He didn't take the other country over but he attack Iran. yeah he used them on his own people but what makes you think a man who would kill his own people wouldn't do it to other countrys?

What do u mean "because of him"?

Mary Loquacious

08-06-03, 03:05 AM

yeah he used them on his own people but what makes you think a man who would kill his own people wouldn't do it to other countrys?

What do u mean "because of him"?

Who else would he use them on? Would he--could he--launch a full-scale war on any other country, especially one with a superior military, both in numbers and in weaponry, with chemical weapons and no giant upswell of Iraqi pride to make the people want to fight? His people didn't love him, and he knew it. He was a businessman. What his regime depended on was his hold over his own people, not the taking over of other countries.

What I meant by saying we would have known because of him: He would have leaked the information out. When you have a weapon of mass destruction, you tell people--unless you're a terrorist who depends on the element of surprise. Saddam was not a terrorist.

EDIT: I feel I have to add something. People do act unpredictably, and, sure, Saddam might have had secret nuclear weapons. He might have gone nuts and set them loose on another country, starting a war he couldn't hope to win. He might have done a lot of things--but that's no different, really, than the threat of something like that happening in any country, even the United States. Sure, they're films, but look at Dr. Strangelove or Failsafe. People are unpredictable.

However, I'm thinking in terms of logic. And I don't believe Saddam was crazy. He wouldn't have stayed in power so long, otherwise.

Sutter Kain

08-06-03, 03:13 AM

His regime did have control over the Iraqi people they where terriorfied of him and his sons because if they said anything bad about them he would kill you and your family. You are however right the his people would not go "willing" to war but he would force them. Saddam is so a terriorist saddam would not tell america a god dam thing cause once again we are talking about a guy who would kill his own people just for saying somthing bad about him and thats the truth! The reason saddam stayed in power for so long is because cause he is a dictator which means he has power of everything all of the people, all of the news, etc once again thats is the truth!

Mary Loquacious

08-06-03, 03:23 AM

His regime did have control over the Iraqi people they where terriorfied of him and his sons because if they said anything bad about them he would kill you and your family.

I know that. I believe I said that.

You are however right the his people would not go "willing" to war but he would force them.

No one fights harder than someone who truly believes in what he or she is fighting for. Saddam may have forced his troops into war; it's absolutely possible. But you don't conscript unless you have the numbers to back it up, and if you have to kill soldiers to make other soldiers fight, that's just bad tactics. You'll end up with zero, because the rest of them are going to defect or surrender as soon as they can.

Saddam is so a terriorist saddam would not tell america a god dam thing cause once again we are talking about a guy who would kill his own people just for saying somthing bad about him and thats the truth!

I'm not talking about him telling America anything. I'm talking about him letting the world know he's got power.

Look at it this way: why do people have guard dogs? Sure, they'll attack if they have to, but the best offense is a good defense--put up a sign that says "Hey, I've got a damn big dog here and he'll rip your balls off if you mess with me," and people are going to think twice before they try to take your stuff.

But in the world of global politics, the bark won't count for much unless you've got the bite to back it up.

EDIT: Forgot about the terrorist thing. Saddamn is definitely guilty of terrorist actions against his people, but he was a dictator. Is any nation/government that commits terrorist actions defined as terrorist? If so, put the United States up there on the list, too--and I don't consider us to be a terrorist organization.

Henry The Kid

08-06-03, 06:12 AM

Golgot

08-06-03, 10:34 AM

Just want to back up everything Mary's saying. Very fair and balanced in my opinion. We've been led by the nose it seems (your guys started it, and my lot in britain have tagged along to try and lend some vague sheen of validity to the whole thing)

-WMDs are bargaining tools to add weight to international standing/negotiation and provide a deterent etc etc. Simple power politics .

-As going in to save the people of iraq , i think we can all agree, was never a core issue (hence all the other countries "we" don't intervene in + the lack of attention given to the mechanics of regime building), people should stop using it as a justification [as monkey said]

-As Steve has said on other threads, America was aware, and supporting Iraq during most of it's attrocities (not to mention those of other countries) Funding Saddam and Osama then leaving them in the lurch once they'd served their purpose is one of the reasons they hate America so. Take responsability for your leaders' actions ;)

-Oil , no matter what people say, is one obvious reason for all this (and let's face it, you can't really invade Venezuela, who had left the petrodollars system, despite prolific meddling in that continent. - they're not arabic enough to accuse of terrorism ;):rolleyes: ) Saddam had also left the petrodollars system recently, but he has no WMDs to defend himself with/deter invasion it seems. The increased efficiency, and american control of Uraq's oil sorts out some shortfalls in their current import needs. [huuuuuuge comparative consumption doesn't help]

-Other profit motives : america's politicians aren't letting the UN get involved coz they're protecting the pie they've stolen. They want all the contracts for rebuilding, oil etc, as they've made quite clear. And considering that the war will be funded by the oil (spoils) it's a fairly insane claim to say they need to be re-imbursed for expense. Expense of life yes - but the recompense for that is not enraging world and fanatical opinion further and risking the lives of their citizens in this way.

-World politics and anti-americanism:

Having a base in the "arabic" regions, with Saudi support faltering, is obviously vital in the eyes of certain figures in the bush-admin etc. Project for the New American Century anyone? (abolute freaking, empirical nutters). Also note how american protection of trade routes by their navy and potential for invading at the drop of a hat (unless someone slows them down) are both considered big factors in their world influence.

Unfortunately, America's unilateral actions extend far beyond this war. Not ratifying/joining in on international agreements on legal-war-practices etc (ICC), emissions treaties (Kyoto etc etc etc), and so on, not to mention the untenable petrodollars system etc etc are driving the rest of the world mad. You are part of the world, not the exception. Please inform your politicians.

And finally, to give a bit of credence to the Un's inspectors.....the biological WMD expert Dr David Kelly, who we now know was commited to informing jornos/the public about issues politicians weren't revealing for their own ends [we can imagine ;)] i.e how the supposed bio-trucks were not in anyway connected with WMDs and were in fact sold to iraq by britain. He revealed things like this when Blair (and surely bush) knew this wasn't true but kept asserting it was [and certainly didn't make a big noise admitting they were wrong - did they even admit it??]

Unfortunately, this exceptionally fine man [or so he seems to me], is now dead, by apparent suicide. My theory is that, coz he had promised to reveal all his previous contacts with jornos he was afraid he was going to get some giant life-sentence for breaking secrecy laws etc. He just wanted to get back to the real business of in iraq [as he wrote in an email shortly before his death]. He seemed to be incredibly frustrated that he couldn't pass on information to the public and with all the spin surrounding this nonsensical war. This man, who was respected world-wide, by everyone except saddam who tried to get him specifically removed from iraq etc, was famed in his own circles for forcing people to accept their guilt/lies. He did it in Russia. He did it in Iraq (t'was coz of him that after four years of denial iraq admitted to trying to rebuild their bio-weapon program. He was "80%" sure they had dealt with most of their attempts to rebuild, which for a scientist is pretty damn sure)

As Mary said, announcing the WMDs presence [when they are substantial enough] is how we would know really know if he had them. Low-scale stuff was being contained by some fine, driven inspectors.

Oh and Sutter, i love the way your name rhymes with nutter. Was that deliberate? ;)

Steve

08-06-03, 01:30 PM

Iraq's connection to the World Trade Center attacks has never been proven, and you know--whether you believe in this war or not--that the government has been trying like hell to make those connections. And if they had made them, by God they would've been all over the news.

Yep, they would have. But does it matter? Iraq has a history of harboring international criminals and Saddam's secret police force has been proven to have shady connections with all sorts of criminal organizations. So even if the evidence isn't concrete, it's still reasonable to assume Saddam and the al Qaeda network were bedfellows.

His regime, too, was not of Hitler proportions, and didn't look to be progressing in that way any time soon. Taking over small, undeveloped, poor countries/people that neighbor you is not the same as waging all-out war on a superpower like the United States. I've said it before and I will say it again: Iraq posed no threat to us. And don't give me any twaddle about "future power"--they didn't have it, and it would have taken them years and another World War to get it, if they ever could; Saddam's history doesn't indicate it. Taking out Iraq now isn't going to save us from WWIII down the road.

What do you mean by Hitler proportions? Maybe not in territory, but Saddam was a genocidal maniac.

Liberia doesn't pose a threat to us, either. Should we stand by and watch thousands be murdered?

So much of this is tied to money--every war is, to some extent. We take control of Iraq; we have first dibs on one of the largest oil reserves in the world. But it isn't just about the oil. It's about having a power center in one of the most American-hostile areas, it's about making money. Nothing makes money like a war, and Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton--plus so many other of our main-guy officials' ties to big business--is just too much of a coincidence for me to overlook.

Yoda's disproven this repeatedly. If this war were profit-motivated there'd be a lot more evidence of campaign contributions, etc.

But it can't be denied that the Iraqi people were in need of help. Saddam Hussein is not a good man, and he sure as hell wasn't a good leader. His people were horribly oppressed and tortured. And if Iraq's a better place for them now, that's all to the good. However, and this is an extremely valid point that I'm certain has been made before--Monkeypunch, I think--there are people who are living in that kind of state, who are dealing with oppressive dictators worse than Saddam, all over the world. Why now? Why Iraq? This is overly simplistic, but it boils down to three main things: we had Desert Storm, we had 9/11, and they had the oil.

You're wrong. It boils down to repeated violations of Resolution 1441, violations of every human-rights standard known, and the war on terror, which, as Afghanistan has proven, applies to terror-regimes as well.

The oil probably has something to do with it too, I don't know. But I look at it completely differently. If Iraqi oil is no longer under Saddam's control, that yields two positive things: the Saudi monopoly is cut in half (why do you think Saudi Arabia opposed the war?), and it prevents a potential ecological disaster.

One of that Saddam attacked Kuwait--well, one of the given reasons--was that Iraq suspecte Kuwait of drilling under the border and tapping into Iraq's oil.

That doesn't justify anything.

Chemical weapons and nuclear weapons are very different things, not that the two don't have any similar effects. However, a key word in your statement is "own." He used them on his own people. Not on other countries. He used them as an oppressive tactic, not an offensive tactic. And part of having those chemical weapons was rather like the point I made: power. Over his people. His own people.

He used them on the Kurds, who are not technically 'his people.' He also murdered Kuwaiti civilians and launched missiles at Israel during the first Gulf War. And if you use the weapons, period, then it's 'offensive'. Doesn't matter who you're oppressing. That's violating innumerable international agreements and human rights treaties, which is a perfectly good pretext for regime change in itself.

EDIT: Forgot about the terrorist thing. Saddamn is definitely guilty of terrorist actions against his people, but he was a dictator. Is any nation/government that commits terrorist actions defined as terrorist? If so, put the United States up there on the list, too--and I don't consider us to be a terrorist organization.

You could argue the CIA is a terrorist group. State-sponsored terror is no different, and probably more lethal, than a rogue group like al Qaeda. And the US is guilty of terrorism, and sponsoring terror.

-As Steve has said on other threads, America was aware, and supporting Iraq during most of it's attrocities (not to mention those of other countries) Funding Saddam and Osama then leaving them in the lurch once they'd served their purpose is one of the reasons they hate America so. Take responsability for your leaders' actions

Don't you think that gives us a responsibility to the decent Iraqis and Kurds and ensure their safety from Saddam? I mean, we got ourselves into that mess, we have to get ourselves out. Especially the Kurds...they've been getting screwed by us forever, and we owe it to them.

Mary Loquacious

08-06-03, 01:41 PM

-As Steve has said on other threads, America was aware, and supporting Iraq during most of it's attrocities (not to mention those of other countries) Funding Saddam and Osama then leaving them in the lurch once they'd served their purpose is one of the reasons they hate America so. Take responsability for your leaders' actions ;)

Absolutely. And let's not forget: one of the original reasons for the Middle East's hostility towards America was our involvement in the founding of Israel.

Having a base in the "arabic" regions, with Saudi support faltering, is obviously vital in the eyes of certain figures in the bush-admin etc. Project for the New American Century anyone? (abolute freaking, empirical nutters). Also note how american protection of trade routes by their navy and potential for invading at the drop of a hat (unless someone slows them down) are both considered big factors in their world influence.

Unfortunately, America's unilateral actions extend far beyond this war. Not ratifying/joining in on international agreements on legal-war-practices etc (ICC), emissions treaties (Kyoto etc etc etc), and so on, not to mention the untenable petrodollars system etc etc are driving the rest of the world mad. You are part of the world, not the exception. Please inform your politicians.

This is one of the ideas about taking over Iraq that really gets me. If we're going the route of "if Saddam has chemical weapons, who's to say be wouldn't use them on other countries," then who's to say America, having gone in on their own (no offense to the other countries in the Coalition :D ) and taken over Iraq, won't extend this to any other country with viable resources or a strategic location? We've done it before.

And then, in fifty years, it'll be the sun never sets on the American empire. It sounds silly, but it's a definite and frightening possibility.

Good points about Kelly, too--I didn't know much about him.

And that's all I have to add. Nicely put, Golgot. :yup:

Mary Loquacious

08-06-03, 02:19 PM

Sorry about the double post, but I didn't want to add to an already lengthy post. :)

So even if the evidence isn't concrete, it's still reasonable to assume Saddam and the al Qaeda network were bedfellows.

I'm not sure it's necessarily reasonable. Al Qaeda is both directed and sponsored by fundamentalist Muslims, of which Saddam is most definitely not. And especially now, when we're in Iraq, any link to al Qaeda the government could dredge up would be too useful. It would give them justification on too many levels. The fact that we've heard nothing about this is indicative that there is no real connection.

What do you mean by Hitler proportions? Maybe not in territory, but Saddam was a genocidal maniac.

Yes, but he was not also running a campaign to bring Iraqi pride into the forefront. One of the reasons Hitler was able to begin his campaign to take over Europe was because he fed on the emotions of the German people, who had been in severe financial straits since WWI and who no longer had any sense of national identity. Cripes, I can't think of any other way to put it--they were depressed, and he came in and said, "Hey, you're something special." They believed him, to the point that he was able to say Jews were vermin that needed to be exterminated.

That's what I mean when I say Saddam was not of Hitler proportions.

Liberia doesn't pose a threat to us, either. Should we stand by and watch thousands be murdered?

Nope. And I don't think I've ever said anything of the kind--I think we should help them, and we should help any country that needs our help. What I said was Iraq was singled out because of its attractiveness in terms of resources, position, etc.

But we aren't exactly charging into Liberia on a white horse to save the day, are we? They asked for 2,000 troops, and we're sending them ten.
They asked for our help, and this is what happens.

Yoda's disproven this repeatedly. If this war were profit-motivated there'd be a lot more evidence of campaign contributions, etc.

What's not covered here, though, is our government's interests and holdings in big business, both on an individual and a national level. Campaign contributions are not the be-all and end-all of the money that our politicians get or have access to.

You're wrong. It boils down to repeated violations of Resolution 1441, violations of every human-rights standard known, and the war on terror, which, as Afghanistan has proven, applies to terror-regimes as well.

Yes. But I'll say again: we're not charging in to save/liberate every country that has violated these three standards.

The oil probably has something to do with it too, I don't know. But I look at it completely differently. If Iraqi oil is no longer under Saddam's control, that yields two positive things: the Saudi monopoly is cut in half (why do you think Saudi Arabia opposed the war?), and it prevents a potential ecological disaster.

What is the potential ecological disaster?

That doesn't justify anything.

I wasn't trying to justify the attack on Kuwait. I was kind of trying to make the point that trumped-up charges, whether they have a basis in fact or not, don't necessarily make an invasion right.

He used them on the Kurds, who are not technically 'his people.' He also murdered Kuwaiti civilians and launched missiles at Israel during the first Gulf War. And if you use the weapons, period, then it's 'offensive'. Doesn't matter who you're oppressing. That's violating innumerable international agreements and human rights treaties, which is a perfectly good pretext for regime change in itself.

Don't you think that gives us a responsibility to the decent Iraqis and Kurds and ensure their safety from Saddam? I mean, we got ourselves into that mess, we have to get ourselves out. Especially the Kurds...they've been getting screwed by us forever, and we owe it to them.

I'm not saying Saddam didn't deserve to be taken out of power. What I am saying is that we've gone in there and taken them over--we haven't just deposed Saddam and said, "Here, Iraqis, have your country back." We're putting military bases in place, we're making money from rebuilding, we've put a leader of our choosing in place, and we're gaining a huge stake in the oil there. It was not out of the goodness of our hearts.

About the Kurds: have we done anything for them besides get Saddam out? Sincere question, because I haven't heard anything about this.

You could argue the CIA is a terrorist group. State-sponsored terror is no different, and probably more lethal, than a rogue group like al Qaeda. And the US is guilty of terrorism, and sponsoring terror.

We are in agreement.

Golgot

08-06-03, 02:34 PM

...who's to say America, having gone in on their own (no offense to the other countries in the Coalition :D) and taken over Iraq, won't extend this to any other country with viable resources or a strategic location? We've done it before.
And then, in fifty years, it'll be the sun never sets on the American empire. It sounds silly, but it's a definite and frightening possibility.

Happy to slow you down ;) (and force bush-n-buddies thru the UN. Do wish Tony would stop trying to be the big "head" meister tho -trying to please everyone- and get off his knees occasionally ;))

Are you getting much news about the kelly debacle your way?

And, yeah, (to continue our mutual back-pat ;)) unfortunatly i see the bush-admin etc as having an expanionist/empirical policy. Amazing that they're taking the military approach on some levels - but [and yoda will call this wacked out conspiracy, but i'm ready ;)] part of it is to back up industry/"free"-market expansion that thouroughly favours america (and other big-players if they can get in on the deals ;)) and contiunes the fifty year trend of taking advantage of countries that can't defend themselves (IMF onwards, tho whether all of it was deliberate, or just incompetant ,is debatable). Politics interferes on industry's behalf faaaaaaaaar to often(destroying the free-trade argument again and again and again), and even at the consumers + citizens expense. Often the citizens of other countries o'course - sweat-shops, ecological damage etc backed-up/protected by political representatives in the country etc- but that's NIMBYism for you (the british pseudo-middle-way is definitely included in this. Both american and britain politicians, and in fact almost all the "western" cultures, have cow-towed to industry more and more since the 50s IMO)

Ok, this may not seem very Iraq-y to some, but it is to me. How long before McDonalds can drape a glittering string of slime across the middle-east? They're a smart bunch over there- let's hope they do better fighting it off than we have :rolleyes:

Interesting what you said before about the politicians using fear etc to get responses. Very old tactic of course. In britland it seems to be a bit more based around straight emotional manipulation (Tony belieeeeves, *tilt head - earnest brow-wrinkle* that this is the *push against "altar" with each word, wrists exposed* right..thing..to do). Only about 30% of the populace, if you believe the polls, fell for all this in an unquestioning way. Altho the IRA never did one big hit here (despite some heavy funding from a certain quarter :rolleyes: ) our fear quota's kind of degraded ;). Funny what happens when the world touches you frequently.

Love your country really. Just hate your politicians and most of your industries ;)

Mary Loquacious

08-06-03, 02:51 PM

Are you getting much news about the kelly debacle your way?

Not that I've noticed, but I've been out of the news loop for a bit. Got any links you could send my way? :)

And, yeah, (to continue our mutual back-pat ;)) unfortunatly i see the bush-admin etc as having an expanionist/empirical policy. Amazing that they're taking the military approach on some levels - but [and yoda will call this wacked out conspiracy, but i'm ready ;)] part of it is to back up industry/"free"-market expansion that thouroughly favours america and other big-players and contiunes the fifty year trend of taking advantage of countries that can't defend themselves (IMF onwards, tho whether all of it was deliberate, or just incompetant ,is debatable). Politics interferes on industry's behalf faaaaaaaaar to often(destroying the free-trade argument again and again and again), and even at the consumers + citizens expense. Often the citizens of other countries o'course - sweat-shops, ecological damage etc backed-up/protected by political representatives in the country etc- but that's NIMBYism for you (the british pseudo-middle-way is definitely included in this. Both american and britain politicians, and in fact almost all the "western" cultures, have cow-towed to industry more and more since the 50s IMO)

In the case of the U.S.--I don't know much about British political currents--it's gone beyond kow-towing and more toward out-and-out monopoly. Why else would we take FCC restrictions off and allow a handful of companies to take over nearly every television and radio station, not to mention major newspaper, in the country? "Free speech," indeed.

Okay. The media thing is a touchy point with me, and I'll stop here. Off-topic, kinda. Maybe another thread.

Interesting what you said before about the politicians using fear etc to get responses. Very old tactic of course.

Absolutely. We've had the Red Scare, and then we had the Brown Scare. Not to mention all the crazy "advice" we were given about how to protect ourselves against terrorist attack. Duck and cover, duct tape and SaranWrap.

In britland it seems to be a bit more based around straight emotional manipulation (Tony belieeeeves, *tilt head - earnest brow-wrinkle* that this is the *push against "altar" with each word, wrists exposed* right..thing..to do). Only about 30% of the populace, if you believe the polls, fell for all this in an unquestioning way. Altho the IRA never did one big hit we're our fear quota's kind of degraded :).

I'm going to have to see this Tony Blair body language for myself. :D

Love your country really. Just hate your politicians and most of your industries :)

That's cool. Your food gives me the heebie-jeebies. :eek:

Golgot

08-06-03, 03:15 PM

Thought i'd mop up on anything mary missed or was too nice to comment on ;)....

Yep, they would have. But does it matter? Iraq has a history of harboring international criminals and Saddam's secret police force has been proven to have shady connections with all sorts of criminal organizations. So even if the evidence isn't concrete, it's still reasonable to assume Saddam and the al Qaeda network were bedfellows.

Yes, and the CIA etc have been involved with HOW MANY criminal and shady groups?? So we can safely assume that America is more than bedfellows with Al Queda, they're busy making babies :) Your argument makes no sense what-so-ever. It's not reasonable at all.

What do you mean by Hitler proportions? Maybe not in territory, but Saddam was a genocidal maniac.

Argh! Being a maniac isn't enough. Being an effective/successful expantionist would be.

Liberia doesn't pose a threat to us, either. Should we stand by and watch thousands be murdered?

Again, no, you should go in with the UN. And then if you're still feeling altruistic you can stop selling arms to all the other oppressive regimes and go and sort them out. There should be at least 20 odd i'd imagine.

Yoda's disproven this repeatedly. If this war were profit-motivated there'd be a lot more evidence of campaign contributions, etc.

:rotfl:

No he hasn't disproved it! Campaign contributions aren't the only way, they're just a fairly blatent bit of bribary-and/or-support for different legislations. But as the Enron debacle showed, and is still showing, Ken Lay whispering into Bush's ear over the years [want to see the letters?] for example has lead to some catastrophic executive decisions [California is suffering to this day i understand]. And what about Rumsfeld's strong strong connections with Halliburton. The bush-admin is rife with inappropriate industry connections. There are multiple ways to affect an administration. Add to that the fact that the oil issue is WITHOUT DOUBT profitable for America, and what you're saying needs a lot more backing up.

You're wrong. It boils down to repeated violations of Resolution 1441, violations of every human-rights standard known, and the war on terror, which, as Afghanistan has proven, applies to terror-regimes as well.

Israel? Please be consistant. If you're going to be dogmatic so will i. It's not just about 1441. 1441 is an excuse. You're wrong. [not to mention how you're breaking Un laws by totally controlling the regime-change process ;)]

The oil probably has something to do with it too, I don't know. But I look at it completely differently. If Iraqi oil is no longer under Saddam's control, that yields two positive things: the Saudi monopoly is cut in half (why do you think Saudi Arabia opposed the war?), and it prevents a potential ecological disaster.

Christ! I find this unbelievable. What about the american monopoly???? i.e the petrodollars system that favours you with every purchase? That strangle-hold, fiercely defended, is both HIGHLY PROFITABLE to america alone and entirely monopolistic. There was no Saudi monopoly. The Euro and Dinar systems where attempts to break the american monopoly. (your word, and a very fitting one it is too)

I imagine you're talking about saddam torching the wells are you [coz of the invasion! :rolleyes:]. If not, what ARE you talking about?

....And if you use the weapons, period, then it's 'offensive'. Doesn't matter who you're oppressing. That's violating innumerable international agreements and human rights treaties, which is a perfectly good pretext for regime change in itself.

Ok, as you know Steve, the US has signed itself out of most international agreements on fair-play, legality, war-crimes etc (and for all i know human rights too - not that that's central to any of their actions. It's a "side-effect"). So please leave this ridiculous argument alone.

And what about DEPLETED URANIUM? Shouldn't the people who've polluted huge tracts of the earth for, well, probably longer than the human race'll be around (at this rate :rolleyes: ) and caused and incredible civilian toll thru slow cancer death etc be considered more than just a little offensive? (and i don't give a **** if it was during war, it's in-excusable). And what about firing missiles off willy-nilly at Afghanistan previously on a whim during the Lewinsky-distraction. Considering the state of current up-to-date-quick-let's-go "intelligence" i have my doubts about the timing of that as it happens.

You could argue the CIA is a terrorist group. State-sponsored terror is no different, and probably more lethal, than a rogue group like al Qaeda. And the US is guilty of terrorism, and sponsoring terror.

Glad you agree. So can you see now why these titanic double-standards mean you have very little chance of ever establishing peace in this region?

Don't you think that gives us a responsibility to the decent Iraqis and Kurds and ensure their safety from Saddam? I mean, we got ourselves into that mess, we have to get ourselves out. Especially the Kurds...they've been getting screwed by us forever, and we owe it to them.

no, as Mary's said, but i'll elabourate: going in in this half-arsed, taking-over, we'll (ILLEGALLY) choose your new leaders for you, kind of way means you won't acheive the aim. Just sit and watch man. Either you'll leave 'em in the lurch, or you'll nest in. Either way your not going to leave a sustainable government behind you. Or at least, not one you want ;)

(and don't expect anyone to listen to your harping about others breaking international law, or UN resolutions/laws, in the future. It's exactly what you're doing now. I'm sick of it)

This whole we're-saving-the-Kurds thing is crap. Most people just harp on about their Al Queda camp. Shouldn't you? Shouldn't you in fact be hunting down the evil kurds for their demonstrable links with Al Qaeda and their obvious desire and ability to burn america to the ground?

Sorry Steve, but your arguments are totally specious to me. Stop watching the Fox Network for heaven's sake ;)

Golgot

08-06-03, 03:20 PM

Not that I've noticed, but I've been out of the news loop for a bit. Got any links you could send my way? :)

...

That's cool. Your food gives me the heebie-jeebies. :eek:

For sure: just go to www.guardian.co.uk and search for Kelly and that should be enough for now.

...

Me too! Have you tried "spotted-dick"? :randy: . Actually, that one's not bad - like having a slow-syrup-n-gungysweeteness delivery system in your stomach for the next two days. It's the boiled melon on sprouts you've got to look out for :yup:

(erm, at least it's GM free tho :rolleyes: )

Yoda

08-06-03, 07:36 PM

Here's the thing that bothers me. The government does not care about the suffering of others. Proof: Tibet. Since the 1940's, Tibet has been under the opressive and murderous thumb of the chinese government. all these years and our "Compassionate" government hasn't done a thing to help them. Not just Bush, but ANY government. The Tibetans have nothing to offer us, but hey, did you ever see how much stuff in stores is made in China? Now Iraq has oil. So they get freedom. that doesn't make you a little wary of the motivation in "liberating" Iraq? And motivation does count. The ends do not justify the means.I don't believe you've really answered my question, nor does your Tibetan example really prove that our government cares nothing for others. Would it be just of me to say that you don't care about people other than yourself simply because there's a child in Bosnia right now with a lot less food than you, who you've made no effort to help? I'll ask again: why is motivation more important than results, and do you HONESTLY believe our government is made up of twisted sadists who care nothing for the torment of others?

If you want to play the oil card, you've got a host of explanations to produce. Steve already brought up Venezuela, which I believe had a coup not too long ago.

I think it was Caitlyn who noted that Rice and Cheney began circulating a petition around the White House to remove Hussein from power as early as 1998, roughly two years before the Bush Administration took office. I think you have to concede that maybe, just maybe, there's some real sincerity in the proposed reasons for ousting Saddam.if none are found, who will be surprised? Bush's State of the Union Address quoted intelligence that Iraq was buying weapons materials from Nigeria, intellegence that was a KNOWN forgery. Boneheaded? Damn right! They lied, and they're getting caught on it. Meanwhile the bodies of Americans keep piling up. But hey, oh well, "they were mistaken."It was hardly a known forgery. The British still stand behind it, for one. Again, though, I think you're glossing over my point in favor of a rant. The Bush Administration, as much as you might dislike them, is not made up of morons. They know how to play politics, at least to a degree, and I highly doubt any Administration savvy enough to come into power is simultaneously foolish enough to lie outright and knowingly about something they themselves put the spotlight on.

Politicians make mistakes, but you're implying that despite knowing what they were saying was a lie, they drew hoards of attention to it. That doesn't make any sense, to me.

Yoda

08-06-03, 07:58 PM

Iraq's connection to the World Trade Center attacks has never been proven, and you know--whether you believe in this war or not--that the government has been trying like hell to make those connections. And if they had made them, by God they would've been all over the news.
Only if they were irrevocably proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's unlikely that this administration is going to be anything but uber-careful with their intelligence-related claims from this point forward.

Anyway, we certainly have reason to suspect a connection, based on the testimony of Sabah Khodada, captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. The action, however, is not contingent on an ironclad link.

So we go into Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction. However, Saddam Hussein--crazy power-mad man that he is/was--didn't have any such weapons. The purpose of a government having a nuclear weapon is not to use it; it's to have it as a threat, a bargaining tool, an intimidation. The Cold War taught us that.
While I don't think you can make such a broad statement based on the Cold War alone, I'll concede the point that Nuclear weaponry is about leverage as much as actual usage. Still, I don't recall Bush claiming that he HAD a Nuclear weapon...just that he was on his way to getting one.

But it can't be denied that the Iraqi people were in need of help. Saddam Hussein is not a good man, and he sure as hell wasn't a good leader. His people were horribly oppressed and tortured. And if Iraq's a better place for them now, that's all to the good. However, and this is an extremely valid point that I'm certain has been made before--Monkeypunch, I think--there are people who are living in that kind of state, who are dealing with oppressive dictators worse than Saddam, all over the world. Why now? Why Iraq? This is overly simplistic, but it boils down to three main things: we had Desert Storm, we had 9/11, and they had the oil.
I ask the same question in reverse: why now? Why not 10 years earlier? We had as much use for oil then as we do now.

In my view, this was something Bush intended to do before he took office. Perhaps he saw 9/11 as an appropriate catalyst for putting Saddam's removal into action. He's removing too regimes of terror, as it were, and tied the two actions together under a common heading.

I'm not saying Saddam didn't deserve to be taken out of power. What I am saying is that we've gone in there and taken them over--we haven't just deposed Saddam and said, "Here, Iraqis, have your country back." We're putting military bases in place, we're making money from rebuilding, we've put a leader of our choosing in place, and we're gaining a huge stake in the oil there. It was not out of the goodness of our hearts.
Setting aside the fact that what we're doing is far more important than why we're doing, I can't agree with this at all. We can't just "give them their country back." It's not a stolen yo-yo. From what I understand the plan is to ease them into some form of Democracy as best we can. You may think the action was irresponsible, but I imagine it'd be far more irresponsible to duck out, right in the middle of rebuilding.

Yes. But I'll say again: we're not charging in to save/liberate every country that has violated these three standards.
"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
-- Edmund Burke

I can't help but notice that the opposition wants it both ways: on one hand, we're not supposed to go around helping oppressed countries at all, but on the other, they lambast the Administration for helping just this one (so far).

What's not covered here, though, is our government's interests and holdings in big business, both on an individual and a national level. Campaign contributions are not the be-all and end-all of the money that our politicians get or have access to.

No he hasn't disproved it! Campaign contributions aren't the only way, they're just a fairly blatent bit of bribary-and/or-support for different legislations. But as the Enron debacle showed, and is still showing, Ken Lay whispering into Bush's ear over the years [want to see the letters?] for example has lead to some catastrophic executive decisions [California is suffering to this day i understand]. And what about Rumsfeld's strong strong connections with Halliburton. The bush-admin is rife with inappropriate industry connections. There are multiple ways to affect an administration. Add to that the fact that the oil issue is WITHOUT DOUBT profitable for America, and what you're saying needs a lot more backing up.
I'll take these both at once, since they make what is essentially the same point.

Yes, of course there are interests which do not show up under campaign contribution statistics...but since they don't show up, you're left to more or less speculate as to how much (if any) bearing they have on any given policy. And speculation isn't anywhere near enough to issue damning accusations.

The point here is that the only cold hard data we DO have does not bear out the complaints being made. The burden of proof is not with myself or Steve to show that money had no bearing on the decision making process...the proof is with you to show that it does, especially considering the fact that the data that IS available points in the other direction.

Sorry Steve, but your arguments are totally specious to me. Stop watching the Fox Network for heaven's sake ;)
Steve's a filthy liberal, actually. :p And Fox News isn't half as bad as the left likes to make it out to be. Methinks they just like being able to complain about a media outlet's slant the way the right has of CNN and The NY Times for all these years.

Golgot

08-06-03, 09:26 PM

I'll ask again: why is motivation more important than results, and do you HONESTLY believe our government is made up of twisted sadists who care nothing for the torment of others?

MP has been a little over the top. I think the question in hand here is:
(a) that those that claim we actually WENT to war to SAVE the Iraqi people are deluded.
(b) That claiming it's an intended or justifying result DISTRACTS from the other MYSTERY reasons for going (tho o'course, we all have our theories - some with more facts than others ;)- see my/mary's posts to Steve [which i never expect to get a reply to - as he chickened out of similar refutations on another thread :rolleyes: ])

If you want to play the oil card, you've got a host of explanations to produce. Steve already brought up Venezuela, which I believe had a coup not too long ago.

That wouldn't be surprising, as some of the populace were getting a bit tired of some of the rhetoric. But have they returned to the petrodollars system? And is this a good thing? Or a "just" thing Many reasons for the oil argument are on the Steve-your-so-unjustified-on-this post b4. And when he brought Ven up it wasn't valid. i.e HOW THE HELL COULD AMERICA INVADE VENEZUELA?? [much easier to help a coup along, or what have you. There are precedents :)] Iraq on the other hand is a much easier and more "acceptable" target. And more tempting when the oil also pays for the whole operation ;)

I think it was Caitlyn who noted that Rice and Cheney began circulating a petition around the White House to remove Hussein from power as early as 1998, roughly two years before the Bush Administration took office. I think you have to concede that maybe, just maybe, there's some real sincerity in the proposed reasons for ousting Saddam.

From what i know of them, i don't equate either Condaleeza [the ex- Chevron tanker - now no longer associated with that human rights abusing oil company, surprisingly ;)] or Dick [ex-Halliburton CEO - the company that dealt in Panama and...Iraq, apparently, after the first war]with good motivations/intentions. More with warmongering and profiteering ;) [alright, it's still supposition, but like you say in a mo, they ain't dumb cookies these people] So why were they advocating invasion/attack? On what grounds?

It was hardly a known forgery. The British still stand behind it, for one.

Not true, by my understanding, for one ;) (i haven't checked in the last week or so, but...) They admitted it was a forgery. But then they claimed they had other sources which they were still checking on, from a non-british source. So no, they seem to be scrabbling around trying to back it up [considering the context of deceptions on this war's behalf by the blair spin-machine]

Case in point:

[I]The press are so pissed off with them trying to trick them all the time they've banded together [phenomenal event! - you see they're not all getting totally monopolised, like in some places. Like...Italy for example :)]. The govn tried to "leak" an "insider" slur about a prominant WMD expert being like "Walter Mitty" [i.e. meaning the outrageously deceased Dr Kelly - funeral today/just gone. I recommend a quick check of the "facts" and then a minutes silence/contemplation. At least]

The govn then tried to claim it was made by a nobody and couldn't have been officially imparted etc. All the papers this guy talked to (and all the rest too) backed up their claim that he had imparted it to them officialy as such etc. - it all seems like a little thing - but belittling a prominant WMD expert who said that there probably none and was totally respected (nay revered ;)) by everyone he worked with it seems. And then claiming -no no, it wasn't us. It was some "insider". Bit suss no?

The Bush Administration, as much as you might dislike them, is not made up of morons. They know how to play politics, at least to a degree, and I highly doubt any Administration savvy enough to come into power is simultaneously foolish enough to lie outright and knowingly about something they themselves put the spotlight on.

Unless it justified invading in the first place. A cynic might imagine ( :rolleyes: ) that once they're in they're in. And once there, they might claim...it's gonna take a hell of a long time to find these things. Then there's 4 main outcomes i can see...

1) They find something that can reach either America or Britain [maybe that's why you were happy to have us by your side ;)?] (a just-about tenable criteria for invasion if you can find strong evidence of current intent to use)
2) They find stuff that could only attack their neighbours [not good enough. Chances are one of us sold it to them or funded it ;) Please don't actually argue that this is a justifiable criteria for invasion. It's so inconsistant. There are so many equally deserving countries in that case. Why Iraq? Terrorism? Where's your proof? Not in the "WMDs" in this case]
3) They find chemical weapons etc that could be used in a terrorist attack [which again requires proof of current intent. Otherwise it could just be for use controlling the Kurds etc. - again, please don't tell me we went in to save the Kurds. They have the only Al Qaeda camp we know of. That would be incredibly inconsistant too]
4) They find nothing. But spend a long time doing it.

Politicians make mistakes, but you're implying that despite knowing what they were saying as a lie, they drew hoards of attention to it. That doesn't make any sense, to me.

I don't know what they gain from the last one (except Iraq and a loss of cred. Not that they've got much internationally. Would that change how the voter sees it? You tell me.)

I suspect they thought they'd find SOMETHING (i.e. the UN are incompetant. "Walter Mitty"s some would say :) They won't have found everything - and they'll be a push over verifying it if [I]we do)

It's not like they've got much opposition. On any front.

stop

Golgot

08-06-03, 09:44 PM

The action, however, is not contingent on an ironclad link.
Are you really so blase about invading another country? (i'm gonna get to the ridiculous compasion argument...) What other reasons are there? The IRA and splinter groups have been running a terrorist campaign against the UK for decades! So I know, let's invade them and take their peat. [now that might be justified ;) :rolleyes: ] You haven't shown any conclusive reasons for going in other than Bush-and-co-wouldn't-lie-over-this-and-there's-absolutely-no-profit-involved.

Still, I don't recall Bush claiming that he HAD a Nuclear weapon...just that he was on his way to getting one.

:eek: oh no - equal footing! (yes alright he's a nutter - but no more unstable or liable to use it than....North Korea. Or even Pakistan/India possbly. Or even...Britain or America these days ;))

I ask the same question in reverse: why now? Why not 10 years earlier? We had as much use for oil then as we do now.

In my view, this was something Bush intended to do before he took office. Perhaps he saw 9/11 as an appropriate catalyst for putting Saddam's removal into action. He's removing too regimes of terror, as it were, and tied the two actions together under a common heading.

Yes, but the situation hasn't been nearly so pretty. "Bush I" couldn't do it after the pull-out and popularity probs. Clinton didn't want to. You're right! Bush wants to go to war now (or sooner, but he got slowed down a bit)

The question is "why?" - you don't have a satisfactory answer. Are you seriously saying that Clinton, or Pappy, had similar "intelligence" b4 but didn't act?? How peculiar ;)

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
-- Edmund Burke

I can't help but notice that the opposition wants it both ways: on one hand, we're not supposed to go around helping oppressed countries at all, but on the other, they lambast the Administration for helping just this one (so far).

*sigh* HELPING? Don't tell us you believe Bush has had this long term plan to go and help Iraq. You KNOW that this is so not how normal nation-politics works. Ever. Clinton had to be dragged into Kosovo etc (and there's some issues surrounding that too apparently)

Yes, of course there are interests which do not show up under campaign contribution statistics...but since they don't show up, you're left to more or less speculate as to how much (if any) bearing they have on any given policy. And speculation isn't anywhere near enough to issue damning accusations.[/QUOTES]

Looks damn dodgy when loads of people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice etc etc all have recent passed connections with oil companies, Halliburton etc etc etc. That's fact - not speculation ;) [and we can quite reasonably assume - still might]

[QUOTE=Yoda]The point here is that the only cold hard data we DO have does not bear out the complaints being made. The burden of proof is not with myself or Steve to show that money had no bearing on the decision making process...the proof is with you to show that it does, especially considering the fact that the data that IS available points in the other direction.

What about the profits to america as a whole? We're also talking about that type of profit too i.e. petrodollars, oil increase/control. Plus the "influence" profits of having a presence in the area/giving it a fright etc. (possibly negative effect there tho - not that you guys seem to acknowledge that - or the bush-admin etc)

Steve's a filthy liberal, actually. :p And Fox News isn't half as bad as the left likes to make it out to be. Methinks they just like being able to complain about a media outlet's slant the way the right has of CNN and The NY Times for all these years.

Oh I know Stevo's a lovely liberal. That's why i'm pissed off with him for dreaming and rationalising. And i think Mary might get quite loquacious on your ass over the media-is-balanced stuf....

ciao

Steve

08-06-03, 10:38 PM

I'm not sure it's necessarily reasonable. Al Qaeda is both directed and sponsored by fundamentalist Muslims, of which Saddam is most definitely not. And especially now, when we're in Iraq, any link to al Qaeda the government could dredge up would be too useful. It would give them justification on too many levels. The fact that we've heard nothing about this is indicative that there is no real connection.

Ok, let's assume there is no connection whatsoever between rogue terror groups and the Iraqi regime, in spite of Saddam's generous donations to the families of suicide bombers in Gaza. Millions have still suffered under the Baath regime (which nobody here is foolish enough to contest, thankfully.) Is a policy of regime change unacceptable even when you're saving countless lives?

Yes, but he was not also running a campaign to bring Iraqi pride into the forefront. One of the reasons Hitler was able to begin his campaign to take over Europe was because he fed on the emotions of the German people, who had been in severe financial straits since WWI and who no longer had any sense of national identity. Cripes, I can't think of any other way to put it--they were depressed, and he came in and said, "Hey, you're something special." They believed him, to the point that he was able to say Jews were vermin that needed to be exterminated.

Fair enough. Saddam Hussein sounds even more despicable, then, since his way of gaining support was through torture and murder. At least Hitler believed in the German people; Saddam didn't care about Iraqis and massacred the Kurds with nobody's support but the United States'.

Nope. And I don't think I've ever said anything of the kind--I think we should help them, and we should help any country that needs our help. What I said was Iraq was singled out because of its attractiveness in terms of resources, position, etc.

Maybe that's why it was singled out, maybe not. It doesn't really matter, because Iraq was a terror-state and Saddam was a ruthless military dictator. As I've said countless times before: when a country has that many violations and is under the rule of a dictator, I will support a removal of that government. Fascism requires no further explanation.

But we aren't exactly charging into Liberia on a white horse to save the day, are we? They asked for 2,000 troops, and we're sending them ten.
They asked for our help, and this is what happens.

I'm for sending troops to Liberia, even though it's lamentable that it took so much bloodshed for the US to realize there's a continent below Eurasia.

What's not covered here, though, is our government's interests and holdings in big business, both on an individual and a national level. Campaign contributions are not the be-all and end-all of the money that our politicians get or have access to.

Fair enough. But I'll get right down to it: what's better for Mesopotamia, American business or a national socialist regime with an unmatched body count?

Yes. But I'll say again: we're not charging in to save/liberate every country that has violated these three standards.

And that is something that needs to change, too.

What is the potential ecological disaster?

When the oil fields are torched the Persian Gulf is flooded with flaming oil. I invite you to look up the pictures of the gulf the last time it happened.

I wasn't trying to justify the attack on Kuwait. I was kind of trying to make the point that trumped-up charges, whether they have a basis in fact or not, don't necessarily make an invasion right.

When the charges involve the murder of civilians in another country that's been illegally invaded, that makes intervention right.

About the Kurds: have we done anything for them besides get Saddam out? Sincere question, because I haven't heard anything about this.

Not yet, but there's a cause these "anti-war" protesters ought to take up: a sovereign Kurdistan. Vive!

Yes, and the CIA etc have been involved with HOW MANY criminal and shady groups?? So we can safely assume that America is more than bedfellows with Al Queda, they're busy making babies Your argument makes no sense what-so-ever. It's not reasonable at all.

The Iraqi secret police do what they believe benefits the ruling class of Iraq. The CIA does the same for America. The difference between the two is that terror tactics employed by the Baath regime coincide awfully well with fundamentalist terror groups, and both have a common enemy in the United States & Western Europe. In the past, the CIA sided with groups who opposed the communists, regardless of how out-there their systems were. Iraq and al Qaeda had a common enemy in the United States.

Israel? Please be consistant. If you're going to be dogmatic so will i. It's not just about 1441. 1441 is an excuse. You're wrong. [not to mention how you're breaking Un laws by totally controlling the regime-change process

Please don't associate me with the Zionists and Israel-defenders. I've said repeatedly in other threads that I'd support regime change there as well.

Everybody breaks UN laws. China? France? The UN needs serious reconstruction, and I'm the first to admit that the US bears a lot of responsibility for that. I opposed the withdrawal from the ICC, if you remember. And the UN did nothing when its laws were violated by Iraq. What I'm saying is that the UN did nothing but cripple the Iraqis with horrible sanctions, rather than going to the source of the problem, which was Saddam.

And I don't buy the argument that the intervention would have been acceptable if the UN was behind it, because that implies that a cause can't be good unless the majority supports it. History's proven that's untrue.

And what about firing missiles off willy-nilly at Afghanistan previously on a whim during the Lewinsky-distraction. Considering the state of current up-to-date-quick-let's-go "intelligence" i have my doubts about the timing of that as it happens.

It's interesting how anyone who opposes a regime change policy automatically associates me with the morons who defend Clinton and his war crimes, or assume that I've supported every military action the United States has ever taken. Just a personal observation. I DO NOT by and large support either of the major parties in this country.

no, as Mary's said, but i'll elabourate: going in in this half-arsed, taking-over, we'll (ILLEGALLY) choose your new leaders for you, kind of way means you won't acheive the aim. Just sit and watch man. Either you'll leave 'em in the lurch, or you'll nest in. Either way your not going to leave a sustainable government behind you. Or at least, not one you want

If that's what happens, I'll be the first to condemn the United States. And I think that any government the Iraqis choose is better than Saddam's regime.

(and don't expect anyone to listen to your harping about others breaking international law, or UN resolutions/laws, in the future. It's exactly what you're doing now. I'm sick of it)

Why are you sick of it? You haven't disproven anything I've said.

This whole we're-saving-the-Kurds thing is crap. Most people just harp on about their Al Queda camp. Shouldn't you? Shouldn't you in fact be hunting down the evil kurds for their demonstrable links with Al Qaeda and their obvious desire and ability to burn america to the ground?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'll engage this anyway. There's never been even an accusation of Kurdish compliance in international terror, Kurdistan is a free region with many private businesses, and Kurdish leaders are now by-and-large US friendly, so if there were terror factions they would gladly be turned over.

(b) That claiming it's an intended or justifying result DISTRACTS from the other MYSTERY reasons for going (tho o'course, we all have our theories - some with more facts than others - see my/mary's posts to Steve [which i never expect to get a reply to - as he chickened out of similar refutations on another thread ])

And you've yet to explain to me how this intervention is unjustifiable on strictly humanitarian grounds.

I don't remember the thread you're talking about, but if you want responses I'd be glad to reply. Just give the word, and a link. :)

Oh, and for the record: I am a huge supporter of the Chavez regime in Venezuela. Take that however you want it.

Golgot

08-07-03, 09:30 AM

Is a policy of regime change unacceptable even when you're saving countless lives?

Fair enough. Saddam Hussein sounds even more despicable, then, since his way of gaining support was through torture and murder. At least Hitler believed in the German people; Saddam didn't care about Iraqis and massacred the Kurds with nobody's support but the United States'.

Argh, Steve, i'm sure you're a great lad, but this is what's infuriating. You're using a MORAL argument, But we're talking about POLITICAL descision making. Political decision making is not, historically or currently based on MORAL decisions (they can be elements i believe - and effect individuals etc - but SHOULD individuals put their private morality onto national decisions etc? Alright, i'm just devil's-advocating, but not the other stuff). Politics is MACHIAVELLIAN in practice for the most part. American politics especially ( :rolleyes: ) - but all politics for the most part. If someone in thepolitical world is prepared to go to the most manipulative/selfish ends then the others must follow suit to "compete" etc in most cases.

You saying we SHOULD go in i totally agree with - if that were the core aim. BUT IT'S NOT!!!! HOW CAN YOU CLAIM IT IS A MAJOR REASON FOR GOING? Politician's/Nations DO NOT OPERATE LIKE THIS - please give me an example from history of a moral invasion!!!! There isn't one.

You're saying it's like: you being phoned by someone in another city far away, and being told about this person's neighbour beating his wife up. So you drive over there, at great expense, beat the offending guy up, and take all his DVD's and best possessions as reparation for your trouble. (Only - there doesn't appear to have been a phone call - you just took it on your self. You believe he threw a stone threw your window two years ago. ) Yes- morally maybe you should go. But would you?? Even if you were a big bloke famous for beating people up :)

I'm for sending troops to Liberia, even though it's lamentable that it took so much bloodshed for the US to realize there's a continent below Eurasia.

Same thing. Yes you owe these people for having set up this dumpign ground in such a sloppy way (and i've met some of the modern walking-wounded from this place) - BUT YOU AREN't THE POLICE FORCE FOR THE WORLD! WHERE IS THE PROFIT (always ask this NATIONS DO NOT ACT ALTRUISTICALLY)

Fair enough. But I'll get right down to it: what's better for Mesopotamia, American business or a national socialist regime with an unmatched body count?

Socialist? You just called them Fascist b4. And American business practices are ****ed up. Don't get me started (well, we have to totally agree to disagree on this. American business practices aren't even good for america - needs another thread :rolleyes: )

When the oil fields are torched the Persian Gulf is flooded with flaming oil. I invite you to look up the pictures of the gulf the last time it happened.

Yes - but WHY WOULD SADDAM TORCH HIS FIELDS UNLESS SOMEONE INVADES - such a self-deluding QED bull**** argument. NOT VALID STEVE.

When the charges involve the murder of civilians in another country that's been illegally invaded, that makes intervention right. THere you go again. "Right". Even so - you're not even being consistant. AMERICA IS NOW ILLEGALLY INVADING A COUNTRY AND THEREFORE "MURDERING" ITS CITIZENS BY THAT LOGIC

The Iraqi secret police do what they believe benefits the ruling class of Iraq. The CIA does the same for America. The difference between the two is that terror tactics employed by the Baath regime coincide awfully well with fundamentalist terror groups, and both have a common enemy in the United States & Western Europe. In the past, the CIA sided with groups who opposed the communists, regardless of how out-there their systems were. Iraq and al Qaeda had a common enemy in the United States.

Yes, and the states have been involved in assasinations and coups staged by absolute "fascist" nutters. Your argument is specious. THERE ARE STRONGER LINKS BETWEEN AMERICA AND AL QAEDA THAN BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL QAEDA. Please acknowledge this contradiction in your (and by this i mean "america's", as i often do when i say "you) actions/claims

Please don't associate me with the Zionists and Israel-defenders. I've said repeatedly in other threads that I'd support regime change there as well. YEs, but again - just "pull out". Don't invade (not that you would COZ THEY HAVE WMDs etc)

Everybody breaks UN laws. China? France? The UN needs serious reconstruction, and I'm the first to admit that the US bears a lot of responsibility for that. I opposed the withdrawal from the ICC, if you remember. And the UN did nothing when its laws were violated by Iraq. What I'm saying is that the UN did nothing but cripple the Iraqis with horrible sanctions, rather than going to the source of the problem, which was Saddam. Yes - not good. And I do remember your stance. Your argument of 1441 being broken by iraq is specious tho - considering the above.

And I don't buy the argument that the intervention would have been acceptable if the UN was behind it, because that implies that a cause can't be good unless the majority supports it. History's proven that's untrue. Doesn't make going it alone "right" either.

It's interesting how anyone who opposes a regime change policy automatically associates me with the morons who defend Clinton and his war crimes, or assume that I've supported every military action the United States has ever taken. Just a personal observation. I DO NOT by and large support either of the major parties in this country.
Alright, but you're supporting every new war they are proposing

If that's what happens, I'll be the first to condemn the United States. And I think that any government the Iraqis choose is better than Saddam's regime.

Condeming after the event doesn't look like enough in this case -especially if it leads to further actions - which get supported in the mean0-ttime coz of support for this current action!

PLUS...

They are not choosing it they are not choosing it they are not choosing it etc etc etc etc etc - "you" are.

Why are you sick of it? You haven't disproven anything I've said.

I've pointed out flaws you've refused to address. And I'm not sick of YOU (my mistake for not being clearer ;) - soz ) - i'm sick of AMERICA treating the rest of the world like ****. Not helping anyone - treating it like **** - as you acknowledge with the ICC ruling etc.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'll engage this anyway. There's never been even an accusation of Kurdish compliance in international terror, Kurdistan is a free region with many private businesses, and Kurdish leaders are now by-and-large US friendly, so if there were terror factions they would gladly be turned over. Sarcastic and serious. - They claim it. They claim they have links with al qaeda etc.

And you've yet to explain to me how this intervention is unjustifiable on strictly humanitarian grounds.

It's not in one sense - i agree tht would be NICE - but this is politics THEREFORE YOUR SUPPOSITION IS UNTENABLE - NATIONS DO NOT GO TO WAR OVER ACTIONS OF KINDNESS. Come on!

I don't remember the thread you're talking about, but if you want responses I'd be glad to reply. Just give the word, and a link. :)

Oh, and for the record: I am a huge supporter of the Chavez regime in Venezuela. Take that however you want it.

don't have time to check what this is about - gotta go

laters :)

Steve

08-07-03, 12:16 PM

Argh, Steve, i'm sure you're a great lad, but this is what's infuriating. You're using a MORAL argument, But we're talking about POLITICAL descision making. Political decision making is not, historically or currently based on MORAL decisions (they can be elements i believe - and effect individuals etc - but SHOULD individuals put their private morality onto national decisions etc? Alright, i'm just devil's-advocating, but not the other stuff). Politics is MACHIAVELLIAN in practice for the most part. American politics especially ( :rolleyes: ) - but all politics for the most part. If someone in thepolitical world is prepared to go to the most manipulative/selfish ends then the others must follow suit to "compete" etc in most cases.

You saying we SHOULD go in i totally agree with - if that were the core aim. BUT IT'S NOT!!!! HOW CAN YOU CLAIM IT IS A MAJOR REASON FOR GOING? Politician's/Nations DO NOT OPERATE LIKE THIS - please give me an example from history of a moral invasion!!!! There isn't one.

Why do you insist on taking the actions of the Bush administration on their own terms? You're refusing to look at who else this benefits, apart from these businessmen. After the fall, when Iraq is purged of terror, you're absolutely right that countless dollars are going to be made by businessmen here, who probably donate generously to all sorts of shady causes. What I'm saying, and I guess I haven't made it clear, is that if Saddam and the Baath party are gone and the Iraqis can choose their own government, then it doesn't matter what the United States gets out of it. Overall, this invasion benefits Iraqis and Kurds, makes surrounding countries safer, and prevents any possibility of Saddam acquiring WMDs and giving them to terror groups.

You're saying it's like: you being phoned by someone in another city far away, and being told about this person's neighbour beating his wife up. So you drive over there, at great expense, beat the offending guy up, and take all his DVD's and best possessions as reparation for your trouble. (Only - there doesn't appear to have been a phone call - you just took it on your self. You believe he threw a stone threw your window two years ago. ) Yes- morally maybe you should go. But would you?? Even if you were a big bloke famous for beating people up :)

It's none of my business. But you're taking personal business and likening it to a global crime wave. The two aren't proportionate.

It's more like, I call the police. The police say the guy has every right to beat up his wife, he's been beating his wife for decades, and besides, he always donates generously to the police department. So I get a couple of my buddies and we ask the guy to leave her alone. He tells us to **** off. We warn him two more times, then when we find out it's possible he may shoot her, we go in and kick him out.

Same thing. Yes you owe these people for having set up this dumpign ground in such a sloppy way (and i've met some of the modern walking-wounded from this place) - BUT YOU AREN't THE POLICE FORCE FOR THE WORLD! WHERE IS THE PROFIT (always ask this NATIONS DO NOT ACT ALTRUISTICALLY)

The UN is supposed to police the world, but when it doesn't work, and when there are personal mistakes to fix, there's nothing wrong with acting alone. Especially when it benefits a large group of people.

Socialist? You just called them Fascist b4. And American business practices are ****ed up. Don't get me started (well, we have to totally agree to disagree on this. American business practices aren't even good for america - needs another thread :rolleyes: )

National Socialist = Nazi. Nobody's denying that the Nazis were fascists. I was comparing the Baath regime to Hitler's Germany.

I don't know enough about American business & profits & whatnot to comment, but I imagine they're better than business under Saddam.

Yes - but WHY WOULD SADDAM TORCH HIS FIELDS UNLESS SOMEONE INVADES - such a self-deluding QED bull**** argument. NOT VALID STEVE.

He's done it without US provocation before, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have done it again.

THere you go again. "Right". Even so - you're not even being consistant. AMERICA IS NOW ILLEGALLY INVADING A COUNTRY AND THEREFORE "MURDERING" ITS CITIZENS BY THAT LOGIC

America isn't slaughtering indiscriminately, and our (and your) soldiers aren't aiming for civilians. That's a crucial difference.

Yes, and the states have been involved in assasinations and coups staged by absolute "fascist" nutters. Your argument is specious. THERE ARE STRONGER LINKS BETWEEN AMERICA AND AL QAEDA THAN BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL QAEDA. Please acknowledge this contradiction in your (and by this i mean "america's", as i often do when i say "you) actions/claims

There is no contradiction. Iraq and al Qaeda both were enemies of the United States, and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't become allies. That's what I was saying.

YEs, but again - just "pull out". Don't invade (not that you would COZ THEY HAVE WMDs etc)

If by 'pull out' you mean stop all support for Israel immediately, then I agree that's what should happen.

Yes - not good. And I do remember your stance. Your argument of 1441 being broken by iraq is specious tho - considering the above.

You don't seem to understand that I'm holding all countries accountable for everything. Israel, Iraq, and the US (and countless other countries) have all violated UN resolutions, and all of them need to be held responsible. The US harbors Henry Kissinger, Ariel Sharon is a war criminal, and Saddam Hussein is the quintessential evil leader - none of them are above justice. There is no contradiction, no double standard for anybody.

I won't deny, however, that the case of Saddam is a special one, just as the case of Slobodan Milosevic was a few years ago. The USA was complicit in Saddam's genocide - we have a responsibility to close that chapter and do everything we can to make up for it.

You've ignored all of my comments about American and Israeli crimes. All of your responses seem directed at somebody who has no idea what's gone on in the past. I DO know what's happened, and I still think this action was a good one.

Alright, but you're supporting every new war they are proposing

That's because I support the removal of fascist genocidal dictators on principle. Doesn't matter which country does it. Though it's especially nice that the US doesn't want a dictator in power - usually they're our closest allies. This may set a nice precedent...no more Mobutus under our protection.

Condeming after the event doesn't look like enough in this case -especially if it leads to further actions - which get supported in the mean0-ttime coz of support for this current action!

I agree with the first part. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that...Regardless, there's no reason to think that will happen, because A)it's an enormous expense, B)we can avoid that expense if we rebuild the country and just trade with them, rather than occupy, and C)the UN won't have it.

PLUS...

They are not choosing it they are not choosing it they are not choosing it etc etc etc etc etc - "you" are.

Give it time. How do you expect thirty years of fascism to be undone in 3 months?

I've pointed out flaws you've refused to address. And I'm not sick of YOU (my mistake for not being clearer ;) - soz ) - i'm sick of AMERICA treating the rest of the world like ****. Not helping anyone - treating it like **** - as you acknowledge with the ICC ruling etc.

Which flaws?

Sarcastic and serious. - They claim it. They claim they have links with al qaeda etc.

There are plenty of democratic leaders in Kurdistan who are wholly devoted to fighting the war on terror. If you recall, Kurdish leaders pledged support for the United States not too long ago.

It's not in one sense - i agree tht would be NICE - but this is politics THEREFORE YOUR SUPPOSITION IS UNTENABLE - NATIONS DO NOT GO TO WAR OVER ACTIONS OF KINDNESS. Come on!

So what if they don't? If kindness is there even if that's not the intention, what's wrong with it?

Look, Gg, I mean no disrespect toward you in this debate. If that's the impression you're getting, I'm sorry. It's almost like you're acting as if I've personally insulted you.

Mary Loquacious

08-07-03, 04:17 PM

Damn it, I knew I'd miss out on good stuff last night. :frustrated: And I don't have time to reply now, but I'm on it soon.

Heigh-ho, heigh-ho... it's off to work I go...

Cripes, that's just too cheerful. :sick:

Golgot

08-07-03, 06:13 PM

Steve - part of the reason i get so angry is because you're a well informed guy and your STILL getting led down the garden path. Sorry if that sounds patronizing, but at this particularly-knackered-moment-in-time i cannot be ****ed to counter-point what i still see as staggering naivities in your position.

I recognise that you're not attacking/insulting me etc. However, i'm about to get even more heated. The deceptions of your ****ed up government, the agendas they have covered up with superficial and totally implausibe bull**** that you have swallowed just makes me want to shake your whole country till all the unnescessary, untenable overly/unnecessarily-destructive, soul-destroying crap falls out (same applies to my country, and others, but you guys are the biggest - and you guys are ****ING THINGS UP THE MOST)

I can't be completely sure that things will pan out how i believe, and that they've been motivated by issues and implemented thru the tactics that i believe they have been. But i'd be willing to bet my life on it if only i could guarantee the facts would be accesible. Which they NEVER will be (definitely not in their full extent - impossible)

the point is, if you fall for this, you'll fall for the next thing, again and again, and again, and again. Your country is run by a blatantly self-serving bunch of ****s. I'm sick of their spin - and i'm so disheartened when actually historically informed people like yourself fall for it.

Steve - for now - i give up on you. Tomorrow may be another day.

EDIT: it's not yet tho - you make me believe that your country's populace is even more deluded by the idea of it's own greatness than i'd previously thought. It's soooooooo ironic that you think you're being the accidental good guys and that makes it all right. I'm gonna get full on now: BLAIR SEEMS TO BE WRONG ABOUT THIS WORKING OUT FOR THE BEST AND SO ARE YOU. MY CURRENT OPINION OF AMERICA PUTS IT EVEN HIGHER ON THE SCALE OF "EVIL" THAN SADDAM - COZ SADDAM HAS NEVER HAD THE NEGATIVE GLOBAL IMPACT THAT YOUR INDUSTRIAL AND POLITICAL GREED HAS HAD AND CONTINUES TO HAVE. I CAN GIVE YOU LOADS OF ILLUSTRATIONS - AND I SUSPECT I ONLY KNOW THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG. **** THE MAJORITY OF YOUR POLITICIANS AND **** THE MAJORITY OF YOUR INDUSTRIES. AND **** MOST OF THE TRENDS YOU'VE INTRODUCED TO THE WORLD. And sorry - BUT **** ANYONE WHO LETS IT ALL SLIDE!

One tiny-potential-highly slender chance of (COMPARATIVELY) miniscule global payback doesn't make up for it. You obviously don't know about or agree with my (very strong, but widely shared by those who know about these things - and let's face it, even by lots of people who don't)opinions about american greed, expansionism and all the negative repurcussions THE REST OF THE WORLD FEELS BECAUSE OF IT. I really really don't like your country's leaders at the moment, or their actions, no matter what rationalising naive hopeful spin you put on the potential, ever-so-slight outcomes. LOOK AT AFGHANISTAN FOR ****S SAKE!!! ARE THEY ALRIGHT??? HAVE YOU ACTUALLY DONE THEM A FAVOUR. NO ! YOU'VE JUST HELPED YOURSELVES OUT AND GOT YOUR BIT OF REVENGE TO MAKE YOURSELVES FEEL BETTER. WHEN IN FACT YOUR LEADERS ETC ARE THE REAL REASON WHY SEPTEMBER THE ELEVENTH HAPPEND. STICK THAT IN YOUR ****ING PIPE AND SMOKE IT.

Sorry, but coz your leaders and industries are the pioneers of so many ****ty trends - i'm afraid you're just reaping what you sow. And you're sowing more now. And you can't see it. I give up on you. (for now - tho i doubt you'll be "speaking" to me after this :rolleyes: )

Golgot

08-07-03, 06:40 PM

Just wanted to communicate my anger - having stayed fairly calm and controlled until now. Did i succeed? ;) :rolleyes: - please write all the hate mail in capitals so i can understand it more clearly ;)

[please note that: that wasn't really directed at you Steve - that was for everyone american sitting in a slack-jawed or self-satisfied state of hypnotism and doing nothing about all this. Mind you, you are letting all this slide coz you don't see anything wrong - you think the potential for "freeing" iraq - like you/we "freed" afghanistan (!!!), makes this alright. It really really really ****ing doesn't IMO, as i guess you now know]

I dare say yoda'll either castigize me, ban me, or just use some withering and pointless rhetoric to tell me i'm misguided. Well, i never really thought i could change anyone's opinion as such, i just thought it might be worth a try - **** that for a laugh then.

Golgot

08-07-03, 08:16 PM

Why do you insist on taking the actions of the Bush administration on their own terms? You're refusing to look at who else this benefits, apart from these businessmen. After the fall, when Iraq is purged of terror, you're absolutely right that countless dollars are going to be made by businessmen here, who probably donate generously to all sorts of shady causes. What I'm saying, and I guess I haven't made it clear, is that if Saddam and the Baath party are gone and the Iraqis can choose their own government, then it doesn't matter what the United States gets out of it. Overall, this invasion benefits Iraqis and Kurds, makes surrounding countries safer, and prevents any possibility of Saddam acquiring WMDs and giving them to terror groups.

I just LOVE that phrase in bold. It's almost as good as Yoda's -we've-"unmade"-an-enemy. You can't "unmake" enemies (it's not just an inappropriate word - it suggests him thinking loads of negative thoughts and deeds - particularly towards america- have been dismantled/removed-from-existence-completely. - THEY'VE BEEN ENHANCED OUTSIDE IRAQ AND WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY CONTINUE WITHIN IRAQ) You CAN'T "PURGE" "TERROR"!! You've been sucked in by your politicians/medias rhetoric to the max it seems. The pair of you. No matter how informed you both are in certain areas (and im only informed in certain areas - but it seems never the twain shall ****ing meet up and shake hands are far as the differing info/perspectives/perceived-associations we hold)

But what the hell - believe what you like :rolleyes:

It's none of my business. But you're taking personal business and likening it to a global crime wave. The two aren't proportionate.

When "personal" business is aided every step of the way buy the nation's politicians, it becomes a bigger issue. When they actively seek to exploit the most defenseless areas of the world that can offer them something, and act ridiculously ruthlessly and un-cooperatingly with the rest of the world - to the detriment of these places more often than not IMO - it becomes oppressive/a global crime-wave of sorts as you put it. Whether thro welfare, ecological or legislational alteration - i don't like seeing the most destructive of your corporations and business idealogies spread across the world. Especially not on occasions when they require a hand-out from government etc despite claiming to be superior/free-marketers etc etc - or USE THE FRIGGIN ARMY TO EXPAND AND MAINTAIN THEIR ACTIONS. Call me paranoid - but check your history, and then sit and wait and see. They'll do their very best to lay down roots and start sucking things dry. Government/military and industry all working together! How sweet :) Whether they actually succeed is another matter. The Arabic nations aren't dumb either. But if they get pushed into too tight a corner they'll find ways to bite back.

one of my MAJOR objections is how sneaky and underhand and invisible to the guy on the street this is for the most part (despite chains popping up and quality of life actually being negatively affected in many other ways etc etc. Some scientific discoveries etc can cancel out/lessen some of the problems these things cause probably - but some of these guys seem to work really hard at producing non-products that could/can be damaging. But you can't cancel out their effect on employment norms, i.e. negative impact on worker welfare. So it seems to me. etc etc etc

Alright, still, much of this stuff is conjecture based on facts. And i'm not saying all american companies are bad of course or over-push shoddy products with the help of government influence on legislation etc etc. Just a lot of them :)

It's more like, I call the police. The police say the guy has every right to beat up his wife, he's been beating his wife for decades, and besides, he always donates generously to the police department. So I get a couple of my buddies and we ask the guy to leave her alone. He tells us to **** off. We warn him two more times, then when we find out it's possible he may shoot her, we go in and kick him out.

What's this? Naughtie Putin and Chirac etc taking bribes from saddam, while the Americans and the Etorians rush in to save the day. Altho they actually don't have any proof that he's beatening her, and she's not saying he is. So they offer her a reward to tell them he is.

Then what? You leave her alone to run her own house (we'll see. We'll see who chooses what, and the result. You beating up the neighbours and squating everywhere, while making sure you control their music-systems perhaps)

The UN is supposed to police the world, but when it doesn't work, and when there are personal mistakes to fix, there's nothing wrong with acting alone. Especially when it benefits a large group of people.

yeah yeah yeah - so the french and russians were dealing with him and bringing him back into the economic world. Power/money politics. Same as yous lot do. Your industries and your government. And if fixing it means fixing their new government and fixing the oil supply (to full gush towards american profit), then that's a quick fix they'll leave in a mix once they're done. We won't see the end of this for so long. It'll drop out of the news probably, but it'll still be going on. We'll be one to the bizarre conquest after that, and'll have forgotten about old things..like AFGHANISTAN.

National Socialist = Nazi. Nobody's denying that the Nazis were fascists. I was comparing the Baath regime to Hitler's Germany. Now surely your history's slipping here? I thought that was just the nominal name of the party he took over. A muddled group in a muddled time in the most open democracy ever. They went in with sticks and took over. i.e. why use it as a token name for a position/proclivity we could just call extreme-maciaveliianism or something. Pure Greed. Insane-sense-of-unity/superiority-thru-Them-vs-Us sentiments, even? :)

He's done it without US provocation before, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have done it again.

WHAT? WHEN? When did he randomly set fire to any oil outside of the first war?

America isn't slaughtering indiscriminately, and our (and your) soldiers aren't aiming for civilians. That's a crucial difference.

They are when they shoot into crowds and fast-moving cars (everyone drives fast in iraq in all the inter-war documentaries etc) - so yes it's still war, but don't get to high up on the "we're-really-friendly-invaders" horse.

And by the way, where the hell did you get that paid-kid-dropping-handgrenades thing from. HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW HE WAS PAID?????? Did someone go and ask him? "I say young fellow. No. No, stop throwing...ahaha...aren't you a sprightly one. No i only want to chat..."

There is no contradiction. Iraq and al Qaeda both were enemies of the United States, and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't become allies. That's what I was saying. The united states is EVERYBODY'S enemy pretty much. Not on fighting terms (or terrorist terms :) - i'm not about to post off a bomb :crazy: ) - just in terms of pissing populaces off around the globe. Therefore, the more you go on treating the world like **** - the way no other big nation does so consistantly - the greater the chances of people banding together even more against you. Get it? Even the Saudis don't like you, it's just that their leaders have been enjoying the deal for so long.

Sorry. Not everyone feels this way. Just most people it seems, to varying degrees. See it as hate, envy, fear, jealosy or whatever you want. I see it as all in your heads, hands, and your politicians'/business's doing.

You don't seem to understand that I'm holding all countries accountable for everything. Israel, Iraq, and the US (and countless other countries) have all violated UN resolutions, and all of them need to be held responsible. The US harbors Henry Kissinger, Ariel Sharon is a war criminal, and Saddam Hussein is the quintessential evil leader - none of them are above justice. There is no contradiction, no double standard for anybody.

So in WHAT ****ING WAY IS AMERICA BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE THEN? By signing out of the ICC. Nice sense of justice man.

I won't deny, however, that the case of Saddam is a special one, just as the case of Slobodan Milosevic was a few years ago. The USA was complicit in Saddam's genocide - we have a responsibility to close that chapter and do everything we can to make up for it.

They aren't that "special" in the sense that comparable situations exist(ed) around the world then as now.

You've ignored all of my comments about American and Israeli crimes. All of your responses seem directed at somebody who has no idea what's gone on in the past. I DO know what's happened, and I still think this action was a good one. Yeah, but your points about US/israeli crimes don't seem to make any sense. Please explain in what way you think

And does your history remember who designed, occupied and eventually installed a new governing body in, Iraq? Or which local/homegrown groups then removed him. And which superpower then hired people to assassinate and remove this upstart internal "regime-change"? :rolleyes: And who did they install there instead? The regime that lead to Saddam's rise. NICE WORK GUYS! ;)

That's because I support the removal of fascist genocidal dictators on principle. Doesn't matter which country does it. Though it's especially nice that the US doesn't want a dictator in power - usually they're our closest allies. This may set a nice precedent...no more Mobutus under our protection.

Steve, you are so rationalising yourself into a position where you think supposedly "aiding" these countries (you just have to believe that will be the net effect) you are somehow erasing sins of the past. NONSENSE. Even if it works it's too little to late to make up for: secret enforced illegal regime change, followed by indiscriminate funding for/encouraging wars etc, followed by disserting the populace having told them to rise up during the last war. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. You are not fixing past wrongs. For God's sake!!

I agree with the first part. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that...Regardless, there's no reason to think that will happen, because A)it's an enormous expense, B)we can avoid that expense if we rebuild the country and just trade with them, rather than occupy, and C)the UN won't have it.

Being there is valuable to you. And since when have you listen to the UN?

There are plenty of democratic leaders in Kurdistan who are wholly devoted to fighting the war on terror. If you recall, Kurdish leaders pledged support for the United States not too long ago. Yeah, sure, while some others werre running around shouting about how they hated the infidel. What would you do in their boots?? And never-the-less the only known al Qaeda linked camp in Iraq is Kurdish apparently)

So what if they don't? If kindness is there even if that's not the intention, what's wrong with it? It's just wrong when you use it as an excuse for all the other stuff you're ignoring. i.e .the insiduous spread of american attempts to control everything and swivel it in their favour to the exclusion of all else. I don't believe any "morals" are involved in this decision. Or, if there are, they are self-decieving one, i suspect (very strongly)

Look, Gg, I mean no disrespect toward you in this debate. If that's the impression you're getting, I'm sorry. It's almost like you're acting as if I've personally insulted you.

Like i ranted agressively, the only thing that might annoy me about you is that you are perpetuating certain things which i are think are just designed to make you feel better. And under the cover of that type of sentiment tyour country is getting away with murder on a political and industrial level.

I just don't like seeing us all being manipulated. That's all.

Henry The Kid

08-07-03, 10:15 PM

Yoda

08-08-03, 01:58 AM

Mary Loquacious

08-08-03, 02:42 AM

Where to begin? :D

Only if they were irrevocably proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's unlikely that this administration is going to be anything but uber-careful with their intelligence-related claims from this point forward.

Right. So, we'll find out about the connections if they're solid and true. That's a switch, but a welcome one.

Anyway, we certainly have reason to suspect a connection, based on the testimony of Sabah Khodada, captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. The action, however, is not contingent on an ironclad link.

Golgot's already handled this one, to my mind, and he's right. The U.S. does have more concrete ties to al Queada than does Iraq.

While I don't think you can make such a broad statement based on the Cold War alone...

I think I can, since that forty-odd years pretty much set the basic rules for the accumulation of nuclear weapons and the leverage they bring with them.

...I'll concede the point that Nuclear weaponry is about leverage as much as actual usage.

Thank you. :)

Still, I don't recall Bush claiming that he HAD a Nuclear weapon...just that he was on his way to getting one.

That still doesn't account for using this as one of the reasons for the war, when other countries that already have the technology and the weaponry--like North Korea, also currently being run by a madman who uses most of the money from his country to build up his military instead of feeding his people--aren't being invaded and being forced to step down.

I ask the same question in reverse: why now? Why not 10 years earlier? We had as much use for oil then as we do now.

In my view, this was something Bush intended to do before he took office. Perhaps he saw 9/11 as an appropriate catalyst for putting Saddam's removal into action. He's removing too regimes of terror, as it were, and tied the two actions together under a common heading.

Frankly, I don't know. I think it has a lot to do with 9/11, as you said. But "removing two regimes of terror"... Did we remove al Quaeda? We sure tore the hell out of Afghanistan. And we didn't make any real moves toward the Taliban, despite all of their atrocities, until we were off on our crusade to get Bin Laden.

But Afghanistan is another story.

Setting aside the fact that what we're doing is far more important than why we're doing, I can't agree with this at all. We can't just "give them their country back." It's not a stolen yo-yo. From what I understand the plan is to ease them into some form of Democracy as best we can. You may think the action was irresponsible, but I imagine it'd be far more irresponsible to duck out, right in the middle of rebuilding.

Yes, we'll "ease" them into democracy. But how long will it take? This isn't just a matter of "it'll take as long as it needs to." If we'd helped them to set up some kind of election, with actual Iraqi leaders who actually have their people's best interests in mind--and you know they're out there--it would be different. But it all smacks too heavily of occupation: the U.S. put a puppet in charge, are building military installations. How long before that fancy humanitarian title we've got on our interim government over there becomes straight-up "governor" or "president"?

Why don't we see if the kids can make a go of it without us? Because we don't want them to have that power. And it's not because we don't think they can handle it. If this whole war was about getting rid of Saddam, we've done that. If it was about removing a potential threat to our security and saving the Iraqis from a tyrant, we've done that. What we've yet to do, in all the months since, has shown any interest in letting the Iraqis take control of their own lives and their own country.
And this isn't about rebuilding the damage we've done physically.

The Iraqi protesters have said it: "No to America and no to Saddam!"

Another thing, which is a bit off-topic but nonetheless relevant. The Iraqi people have suffered terribly because of Saddam, but they've also suffered terribly because of the embargo we'd had in place for over a decade. How many children died because of that? Did we have their best interests in mind?

And all because we wanted to teach Saddam a lesson. That makes about as much sense as God killing off the first-born child of every Egyptian family to teach Pharoah a lesson that God knew Pharoah wouldn't learn.

Sorry to get Biblical, but my sister and I had a raging debate about that
--her church believes that every word of the Bible is literal and true.

Okay. Back to the politics.

When the oil fields are torched the Persian Gulf is flooded with flaming oil. I invite you to look up the pictures of the gulf the last time it happened.

I have to echo GG here: when? The last time I remember was in 1991. And he did it as a deterrent to us--the act of a desperate man. And, no, I don't think that's right. But that doesn't add up to a potential ecological disaster. Our commercial tankers and other pollutants have done more damage by accident.

Also, the oil thing. Remember the "get out of town" speech, the one where Bush insisted that the Iraqi people not torch the oil wells, because that oil belongs to them? Right. They're seeing a lot of that money.

I'm going to stop here for awhile, partly because I think I'm talking in circles and I need to think some more. GG's responded to much of what I want to respond to, anyway--before his big rant, and at times during--and I agree with much of what he's said. :yup: His anger may be misdirected, but he's got a point about the general state of America. But I'll elaborate on that at a later time.

One more thing, though:

I've made my thoughts clear on the subject before, but I honestly see our country slowly becoming more and more fascist by the day. Now I'm not a left wing nut, hell I'm not even left wing, but honestly, the modern American is starting to scare me.

Abso-freakin'-lutely. With the total monopolization of the media, we're closing in and becoming more and more one-sided in so many beliefs about what's going on in that whole big world that isn't America. And the stuff we're being fed is so filtered and selective, it's no wonder the average American has no clue of what the rest of the world really thinks about us, much less what's really going on. Although GG has left us no doubt. ;D

But when freedom of speech becomes compromised, and people become afraid to say what they really think, then we're in trouble. And it's happening. Let's burn Dixie Chicks CDs because they said something that criticized American policies by way of the President. Let's let people like Bill O'Reilly spew warnings and veiled threats about speaking out against the war. And all the other scary little tidbits that came along during the actual time of war and since, like the Patriot Act.

But it's not like any of this has any real impact on our lives--yet--so who cares? Nobody, and that's the sh*tty thing. It's like a frog in a pot of water on the stove--if you only turn up the heat in minor increments, the frog won't realize he's being boiled to death until it's too late. We're more worried about Ben and J-Lo's wedding than we are about the moves our government is making that take us further and further away from any kind of global unity. And that open us up to more blind hatred from both enemies and former allies, not to mention terrorist attacks like 9/11.

Unless making the world America means global unity.

Okay. I'm done. That was my mini-rant. Carry on with your business.

Golgot

08-08-03, 04:29 AM

This WAS an interesting discussion, and I see plenty of things that I'd like to address, but Gol, you've completely gone off the friggin' deep end. you might not realize it, but you're making this issue virtually impossible to discuss.

It's starting to feel as if you're intentionally ignoring the crux of Steve's argument. Rather than concede that he has a point (which he does), you use his statements as springboards for spiteful rants that routinely gloss over what he's getting at. I get the impression you're not interested in really looking at this issue unless you can do so from the most damning angle possible. Add to that the fact that you seem incapable of addressing any single issue without turning it into one giant summary of your ideological gripes, and it's Steve that ought to be giving up on you, not vice versa.

Yesyeesyes, i totally realise it. But you can imagine that if i believe that stuff (which i do pretty much) you can see how its difficult for me to "discuss" this with you at all having to tip-toe around what i see as the core issues to placate what i see as certain deliberate manipulations and delusions spread by your government etc.

WHICH CRUX of Steves argument? You relay it in brief, or he can do it, and i'll address it - again. I'd like to know where you think there's a valid argument in there? And there's plenty of contradictions i've pointed out that get totally ignored - and i have to listen to the same specious points pushed again and again to back up other specious points. You can see why i get annoyed and - in this last case - yes, write some very damning stuff.

I see things from a damning angle coz things are damn ****ed up

sorry

EDIT: Yoda I am SO interested in discussing these issues -despite the infuriating glorification that goes on amongst some people's thought-processes - but why should i be the only one biting his tongue? I just can't help but let you know some of my (AND THE ****ING WORLD's) feelings about American actions. I've been very very ****ing nice till now. Ok, so i snapped -it's coz Steve ignore most of my points too and glosses over them. You guys are equally guilty of everything i am - only your rants are contained within the idea that america is "right" in this. That's the equivilant of a rant all in one

Ok - so ignore my hyperbole - answer my points when your anger subsides - and we'll see if we can't get somewhere - but i've got a lot more reason to be angry than you. - coz i'm part of the international community that your country continually abuses and ignores by turns. Admit it! (you see i DON't gloss over Steve's points -as far as i can tell - i address them, point out contradicitons and and especially: point out reasnos that totally over-shadow his and leave the weak we're-helping-the-little-people argument looking exactly like what it is - a tiny benefit surrounded by loads of negatives. THerefore, by vaunyted logic, the over-all effect is negative. I AGREE that saving Iraqis would be nice - but as you know, i don't even think you've done that yet. You've got al ong way to go before you proove it to me. AND SHOW ME SOME HISTORICAL AND COMPARABLE EXAMPLES OF THIS WHERE IT ACTUALLY WORKED OUT!!! I CAN ONLY SEE EXAMPLES OF FAILURE. AS THIS "REGIME-CHANGE" WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY FAIL - HENCE RENDERING THE AREN'T-WE-GOOD-GUYS ARGUMENT TOTALLY DEFUNCT!)

Piddzilla

08-08-03, 07:13 AM

I totally agree with Mary on everything she said. Except one thing. I got the feeling that you want America to get out of Iraq as quick as possible. I disagree. If America leaves now, chaos will run Iraq (even more than now) within weeks. USA has a responsibility. Saddam was removed because America wanted him removed for american reasons, not iraqi reasons. Now America owns Iraq a stable foundation to build a democratic society on. This will take years and if America leaves now it will all be in vain. Take a look at the former african colonies. They gained their independence and sovereignity but the brits/french/belgians etc. just left with all their knowledge on how to run a country and without educating the africans. This is why Africa still today is colonized economically by the western world's corporations.

Anyway. This was one of the reasons to why I opposed the war the way it happened, an America-lead alliance instead of a UN-lead one. USA has put itself in a tricky situation. The iraqi people (who were supposed to be so grateful - big miscalculation but so very elementary) want America to leave and the more american soldiers dying there the more the american public opinion is going in the same direction. Plus, even if the Bush administration is counting on making big cash in Iraq, the campaign still costs an awful astronomic amount of money. But if they leave chaos, as I said before, will take over in Iraq because of the tensions between the different ethnic and religious groups in Iraq. The sunni muslims (the ruling minority under Saddam's terror realm) would be butchered in no time by the other groups. And the kurds would surely make attempts to reach independency. And I would be very surprised if the shia muslims (the majority) would let the others in on the party without fussing and fighting. AND if USA left now: No iraqi money to pay for the war and no future lucrative american investments and business deals in the region. PLUS no strategic military base in the world's perhaps most unsecure area.

The best thing in my opinion would be if America stayed but gradually turned the responsibility over to UN until a total independence is possible. This will not take only years but probably decades. If we're lucky. Take a look at what a great project Israel turned out to be. :(

Golgot

08-08-03, 07:13 AM

Without getting into these debates too deeply, I would like to say that I don't think it is physically possible to win this war on terrorism.

I've made my thoughts clear on the subject before, but I honestly see our country slowly becoming more and more fascist by the day. Now I'm not a left wing nut, hell I'm not even left wing, but honestly, the modern American is starting to scare me.

So good to know some americans have at least got their eyes open (always knew it -just good to have it proved). And Mary - thanks for backing me up - tho yes of course your right that my anger is mis-directed (i.e. some of that was probably way-off/over-the-top : but that's the point about anger isn't it - it over-focuses you and makes you blinkered etc - but still - when i'm not angry i feel my view spreads to cover a few sides - no matter what yoda says about glossing over things)

The frog example was very nice by the way (and the bible exsmple - wow, if we both keep our tempers we can have some much fun on some of the threads here)

Ok - Yoda - i'm calm agian. Are you? Address my points my man! THey're waiting - and all the others out there. There are so many unanswered questions. Let's get down and dirty (in a nice way ;) :rolleyes: )

Golgot

08-08-03, 10:22 AM

1st thing:

I apologize for maligning your great nation. You are not a bunch of fascist murderers (as it may have appeared i said).

Of course you're not! I genuinely don't think you are!

(but i understand if that's how you took it. I meant that concerning negative global influence, and i understand if you disagree -strongly- with that as well)

EDIT: The 9/11 thing would have been the biggest insult to you i'm sure - and the biggest problem between us now. I'd apologise for this if i could - but unfortunately it's also a fairly/very wide-spread view, and i happen to agree with it. Again, i can't make this go away. I think we should all address it.

but....(more attempted apology/explanation/re-dress in a minute)...

2nd thing:

I see Gore has finally stepped in with some good points/ways in which the Bush-admin have manipulated and distorted the truth i.e. :

-Saddam had no connection to 9/11 (just-released Congressional investigation)

-The war involved showing indifference to world opinion and taking intelligence forces out of Pakistan and Afghanistan - all of which has freed al Qaeda up rather than reduced the chances of further attack etc.

-Saddam did NOT want to work with Osama/al-Qaeda, let alone give them weapons, is the current understanding - so if anything our invasion of iraq has just given one more reason for arabic people to fear america and in fact join...al Qaeda.

-The nuclear doc, (not the still "being checked" docs the brits are harping about) was a known forgery (NB that Powell amongst others was obviously not happy about it's presence)

-The idea that american troops would be welcomed with open arms (or indeed, that they are! - What a strange way to think - ignoring the international scene completely as it does [again...and again....and again... :rolleyes:])

-That the rest of the world would jump in to help out having seen the justness of it all. (...and again....and again...) Well, hope y'all happy carrying the tax-can until that oil starts flowing. Do you think you'all get shares? ;)

--------------------I've said all of these and they've been glossed over with the old "i don't see it like that thing" - which is'nt very impressive when you point of view isn't very "international"-and you'll probably now say "i don't see it like that" :rolleyes: ---------------------

Look, Yoda and others i have offended...I know (and knew - but i was v.v.v.v.v.v.v angry) that me saying i think america is more "evil" than saddam in turns of negative GLOBAL effect was not very wise (and very possibly not correct ;) - even tho i suspect - GLOBALLY- it is true, i retract it). And also, i've brought a few only semi-related topics in (well, from my perspective they're all related, but hell, we seem to have to do all this thru YOUR [as in "America"'s] perspective or not at all, so ok)

......so i apologize for maligning your great nation. You are not a bunch of fascist murderers.

Of course! I genuinely don't think you are!

i can see, now i've calmed down a little, how it must have looked (aside from the gob-smacking cheek of criticising yous and your expansionism/international policies etc in the first place of course :( ).

But part of the reason i made that low-blow [and communicated the equally hurtful but predominant 9/11-was-brought-about-by-your-own-actions belief] is coz of this perspective clash that is making this debate near impossible. i.e. the insular vs international perspective problem (i feel i can play some part in relaying the latter to you coz of: being part of europe (and other global communities tied by more than just economic agreements); spending my day talking with international students about their lives and opinions; and of course reading/viewing media which won't shy away from reporting anti-american stuff -as well as pro- ) You believe the world is one way, the rest of the world seems to disagree. And who's more likely to know?

And some more cheekiness to come i'm afraid.....You're run by a bunch of lying, greedy so-and-so's it seems to me and many others (sorry, but that's how all the info i have balances out) - but you are NOT mass-murderers as i seemed to paint you (you're more occasional mini-murders and infra-structure alterers with human-rights abuses thrown in and regular support for others who enjoy similar passtimes - FACTS - argue if you dare. Nobody's "innocent" on the world stage, but some are more influential and ruthless than others Many of your military, industrial and international actions, altho they might not seem import to you, frequently outrage the "outside" world to different extents)

And to defend my slant on things (tho it went OTT b4) you (Yods and Steve) are equally guilty of ideological insistence. You insist on believing the insular picture of america and its relation to the world [Steve - i know you accept lots of the travesties that have occured, but your ignoring the widespread negativities rippling out from these events - as perveived by the rest of the world]. This drives me mad. Even when people from outside the bubble try to help you see things from other POVs you won't have it.

Anyway, you can imagine that when i came home to find Steve had glossed over almost every one of my points from my POV [i.e. just (accidently i imagine)ignoring the "international"/world version of events (and possible outcomes based on current and historical precedents) that i'd tried to relay accurately - tho i may have gone a bit far by representing the heights contrary view-points-to-yours can stretch to (and beyond of course in extreme cases)] Sorry Steve, and for the patronising tone etc, but to see you riding in like John Wayne again, as it were, just made me lose it for a while ( :blush: ). There seemed to be no point in all my previous patience (this has all been me being patient until these rants :rolleyes: - i'm doing my best :)) . So i lashed out.

Apologies, again. I will try and make sure it doesn't happen again [erm, or more than it is now] (especially if you try to become a bit more aware of the nature of "your" insularity - and how your governments have used it against "you". That would help anyway. Otherwise i'm going to have a heart-attack from shouting WTF every five seconds!)

A mainly/trying-to-be apologetic Golgot. I don't want you to misunderstand me. You should know [I]I love loads of things about America. But I'm angry about this and other things, and so's the majority of the world it seems.

Golgot

08-08-03, 07:32 PM

I am sorry to say all these things my american brethren (not sarcastic).
I am truly and honestly saying all these things coz i feel you need to know, for your own good. Coz the fact is - you obviously don't know or don't accept how the world sees "you" - and how that effects your suppositions about the war and its repurcussions.

Sorry

Gg

EDIT: i.e. it IS important in certain key areas: especially - imagining that terror can be defeated under current strategies - thinking that you can enforce democracy on someone [not that you are in Iraq] - believing that if you see your actions as just the rest of the wolrd does too [and just coz you disagree with the "world's" varying logics, doesn't make them go away]

Again, sorry, for what it's worth

N'other EDIT:

Useful recent articles from the Guardian newspaper (as an example) showing international “pro”- and “anti”-american views/approaches to american international action:

Bush's oil move backfires

Now he will have to try diplomacy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1012433,00.html

Voice of free Iraq walks out on US

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1013109,00.html

US shoots two dead at start of softer rule

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1015317,00.html

Cheney firm's rival is forced to drop oil bid

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1015229,00.html

Only the UN can give Iraq security and sovereignty

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1012474,00.html

'Some things are true even if George Bush believes them'

Oliver Burkeman meets Thomas Friedman, the influential US liberal columnist who says the attack on Iraq was justified

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1012489,00.html

Caitlyn

08-09-03, 03:47 PM

Henry The Kid

08-09-03, 03:58 PM

Now, not everyone is against the war for the same reasons as me. Most people who would agree with me don't agree with me on principle, just action. We should not have been there to begin with, them finding WMDs or not is irrelavent.

We all know what the answer to all problems is...

Vote libertarian! Yay! Down with liberals and conservatives!

Golgot

08-09-03, 08:44 PM

GolGot, do you honestly believe we are so dumb that we don’t know what is going on? And I’m not being mean, but if we seem to be a little indifferent about how the world views us, it’s because we’re used to it… regardless to whether what we’re doing is right or wrong, we’re always seen as “the damn Yankees” …

Sorry, i have gone on an absolute rant. And yes, i know you all really know the world's a bit pissed off with you right now (tho some don't - or don't take account of how it might be a good idea to not okay/let slide some of your admins crazier world decisions) - i don't want to rub THAT in (tho i can't seem to help it...it's coz....). I just want to point out that some of the reasons for it are still being perpetuated, and as a populace you seem to be okaying a lot of it and saying - well the world's gonna hate us anyway -or- it's the "right" thing to do - or whatever. The first step in things changing is the populace not letting the politicians n press hoodwink them so often with peculiar visions of the world. We could all love you again, if you'd just stop acting how you think is best no matter what everyone else says. as perceived by the world]

Some people are over-estimating the likelihood of: peaceful and democratic resolution in Iraq; reduction in terror thru this action; and the beneficialness of this and future activities in the middle east (while under-estimating the potential nature of further repurcussions).

This is why it IS important that people respect world opinion in these areas - and not just ignore it.

I should mention that i work with an ever varying selection of international students every day. I've taught turkish, "kurdish", "ex"-iraqi, quwaiti, and other arabic students recently for example. But i also teach people from all over the world, and from varied backgrounds. And their view is almost unanimous - and contrary to the prevalant views in america. I'm sorry, but i just feel it's important that certain people don't delude themselves about the realities of our current situation. (again i'm being arrogant in speaking for the world - but when there's such consistancy of opinion - what am i to think??) There's enough red-herrings flying around as it is - i just wish some people would take account of these opinions when deciding how well the war is going and is likely to go. And how the world will react to further actions etc.

I’ve read most of this thread and numerous others since this whole thing started and to be quite honest… I don’t understand where some of the posts are even coming from… people keep saying that Saddam didn’t/doesn’t have any weapons of mass destruction… just because none have been found thus far and I personally think it’s a little too soon to jump to that conclusion… and I’m fairly certain the same people who are saying this are the same ones who were willing to give the UN Inspectors all the time they needed to find those weapons… years if need be… so why are the American and British soldiers, who are still dying as I type this, expected to magically produce in a few months what the UN Inspectors had hell finding in the 8 years they spent there? Saddam Hussein was a master at deception and meticulous in everything he did so there is the possibility it could take years to find out just what he did and did not have...
I’m sorry, but I’m a cop and at the risk of sounding extremely conceited, a damn good one… I don’t believe in jumping to conclusions… and I know from experience, the least likely places can house the most damning evidence…

I agree that it's too early to say if there are WMDs or not (tho i've made my case for circumstances under which they wouldn't warrent invasion etc - no matter how much people argue that the wished for peaceful resolution would make all this acceptable if it came about) The problem is - too many bits of the world suspect it's america's house that is hiding a skeleton i.e. undeclared desires and intentions of profiteering. This must be taken into account in deciding how long we can wait for an answer without kicking up a really big fuss (by "we" i of course mean the UN etc etc)

But as Mary masterfully put it - big WMDs (that could reach america or britain etc) would be declared. That is their purpose - as bargaining tools. Smaller ones that could only reach nearer targets don't justify this unilateral invasion (and despite the smattering of semi-bullied support - this is a unilateral war)

So what are the reasons for this war?

-If they find long-distance WMDS that's fine.

So what are the other possible justifications?

-terrorist attack intentions?

As Gore pointed out the other day, there's no link between Saddam and 9/11 or Saddam and al-Qaeda. None. No "intelligence". No reason to believe it - but reasons not to believe it.

So even if we do find material which COULD be used in a terrorist attack we'd have to have damning proof that that was the intent for its use to justify invasion

If this turns out to be "predictive" crime-prevention without evidence - you should know Cait - that's illegal and very hard to justify.

And Golgot, you keep talking about Kelly being the best at what he did… have you ever asked yourself why Saddam feared Kelly and wanted rid of him as bad as he did?

Yes - coz Kelly was the guy who eventually got them to admit to their re-started bio-weapons program after four years of lies. He's the guy who got scientists to admit what he needed to know and who pointed out the inconsistencies and uncovered the deceptions on a regular basis in Russia and Iraq.

The inspectors alone aren't enough as you say - they can't find everything no matter how good they are. But they CAN and DID make it incredibly difficult for saddam to come up with any big weapons program.

So again - what did he have and who was the threat to? Why did we go in? Are there alterior motives?

If there was no good reason to go i.e. no new "intelligence", just old grudges and long-coveted profits, then this has been a highly unjustifiable war and has almost certainly decreased america's world standing further and encouraged potential terrorism greatly.

Not the opinions that are being bandied around state side it sometimes seems.

Golgot

08-10-03, 02:20 PM

Here are some claims i'm making? Do you agree? Disagree?

-This war happened coz the Us wanted it to (the brits and others tagged along)

-There is no reason to believe Saddam is/was involved in terrorist activities that would strike outside the middle-east (i.e. he demonstrably has no links with 9/11 or al Qaeda).

-Therefore the Bush-admin mis-led the public by suggesting this war would prevent terrorism and protect "the world".

-This war was not primarily or justifiably about protecting neighbouring countries to Iraq.

-Only finding WMDs which could reach the US, or other WMD components that could be used in a long-distance terrorist attack, COUPLED WITH EXPLICIT EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO USE IN THIS MANNER (plus: DISCOVERED DUE TO PRE-DATING "INTELLIGENCE"), justifies this war.

-Democratic resolution in Iraq is a desirable outcome, but it does not justify invasion, and was certainly not a motivation in going that had any real weight in making that decision. Also, it is looking unlikely at the moment that it will resolve itself in that way.

-You can't invade another country without exceptionally good reasons!

-the US profits nationally by returning Iraq to the petrodollars system (which it had recently left), and US industry profits from controlling the increase in oil production and other "regime change" aspects.

-The "world" mainly perceives this action as America trying to gain more control over that part of the world, whether it be through: military presence + willingness to attack; contingent trade negotiations "backed up" by force; regime control; oil control.....what have you.

-The fact that these are prevelant views means this action has almost certainly increased actual hatred towards america in certain areas - which in turn has increased the likelihood of further terrorist actions by already extreme factions.

-the US can't however, back out now. It must stay the course - but to do so it must "divvy up the pie" that it has made of Iraq so the UN will agree to come in and pick up the pieces.

Monkeypunch

08-11-03, 01:40 PM

I don't believe you've really answered my question, nor does your Tibetan example really prove that our government cares nothing for others. Would it be just of me to say that you don't care about people other than yourself simply because there's a child in Bosnia right now with a lot less food than you, who you've made no effort to help? I'll ask again: why is motivation more important than results, and do you HONESTLY believe our government is made up of twisted sadists who care nothing for the torment of others?

I'm not trying to say that they're all a bunch of sadists, YOU brought that into this discussion. What I am saying is that if we didn't have anything to GAIN from liberating Iraq, we wouldn't have done it. Does this make them snickeringly evil cartoons saying, "Bwa ha ha, SUFFER, Iraq" ? No, it clearly doesn't, but those are the words you're trying to put into my mouth. :furious: And motivation IS important. Why do you think it's not? Invading another country with only little bits of sketchy evidence to (barely) justify it is in fact a crime, did you know? Bush can crow about how he liberated Iraq all he wants but that doesn't make me forget that we were going over there originally to disarm Hussein. That was the stated reason. I'm not dumb enough to forget that and just buy it when Bush changes his cover story. Did you know that not even an hour after 9-11, they were talking about invading Iraq, and if the evidence wasn't there to support it, to make it? Read that in the paper yesterday. Makes me so proud of our leaders, I tell you what.

Politicians make mistakes, but you're implying that despite knowing what they were saying was a lie, they drew hoards of attention to it. That doesn't make any sense, to me.

It doesn't make sense to me either. so why'd they do it?

Monkeypunch

08-11-03, 01:51 PM

MP has been a little over the top.

"Over the Top?!?" You complete and utter bastard! You're going to judge my argument based on somebody else's incorrect interpretation of what I said?! :furious:

Golgot

08-11-03, 02:01 PM

"Over the Top?!?" You complete and utter bastard! You're going to judge my argument based on somebody else's incorrect interpretation of what I said?! :furious:

Man, I didn't disagree! I agreed. I just said you'd been a bit over the top. An then I went over the top. I was trying to be calm and objective (i.e. many people have been a bit OTT at different times :)), but it didn't last.
But I agree with you mate! Sorry if i didn't discredit any slurs on you then. I was getting a bit tied up in rhetoric at the time :blush:

EDIT: Liked this btw - seem to remember hearing something like it around that time...

Did you know that not even an hour after 9-11, they were talking about invading Iraq, and if the evidence wasn't there to support it, to make it?...

Piddzilla

08-11-03, 04:30 PM

On whether motivation is more important than the results. Do we honestly know the results yet?

Golgot

08-11-03, 05:00 PM

On whether motivation is more important than the results. Do we honestly know the results yet?

Heheheh. Everyone seems to use that to their arguments advantage...
i.e.

some say: we have to wait for conclusive WMD findings.

some say: is it very likely that democratic (or even stable) resolution will come about?

But then again, this war could be considered not only not over, but as having never really finished from the last one in the first place ;)

Yoda

08-12-03, 12:51 AM

I'm not trying to say that they're all a bunch of sadists, YOU brought that into this discussion. What I am saying is that if we didn't have anything to GAIN from liberating Iraq, we wouldn't have done it. Does this make them snickeringly evil cartoons saying, "Bwa ha ha, SUFFER, Iraq" ? No, it clearly doesn't, but those are the words you're trying to put into my mouth. :furious:
You said "the government does not care about the suffering of others," and then went on to give what you called "proof" of this claim. Maybe you don't think they're supremely evil, but unless you mean to imply that they're despicable human beings, I'd say you exaggerated significantly.

And motivation IS important. Why do you think it's not?
Because it simply isn't...and stating otherwise won't make it so. Intentions are irrelevant when discussing the validity of an action. They only come into play if you're concerned with a person's character or morality...but as far as I can tell, you want to focus on the results in some areas, and the intentions on another.

Invading another country with only little bits of sketchy evidence to (barely) justify it is in fact a crime, did you know? Bush can crow about how he liberated Iraq all he wants but that doesn't make me forget that we were going over there originally to disarm Hussein. That was the stated reason. I'm not dumb enough to forget that and just buy it when Bush changes his cover story. Did you know that not even an hour after 9-11, they were talking about invading Iraq, and if the evidence wasn't there to support it, to make it? Read that in the paper yesterday. Makes me so proud of our leaders, I tell you what.
Geez...six months and people are already starting the revisionist routine. It was not "the stated reasons." There were several stated reasons. I think it'd be fair to say disarming Saddam was given more emphasis than the others, but that's quite a far cry from your claim. Moreover, even the staunchest anti-war idealogues generally admit that he had arms of some sort, and ought not to. The only reasonable objection is one of degree, not of principle; you can claim we didn't have reason enough if you like, but to claim that it was a non-reason doesn't hold much water, in my opinion.

It doesn't make sense to me either. so why'd they do it?
Um, they didn't. That's my point. You said something, I said it didn't make sense, and now you're saying it doesn't make sense, either, but still assuming it's true. Call them mistaken, call them sneaky, call them whatever...but there's no way they're dumb enough to knowingly lie about something they're intentionally putting the spotlight on for months on end.

Mary Loquacious

08-12-03, 05:19 AM

And I’m not being mean, but if we seem to be a little indifferent about how the world views us, it’s because we’re used to it… regardless to whether what we’re doing is right or wrong, we’re always seen as “the damn Yankees” …

I hear what you're saying, Cait, but it shouldn't be this way. And if everyone in America thinks this way, then it's like we're giving our government license to do whatever they want in the arena of world politics. And that's definitely a bad thing--apathy is never good.

It's like saying "might as well be hung for a sheep than a lamb," which isn't such a big deal if you're a teenager who's already late for curfew but is kinda scary if you're thinking about an entire country's point of view.

And I pretty much agree with GG about the WMDs thing. Not much to add there. I might think of something later, though.

Intentions are irrelevant when discussing the validity of an action. They only come into play if you're concerned with a person's character or morality.

But intentions are important when considering the consequences of that action. I agree that when something's been done, then it's been done, and nothing can change that. We've gone into Iraq, and that is done. But the intention behind the action is part of the validity of the action--the reasons for the action and the consequences of the action are irrovocably bound. Morality dictates, at least in part, what you do next, so to speak. Saying that it doesn't matter why else we went into Iraq doesn't necessarily validate the fact that taking over Iraq took the people of Iraq out from under Saddam's thumb.

I got into a conversation/heated argument with my friend Brad about slavery, wherein he said... and, yes, he did say this... that the slave trade was a "good deal" for the Africans, because they got to go to the New World for free and it saved them from all the wars between tribes. Now, what he said was technically, depending on your point of view, true: they did get to go to the New World for free (unless "your body and your freedom" counts as the price--which, to my mind, it does--and if they survived the trip) and they did leave behind fighting wherein they could potentially die in battle. By Brad's argument, it doesn't matter why Africans were brought to America, or how they were treated when they got there. It only matters that they were brought to America, a land that had more potential than the land they came from.

So, does that mean the slave traders were doing them a favor with this action? No. Brad may be "right" in that what he said was true (making his argument valid on a technical level) but the intentions behind slavery--that some people, whether because of their race or their culture, are not as "good" as other people and so can become cattle to be bought and sold--were the exact reasons that slavery was wrong, and why Brad, ultimately, is wrong. He's only looking at part of the picture, and we all know the consequences of slavery and what its done to our culture.

We don't know what, ultimately, will happen with or to Iraq. But only looking at part of the picture and ignoring the (quite possibly many) motives behind it won't completely justify the government taking this action. And the potential consequences, for America and for Iraq, may not all be bad, but so many of them are, in a frightening way.

And I'm not--repeat, not--trying to make a case that we're "enslaving" the Iraqis by being over there. Taking advantage, yes. Enslaving, no. I just haven't been able to get that damn argument out of my head for a few days, and had to use it somewhere.

Golgot

08-12-03, 11:46 AM

You said "the government does not care about the suffering of others," and then went on to give what you called "proof" of this claim. Maybe you don't think they're supremely evil, but unless you mean to imply that they're despicable human beings, I'd say you exaggerated significantly.

Name one powerful (or "lesser") country that has a demonstrably moral foreign policy with positive world-results. You'll struggle. Even aid is a form of loan-sharking most of the time. They may well care - but are these sentiments strong enough to over-ride actions designed to insure national security and competitiveness etc (major aims of international politics)? I doubt it very much.

Because it simply isn't...and stating otherwise won't make it so. Intentions are irrelevant when discussing the validity of an action. They only come into play if you're concerned with a person's character or morality...but as far as I can tell, you want to focus on the results in some areas, and the intentions on another.

Exactly why they are relevant here. We are absolutely concerned with the character and morality of our leaders at this moment in time. That is one of the core issues about this war. There is ample evidence that they have misled us (or been incredibly incompetent - you choose ;))

Problems with your argument:

-Peaceful, people-favouring resolution is in no ways guaranteed in Iraq [so as Piddz says, the results aren't even in yet] (in fact, historical precedents, including the recent and highly ineffective regime-change in Afghanistan, suggest it won't be resolved the way you are suggesting i.e. in a way that really improves Iraqi lives over the next five years or so, at least. ...reasons for this asssumption coming...)

-There are so many OTHER potentially "negative" results from this, which may further threaten security in the middle-east, that even successful temporary regime-change, should it come about, cannot be used as an excuse for all of them. And you are positing it as a justification for this war it seems. So how does it stand up compared to all the possible negative outcomes...i.e....

1) American domination of the world oil market re-established by returning Iraq to the petrodollars system
2) Corresponding anger in the middle-east and the world. (potential for increased terror activities)
3) American attempts to get a stronger hold over the middle-east, through: military presence, threats of invasion and mis-use of the term terrorism, oil supply and payment control, increased industrial and military involvement in related areas like Azerbaijan/the Caspian sea; attempted regime change in neighbouring countries etc....leading to....yet greater chances of america being perceived as entirely greedy, empirical and unwilling to compromise and hence....even greater chance of terrorist activity.
4) Any of the above happening and America refusing to see them as negative actions - coz the supposed and waited for freeing of Iraqis from bondage, threats or death justifies all other actions [as the spin put on said claim would like to suggest ;)]...this in turn portrays america as uncaring about opinions in the middel-east and beyond - with corresponding negative PR and "negative" international responses to future claims of intelligence and "just" action etc.
5) No WMDs which could justify the war are found (i.e. ones potentially able to be used to attack America - and with proof of intent to use). So we can only assume, in this possible outcome, that the original "intelligence" was not good enough, and America went for alterior motives. (let's remember that the brits, aussies etc are just trying to back you up, make you seem more reasonable, and have no personal interests in aiding iraq beyond potentially freeing up the oil - which the world wants generally / tho not under the petrodollars system - and potentially saving the iraqis from despotism)

So it's ALL still potential (tho there's no doubt that the CURRENT result is more negative feeling towards america than positive - and increased terror risk from extremists. You can argue about the logic of this - but is doesn't change the fact)

Mary's example is perfect:

Coz:

(a) Result:

We could even argue here friend's definition is skewed/spun i.e. they may well be going to a land of greater opportunity - but if THEY won't actually be able to partake of this greater opportunity (other than the opportunity to be involved in less wars) - have their lives been improved? Do they get that vaunted benefit in fact? Does a life of mental and physical slavery out-weigh a shorter, more violent life living free to practice your cultural beliefs and follow your belief-structures? Prison or the death-penalty - slow "torture" or death - which is worse?

So in our situation....

Is beneficial-regime change a given, or even likely. Not by any means. (you may claim there'll be no torture - but if the whole area is de-stabilised by this action, which it could be, there's no guarantee any corresponding system imposed on the iraqi people will be sustainable) i.e are the criteria here being spun.

We can be sure that an american led/constructed or guided body controlling iraq will not be looked upon favourably by iraqis, and they will almost certainly try an over-throw it - (as happened last time in Iraq - prompting the american government to set about illegally and visciously helping over-throw the regime...with the result that Saddam got into power. Good choice there lads ;))

With the result so in doubt - let's not claim it as a given just yet.

PLUS

(b) Intention:

Mary dealt with all this....but i'll just back up the parellels....

Potentially more-important motivations that ARE relevant if they acheive the aims THEY SET OUT TO DO are.... all of the above possible negative results and repurcussions. Altho of course, the bush-admin surely (please god no :rolleyes: ) isn't setting out to INSPIRE further "terror" (that really WOULD be stupid) - it's acheiving that aim. That's unintentional - the self-serving ones, if they occur, will certainly not be.

And seeing as we ARE discussing the morality of the apparently intended actions (or at least, we should be) we should discuss:
-how moral is enforcing a self-serving structural monopoly on the world's oil trading?
-How moral is invasion of another country, for personal gain, under the guise of helping said country out (if that turns out to be the net result)?
-How moral would it be to replace a despotic system with an untenable one, liable to collapse into chaos, which equally denies citizens rights to affect the use of their national assets and the nature of their trade with others? As could, following historic and current precedents, turn out to be the case.
-How moral is it to undermine the main world structure designed to maintain peace?
-How consistant is it to break international laws, in a serious way, and then expect international negotiation, trade and support sytems to continue to operate in your favour as much as anyone's? How moral, in fact, is it to expect to have one rule for yourself and one for everyone else?

Geez...six months and people are already starting the revisionist routine. It was not "the stated reasons." There were several stated reasons. I think it'd be fair to say disarming Saddam was given more emphasis than the others, but that's quite a far cry from your claim. Moreover, even the staunchest anti-war idealogues generally admit that he had arms of some sort, and ought not to. The only reasonable objection is one of degree, not of principle; you can claim we didn't have reason enough if you like, but to claim that it was a non-reason doesn't hold much water, in my opinion.

It can be a none-reason, because disarming Saddam of low-range/neighbour attacking weapons is not a valid reason for unilateral war (which, if you are realistic, you will accept this is/was). It might be a reason for INTERNATIONAL involvement, were the "intelligence" convincing enough [and yes there are problems here with info-sharing - but if the problems were so certain you'd probably have various sources of info from various countries - everyone's interested in the middle-east ;)]

"ought not to" is a very moral term. So let's keep on the moral analysis and possible moral/political intents line of reasoning. I object specifically on terms of degree as you state. I would say that tho stopping Saddam entering a position of big-scale power-negotiation is highly laudable and desirable, this can be counter-acted/rendered meaningless by: abuse of power-negotiation (or lack of negotiation) by America; world-perceived possibility of near-comparably despotic future actions by america in the region (including lack of constituitonal choice and torture to achieve ends - we shall see - or probably not :rolleyes: ); instability brought to the region which can cause further or increased suffering in the area, causing the rise of other potentially despotic regimes (equal to the threat of Saddam bossing it in the region); and the said increase in terrorist activity for a start.

Again, let's not forget that proof of bio-chemical weapons or potential nuclear capacity in itself isn't enough for invasion, especially if the UN had it under control for the most part, as it seems, and no real new evidence has come forward (and let's face it - if they weren't sharing said info with the weapons inspectors - why not?. Yes the inspectors got blocked out eventually - but the UN would have acted if america wasn't being so bombastic and obvious with it's own unilateral intentions - that much we can assume from past actions. They don't act on Israel coz of american patronage as much as anything else - so we've always known that as the biggest world player america can seriously affect international, communal action - more often negatively/selfishly than positively it seems to me and many others). If the American-admin went in to stop Saddam growing influential in the international scene, that suggests protection of its own and others' circle of influence - not a desire to protect the local populaces - so that "moral" arguement becomes specious and mis-leading.

And let's also not forget the other entirely mis-leading claims aside from weapon-control etc made at the outset. That this action would lessen terrorism (entirely self-deceiving or mass-deceiving, depending on intent); that this action was a moral one designed to help the people of iraq i.e. that the aim was to remove the evil ex-CIA-stooge Saddam. (laudable - but requires international action - hence the illegality and inadvisability of this current regime change)

Um, they didn't. That's my point. You said something, I said it didn't make sense, and now you're saying it doesn't make sense, either, but still assuming it's true. Call them mistaken, call them sneaky, call them whatever...but there's no way they're dumb enough to knowingly lie about something they're intentionally putting the spotlight on for months on end.

Um, i'll jump in again, even tho monkey might shout at me :) - If you look at the situation now - where the search for WMDs is going to be played out over a long time - that leaves a big window for the american-admin to acheive what it likes - then remove the majority of its physical presence and act like nothing happened. If the regime-change fails, well, it's difficult, how is that their fault, they can ask. If no WMDs are found, well hell, "they must be there somewhere, but it's a big country and we just can't find them. They're probably on a boat circling the seas somewhere. Who can tell?" - this is what they can easily claim.

Again, as Kissenger demonstrates, once you are out of the responsability-loop, you can get away with everything you got away with temporarily during your time in office. A very tradtional trick. Use time as your ally. Obscure as much as possible. Claim morality and hide any evidence to the contrary from your populace (and if your populace generally believes, even wants to believe, that their administration is "right/good" even when the world generally believes it is "wrong/bad" - a country that as a whole seems to believe in the morality of its actions [despite lack of evidence of this in its industrial and political arenas - but hey, who's innocent there? ;) Some more than others maybe - i.e. those that act occasionally for communal good :shrug: ] - then convincing the voters that all was well is that much easier)

So in some ways, it wouldn't be stupid or self-destructive at all to enter such a long-term undertaking, where results will take so long to arrive. If they can just stretch it out to the next election - well, what american-loving american wouldn't vote for such an all-american administration? ;) - the type that actually loves their country and wants to see its best aspects explored rather than its worst perhaps ;)

On an (even more) personal note then: Bush n co, to me, are perfect examples of how american-popularist-ideas can be manipulated, and how the worst practices that your potentially wonderful country has started or implemented to the fullest can be abused by the powerful and connected [i.e. inconsistant Free Trade application and abuse, industry control of political agenda, mass-manipulation thru admin and media working hand-in-hand, nepotism limiting opportunity for all, quick fix and big profits thru supposed (but untested - we are the guinea pigs) technological advances etc etc]

All bigger nations are guilty of these. It's just that you're the biggest and particularly eager in application - and unfortunately, you seem to be the democracy that questions the legitimacy of its goverments' actions the least. Surely democracy starts when every generation fights for their rights and makes sure they're mislead as infrquently as possible?

One good thing about this war - people over here in britland are embracing a higher level of politcal awareness on the whole. And the press are refusing to be patted on the head and manipulated in the day-to-day way. Whether this turns into postive action by interest groups, rather than just marches (enjoyable as they are ;)), remains to be seen. Until there are more facts, it's hard to achieve much accept observe those that have gone before.

Ok - i stop - this can be the rhetoric page - my more logically laid out bullet points are still above for anyone who wants to try and refute them to....try ;)

Yoda

08-12-03, 01:17 PM

But intentions are important when considering the consequences of that action. I agree that when something's been done, then it's been done, and nothing can change that. We've gone into Iraq, and that is done. But the intention behind the action is part of the validity of the action--the reasons for the action and the consequences of the action are irrovocably bound. Morality dictates, at least in part, what you do next, so to speak. Saying that it doesn't matter why else we went into Iraq doesn't necessarily validate the fact that taking over Iraq took the people of Iraq out from under Saddam's thumb.As you said, the fact that our intentions in the past are likely to steer our decisions in the future does not effect what we've already done. Intentions are relevant if and when you make judgements of character or morality; not when discussing the validity of the action itself. Especially when there's so much disagreement about just what our intentions were. Once the results are in, they trump intentions everytime. I'd gladly take a self-serving ******* who does his job well over an incompetent Mr. Rogers, and you would, too.I got into a conversation/heated argument with my friend Brad about slavery, wherein he said... and, yes, he did say this... that the slave trade was a "good deal" for the Africans, because they got to go to the New World for free and it saved them from all the wars between tribes. Now, what he said was technically, depending on your point of view, true: they did get to go to the New World for free (unless "your body and your freedom" counts as the price--which, to my mind, it does--and if they survived the trip) and they did leave behind fighting wherein they could potentially die in battle. By Brad's argument, it doesn't matter why Africans were brought to America, or how they were treated when they got there. It only matters that they were brought to America, a land that had more potential than the land they came from.

So, does that mean the slave traders were doing them a favor with this action? No. Brad may be "right" in that what he said was true (making his argument valid on a technical level) but the intentions behind slavery--that some people, whether because of their race or their culture, are not as "good" as other people and so can become cattle to be bought and sold--were the exact reasons that slavery was wrong, and why Brad, ultimately, is wrong. He's only looking at part of the picture, and we all know the consequences of slavery and what its done to our culture.Ah, but there are other reasons why Brad is wrong. First, Africans did not NEED to become slaves to get to the New World, whereas there really wasn't any way to liberate Iraqis without moving in on Saddam. Second is that the Iraqi people were not, in my mind, trading away something the way it could be said the Africans in question did.

You seem to be taking a "the end doesn't justify the means" stance, but you're not even looking at the means. You're looking at the reason we wanted the end, not the methods we used to get there. We don't know what, ultimately, will happen with or to Iraq. But only looking at part of the picture and ignoring the (quite possibly many) motives behind it won't completely justify the government taking this action. And the potential consequences, for America and for Iraq, may not all be bad, but so many of them are, in a frightening way.

And I'm not--repeat, not--trying to make a case that we're "enslaving" the Iraqis by being over there. Taking advantage, yes. Enslaving, no. I just haven't been able to get that damn argument out of my head for a few days, and had to use it somewhere.Understandable. I'm not going to sensationalize your analogy...but I don't think it holds up, and here's why: though it's perfectly reasonable to make a point with exaggerated parallels, it's not applicable if the analogy is DEPENDENT on the exaggeration.

That is, if someone says "that cop shouldn't pull me over, I should be allowed to do what I want," it's logical and sensible to say "whatever you want? What about murder?" However it's not the same for someone to say "Don't yell at him" only to be met with a reply of "Oh, so I can't yell at ANYONE, EVER?" The former is using exaggeration to make a point, the latter's exaggeration IS the point. In one case, you can remove the exaggeration and still make the same argument...but in the other, you can't.

In my mind, your analogy merely shows us that there are, indeed, some instances where an action can have some good consequences, but still be bad on the whole. But notice that it's not the intentions of the slave-owners that are the problem, but their actions. The intentions are only relevant insofar as they led to the actions. Had their misguided intentions led them to applaudable actions, we wouldn't be griping about them. It's rather like the recent pseudo-intellectual tendency to pick a historical figure and expound on their moral shortcomings, as if that invalidated their contribution to humanity.

Yoda

08-12-03, 01:20 PM

Exactly why they are relevant here. We are absolutely concerned with the character and morality of our leaders at this moment in time. That is one of the core issues about this war.I don't think you're listening. I never said (or even implied) that we should not be concerned with the character of our leaders. Just that it's not as important as what they actually do. Criticizing the Bush Administration for why you THINK they went to Iraq is rather like chastising Clinton's economic policy based on his moral shortcomings.

As usual, you've got things backwards. You elect people based on their character...but you don't judge their past actions with it. I might vote for Jimmy Carter because I think he's a nice guy, and therefore more likely to make an adequate President, but it's only relevant insofar as it positively effects his administration, which means any extra credit he gets when we look back on his term would already be netted out in the results of his decisions.Ok - i stop - this can be the rhetoric page - my more logically laid out bullet points are still above for anyone who wants to try and refute them to....tryThe only "try" is in regards to sifting through your posts to seperate the deduction from the speculation. If you want to assume that you've somehow won out by drowning anyone who dissents in pages and pages of ramblings, be my guest, but you'd be woefully mistaken.

For now, having only skimmed your latest misguided epic, I'll simply make the observation that the overwhelming majority of your gripes stem from what you think may happen, rather than what actually has.

Mary Loquacious

08-12-03, 03:27 PM

Yoda

08-12-03, 03:46 PM

I'm going to reply, just not right now. My head hurts and there are plumbers in my house. And I should know better than to argue philosophy with a guy who reads as much as Chris. :D

Soon, though, I will try. 'Cause I know everyone's just dying to hear what I have to say next... :rolleyes: ;)
No sweat. Unlike some (;D), I've got plenty to keep me occupied until then, and I shall not take any delay in response to indicate a concession.

You know, I really need to learn to use smaller words. "Indicate a concession" sounds so pretentious when said aloud. Maybe I should just give in and demand that you all refer to me as Christopher, too.

Mary Loquacious

08-12-03, 03:53 PM

You know, I really need to learn to use smaller words. "Indicate a concession" sounds so pretentious when said aloud. Maybe I should just give in and demand that you all refer to me as Christopher, too.

Christopher the Mighty and Pretentious, Overlord of All Lesser Mortals and, Yes, This Means You.

Catchy title, no? ;D Although there were too many single-syllable words in it... :laugh:

Golgot

08-12-03, 04:01 PM

I don't think you're listening. I never said (or even implied) that we should not be concerned with the character of our leaders. Just that it's not as important as what they actually do. Criticizing the Bush Administration for why you THINK they went to Iraq is rather like chastising Clinton's economic policy based on his moral shortcomings.

You implied that the moral dimension would only be valid if we were examining the perpetuators of the action, not the action itself.
But why would we concentrate on the action alone? You can't seperate the repurcussions from its initiators like that and say...we can only judge this action. There is no morality involved here.....unless you want to bring in the character of the leaders/decision-makers etc is what you said. Which we obviously do. Just saying.

What your saying about intentions and results/ means and ends etc is all cool to an extent, (altho it looks like a giant get-out clause for anything to happen and it never being the proponents' fault ;) - so long as our knowledge base about the "intelligence" and other motivations is so small :rolleyes: )

As usual, you've got things backwards. You elect people based on their character...but you don't judge their past actions with it. I might vote for Jimmy Carter because I think he's a nice guy, and therefore more likely to make an adequate President, but it's only relevant insofar as it positively effects his administration, which means any extra credit he gets when we look back on his term would already be netted out in the results of his decisions.

When the hell did i do that? If you're referring to bush, then i'll wait for him to get some good net results before i start shifting my opinion :) - but i never mentioned him. When did i talk about judging any elected person's past actions? What are you alluding to if this is not what you're saying? If you're just saying actions/results are more important than personality, then fine. Though that doesn't mean character and motivations/reasons can't be important in evaluating an action/result.

If you're trying to say here and/or before that we shouldn't concern ourselves with reasons/motivations/intentions behind our leaders' actions, i'd say you're wrong. Wars like this should be scrutinised to the upmost, in the name of democracy, and maintenance of national + international rights. I dare say you disagree.

The only "try" is in regards to sifting through your posts to seperate the deduction from the speculation. If you want to assume that you've somehow won out by drowning anyone who dissents in pages and pages of ramblings, be my guest, but you'd be woefully mistaken.

Well go back up to the point-by-point points in my non-rhetoric post, all of which have facts/reasons to back them up, i just need someone to challenge them. So challenge away.

For now, having only skimmed your latest misguided epic, I'll simply make the observation that the overwhelming majority of your gripes stem from what you think may happen, rather than what actually has.

Yes, much of it is supposition, as there are only crumbs of knowledge (most of it pointing to dodginess) helped by some ample historical precedents....but.....

Considering the fact that not only i but, by extrapolation (from responses from my internatonal students) a billion or so others at least also BELIEVE what you have done as a nation will lead to further terrorist attacks on you....then listen to who you like. It's one opinion you should really be interested in. We're all only guessing mind, but we seem to have quite a clear/unified perception of the probable outcomes of this action. You may call that blinkered. I'd call ignoring it most peculiar.

But i dare say you're right Yods.

Golgot

08-12-03, 04:08 PM

No sweat. Unlike some (;D), I've got plenty to keep me occupied until then, and I shall not take any delay in response to indicate a concession.

You know, I really need to learn to use smaller words. "Indicate a concession" sounds so pretentious when said aloud. Maybe I should just give in and demand that you all refer to me as Christopher, too.

I just happen to be working half-days this week Christopher (tho you are eating into my passtimes. Yes you. It's no fault of mine :p :rolleyes: )

Who needs sleep anyway?

Steve

08-12-03, 07:55 PM

Piddzilla

08-13-03, 06:02 AM

Heheheh. Everyone seems to use that to their arguments advantage...
i.e.

some say: we have to wait for conclusive WMD findings.

some say: is it very likely that democratic (or even stable) resolution will come about?

But then again, this war could be considered not only not over, but as having never really finished from the last one in the first place ;)

What I meant was that we don't know the result before USA has finished their campaigne in Iraq, which will take years.

For now, having only skimmed your latest misguided epic, I'll simply make the observation that the overwhelming majority of your gripes stem from what you think may happen, rather than what actually has.

Wasn't that the foresighted strategy the Bush administration used on the potential iraqi threat? Attack before having been attacked because of a potential future attack? ;)

EDIT: "possible" was supposed to be "potential"... sorry...

Golgot

08-13-03, 09:45 AM

What I meant was that we don't know the result before USA has finished their campaigne in Iraq, which will take years.

Wasn't that the foresighted strategy the Bush administration used on the potential iraqi threat? Attack before having been attacked because of a possible future attack? ;)

Well put oh kindred-critic and member of the progressive-politic ;)

We're gonna be stuck in speculation territory, and forced to rely on the facts we DO have (i.e. the current failings of regime change, evidence of manipulation by politicians, obvious conflicts between intelligence bodies and politicians etc etc), plus historical precedent (america's interventions and regime-changes are failure stories for the most part, and ethically dubious aswell - not to mention the untenability of exaggerrating the importance of potential benefits to the local populace and the region when those cannot be the main reasons for going and a far from being certain outcomes)...for a long time....

If Yoda checks he'll see that almost all of my speculations are based upon current facts (the petrodollars system, world opinion that can affect outcomes, the current situation in iraq etc etc)
...and even those that are more extrapolation from themes of conduct
are based on historical precedent (american and international)

If he checks his own posts, he'll also see that he makes a fair few assumptions too (when he ignores the majority opinion and chooses to believe only his insular administration's assessments, in certain key areas, such as TERROR)

Golgot

08-13-03, 09:56 AM

I'll be back to respond later this week, G.

I leave for five days and everything's blown up. For right now, though, I'm willing to concede one thing to Golgot: you're right, I do think 'we're' the good guys. Extremists and fascists are my enemy and will be until the day I die. If my enemies are the same as the United States' enemies, so be it.

Back later

Cool. You might want to ignore (or try and forgive :rolleyes: ) some of my more rampant ramblings. The best post to reply to is the breakdown of points i made.

Stevey, from what i know of you, i know you're informed (so i'll try to stop patronising you about precedents etc). But i do still feel you're rather WANTING this (dubious) potential for a happy resolution to outweigh other potential repurcussions. (it should end up being better than under saddam, especially if the UN is "allowed" in, but this can all be undermined if the whole region gets upset by american actions - which is possible)....

As Yoda said, even intentions aren't enough.

How would you feel if america's actions actually became "extreme" (it wouldn't take much more extention of this type of action for this to be the world's unified perception i believe)? Where then would you stand? Extremism ultimately just means: to believe only your extreme perception of things and to act on it/try to keep it a reality no matter how much the majority disagrees or opposes you (which normally involves destructive or highly selfish acts to acheive this). This is a definition that COULD apply to the US if it extends the pattern of international behaviour of recent years.

[oh dear....more outrage on the way. At least i shouldn't get monkey-punched over this one ;)]

Monkeypunch

08-14-03, 12:47 AM

[oh dear....more outrage on the way. At least i shouldn't get monkey-punched over this one ;)]

Sorry I yelled at ya. I do feel bad seeing as you're one of the few people I fully agree with on a regular basis. As you can imagine I feel very passionately about current events, about our Commander-in-Thief, about our ongoing national insanity, and yes, I'm going to rant occasionally. I did not like my opinions being judged over the top by the interpretations of someone else who seeks to discredit them. Once again, I apologize to you. Keep fighting all the Bush-Sh*t that is all around us!

Golgot

08-14-03, 10:04 AM

all cool man. We are the complication-seekers (non-uncertainty-avoiding) types after all (see the new thread about the nature of "conservatives" - a 50 year study. Could be applied to the current situation, and socio-political trends as a whole). We're far more liable to be divisive even when we agree it seems ;). Maybe Henry's libertarian party (made of both the overly-decisive and the overly-expansive/ambiguous people? - not that things are ever that clear cut :rolleyes: ) is the way forward?

Golgot

08-14-03, 11:02 AM

Here you go certainty-seekers....

From the mouth of world expert and analyst of top level UN and coalition "intelligence" on chemical-biological WMDs...

[tape of conversation between BBC Newsnight journalist Susan Watts and the mysteriously-dead life-loving Dr David Kelly]

My deduction: The UN was doing its job, which this unilateral action interrupted, while claiming to want to achieve the same aims...(and that anti-american feeling is being accentuated by this apparently inappropriate american action) :

"DK: well I think that eventually the UN is going to have a role to play in this, but I think the difficulty is
how does the UN engage with the coalition forces - there has to be a process - they can't both do the
same job I think it's going to be very difficult for them to work in harmony together, because of the
anymosity between the UN and the US, both as institutions, and between people who are involved
There's tremendous . in UNSCOM possibly UNMOVIC - there's tremendous anti-US feeling
That they were pulled out and they were doing their job and that if they had continued to do their job
they would have solved the problem That may not be the case but they actually think that And so they
are very resentful of the US . .xxxx I think you know."

[strong words from an "objective" scientist - must mean something ;)]
[see below for more back-up of these points]

My deduction: EDIT: Some of the "intelligence" used to justify this war was spun or only related to potential for future WMDs...[and this begs the question....Why? - why did we go in if the info was so weak it needed spinning, or only related to quantities not considered a current threat? If the point was deterrence and prevention of re-building....why not let the UN do it? And let's face it... the potential for Saddam to build new WMDs etc was not what we were told we were preventing.]

"SW do you think there ought to be a security and intelligence committee inquiry?
DK yes but not now I think that has to be done in about six months time when we actually have come
to the end of the evaluation of Iraq and the information that is going to come out of it I still think it's
far too early to be talking about the intelligence that is there . a lot of intelligence that would appear to
be good quality intelligence , some ofwhich is not and it take a long long time to get the information
that's required from Iraq The process has only just started I think one of the problems with the dossier
- and again I think you and I have talked about it in the past is that it was presented in a very black and
white way [for the "conservative" within us ;)] without any sort of quantitative aspects of it. The only quantitative aspects were the figures
derived essentially from UNSCOM figures, which in turn are Iraq's figures presented to UNSCOM -
you know the xxx litres anthrax, the 4 tomes VX - all of that actually is Iraqi figures - but there was
nothing else in there that was quantitative or even remotely qualitative - I mean it was just a black and
white thing - they have weapons or they don't have weapons That (?) me has been interpreted as being
a vast arsenal and I'm not sure any of us ever said that . people have said to me that that was what was
implied, Again we discussed it .and I discussed it with many people, that my own perception is that
yes they have weapons but actually not xzxxx (xxx not problem) at this point in time The PROBLEM
was that one could anticipate that without any form of inspection, and that forms a real deterrence, other
than the sanctions side of things, then that that would develop I think that was the real concern that
everyone had, it was not so much what they have now but what they would have in the future But that
unfortunately wasn't expressed strongly in the dossier because that takes away the case for war (I
cough) to a certain extent
SW a clear and present, imminent threat?
DK yes"

My Deduction: British intelligence documents for public appraisal were heavily spun with the intention of going to war no-matter-what...[and the added, reasonable, assumption is that we did this coz the US had decided to go to war and we were just tagging along/helping out]

"SW but on the 45 minutes
DK oh that I knew because I knew the concern about the statement . it was a statement that was made
and it just got out of all proportion . you know someone [NB he breaks/switches tack here] They were desperate for information. they
were pushing hard for information which could be released that was one that popped up and it was
seized on and it was unfortunate that it was which is why there is the argument between the
intelligence services and cabinet office/number ten, because things were picked up on, and once
they've picked up on it you can't pull it back, that's the problem"

"SW did you actually write that section which refers to the 45 minutes Or was it somebody els0
DK errr I didn't write THAT section, no I mean I reviewed the whole thing, I was involved with the
whole process . In the end it was just a flurry ofactivity and it was very difficult to get comments m
because people at the top of the ladder didn't want to hear some ofthe things"

[Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Government not listening to its intelligence experts coz it knows what it wants to believe/communicate. Not very healthy. Or a very solid basis for war either. Not very intelligent for that matter ;)]

[EDIT: all the info on: http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk PLUS useful summaries on: http://media.guardian.co.uk/huttoninquiry/0,13812,1018643,00.html
as well as this little summary of dubious stuff emerging...
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqdossieraffair/story/0,13754,1018314,00.html

An interesting bit of evidence being used in the Hutton inquiry...

DIS (intelligence officials) objections to "spin":
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence/mod_4_0009.tif.pdf ]

Mary Loquacious

08-14-03, 01:59 PM

All right. I've got a mild hangover, a full pack of smokes and a half-bottle of Diet Dr. Pepper. Hit it.

First, Africans did not NEED to become slaves to get to the New World, whereas there really wasn't any way to liberate Iraqis without moving in on Saddam. Second is that the Iraqi people were not, in my mind, trading away something the way it could be said the Africans in question did.

Without moving in on Saddam, yes--without a unilateral American action, no. And if the Iraqis don't want us over there, then what makes our military occupation of their country so much different from the British takeover of India or even the French occupation of Indochina? Yes, this is just speculation--and I'll be getting to that later--but all the evidence points to a neo-colonial mentality. When (if) we give them back their country and the power to make decisions for that country, or at least let the UN take over the political "reformation" efforts, then I'll concede the point.

Boy, ain't it easy to argue speculatively... ;)

You seem to be taking a "the end doesn't justify the means" stance, but you're not even looking at the means. You're looking at the reason we wanted the end, not the methods we used to get there.

But I am, and that's part of the problem: how we got there. Why we went into Iraq, how the government used half-truths and speculations to justify going into Iraq in defiance of the UN charter. Invasion of another country is a serious action, one that isn't to be taken lightly even if the motives behind it are purely humanitarian. And one of the reasons it's so serious is partly psychological: once you've moved past that moral/ethic/political barrier, it makes it that much easier to do it again.

That isn't to say a war based mainly on governmental machinations and half-truths can't have overall good or positive effects... if those machinations and half-truths are invisible enough unite the American people to rally for the cause. However, in this case the country has been sharply divided, which I think really surprised the Man; after Desert Storm and Lee Greenwood, it should have been much easier to garner a commanding show of public support.

To get back to intentions:

But notice that it's not the intentions of the slave-owners that are the problem, but their actions. The intentions are only relevant insofar as they led to the actions.

I agree--especially with that second sentence. One of the things we seem to be discussing a lot on this thread is whether or not the U.S. is going to profit materially from this war. I believe that we will. And in that case, in any case, the intentions provide motivation for the action. As in a murder trial, motive is a key element in figuring out whodunit (I know, here I go with another parallel); you have to ask, why would someone want to kill this person? When an action has been taken, the only way to deduce the reasons for it, the things that led up to it, are to look at the motivation.

And isn't that what all these justifications--the WMDs, etc.--really are? It's been all about the U.S. trying to provide a moral/ethical reason for invading another country. And as Piddzy said, speculation has run rampant throughout these reasons.

In an earlier post, you said something to the extent that Bush & Co. had had this planned for some time, possibly even before their administration took office. I think you're right, but ten dollars says our reasonings for thinking this differ.

And my sort-of-last point:

If you're trying to say here and/or before that we shouldn't concern ourselves with reasons/motivations/intentions behind our leaders' actions, i'd say you're wrong. Wars like this should be scrutinised to the upmost, in the name of democracy, and maintenance of national + international rights.

I fully agree with Gol here.

Understandable. I'm not going to sensationalize your analogy...but I don't think it holds up, and here's why: though it's perfectly reasonable to make a point with exaggerated parallels, it's not applicable if the analogy is DEPENDENT on the exaggeration.

That is, if someone says "that cop shouldn't pull me over, I should be allowed to do what I want," it's logical and sensible to say "whatever you want? What about murder?" However it's not the same for someone to say "Don't yell at him" only to be met with a reply of "Oh, so I can't yell at ANYONE, EVER?" The former is using exaggeration to make a point, the latter's exaggeration IS the point. In one case, you can remove the exaggeration and still make the same argument...but in the other, you can't.

I'm not sure I understand this point. My analogy doesn't work because it's exaggerated, or it doesn't work because taking the exaggeration out of it negates the argument...? Maybe I'm just Dummy McDummerton today, but I can't see how the application fits. Me wants more explanation.

More later--and that's a very interesting tidbit, Gol. And "Certainty Seekers"... :laugh: Makes me think of the old Marvel standby of "True Believers." But, hey, the Lone Gunmen has already been taken. ;)

Golgot

08-19-03, 09:01 PM

The Hutton Inquiry into Dr Kelly's untimely death has shed some great light on the distortions of intelligence perpetuated by the british government (which also reflect strongly on the US case for war)

But here's the quote of the day, week and year...

"We will need to make it clear in launching the document that we do not claim that we have evidence that [Saddam] is an imminent threat"

(Jonathan Powell - Blair's chief of staff, september 17 2002 - disclosed today in the Hutton Inquiry)

He was talking about the controversial September document that convinced parliament we should go to war. It was presented in the following way...

"[Saddam] has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes"

(Tony Blair, launching the document. September 24 2002)

Notice the spin anyone? Anyone?

My god but i hate being decieved like this. (Not that i or most people in britain were - but there you go. Always gotta have proof - except if you're a politician set on going to war)

And any americans thinking this doesn't apply to you should remember the Joint Intelligence Commitee means what we knew, you knew (unless you weren't telling us the real causes for war of course. But why would your leaders do that? It seems ANY reason would have been good enough. They just wanted to go)

SPIDEI2_MAN__

02-28-04, 03:14 AM

LordSlaytan

02-28-04, 03:24 AM

I suppose you want a cookie now. Is that it? ;)

kaisersoze

02-28-04, 04:23 AM

Alright so now the question I have is this:

Knowing now that there are No WMDs, should we let Saddam go?

I think that we should and before I start recieving hate mail and pipebombs under my car I'd like to make my case. Saddam is not a nice political leader to have running a country... YES, I will give you that. Saddam has commited crimes in the past which resulted in the death iraqi people........YES, I will give you that too.

BUT, the whole platform the war was running on was that Saddam had WMDs in his possession which poses a very real threat to America's Safety. Weapons we now know he doesn't have... so dare I ask, what is his crime? and why are we still holding him prisioner?

I'm NOT saying place him back into power of IRAQ and have the bush admistration apologize to him. I just think it would be the LEAST we can do to acknowledge his rights, espically more so, now that there is proof that he is not a dangerous threat we made him out to be. Many years from now, this would be an outrage in the history books how many of us knew we captured a political leader, charged him with crimes he didn't commit, and held him as a prisioner after we all knew he didn't commit them.

For his other crimes, Why can't we release him as a citizen back into Iraq and let the Iraqi people deal with those issues? Because he will die there? <------------ come on thats what you wanted in the first place anyways!!!!

kaisersoze

02-28-04, 04:24 AM

I suppose you want a cookie now. Is that it? ;)

and give the man a glass of milk to go with it

SPIDEI2_MAN__

02-28-04, 07:31 PM

and give the man a glass of milk to go with it

yes plz :yup:

Yoda

03-01-04, 04:55 PM

Its been a year since I posted this thread. I didn't know it would become so big, in fact I think after I posted it, I never remembered to check back for replies. But amongst all the good and bad points you guys made. Many of you stand corrected.

After skimming through the posts, I was called the following things: Ridiculous, idiotic,dumb,anti-american,bush hater, saddam sympathizer, and ignorant to name a few.

However, I stand today knowing I was right 1 year ago.Right about what? You opposed the war, but offered little in the way of objective rationale. I said as much to you in the thread's first reply (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=80008&postcount=2).

If anything, the horrific mass graves uncovered by U.S. soldiers undermine your opposition to the war. Had you had your way, that'd still be going on. You've come back to gloat, but I don't see why. You haven't been proven right. You came here, stated an opinion (in a rather immature fashion, I might add), and now you've returned to pat yourself on the back (again, in a rather immature fashion) for no apparent reason.

Iraq has NO weapons of mass destruction.This appears to be true, but it's not as if you predicted this. In fact, in your first post, you more or less took the opposite stance:

"I mean the U.S says that they are getting rid of Iraq's weapons........of mass destruction. OK. thats fine but what about Israel..they have alot of nuclear bombs."

As you can see, you offered no argument to the United States' claims of WMDs. Instead, you put forth a crude, easily refuted comparison to Israel.

Saddam was NEVER funding terroristsFalse at worst, misleading at best. It's well-known that Saddam offered lump sums of cash to the families of suicide bombers, and we still have evidence that he, while not directly affiliated with Al-Qaeda, certainly had a relationship with them.

Apparently opponents of the war are waiting to find checks with "September 11th" in the "For" field before conceding that Saddam was a friend to terrorist activity.

and bush will get voted out of office.Wanna make a bet? If you're right, I'll give you rep points. If you're wrong, I get to ban you. Deal?

I can't believe I saw this coming a year ago.Saw what coming? You didn't make any predictions.

Yoda

03-01-04, 04:56 PM

Piddzilla

03-01-04, 05:15 PM

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-01-04, 06:19 PM

Right about what?
Everything

Had you had your way, that'd still be going on. You've come back to gloat, but I don't see why. You haven't been proven right.
This appears to be true, but it's not as if you predicted this.
No. You are wrong. I didn't come back to gloat. Your sitting there nit picking wat I said a year ago. You don't see me quoting you saying extremely wrong things that have been proven wrong. You don't see me quoting all the jackass sheep who said Iraq has WMDs...I HAVE been proven right..innocent until proven guilty...PROVE ME WRONG YODA (or anyone for that matter)

As you can see, you offered no argument to the United States' claims of WMDs. Instead, you put forth a crude, easily refuted comparison to Israel.
Israel is America's dog in the middle east. What america wants, Israel does. If you can't see that then lets end this semi-intellegent conversation your trying to have with me. Therefore, America won't tell Israel to back down on anything.

It's well-known that Saddam offered lump sums of cash to the families of suicide bombers, and we still have evidence that he, while not directly affiliated with Al-Qaeda, certainly had a relationship with them.
Show me this well-known evidence of which you speak.

Wanna make a bet? If you're right, I'll give you rep points. If you're wrong, I get to ban you. Deal?
woooo! rep points wow...jesus you would think they are the bling bling in your life...I don't give a **** about rep points..i have like 10..why? because I speak my mind and I venture out of the box unlike you sheep who do and say as your told. Yes I wanna make a bet ur puppet bush won't be our president come january 15th 2005. And you know what if i do win..then you can keep your precious rep points of which you care so much about. You have hated me since i joined this community and i frankly don't want anything from you...If I do lose..ban me all you like until your heart is content.

Saw what coming?
Everything. I thought I made that clear a year ago..reread my post. IT is very obviuos that I never believed any of Bush's lies. And now they are trying to bail out of the lies saying it was the CIA's fault. Well your still sheep if you believe that. lie after lie after lie..Wake up!

Golgot

03-01-04, 06:56 PM

Good post. You lift forward some very valid points...

I think Kaizer's right in that, in the long term, this is going to add to things like Guantanamo which have already reduced the US's ability to criticise regimes which flout international laws (and ducking out of the ICC didn't help either)

This is a journalist's thoughts from Israel, but there's potential for this sort of thing to convert from public opinion to political rhetoric in the future...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3519745.stm

The chapter devoted to Israel [in the State Department human rights report] makes the usual detailed and gloomy reading... A country that is holding 660 Afghan detainees at Guantanamo without trial is in no position to criticise administrative detentions by other countries. A country that is holding members of the Iraqi political leadership in detention without trial is in no position to complain about the conditions of detention in the prisons of other countries. And a country that is maintaining a tough military occupation regime in Iraq doesn't have the right to fulminate against a different occupation regime in the Palestinian territories... The US bears direct responsibility for the violations of human rights in this country.

Commentary by Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz - Israel

---

I can understand why the admin wants to question Saddam for as long as possible.

But I can also understand why they don't want him standing trial. Coz he could say a lot of embarrasing things about past US-Iraq relationships which would seriously undermine the moral argument the bush-crew have been trying to push.

Golgot

03-01-04, 07:00 PM

Everything

Oh good. One Django leaves, another arrives. It's the cycle of life at work. :rolleyes:

Piddzilla

03-01-04, 07:11 PM

I think Kaizer's right in that, in the long term, this is going to add to things like Guantanamo which have already reduced the US's ability to criticise regimes which flout international laws (and ducking out of the ICC didn't help either)

True. There is actually a swedish citizen being held in Guantanamo since two years back and without any charges being raised against him. The swedish government or his lawyer have not been allowed to have a look at the allegations against him. Basically, the swedes have been told that he is being held primarily because he refuses to cooperate. At the same time, a danish citizen was released last week. The americans stated that the reasons were that Denmark was a long time loyal friend of USA. I don't remember exactly but I think it was the danish Minister of Foreign Affairs who made a comment saying that Denmark had played their cards way smarter than the swedes during the war, and that's why USA released then Dane but not the Swede. In other words, this obviously has nothing to do with dangerous terrorists or potential terrorists but about human beings functioning as hostages held by USA so that other nations will "behave". Trading and dealing with human beings... Sick...

LordSlaytan

03-01-04, 07:20 PM

...because I speak my mind and I venture out of the box unlike you sheep who do and say as your told...

Please don't start up with this kind of ****. Really, please don't.

Yoda

03-01-04, 07:20 PM

EverythingShow me one thing you stated or predicted which has since been shown to be verifiable fact. This is at least the second time I've asked you to do so.

No. You are wrong. I didn't come back to gloat. Your sitting there nit picking wat I said a year ago.It's not nitpicking to demonstrate that you, too, seemed to believe that Iraq had WMDs. At the very least, you don't seem to have said they didn't, and therefore you've got no place to brag now that everyone knows.

You don't see me quoting you saying extremely wrong things that have been proven wrong.Go ahead and try.

You don't see me quoting all the jackass sheep who said Iraq has WMDs...I HAVE been proven right..innocent until proven guilty...PROVE ME WRONG YODA (or anyone for that matter)What the hell are you talking about? I already did prove you wrong: I showed you a quote from your first post that contained implicit agreement with the claim that Iraq had WMDs. I also noted that you never questioned the existence of WMDs in Iraq.

As for not quoting "all the jackass sheep who said Iraq has WMDs," that's probably because it appears you were one of them.

Israel is America's dog in the middle east. What america wants, Israel does. If you can't see that then lets end this semi-intellegent conversation your trying to have with me. Therefore, America won't tell Israel to back down on anything.Untrue, and irrelevant. Many countries possess WMDs, and Israel is one of them. What set Iraq apart was their demonstrable reckless and intent to harm. As it turns out, they didn't have the ability, but certainly the will. Think of a gun: just because you don't want a maniac to have one, it doesn't mean a cop can't. WHO has the gun makes all the difference as to whether or not it should be taken from them.

Oh, and if you're going to patronize someone else's level of intelligence, it'd be better if you didn't misspell two words in the same sentence while doing so.

Show me this well-known evidence of which you speak.It's been documented that an upper Al-Qaeda official was in Iraq a month before the invasion, if memory serves. I can go dig up links if you're really so keen on the information (though if you were, you'd have looked it up yourself). I'd rather you actually substantiate your repetitive claim that you've been "proven right" first, however.

woooo! rep points wow...jesus you would think they are the bling bling in your life...I don't give a **** about rep points..i have like 10..why? because I speak my mind and I venture out of the box unlike you sheep who do and say as your told. Yes I wanna make a bet ur puppet bush won't be our president come january 15th 2005. And you know what if i do win..then you can keep your precious rep points of which you care so much about. You have hated me since i joined this community and i frankly don't want anything from you...If I do lose..ban me all you like until your heart is content.You're making an ass of yourself. The offer of rep points was supposed to be sarcastic; I'm under no delusion as to their practical value.

And for the record, the real reason you have 10 of them is because you don't make arguments...you just go on angry rants. The fact that lots of anti-war posters here have high reputation levels proves this. I'm sure it's mentally pleasing to pretend that you lack rep points because you're some sort of champion of independent thought, but ultimately it's just a self-satisfying rationalization.

As for hating you...I have little to no idea who you are, and have, to my memory, barely even interacted with you. I don't care about you enough to hate you. Try putting together an argument, instead of another kneejerk, defensive diatribe.

Everything. I thought I made that clear a year ago..reread my post. IT is very obviuos that I never believed any of Bush's lies. And now they are trying to bail out of the lies saying it was the CIA's fault. Well your still sheep if you believe that. lie after lie after lie..Wake up!I already have reread your post. And it was obvious that you opposed the war. But you did not state that Iraq did not have WMDs, and you failed to offer any sort of coherent argument against the war. All you did was throw around insults and conjecture.

You say you've been proven right. Once again, I'm asking you to back that up. If you can't, then you're the sheep, blindly reinforcing your own conclusions and patting yourself on the back.

Yoda

03-01-04, 07:23 PM

Oh good. One Django leaves, another arrives. It's the cycle of life at work. :rolleyes:The anti-war cause you espouse, Gol (even though I believe it to be wrong) would be pretty damn politically potent if not for the fact that so many on its side think like Django and his apparently less-articulate sequel.

In other words, liberals may have righteous anger, but conservatives have clarity of thought. ;)

Golgot

03-01-04, 07:40 PM

Think of a gun: just because you don't want a maniac to have one, it doesn't mean a cop can't. WHO has the gun makes all the difference as to whether or not it should be taken from them.

Erm, i'd be careful with this "cop" image. A cop that doesn't respect the law might be a better analogy. Remember that the Bush admin has undermined various international frameworks for sustaining world peace. Aside from guantanamo-effect mentioned just now, there's also the flouting of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.

It's also pretty easy to argue that the way the Iraq invasion was handled has most likely increased the chances of Islamic-fundamentalism vs. "the West/rest" terrorism. So we could say incompetant vigilante cop maybe? ;) :p

(we'll see how the Libya/N-korea knock-on-effect pans out. But still, i don't see "the-US-as-the-police-boss" path as viable the way Bush is pursuing it -i.e.- alienating the majority of international assistance his proposed aims would profit from along the way. And possibly getting the US bogged down in too many engagements to be effective as a result.)

It's been documented that an upper Al-Qaeda official was in Iraq a month before the invasion, if memory serves.

I would really like to see this. And he better have met with Baath-party high-ups for it to mean anything at all. :)

Golgot

03-01-04, 07:50 PM

The anti-war cause you espouse, Gol (even though I believe it to be wrong) would be pretty damn politically potent if not for the fact that so many on its side think like Django and his apparently less-articulate sequel.

In other words, liberals may have righteous anger, but conservatives have clarity of thought. ;)

Ahh, i believe both sides can be clouded by righteousness ;).

But, although i agree there are many anti-this-war people who are far too....instinctive shall we say, it doesn't make some of the underlying currents go away. But at the end of the day (dammit, i can't stop ;)), i think the pretty-much 50-50 split in the US (and the UK [dogdammit, i really can't stop!]) on this issue shows neither side has been swayed to a massive degree by the arguements they see.

And you and me will probably never know the real causes/processes even when this war run is "done", and therefore most likely won't be able to agree.

C'est la vie ;)

LordSlaytan

03-01-04, 07:53 PM

Sometimes while I'm reading your rambling posts, my eyes bleed. :laugh:

Golgot

03-01-04, 08:05 PM

Sometimes while I'm reading your rambling posts, my eyes bleed. :laugh:

I think i typed my way off the edge of the keyboard on that one ;) (and possibly carried on with my elbows - hammering on the brackets keys :))

LordSlaytan

03-01-04, 08:09 PM

hehe...I was talking about your inner inner brain always interrupting. Like: I was thinking (and I don't mean about sex [though sex would be good right now {not that it's been awhile or anything} as well as any other time, come to think of it] exclusively) that sex is good.

No offense, you know I think you're brilliant...and sexy! :laugh:

Oh, and Spiderman...I think it's funny that you insult everyone with blanket assumtions even though you never dared responding in this thread until everybody else stopped.

Golgot

03-01-04, 08:17 PM

No offense, you know I think you're brilliant...and sexy! :laugh:

Ahh, my little weasel ;) :rolleyes: :runs-away-before-incurring-damage-for-backhanded-attempt-at-thanks:

Cheers your lordship. Although stop encouraging that spider. We'll have a whole menagerie in here soon, what with all the sheep and all. ;)

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-01-04, 08:31 PM

Oh, and Spiderman...I think it's funny that you insult everyone with blanket assumtions even though you never dared responding in this thread until everybody else stopped.

I didn't even know this thread took off..It had nothing to do with being "dared" i don't care what you think. this is a forum and i can say what i want when i want...and i didn't respond to this a year later because i didn't know anyone posted any replies and i dont get on the comp much so i didn't check in a WHILE..and eventually forgot about the whole damn thing..

As for being articulate...yoda.....i can be articulate if i want to but
1.) I don't have the time
2.) When I do have the time you will usually find my posts quite articulate..but either way that doesnt make my posts any less important than yours.
3.)lordslaytan..u remind me of a little kid who just wants to get as many posts as possible....just shutup please..

Also, who the hell is django..im not a big enuff geek to know who everyone is..but apparantly no one likes him..but its sad im being compared to him..im a really nice guy and ive never insulted anyone on any forum before..but after being bugged by alot of you with sending me messages about how anti american i am..well guess what im more american than you (you=whoever sent me that peice of **** hate mail)
dont send send crap like that to good citizens like myself
Another thing is..u caught me on a bad issue..my stands on iraq have always been regarded as "dumb" by even my close friends..and arguments like this do happen to me in real life..and people do get angry at me..however they always forget about it 2 seconds later because its politics and you can never please everyone...so if i seem agressive..well im not like that..and im sorry everyone has this "django" impression of me whoever he is..but pretty much my reputation has been set for me here....
Also I didn't expect any of my posts to be called garbage or **** or whatever it is..

Yoda, I would continue my discussion with you on iraq, however, you are unwilling to present me with factual evidence rather than the typical "he said that she said that he said she said that she said that he says that there are weapons of mass destruction"
Also, the reason why i don't have to prove my case to you..is that i am defending iraq of the claim that it had WMD's..and in american law you are "innocent until proven guilty" so its YOUR job to show me that Iraq had WMDs..
If you can't prove that..then by your own words you are saying the war is unjustified..because the sole purpose was to "remove this harmful dictor who posses weapons of mass destruction and is a threat to surrounding nations"...
prove me wrong yoda..and ill go away...
id like for you to answer everything i asked...i know it seems like a lot but i hate it when you pick and chose which of my questions you want to answer....

LordSlaytan

03-01-04, 08:35 PM

Well, SPIDI2 MAN raised my hackles with this statement originally, “After skimming through the posts, I was called the following things: Ridiculous, idiotic,dumb,anti-american,bush hater, saddam sympathizer, and ignorant to name a few.” I just finished reading every post in this thread, and didn’t find a single case where somebody called him anything. Yoda’s initial response had this in it, “I'd say most of what you're saying is ridiculous.” But that isn’t calling him a name, or is it? Why SPIDI2 MAN would lie like this is beyond me, and brought back some unpleasant memories. I don’t like it when people try to stir up **** with half truths and outright lies. Truth is, after Yoda’s and Toose’s original posts, SPIDI2 MAN, or his original post, is never mentioned again.

The next thing that irritated the hell out of me was, “But amongst all the good and bad points you guys made. Many of you stand corrected.” Pretending to be intelligent without showing any evidence to the fact is rather cowardly.

Claiming he was right on facts that he never originally posted was already shot down by Yoda, yet he does a Django by trying to divert attention by being antagonistic and rude. My respect for him has completely evaporated.

And then he has to finish with, “I don't give a **** about rep points..i have like 10..why? because I speak my mind and I venture out of the box unlike you sheep who do and say as your told.” That’s a very effective way to prove intelligence and maturity.
Jesus, talk about delusions of grandeur. :rolleyes:

lordslaytan..u remind me of a little kid who just wants to get as many posts as possible....just shutup please..
And little man...you have no clue about who I am or what I've done. I didn't have a clue until now that you're just a little punk.

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-01-04, 08:42 PM

Well, SPIDI2 MAN raised my hackles with this statement originally, “After skimming through the posts, I was called the following things: Ridiculous, idiotic,dumb,anti-american,bush hater, saddam sympathizer, and ignorant to name a few.” I just finished reading every post in this thread, and didn’t find a single case where somebody called him anything. Yoda’s initial response had this in it, “I'd say most of what you're saying is ridiculous.” But that isn’t calling him a name, or is it? Why SPIDI2 MAN would lie like this is beyond me, and brought back some unpleasant memories. I don’t like it when people try to stir up **** with half truths and outright lies. Truth is, after Yoda’s and Toose’s original posts, SPIDI2 MAN, or his original post, is never mentioned again.

The next thing that irritated the hell out of me was, “But amongst all the good and bad points you guys made. Many of you stand corrected.” Pretending to be intelligent without showing any evidence to the fact is rather cowardly.

Claiming he was right on facts that he never originally posted was already shot down by Yoda, yet he does a Django by trying to divert attention by being antagonistic and rude. My respect for him has completely evaporated.

And then he has to finish with, “I don't give a **** about rep points..i have like 10..why? because I speak my mind and I venture out of the box unlike you sheep who do and say as your told.” That’s a very effective way to prove intelligence and maturity.
Jesus, talk about delusions of grandeur. :rolleyes:

And little man...you have no clue about who I am or what I've done. I didn't have a clue until now that you're just a little punk.
My respect for you has been dwindling down for a while now, every since you criticised me for defending myself.

Dont ever call me a liar again. You want my god damn account? I'll give it to you so you can see how much **** i got in there. I was called every name i said i was called. So don't ever call me a liar again. Ok kiddie?

Yoda

03-01-04, 08:50 PM

this is a forum and i can say what i want when i want...Wrong. This is a privately owned forum, and the owner has the right to impose any rules they wish. If any of the participants do not like it, they are free to spend their time elsewhere.

People here will always be treated fairly, as well as with respect, provided they show others the same courtesy. But this forum is not a public park...unless you own it, you cannot say whatever you want whenever you want.

Yoda, I would continue my discussion with you on iraq, however, you are unwilling to present me with factual evidence rather than the typical "he said that she said that he said she said that she said that he says that there are weapons of mass destruction"
Also, I the reason is why i don't have to prove my case to you..is that i am defending iraq of the claim that it had WMD's..and in american law you are "innocent until proven guilty" so its YOUR job to show me that Iraq had WMDs..
If you can't prove that..then by your own words you are saying the war is unjustified..because the sole purpose was to "remove this harmful dictor who posses weapons of mass destruction and is a threat to surrounding nations"...
prove me wrong yoda..and ill go away...
id like for you to answer everything i asked...i know it seems like a lot but i hate it when you pick and chose which my questions you want to answer....You're making two mistakes here. The first is assuming this is a debate about whether or not Iraq had WMDs. It isn't. This is a debate about whether you have been "proven right." After reading your original post, I don't see how you have. You never made the claim that Iraq did not have WMDs...to the contrary, you seemed to believe that they did. So how, then, have you been "proven right" about anything?

Your second mistake is assuming that WMDs are the only potential justification for war. They're most assuredly not. We now know that it is unlikely Iraq had WMDs. But we also know that the old regime was every bit as brutal and tyrannical as we had made them out to be, if not moreso. If hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are not reason enough to intervene, what is?

I don't support the war because of Iraq's suspected stock of weapons, I support it because Saddam Hussein was a brutal despot, and the world is better with him out of power. I also support it because Hussein was actively working to acquire said weapons, and had he obtained them, we'd be forced to rely exclusively on diplomatic avenues with a man who has shown himself to be both unreasonable and reckless.

LordSlaytan

03-01-04, 08:50 PM

You said this:
Its been a year since I posted this thread. I didn't know it would become so big, in fact I think after I posted it, I never remembered to check back for replies. But amongst all the good and bad points you guys made. Many of you stand corrected.

After skimming through the posts, I was called the following things: Ridiculous, idiotic,dumb,anti-american,bush hater, saddam sympathizer, and ignorant to name a few.

However, I stand today knowing I was right 1 year ago.

Iraq has NO weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was NEVER funding terrorists, and bush will get voted out of office. I can't believe I saw this coming a year ago.

I said this:
I suppose you want a cookie now. Is that it? ;)I was being friendly.

Then You said this:
...because I speak my mind and I venture out of the box unlike you sheep who do and say as your told...

To which I replied:
Please don't start up with this kind of ****. Really, please don't.Because you were using a blanket accusation against all of us.

So, now you say this:
My respect for you has been dwindling down for a while now, every since you criticised me for defending myself.

Dont ever call me a liar again. You want my god damn account? I'll give it to you so you can see how much **** i got in there. I was called every name i said i was called. So don't ever call me a liar again. Ok kiddie?

My reply:
I never criticized you because you defended yourself. Your saying that is another lie. Just like all the lies of people calling you all those names in this thread, which in fact, nobody did. I call you a liar.

As far as your account, what has that got to do with anything? Make a post where all the name calling is there in black print, then I’ll stop calling you a liar. What are you going to do about it anyway tough guy?

Oh yeah, I've been on my own more years than you've been alive, so you can quit with the "kiddie" ****.

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-01-04, 08:55 PM

You said this:

I said this:
I was being friendly.

Then You said this:

To which I replied:
Because you were using a blanket accusation against all of us.

So, now you say this:

My reply:
I never criticized you because you defended yourself. Your saying that is another lie. Just like all the lies of people calling you all those names in this thread, which in fact, nobody did. I call you a liar.

As far as your account, what has that got to do with anything? Make a post where all the name calling is there in black print, then I’ll stop calling you a liar. What are you going to do about it anyway tough guy?

Oh yeah, I've been on my own more years than you've been alive, so you can quit with the "kiddie" ****.
1.) you rigged the conversation like no other..after u said "want a cookie" i play fully said "yes plz"
2.)Dont ****ing call me a liar. The point of having my account is to see all the god damn messages of people calling me the stuff I said they did..It was private messages..i figured u were smart enuff to figure that out...hot shot...

Yoda you answered like 2 of my bajillion questions..
and if u were good enuff to listen to me you would see that we share alot of the same views..but ur a cocky conservative and you think YOUR right and no1 else is...I have seriously just about had it with this forum...

LordSlaytan

03-01-04, 08:58 PM

1.) you rigged the conversation like no other..after u said "want a cookie" i play fully said "yes plz"
2.)Dont ****ing call me a liar. The point of having my account is to see all the god damn messages of people calling me the stuff I said they did..It was private messages..i figured u were smart enuff to figure that out...hot shot...

Yoda you answered like 2 of my bajillion questions..
and if u were good enuff to listen to me you would see that we share alot of the same views..but ur a cocky conservative and you think YOUR right and no1 else is...I have seriously just about had it with this forum...

You said yes please to a glass of milk.

I don't care about your account. Provide the evidence yourself.

Good, then leave.

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-01-04, 09:01 PM

You said yes please to a glass of milk.

I don't care about your account. Provide the evidence yourself.

Good, then leave.

By not even replying to ur post about wanting a cookie which was rude to begin with..i pretty much just ignored you..how nice of me..
Don't want my account which shows the evidence of all the private messaages of hate mail?? Then don't call me a liar.

If this keeps up..then i don't want to be known as a "Django" (who no one has told me about yet) and i will leave

LordSlaytan

03-01-04, 09:05 PM

By not even replying to ur post about wanting a cookie which was rude to begin with..i pretty much just ignored you..how nice of me..
Don't want my account which shows the evidence of all the private messaages of hate mail?? Then don't call me a liar.

If this keeps up..then i don't want to be known as a "Django" (who no one has told me about yet) and i will leave

Dude, just chill. Nobody has had a problem with you before. I never sent you hate mail, I've always been cool to you. I didn't think you were being rude to me, because there was no anomosity between us yet. If you want me to see your account, then by all means, I'll look at your account. But you said in your post that people in this thread said those things, I didn't know at that point that you got hate mail for opposing the war (which 80% of this forum also does).

blibblobblib

03-01-04, 09:10 PM

1.) you rigged the conversation like no other..after u said "want a cookie" i play fully said "yes plz"

He does have a point here Slay. i just stumbled into this thread from what SPIDE12 said in his Signature thread and i must say you need to lay off him a bit. he only responded directly to you when you provoked him (a little) by writing -
Oh, and Spiderman...I think it's funny that you insult everyone with blanket assumtions even though you never dared responding in this thread until everybody else stopped.

And SPIDE12, i think youve made some good points but i dont think youve quite grasped Golgot's and Yoda's way of debating. the bet that yoda offered you was just a joke, they get a little steamed sometime and argue but never get personal, you did. you just gotta learn to have these arguments with a bit of salt and not get so offebnded then put yourself up on a pedastal with all this "im a nice guy, why hate me" stuff.

Sorry for buttin in guys, I'll p!ss off in a min, this while politics governemnt thing isnt my bag baby, but i quite like SPIDE12 posts and i think both you and Slay would get along ok, becuase Slay is a cool dude and if you hadn't had started off on such a bad foot when Hondo called SPIDE12 some unnescessary (sp????) words i think none of this would be happening.

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-01-04, 09:13 PM

He does have a point here Slay. i just stumbled into this thread from what SPIDE12 said in his Signature thread and i must say you need to lay off him a bit. he only responded directly to you when you provoked him (a little) by writing -

And SPIDE12, i think youve made some good points but i dont think youve quite grasped Golgot's and Yoda's way of debating. the bet that yoda offered you was just a joke, they get a little steamed sometime and argue but never get personal, you did. you just gotta learn to have these arguments with a bit of salt and not get so offebnded then put yourself up on a pedastal with all this "im a nice guy, why hate me" stuff.

Sorry for buttin in guys, I'll p!ss off in a min, this while politics governemnt thing isnt my bag baby, but i quite like SPIDE12 posts and i think both you and Slay would get along ok, becuase Slay is a cool dude and if you hadn't had started off on such a bad foot when Hondo called SPIDE12 some unnescessary (sp????) words i think none of this would be happening.
This is true. Thank you. And ill cool down. Sorry if i offended anyone.
And blibliblboo, i love you. I reeeeeaaaaaaaally love you. :D

LordSlaytan

03-01-04, 09:16 PM

He does have a point here Slay. i just stumbled into this thread from what SPIDE12 said in his Signature thread and i must say you need to lay off him a bit. he only responded directly to you when you provoked him (a little) by writing -

But he did make blanket assumptions, Blib. et tu Blibly? et tu? :bawling:

Oh well, we all can fly off the handle at times, myself included. Hell, I've ripped on Yoda and Silver more than a couple of times. Let's move on into a field of ripe cucumbers where Britney Spears is awaiting us all.

blibblobblib

03-01-04, 09:18 PM

This is true. Thank you. And ill cool down. Sorry if i offended anyone.
And blibliblboo, i love you. I reeeeeaaaaaaaally love you. :D

Your welcome. And its nice that your still paying atention to the signatures ;)

Now let us all hold hands and sing " La la la" whilst debating the ever joyous debiliating effects of the war in iraq :)

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-01-04, 09:18 PM

Let's move on into a field of ripe cucumbers where Britney Spears is awaiting us all.

I dunno about you..but i have been there before...

I was the guy she was married to for a night..

Spidey suddenly wakes up from Dream

blibblobblib

03-01-04, 09:20 PM

But he did make blanket assumptions, Blib. et tu Blibly? et tu? :bawling:

I am unsure of et tu...but do not cry...France is a pretty place even though the residents may smell of garlic.

Oh well, we all can fly off the handle at times, myself included. Hell, I've ripped on Yoda and Silver more than a couple of times. Let's move on into a field of ripe cucumbers where Britney Spears is awaiting us all.

That sounds much better than singing "la la la" :yup:

Yoda

03-01-04, 10:11 PM

Yoda you answered like 2 of my bajillion questions..Really? Because I'm looking through your posts, and I don't see many questions at all. Regardless, I don't think you've answered any of mine.

and if u were good enuff to listen to me you would see that we share alot of the same views..but ur a cocky conservative and you think YOUR right and no1 else is...I have seriously just about had it with this forum...I've read every post you've addressed to me, and some that were not. I've listened to you plenty, and despite all that listening, I still haven't heard any answer to my question: how have you been "proved right"?

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-01-04, 10:22 PM

Ok, first off calm down. Your talking to the real Spidey now. The one who doesn't want to slaughter you anymore.

There seems to be some misunderstanding. It may not have come across in my original post, however, I was staunchly against the war. The main reason for this circumstance was because of the alleged weapons of mass destruction, which never existed. I have always said that I do not believe in the words of Mr. Bush. I never will. Therefore if you assume that I believed that Saddam did not in fact have WMDs, then you will see than I was right from the beggining. Maybe I should change that "year later" post to something more along the lines of me saying I guessed more accurately the situation than others did.
Is that a valid arguement Yoda, my friend?

Sir Toose

03-02-04, 08:34 AM

The main reason for this circumstance was because of the alleged weapons of mass destruction, which never existed. I have always said that I do not believe in the words of Mr. Bush. I never will. Therefore if you assume that I believed that Saddam did not in fact have WMDs, then you will see than I was right from the beggining. Maybe I should change that "year later" post to something more along the lines of me saying I guessed more accurately the situation than others did.
Is that a valid arguement Yoda, my friend?

No, not really. There WERE WMD's in the past. Saddam used them (chemical) on Iran (and Golgot, no, I don't want to discuss the origin of those). Saddam was unable to account for the remainder of those weapons and he was not being truthful about his development of a nuclear program.

Saddam signed a cease fire in 1992-1993 with the US. The US did not declare an end to war with Iraq. The US agreed to stop firing on Baghdad IF Saddam agreed and complied to a laundry list of 43 items. Clearly, he did not honor his committment to the US (and the world), thereby ending the cease fire himself. There was no new state of war declared on Iraq... there was an end to the cease fire in the war that was already in place. It's an important distinction.

When that cease fire was signed, France, Germany, Liberal democrats et. al. Britain ( :D ) thought it was a great idea. For some reason now, several have backed off of their original intent. Why? Some had lucrative contracts with Iraq, some are clueless, and some are self righteous.

Let's say that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons for the sake of argument. He DID buy the canisters from the Soviets. He also tried to buy depleted uranium to supply his nuclear research team the raw materials that they needed to go forward. All of what I just wrote is uncontested. All of that leads to intent to build a nuclear weapon and all of that is very much against the cease fire agreement that Saddam signed. Imagine he had actually built one... who do you think he would try to use it on? What would people say then? Bush should have seen it coming? Bush was damned either way.

Whether or not any actual weapons are found is irrelevant. The fact is that Iraq was in violation of the cease fire for even thinking of building WMD's, much less building a warehouse and filling it with the necessary parts.

Hondo333

03-02-04, 09:11 AM

It's well-known that Saddam offered lump sums of cash to the families of suicide bombers, and we still have evidence that he, while not directly affiliated with Al-Qaeda, certainly had a relationship with them.

And its well know that the USA gave/give weapons and money to Israel as they slaughter Palestinians, and gave weapons to the Indonesians (Specifically) to attempt genocide in East Timor, and also gave money to General Pinochet to set up government, and gave weapons, training and money to the Taliban and are giving weapons and money to the "Northern Alliance" (Who are in actual fact just as bad as the Taliban).

So it’s not ok for Saddam to give money to one side but ok for the US to give money to the other???

im not a big enuff geek to know who everyone is

Do you want to insult us some more???

ive never insulted anyone on any forum before
Except me on several occassions.

blibblobblib

03-02-04, 10:20 AM

Do you want to insult us some more???

Give it a rest Hondo, let it go. he's said his apologies.

Yoda

03-02-04, 10:41 AM

And its well know that the USA gave/give weapons and money to Israel as they slaughter Palestinians, and gave weapons to the Indonesians (Specifically) to attempt genocide in East Timor, and also gave money to General Pinochet to set up government, and gave weapons, training and money to the Taliban and are giving weapons and money to the "Northern Alliance" (Who are in actual fact just as bad as the Taliban).

So it’s not ok for Saddam to give money to one side but ok for the US to give money to the other???Israel's "slaughter" of Palestinians is largely defensive. The Israelis want the same thing they've wanted for a long, long time now: to be left alone on a piece of land legally granted to them by the British government after WWII. That didn't happen...they were repeatedly attacked, were repeatedly victorious (often in definitive fashion), and eventually decided that they'd had enough, finally counter-attacking to the point at which they captured some of the land around them.

Israel has, from the very beginning, been reacting to the hatred around it. It has not set out to conquer and dominate...only to neutralize the hostility it was met with upon first settling. Looked at in that light, their situation is far more excusable. I will grant you that their methods are too cavalier for my taste, and that a greater regard for precision would be ideal, but given their history and circumstances, I find that while it's not justified, it is somewhat understandable.

As for "giving money to the Taliban" -- at the time we were fighting the spread of cocaine in the area, and had little idea that the Taliban meant to do us in. I'd wager that every country has made the mistake of supporting someone or something which turned on them down the line. It makes the US fallible; not hypocritical.

You'll notice we generally give money and aid to those fighting for democracy, or else fighting for the lesser of two evils. That's a noteworthy fact that many overlook when we support someone with extreme methods.

Piddzilla

03-02-04, 11:35 AM

Israel's "slaughter" of Palestinians is largely defensive. The Israelis want the same thing they've wanted for a long, long time now: to be left alone on a piece of land legally granted to them by the British government after WWII. That didn't happen...they were repeatedly attacked, were repeatedly victorious (often in definitive fashion), and eventually decided that they'd had enough, finally counter-attacking to the point at which they captured some of the land around them.

I don't want to get in the middle of Hondo's and your discussion here, especially since my sympathy for Sharon's regime and for palestinian suicide bombers are equally non existent.

But...

You say that the land was legally granted to them by the British government. But was it granted to them by the palestinians living there? Who asked them? And you don't find it provocing to force palestinians away form their homes on by Israel occupied land just to make room for israeli settlers? Calling it offensive is an understatement.

If you think that Israel's behaviour is understandable then you must think the same thing about the Intifada. I think an uprising is both understandable and often defendable as well. Attacks targeted against civilians is however disgusting.

kaisersoze

03-02-04, 04:15 PM

We are not holding him prisoner for his alleged posession of WMDs. We're holding him prisoner because he's raped, tortured and murdered his own people, and has flaunted UN regulations.

Therefore, he should be held captive regardless of whether or not any ultimately surface.

Yes, those are very good points, however I have trouble buying it at face value. I feel the Adminstration is extremely embrassed that they botched the intel and now they are not MAN enough to take responsibility. My analogy of whats going on can be like that of a courtroom proceeding of a prominent drug lord on trial for tax evasion.

I'm sure there are many holes in my arguement above if we all are going into technicals. But the bottom line is this:
on a history test in the year 2030 to the question
why did the US invade IRAQ in the year 2003?
I'm willing to bet any money that the answer on a 12-15 yr olds test would more likely be "WMD" than "SADDAM RAPPED,TORTURED, and MURDERED his own people and flaunted UN regulations". These "MISDEMEANOR" charages works on paper but let us not lose sight of what this really is about; The WMD that never existed.

And for his other crimes of murder, rape and torture of iraqi - shouldn't the IRAQ CRIMINAL COURTS handle them? correct me if I'm wrong but I believe SADDAM to be a IRAQI citizen. Therefore those courts should handle his crimes towards the wrongs he done to the people in iraq

(sorry if I stepped on any toes, but such things happen when one takes a radical approach)

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-02-04, 06:47 PM

No, not really. There WERE WMD's in the past. Saddam used them (chemical) on Iran (and Golgot, no, I don't want to discuss the origin of those). Saddam was unable to account for the remainder of those weapons and he was not being truthful about his development of a nuclear program.
There were WMDs in the past but that was at the time of Iran. And the U.S. gave those weapons to saddam. After the Gulf war..the remainder of those WMDs were destroyed. The U.N. even stated that...Hans Blitz said stop sedning me to Iraq there is nothing left. it really did go Poof Gone..
They don't exist..

Whether or not any actual weapons are found is irrelevant. The fact is that Iraq was in violation of the cease fire for even thinking of building WMD's, much less building a warehouse and filling it with the necessary parts.

Well you contradicted yourself here. Look at the first quote. Now the second.And the fact of the matter is thast WMDs do matter because they were used as a cataylst to get the public opinion in favor of the war. And it worked....now where are the weapons..
You can't just say "oh well even though we can't prove our main reason for going to war..so here are a few other minor reasons that we came up with AFTER the war was already over"..it doesn't work that way..I want my WMDs that I was promised...

Golgot

03-02-04, 07:30 PM

And SPIDE12, i think youve made some good points but i dont think youve quite grasped Golgot's and Yoda's way of debating.....they get a little steamed sometime and argue but never get personal, you did.

Well, most of the time :rolleyes: ;). Yeah we play nice these days. And get some where (when the threads don't explode into recriminations and un-backed-up back-biting that is ;). Can't think of a discussion we've taken to any sort of conclusion in recent months)

There WERE WMD's in the past. Saddam used them (chemical) on Iran (and Golgot, no, I don't want to discuss the origin of those).

Ahhh, boo hiss ;)

Let's say that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons for the sake of argument. He DID buy the canisters from the Soviets. He also tried to buy depleted uranium to supply his nuclear research team the raw materials that they needed to go forward. All of what I just wrote is uncontested.

I wish to contest! (well, question one bit actually ;)).

I think everyone can/should agree that Saddam wanted biochemical/nuclear capabilities, and was trying to obtain them. (although we should also agree that the UN inspections etc were making that task very difficult)

What i want to question is:
-for the "canisters", are you talking about the alledged "centrifuge" devices that have been categorically declared totally unsuitable for centrifuge/nuclear uses by experts and even members of the Pentagon?

Generally tho, i think this is just all stirring a pot that is best left to cool.

You're just encouraging Spidey to repeat his assertion that he shouted from the rooftops that there would be no WMDS (even if he doesn't seem to have shouted it here).

It may not have come across in my original post, however, I was staunchly against the war. The main reason for this circumstance was because of the alleged weapons of mass destruction, which never existed.

It did.

I was also suspicious of the predominant claims for war, including the WMD assertions, but let's get on with some useful debate rather than "naa-naa-na-naa-ing". Besides, the preventing-Saddam-from-getting-WMD-outcome is pretty valid (so long as the war to achieve it doesn't achieve over-shadowingly worse outcomes - which i think it could, due to the manner of its enactment).

There were multiple reasons why we went to war, and whether those aims have been achieved, or are likely to be, is worth discussing (and indeed, whether some of them were valid aims at all :)).

-------------------------------now to get tangental-------------------------------

Israel's "slaughter" of Palestinians is largely defensive. The Israelis want the same thing they've wanted for a long, long time now: to be left alone on a piece of land legally granted to them by the British government after WWII.

I want to echo some of Pidz's comments here.

The Brit government may have granted them the land, but were they right to do so? After all, we didn't do that good a job with setting up Iraq ;). There were genuine local inhabitants as i understand it. It's unsurprising that they reacted with aggression. (incidently, i seem to recall that the Israeli's used suicide-bombing to gain full authority over Israel - so i guess they weren't that happy either ;)).

Beyond that we get into religion-schisms, and that sort of thing never seems to work the kinks out of its system. We can only hope both sides get tired of the regionalised killing.

Modern day Palestinians also act largely in self-defence i feel, but as Pidz says, neither side is worthy of respect for how they go about things.

As for "giving money to the Taliban" -- at the time we were fighting the spread of cocaine in the area, and had little idea that the Taliban meant to do us in.

Nit-picky-point: you mean heroin don't you? And i don't think the Taliban did turn on you, although apparently you knew at the time they had contacts with al Qaeda, who had a clear anti-US agenda.

I'd wager that every country has made the mistake of supporting someone or something which turned on them down the line. It makes the US fallible; not hypocritical.

Sure. But...

You'll notice we generally give money and aid to those fighting for democracy, or else fighting for the lesser of two evils. That's a noteworthy fact that many overlook when we support someone with extreme methods.

...the decision making doesn't seem to be improving with age. Giving Uzbekistan's torture-using/muslim-persecuting state police "structures" up to 80 million dollars a year since 9/11 for example. It's getting stopped now, but was that really justifiable? Not exactly the "lesser of two evils". More, a big fat "evil" with some Caspian oil behind it methinks ;).

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-02-04, 08:54 PM

It did.

I was also suspicious of the predominant claims for war, including the WMD assertions, but let's get on with some useful debate rather than "naa-naa-na-naa-ing". Besides, the preventing-Saddam-from-getting-WMD-outcome is pretty valid (so long as the war to achieve it doesn't achieve over-shadowingly worse outcomes - which i think it could, due to the manner of its enactment).

It didn't. I am abosulutely sure all of the WMDs were destroyed b4 the U.S even set foot in Iraq.

Also about Israel. Its the real terrorist in everything thats going on. A big strong nation backed by the U.S. and given weapons to shoot at the people with the rocks..yeah thats fair. Then you call a palestinian who gets backed into a corner a terrorist...for..?? defending his family?? his property??
Listen anything that a palestinian does..with the exception of killing innocent civilians..is ok by me..
The british literally knocked on the plaestinians homes and said "you need to leave because this home is now the property of so and so family" Thats bs i think. Thats their home their land. and id do anything to fight for my country as well. Death to Israel!

Hondo333

03-03-04, 02:13 AM

You'll notice we generally give money and aid to those fighting for democracy, or else fighting for the lesser of two evils. .

Indonesia- One of the largest armies in the world, Led by Dictator General Suharto, Intent on invading East Timor (Breaking the same UN regulation as Iraq broke in the early 90s) and committing Genocide on its people.

East Timor- Small island nation holding its first Democratic election, Likely hood is that a Socialist Democratic party will win the election.

The US and UK supplied weapons and money to the Suharto regime, they blocked UN attempts to help the people of East Timor, and completely supported Indonesia’s invasion.

When after huge pressure from the public (and the likely hood of cheap oil) Australia went in to help the East Timorese people, The USA wanted no part in it and gave the UN coalition nothing.

.......... Yes the US support the lesser of two evils and the one fighting for democracy. :rolleyes:

Israel's "slaughter" of Palestinians is largely defensive. The Israelis want the same thing they've wanted for a long, long time now: to be left alone on a piece of land legally granted to them by the British government after WWII. That didn't happen...they were repeatedly attacked, were repeatedly victorious (often in definitive fashion), and eventually decided that they'd had enough, finally counter-attacking to the point at which they captured some of the land around them.

Exactly what Pidd said that the UK had know right to give the land to Israel.

I dont igree with the use of suicide bombers i can see that that is all they have to fight with and are simply retaliating to Israles Attacks.

Yoda

03-03-04, 10:34 AM

You say that the land was legally granted to them by the British government. But was it granted to them by the palestinians living there? Who asked them? And you don't find it provocing to force palestinians away form their homes on by Israel occupied land just to make room for israeli settlers? Calling it offensive is an understatement.I'd say calling it offensive is inaccurate. No one has to ask the Palestinians; they didn't own the land. The British did. It's been thousands of years since the Palestinians had legal claim to the land. That area had been under rule for a very, very long time anyway. Before Britland, it was the Ottoman empire.

As for forcing Palestinians to move: yeah, I would find that to constitute provocation. But that's not what happened. Israel was very sparsely populated at the time, and there was plenty of room for both. No one was kicked out. The Arab world, however, instructed Palestinians inhabiting Israel to leave, because they were going to attack. And attack they did. And lost miserably.

If you think that Israel's behaviour is understandable then you must think the same thing about the Intifada. I think an uprising is both understandable and often defendable as well. Attacks targeted against civilians is however disgusting.I don't know much about Intifada, so I can't comment on any similarity it might bear to Israel. Regardless, attacks on civilians are most definitely disgusting, though from what I understand Israel is not so much targetting them, as merely not being careful enough about them. Regardless, they've been attacked multiple times simply for moving into land granted them...they didn't swoop down and invade, or conquer. They've wanted nothing more than to be left alone for some time now. That gives this issue a dynamic few critics of Israel seem to appreciate.

Yoda

03-03-04, 10:40 AM

Yes, those are very good points, however I have trouble buying it at face value. I feel the Adminstration is extremely embrassed that they botched the intel and now they are not MAN enough to take responsibility. My analogy of whats going on can be like that of a courtroom proceeding of a prominent drug lord on trial for tax evasion.Sure, they're definitely embarrassed. As they should be. Though frankly, given the fact that the previous administration, and politicans on both sides of the aisle held the same beliefs about WMDs, it's America in general that should be red in the face; not just the Bush administration. Saddam made out like he had things, and from anyone on the outside it certainly appeared he did. He tricked us, in other words. That doesn't absolve us of responsibility, but it's not as if we fabricated the idea...and it's not as if the current administration was alone in their mistake, either.

I'm sure there are many holes in my arguement above if we all are going into technicals. But the bottom line is this:
on a history test in the year 2030 to the question
why did the US invade IRAQ in the year 2003?
I'm willing to bet any money that the answer on a 12-15 yr olds test would more likely be "WMD" than "SADDAM RAPPED,TORTURED, and MURDERED his own people and flaunted UN regulations". These "MISDEMEANOR" charages works on paper but let us not lose sight of what this really is about; The WMD that never existed.I don't think that is what this is "really about." It's one reason to invade, sure, but rape, torture and murder are not "misdemeanor" charges.

As for future history tests...I'm glad you brought those up. If Iraq turns into anything resembling a functioning Democracy, is there any real dobut as to what history will remember about this event? It won't remember the possibility that an oil company saw a slight uptick in its stock price. It'll only somewhat remember the threat of WMDs, too. Ultimately, it'll remember the actual result of the action, and the thing that matters most: the US overthrew a horrific dictator and planted the seeds of Democracy in an area that dearly needs it.

And for his other crimes of murder, rape and torture of iraqi - shouldn't the IRAQ CRIMINAL COURTS handle them? correct me if I'm wrong but I believe SADDAM to be a IRAQI citizen. Therefore those courts should handle his crimes towards the wrongs he done to the people in iraqSeeing as how the country is being somewhat rebuilt from the ground up, I don't think they have a reliable, established court system we can pass him through. From what I understand, the plan is, indeed, to hand Saddam over to the Iraqi people...but only once a proper system (with proper officials) is in place. You can't do it in the blink of an eye...you'd only need one Saddam sympathizer to have snuck his or her way into the new government, and next thing you know, Hussein's free again.

Yoda

03-03-04, 10:51 AM

I think everyone can/should agree that Saddam wanted biochemical/nuclear capabilities, and was trying to obtain them. (although we should also agree that the UN inspections etc were making that task very difficult)Agreed. Though even with the inspectors, isn't this intent perhaps reason enough to move in?

I want to echo some of Pidz's comments here.

The Brit government may have granted them the land, but were they right to do so? After all, we didn't do that good a job with setting up Iraq ;). There were genuine local inhabitants as i understand it. It's unsurprising that they reacted with aggression. (incidently, i seem to recall that the Israeli's used suicide-bombing to gain full authority over Israel - so i guess they weren't that happy either ;)).

Beyond that we get into religion-schisms, and that sort of thing never seems to work the kinks out of its system. We can only hope both sides get tired of the regionalised killing.

Modern day Palestinians also act largely in self-defence i feel, but as Pidz says, neither side is worthy of respect for how they go about things.I don't support all of their methods, either, but I don't think the two are comparable. See my few previous posts just above this one on the matter of Israel. Personally, I think it was right of Britain...the Jews had endured quite a bit, and giving them a place to live isn't a whole lot to ask. But even if Britland was wrong to do so, that doesn't change the fact that they did, and in light of that fact, Israel's situation is made far more credible.

Nit-picky-point: you mean heroin don't you? And i don't think the Taliban did turn on you, although apparently you knew at the time they had contacts with al Qaeda, who had a clear anti-US agenda.Sorry, I meant to say heroin. Short on sleep. :) I was unaware the Taliban had contacts with Al-Qaeda at the time; could you elaborate?

...the decision making doesn't seem to be improving with age. Giving Uzbekistan's torture-using/muslim-persecuting state police "structures" up to 80 million dollars a year since 9/11 for example. It's getting stopped now, but was that really justifiable? Not exactly the "lesser of two evils". More, a big fat "evil" with some Caspian oil behind it methinks ;).I'd have to do more research into Uzbekistan before responding in a meaningful way, but off the top of my head, it seems plausible that Uzbekistan could be like Israel in the sense that its aim is noble, but its methods are somewhat shady. Michael Moore would love it there, in other words. ;)

Yoda

03-03-04, 10:52 AM

Indonesia- One of the largest armies in the world, Led by Dictator General Suharto, Intent on invading East Timor (Breaking the same UN regulation as Iraq broke in the early 90s) and committing Genocide on its people.

East Timor- Small island nation holding its first Democratic election, Likely hood is that a Socialist Democratic party will win the election.

The US and UK supplied weapons and money to the Suharto regime, they blocked UN attempts to help the people of East Timor, and completely supported Indonesia’s invasion.

When after huge pressure from the public (and the likely hood of cheap oil) Australia went in to help the East Timorese people, The USA wanted no part in it and gave the UN coalition nothing.

.......... Yes the US support the lesser of two evils and the one fighting for democracy. :rolleyes:Can you point me to a source or some sort of documentation? I've found that, all too often, the US is accused of doing things like funding some group, when all they did was give the country they live in aid. Or that they installed so-and-so, when in reality all they did was get rid of the person who had overthrown them, etc. There's plenty of room for spin, so I'd be obliged if you could point me to some purely objective sources.

Exactly what Pidd said that the UK had know right to give the land to Israel.

I dont igree with the use of suicide bombers i can see that that is all they have to fight with and are simply retaliating to Israles Attacks.The UK had every right to give the land to Israel; they owned it! What's more, the Palestinians were not forced to leave. They left because they were disgusted with the creation of the state and were told an attack was coming. It's that simple.

As for suicide bombers...you say Palestinian is responding to Israel's attacks, but I think it's the exact opposite. This is not a fight Israel ever wanted. They're not fighting to conquer or destory...they're fighting to defend. That's the difference.

Hondo333

03-03-04, 11:11 AM

Can you point me to a source or some sort of documentation? I've found that, all too often, the US is accused of doing things like funding some group, when all they did was give the country they live in aid.

"What I saw was that my own government was very much involved in what was going on in East Timor... you can be 100 per cent certain that Suharto was explicitly given the green light to do what he did."

In January 1976, United Nations involvement in East Timor was actively and successfully blocked by the US Ambassador to the UN, Daniel Moynahan.

It is well documented that soon after the invasion the Arms shipments from the US doubeld,

Just two days before the invasion General Ford visited Suharto.

Can i ask why after only a few days of Iraqs occupation of Kuwait the US invaded but after 20 years of muder in Timor the US do nothing (and even aid it).

Caitlyn

03-03-04, 04:03 PM

Figures… Django gives birth and I didn't even get a bubble gum cigar…

And Hondo… that was not directed at you…

Piddzilla

03-03-04, 04:50 PM

I'd say calling it offensive is inaccurate. No one has to ask the Palestinians; they didn't own the land. The British did. It's been thousands of years since the Palestinians had legal claim to the land. That area had been under rule for a very, very long time anyway. Before Britland, it was the Ottoman empire.

What's your point? How does this dismiss every reason for a palestinian uprising? Jews and arabs lived there - and mostly peacefully side by side too - and the brits decided to give it all to the jews. Oh wait.. Actually now when I am sitting here writing this it strikes me that I think I saw some documentary some time ago. There they said that the land was actually split up between jews and palestinians but for some reason it all ended up with the israelis (someone please correct me if I am mistaken here). But that the palestinians should be okay with the "arrangements" just because it was done "legally" over their heads is not accaptable at all to me.

As for forcing Palestinians to move: yeah, I would find that to constitute provocation. But that's not what happened. Israel was very sparsely populated at the time, and there was plenty of room for both. No one was kicked out. The Arab world, however, instructed Palestinians inhabiting Israel to leave, because they were going to attack. And attack they did. And lost miserably.

Arabs living on land occupied by Israel were forced to move, yes. And their homes were torned down to make room for israeli settlers. You must have heard about this. It is one of the biggest problems in this situation. See, the settlers, who are mostly ortodox jews, claim that they have right to the land because the Old Testament says so. So legal or not does not really matter to them since they consider it given to them by God. And the arabs think the opposite.

I don't know much about Intifada, so I can't comment on any similarity it might bear to Israel. Regardless, attacks on civilians are most definitely disgusting, though from what I understand Israel is not so much targetting them, as merely not being careful enough about them. Regardless, they've been attacked multiple times simply for moving into land granted them...they didn't swoop down and invade, or conquer. They've wanted nothing more than to be left alone for some time now. That gives this issue a dynamic few critics of Israel seem to appreciate.

"Granted them".. The West Bank? The Gaza Strip? The Golan Heights? Did NOT invade or conquer? Yoda, I have debated with you on a number of occasions and one thing I'll give you - your knowledge about stuff we debate is almost always flawless, but this time you got things backwards. Israel has on a large number of occasion moved into arab villages and destroyed houses of entire families because they were related to terrorists or suspected terrorists.

Oh, and the Intifada is the name of the palestinian revolution that has been going on since the 80's.

Golgot

03-03-04, 05:14 PM

It didn't. I am abosulutely sure all of the WMDs were destroyed b4 the U.S even set foot in Iraq.

I agree that looks like the case. And I was suspicious it might prove to be the case too. But i also believed he probably was looking to gain WMD abilities - and indeed he was (no matter how ineptly).

So the pro-this-war argument is that he's been prevented from getting his hands on WMD in the future.

-------

Incidently, on the israel thing, i think fundamentalism is despicable in whatever form, and that goes for the islamic fundamentalists too.

Golgot

03-03-04, 05:44 PM

Agreed. Though even with the inspectors, isn't this intent perhaps reason enough to move in?

If handled properly, yes. ;)

I don't support all of their methods, either, but I don't think the two are comparable. See my few previous posts just above this one on the matter of Israel. Personally, I think it was right of Britain...the Jews had endured quite a bit, and giving them a place to live isn't a whole lot to ask. But even if Britland was wrong to do so, that doesn't change the fact that they did, and in light of that fact, Israel's situation is made far more credible.

I'm not sure how much credibility is lent by Britain granting "rights" in these circumstances (especially when we consider the dual-religious importance of the land being handed over - both laying claim to it and giving it away were obviously going to cause strife in the long-term).

My understanding (although very limited ;)), is that there were still various "arabic" groups living there, despite Turkish rule. And although i agree there was room enough, the point is that dual ownership wasn't given, sole ownership was given to the new-comers.

I don't see what would have been so wrong with integration into allied countries (well, religion-hating russia excluded ;)). This type of max "introdus", combined with religious conflict of interest, causes ingrained hatred, especially as the generations progress (as Northern Irleand has shown in microcosm).

Sorry, I meant to say heroin. Short on sleep. :) I was unaware the Taliban had contacts with Al-Qaeda at the time; could you elaborate?

I think i've mis-spoken in my sleepiness. I've no evidence of dealings between the Taliban and Osama, although they certainly knew he was in the territory.

I'd have to do more research into Uzbekistan before responding in a meaningful way, but off the top of my head, it seems plausible that Uzbekistan could be like Israel in the sense that its aim is noble, but its methods are somewhat shady. Michael Moore would love it there, in other words. ;)

Hehehe. I'm not sure how noble they are. Or how noble the hefty amounts of aid have been. (In result and in motivation. Uzbekistan is one of the three main ex-soviet-block countries with access to the budding Caspian-sea reserves. They have pipelines to russia, but alledgedly oil transported in that direction isn't open for resale to the US. Politics politics. A greasey game ;))

Allow me to help with your research concerning civil rights...;)

US looks away as new ally tortures Islamists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,963497,00.html

Abuses force America to end aid to Uzbekistan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1125099,00.html

That should do for now :)

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-03-04, 07:14 PM

Also about Israel. Its the real terrorist in everything thats going on. A big strong nation backed by the U.S. and given weapons to shoot at the people with the rocks..yeah thats fair. Then you call a palestinian who gets backed into a corner a terrorist...for..?? defending his family?? his property??
Listen anything that a palestinian does..with the exception of killing innocent civilians..is ok by me..
The british literally knocked on the plaestinians homes and said "you need to leave because this home is now the property of so and so family" Thats bs i think. Thats their home their land. and id do anything to fight for my country as well. Death to Israel!
Im waiting for someone to agree or disgaree with me.

kaisersoze

03-04-04, 02:42 AM

Im waiting for someone to agree or disgaree with me.

I would agree or disagree with you but quite frankly I know nothing about the palenstian/isreal conflict ... and quite sadly, I think that many of us just sum up conflicts in the middle east with two words, RELIGION and OIL. and sader still... I honestly believe thats a fair assessment to what everything is about over there. one issue or the other, no?

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-04-04, 06:13 PM

I would agree or disagree with you but quite frankly I know nothing about the palenstian/isreal conflict ... and quite sadly, I think that many of us just sum up conflicts in the middle east with two words, RELIGION and OIL. and sader still... I honestly believe thats a fair assessment to what everything is about over there. one issue or the other, no?
I agree..
Less so about religion, than oil though. I think it all revolves around oil...the religion aspect does add to it however..

Beale the Rippe

03-04-04, 06:58 PM

I think that many of us just sum up conflicts in the middle east with two words, RELIGION and OIL. and sader still... I honestly believe thats a fair assessment to what everything is about over there. one issue or the other, no?

Well...if you mean religion, as in radicals bombing people, then maybe. Otherwise, I can't really see your arguement. Oil, probably, but let's not forget the whole "Iraq was out of control" bit, because it was. We can't be sure exactly why we went to war. Sure, it most likely had something to do with oil, but let's view this openly. Consider WWII, where we didn't do anything for the world until we were bombed. We may have gone to war for oil, but we did a lot of good in return. :)

In any case...what were you talking about religion?

kaisersoze

03-04-04, 07:15 PM

Well...if you mean religion, as in radicals bombing people, then maybe. Otherwise, I can't really see your arguement. Oil, probably, but let's not forget the whole "Iraq was out of control" bit, because it was. We can't be sure exactly why we went to war. Sure, it most likely had something to do with oil, but let's view this openly. Consider WWII, where we didn't do anything for the world until we were bombed. We may have gone to war for oil, but we did a lot of good in return. :)

In any case...what were you talking about religion?

I think you had me all wrong I wasn't taking a stance, I was merely saying years of living in Canada (I have never been out of N.America) has created a bias in me that believes that ALL "conflicts" in the middle east region is about OIL and/or RELIGION. I am well aware of what's going on with the current American "conflict" shall we say with IRAQ. But in reality IRAN/IRAQ and Plastine/Isreal conflict has raged on for many years before US/IRAQ. <---- I think it was the fact that you believed I was bringing up religion as a issue in the current US/IRAQ conflict that sparked your confusion and as we all know there is none of the religious element in there.

If you are going to point out that I went off on a tangent in regards to the subject of this post.... I wasn't the one who initially "went on this tangent". I was responding to someone elses post

Golgot

03-04-04, 07:56 PM

Ah well, this is an Iraq thread (one of many :)), so i guess i'll take up a couple of points.

Bealey,

I don't think comparisons between Iraq and WW2 are very healthy. In part because they give this good/bad image that suggests the motivations and outcomes of this were surely good. And you sort of back up that impression with the "doing something good" thing. Actually, by acting pretty much unilaterally, the US has damaged already deteriorating relations with other world leaders. That would be a manageable side-issue, if it weren't for the fact that the regime-building attempts aren't nearly as shored up as they could be without the majority of the "world" being involved. Hence the liability of social carnage being averted in Iraq is lessened.

Even as the world leader, the US has a responsability to recognise it can't do all these things on its own.

Beale the Rippe

03-04-04, 08:36 PM

My dearest Golgot,

While we may not be able to do all things on our own, surely we are able to do some. In this case, if the UN is unwilling to assist us, I think we have more than the right to go to war by ourselves. Relations might be damaged, or even temporarily destroyed, but there's more than enough time to patch them up. Whether we will or not remains to be seen, but we had to, (at the time), do what was best for our country first, and think of our relationships with other countries second. I see two spots in which you can easily attack me, therefore I will preemptively defend myself.

1) "Aren't good relations with countries necessary, and thus, in the best interest of our country?" 90% of the time, yes. The only circumstance I can see when this shant hold true is when said countries oppose an action wished by our country.

2) "The war wasn't in our country's best interest. Many people have died, and not much has been gained." I agree with you, to a degree. Our country needs oil (though I do not suppose to suggest war as a means to get it), and Hussein needed to be taken out, along with his regime. This war is moral, but the execution of it has been quite sloppy. I realize I'm dancing on a knife's edge here, but the war was in the best interest of the country, the way it was carried out was not.

You don't like my comparison with WWII? :( I liked it so...well...let's do it this way. The way we went into the war was similar, the execution was not. Cool? :p

Oh, and Mr. Soze: I understand now. Generally wars carried out in that area are caused by religion, whether it is in this case or not (and it is the latter). Cool then. :)

kaisersoze

03-05-04, 04:06 AM

Oh, and Mr. Soze: I understand now. Generally wars carried out in that area are caused by religion, whether it is in this case or not (and it is the latter). Cool then. :)

I agree..
Less so about religion, than oil though. I think it all revolves around oil...the religion aspect does add to it however..

yeah we are cool Beale, only that you and Spide12 seem to disagree on which one it is that carries more weight. I suppose in the heat of things very convincing arguments can be made for either, so lets just agree it is both and leave it at that.

In this case, if the UN is unwilling to assist us, I think we have more than the right to go to war by ourselves.

I disagree with this point however, - the purpose of forming the UN in the first place was to get collective agreement between all the nations as to what is the right course of action in case this nation A decides to attack another nation B. Since America decided to participate in this "agreement" , shall we say, they should respect the majority decision that the war is not favourable to the other countries on earth and should not "play along only when favourable".

According to history nobody gets to be the super power forever, it used to be Eygpt then Rome, then Asia, then Great Britian, and now the States ...... God forbid that one day, someone will use that same logic to attack america in the future when all that america can rely on for protection is the UN.

It is obvious that american reputation has suffered greatly over these past few years and the only thing preventing them from bombing us over here is the fact that America is a super power... but it may not be a safety net for "all time", time will change things and power will shift.

Beale the Rippe

03-05-04, 08:49 AM

yeah we are cool Beale, only that you and Spide12 seem to disagree on which one it is that carries more weight. I suppose in the heat of things very convincing arguments can be made for either, so lets just agree it is both and leave it at that.

I disagree with this point however, - the purpose of forming the UN in the first place was to get collective agreement between all the nations as to what is the right course of action in case this nation A decides to attack another nation B. Since America decided to participate in this "agreement" , shall we say, they should respect the majority decision that the war is not favourable to the other countries on earth and should not "play along only when favourable".

According to history nobody gets to be the super power forever, it used to be Eygpt then Rome, then Asia, then Great Britian, and now the States ...... God forbid that one day, someone will use that same logic to attack america in the future when all that america can rely on for protection is the UN.

It is obvious that american reputation has suffered greatly over these past few years and the only thing preventing them from bombing us over here is the fact that America is a super power... but it may not be a safety net for "all time", time will change things and power will shift.

Probably so. I just hope nuclear winter doesn't follow Americas passing. :eek:

Alas...

I think bombs are cowardly weapons. Guns are too nowadays. Warfare is far too...impersonal. I need to take over the world, melt down all the guns, disarm all the bombs, and use the left over metal to forge samurai swords and dueling pistols. This is the world I wish to live in.

Sir Toose

03-05-04, 09:08 AM

Well you contradicted yourself here. Look at the first quote. Now the second.And the fact of the matter is thast WMDs do matter because they were used as a cataylst to get the public opinion in favor of the war. And it worked....now where are the weapons..
You can't just say "oh well even though we can't prove our main reason for going to war..so here are a few other minor reasons that we came up with AFTER the war was already over"..it doesn't work that way..I want my WMDs that I was promised...

Sure didn't. I said there are weapons that are unaccounted for (which is undisputed) and then I said if they are never found it doesn't really matter. How is that a contradiction?

Minor reason? A contract signed by GHW Bush, NATO (including France, Germany, USSR et al), Saddam etc is minor? I already stated that the Gulf War was never ended.. it was a cease fire. Saddam broke over half of the 43 resolutions he committed to upholding. Clinton really should have cracked down on Saddam four years before Bush did it.

What i want to question is:
-for the "canisters", are you talking about the alledged "centrifuge" devices that have been categorically declared totally unsuitable for centrifuge/nuclear uses by experts and even members of the Pentagon?

No, Saddam bought casings (shells) to hold nuclear weapons from the soviets. Granted that doesn't mean that he had nukes. I was trying to show intent by mentioning that. His NATO agreement from Gulf War one said he could not participate in arming himself (Iraq) with anything greater than a rifle and even then it had to be approved.

Sir Toose

03-05-04, 09:14 AM

Im waiting for someone to agree or disgaree with me.

I don't know about all of that but I do agree that Israel is a major 'pot stirrer'.

Okay, let me rephrase that, ZIONISTS are major pot stirrers. I could elaborate but last time I did Golgot was on the verge of calling me an anti-semite (which I'm not).

Religion=good
Religious extremists (fundamentalists) = evil

Sir Toose

03-05-04, 09:20 AM

Figures… Django gives birth and I didn't even get a bubble gum cigar…

Now THAT was funny!

:D

Golgot

03-05-04, 06:16 PM

My dearest Golgot,

While we may not be able to do all things on our own, surely we are able to do some. In this case, if the UN is unwilling to assist us, I think we have more than the right to go to war by ourselves.
...we had to, (at the time), do what was best for our country first, and think of our relationships with other countries second.

My dearest Beale,

Would you care to explain why Iraq was a threat to the US?

And incidently, the point about broken relations in this case (important as that phenomenon is in itself) is more about how it lessens the probability of the regime-change going well (lack of personnel/experience on the ground etc, investment etc)

1) "Aren't good relations with countries necessary, and thus, in the best interest of our country?" 90% of the time, yes. The only circumstance I can see when this shant hold true is when said countries oppose an action wished by our country.

Oh heavens bealey, countries oppose eachother's wishes every day. That's why they engage in negotiation, to try and reach a consensus, to encourage stability and peace in a fluid and selfish world. You think when nigh on every major country is lined up against you, that's the time to insist on your wishes? I agree there are times when it's valid, but i don't believe this was one of them (and it shouldn't be the criteria for all-out-assertiveness in the first place ;))

2) "The war wasn't in our country's best interest. Many people have died, and not much has been gained." I agree with you, to a degree. Our country needs oil (though I do not suppose to suggest war as a means to get it), and Hussein needed to be taken out, along with his regime. This war is moral, but the execution of it has been quite sloppy. I realize I'm dancing on a knife's edge here, but the war was in the best interest of the country, the way it was carried out was not.

I'm prepared to countenance the losses involved in war and occupation if i think the outcome has been as well prepared for as possible, or is truly driven by self-defence. The loss of life becomes worse when that outcome has been jeapordised from the start by a country insisting on getting its own way (as i believe has happened)

The biggest problem i have with the Bush-admin is their dogmatic, bullish approach to international relations. The downsides of this approach are legion, multiply over time, and apply to far more than just Iraq.

Blair has just said tonight that the problem with terrorists is that their demands are not driven by "a set of negotiable political demands." I truly hope the US doesn't continue to follow a similar tack. (I'm not calling Bush a "terrorist" you understand. Just noting that particular irony ;)).

You don't like my comparison with WWII? :( I liked it so...well...let's do it this way. The way we went into the war was similar, the execution was not. Cool? :p

Nope, sorry. Hitler invaded three countries in quick succession i believe, forcing our hand. If you want to pre-emptively attack someone in the name of defence, to prevent an invasion or attack, you need to be on solid ground. And you need to limit the possibility of provoking a worse or equally bad outcome through your action. I don't think either criteria were fulfilled to be honest.[/QUOTE]

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-06-04, 10:45 PM

I don't know about all of that but I do agree that Israel is a major 'pot stirrer'.

Okay, let me rephrase that, ZIONISTS are major pot stirrers. I could elaborate but last time I did Golgot was on the verge of calling me an anti-semite (which I'm not).

Religion=good
Religious extremists (fundamentalists) = evil
I agree with you. And Israel was founded by a zionist. Which is why albert einstein refused to accept the offer he was given to become prime minister of it. He knew it would cause too many problems and he didnt want to be associated with a terrorist nation.

Golgot

03-07-04, 10:38 AM

Okay, let me rephrase that, ZIONISTS are major pot stirrers. I could elaborate but last time I did Golgot was on the verge of calling me an anti-semite (which I'm not).

Hey growler, all i said was that i was intrigued what the mechanism of control/influence was. I was just asking for you to elaborate on that. :)
I remember being a bit concerned with the spread of your argument on that level, but i don't remember calling you an anti-semite.

Sir Toose

03-08-04, 08:49 AM

Hey growler, all i said was that i was intrigued what the mechanism of control/influence was. I was just asking for you to elaborate on that. :)
I remember being a bit concerned with the spread of your argument on that level, but i don't remember calling you an anti-semite.

Tongue firmly planted in cheek as he typed...

(I was just ribbing you golbaby).

Golgot

03-08-04, 07:09 PM

Tongue firmly planted in cheek as he typed...

(I was just ribbing you golbaby).

Ow, my ribs ;)

Hondo333

03-17-04, 08:51 AM

In January 1976, United Nations involvement in East Timor was actively and successfully blocked by the US Ambassador to the UN, Daniel Moynahan.

It is well documented that soon after the invasion the Arms shipments from the US doubeld,

Just two days before the invasion General Ford visited Suharto.

Can i ask why after only a few days of Iraqs occupation of Kuwait the US invaded but after 20 years of muder in Timor the US do nothing (and even aid it).

I never did get a answer to this question..... (;) Yoda)

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-17-04, 03:00 PM

I never did get a answer to this question..... (;) Yoda)

I'd like to hear Yoda's take on that as well.

Yoda

03-22-04, 04:00 PM

Sorry; had to entertain someone from out of town for roughly a week, and as you've probably noticed, I've hardly been on the boards at all.

I owe several people replies, but I'll address this one quickly:

I never did get a answer to this question..... (;) Yoda)I have no particularly reason to distrust your interpretation, but I do know that people are prone to spin, conciously or otherwise, which is why I requested some kind of objective documentation of the issue.

I'd point out, however, that even if it were proven that the US has confronted one kind of tyranny while ignoring another, it wouldn't change my point at all, as I've never made the case that America was purely altruistic. No nation is; but it should be beyond reproach that the United States has, for all its flaws, done a great bit of good, and continues to make efforts to improve life for those outside its borders, albeit in occasionally imperfect ways.

That said, I'm very unmoved by most of the "well what about country X?" counterarguments. Highlighting the fact that US military action in Iraq has helped a great many people is in no way refuted by the fact that other such people in need of help still exist. The US would have to engage dozens of countries in a very short period of time to avoid such criticism, which is completely implausible. It's akin to criticizing someone for sponsoring an impoverished child by pointing out that there are still millions more out there.

One country alone cannot fix the world's problems. It must be a joint-effort. And criticizing the countries that put just a piece or two of the puzzle in place simply because they didn't do it all themselves can only discourage others from stepping up to the plate.

Yoda

03-22-04, 04:11 PM

What's your point? How does this dismiss every reason for a palestinian uprising? Jews and arabs lived there - and mostly peacefully side by side too - and the brits decided to give it all to the jews. Oh wait.. Actually now when I am sitting here writing this it strikes me that I think I saw some documentary some time ago. There they said that the land was actually split up between jews and palestinians but for some reason it all ended up with the israelis (someone please correct me if I am mistaken here). But that the palestinians should be okay with the "arrangements" just because it was done "legally" over their heads is not accaptable at all to me.Why? Can you justify shooting your landlord in the head if he tells you he'd rather rent to someone else? More accurately, can you justify doing so if he tells you he's going to let someone else live in the building whom you don't like?

I've yet to see any real hard evidence that the Palestinians were in any way forced, coerced, or compelled to leave the area. From what I've heard, the land was very sparsely populated before the Jews moved in. Those that left did so willingly, and many because they were told an attack was coming.

Arabs living on land occupied by Israel were forced to move, yes. And their homes were torned down to make room for israeli settlers. You must have heard about this. It is one of the biggest problems in this situation. See, the settlers, who are mostly ortodox jews, claim that they have right to the land because the Old Testament says so. So legal or not does not really matter to them since they consider it given to them by God. And the arabs think the opposite.What leads you to believe that Arabs had their houses torn down and were thrown off the land? Remember, I'm talking about the period directly after the founding of Israel. I'm not claiming that Israel is tolerant of Palestinians today, just that this was not their war to begin with, and they only fight it because the alternative was to be conquered.

"Granted them".. The West Bank? The Gaza Strip? The Golan Heights? Did NOT invade or conquer? Yoda, I have debated with you on a number of occasions and one thing I'll give you - your knowledge about stuff we debate is almost always flawless, but this time you got things backwards. Israel has on a large number of occasion moved into arab villages and destroyed houses of entire families because they were related to terrorists or suspected terrorists.

Oh, and the Intifada is the name of the palestinian revolution that has been going on since the 80's.I think you're misunderstanding me. Yes, Israel has conquered some of the land around it (from what I've read, one could actually attack Israel from The West Bank without ever crossing their borders); but only to quell the repeated attacks originating from those areas.

Israel did not set out to expand their lands or subdue the area surrounding their country upon their inception. They sought only to live their lives and govern themselves. Instead, they were immediately met with attacks...and then more attacks. They quite understandable became fed up with this, and decided to invade the areas that were so often being used as launching pads against them.

While Israel's handling of the situation has been more brutal than I would like, how can anyone conclude that their actions originated out of anything other than self-defense?

Yoda

03-22-04, 04:16 PM

If handled properly, yes. ;)Are you saying you actually support the war, but just not the way it was handled? If so, this is news to me. Please elaborate...though not too much. :)

I'm not sure how much credibility is lent by Britain granting "rights" in these circumstances (especially when we consider the dual-religious importance of the land being handed over - both laying claim to it and giving it away were obviously going to cause strife in the long-term).

My understanding (although very limited ;)), is that there were still various "arabic" groups living there, despite Turkish rule. And although i agree there was room enough, the point is that dual ownership wasn't given, sole ownership was given to the new-comers.

I don't see what would have been so wrong with integration into allied countries (well, religion-hating russia excluded ;)). This type of max "introdus", combined with religious conflict of interest, causes ingrained hatred, especially as the generations progress (as Northern Irleand has shown in microcosm).It was a volatile situation, sure, but this line of reasoning only blames Britain for putting a wolverine and a puppy in the same room; the blame still must rest with the players themselves. The fact that the Palestinians couldn't stand the thought of a legally-recognized Jewish state is their own shortcoming.

I think i've mis-spoken in my sleepiness. I've no evidence of dealings between the Taliban and Osama, although they certainly knew he was in the territory.No sweat. Forgive me for mentioning cocaine instead of heroin, and we're even.

Hehehe. I'm not sure how noble they are. Or how noble the hefty amounts of aid have been. (In result and in motivation. Uzbekistan is one of the three main ex-soviet-block countries with access to the budding Caspian-sea reserves. They have pipelines to russia, but alledgedly oil transported in that direction isn't open for resale to the US. Politics politics. A greasey game ;))

Allow me to help with your research concerning civil rights...;)

US looks away as new ally tortures Islamists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,963497,00.html

Abuses force America to end aid to Uzbekistan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1125099,00.html

That should do for now :)Thanks for the links. I shall peruse.

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-22-04, 05:26 PM

It was a volatile situation, sure, but this line of reasoning only blames Britain for putting a wolverine and a puppy in the same room; the blame still must rest with the players themselves. The fact that the Palestinians couldn't stand the thought of a legally-recognized Jewish state is their own shortcoming.
Hold up right quick..
You are saying that a large group of jews invaded palestine..took over the governemnt in 1948 and when the palestinians wanted their land and home back its their fault for not bowing down to opressionists? Wow, shame on you. With that attitude the U.S. wouldn't exist. It would still be a british colony.

More power to the palestinians and remember "the doors of freedom can only be knocked upon by bloody hands"

Yoda

03-22-04, 05:43 PM

Hold up right quick..

You are saying that a large group of jews invaded palestine..took over the governemnt in 1948 and when the palestinians wanted their land and home back its their fault for not bowing down to opressionists?Uh, no, I'm not saying that at all. There was no "invasion." Britain owned the land, and after WW2, gave it to the Jews. A few scattered Palestinians were already living there, and to my knowledge they were not forced or compelled to leave in any way, but did so voluntarily when told by the rest of the Arab world that an attack upon the newly-formed state was imminent.

The idea that the Jews swooped down and started throwing innocent people out of their homes is completely unsupported. The Palestinians' crime is that they have been hostile and aggressive towards Israel since its inception. Israel's original crime was merely existing.

More power to the palestinians and remember "the doors of freedom can only be knocked upon by bloody hands"Very true. Fighting for freedom inevitably means you'll have bloody hands. But having bloody hands does not always mean you're fighting for freedom. The Palestinians are not fighting for freedom; they're fighting to conquer a land they have no legal claim to and willingly left.

I find it more than a little disturbing that you're cheering on a band of civilian-targetting terrorists in a non-Democratic state, despite holding a number of staggering misconceptions about their history.

LordSlaytan

03-22-04, 05:55 PM

I find it more than a little disturbing that you're cheering on a band of civilian-targetting terrorists in a non-Democratic state, despite holding a number of staggering misconceptions about their history.

I just see it as innocent ignorance.

That also seems prevalent at many of the anti-war rallies I see downtown. I want to smack people who yell out, “Leave Iraq this very minute!” when that is not only unfeasible, but also unrealistic. It’s one thing to try to stop it before it happened, but now that it has, there must be a certain amount of realistic consideration and acceptance. Wanting the government to do what needs to be done quickly is one thing, but to expect the government to abandon the country to total chaos is another.

Sir Toose

03-22-04, 06:49 PM

By saying the war is wrong then you are, by implication, saying that we should have left Saddam in power. There is NO question that he was ruthless and murderous and a bad guy to be in control of a country.

I don't think Saddam would have relinquished power of his own volition... no matter how nicely we asked him to do so.

Kicking his @ss out was the only option. All this rhetoric about 'occupation forces' and blood oil money yadda yadda is just that... it's chicken little the sky is falling bullsh*t.

Thank God for freedom and for the folks who fight (Slaytan) to bring it to us.

LordSlaytan

03-22-04, 06:56 PM

Thank God for freedom and for the folks who fight (Slaytan) to bring it to us.

Thanks Matt. We've been consistently missing you around here for about a year. Nice to see you pay us a visit.

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-22-04, 08:23 PM

Uh, no, I'm not saying that at all. There was no "invasion." Britain owned the land, and after WW2, gave it to the Jews. A few scattered Palestinians were already living there, and to my knowledge they were not forced or compelled to leave in any way, but did so voluntarily when told by the rest of the Arab world that an attack upon the newly-formed state was imminent.

The idea that the Jews swooped down and started throwing innocent people out of their homes is completely unsupported. The Palestinians' crime is that they have been hostile and aggressive towards Israel since its inception. Israel's original crime was merely existing.

Very true. Fighting for freedom inevitably means you'll have bloody hands. But having bloody hands does not always mean you're fighting for freedom. The Palestinians are not fighting for freedom; they're fighting to conquer a land they have no legal claim to and willingly left.

I find it more than a little disturbing that you're cheering on a band of civilian-targetting terrorists in a non-Democratic state, despite holding a number of staggering misconceptions about their history.
Well, since you went on a rant about how these are unsupported facts, how about you chew on this story for dinner:
I very close friend of mine lives here in the united states next door to me. He is Palestinian. His father was living in a house twice the size of your's. In 1945, a british soldier ordered him to evacuate the premise leaving everything behind. So my friend's dad left,unwillingly (who willingly leaves their homes come on) and it wasnt just "a few scattered people" it was massive cities. Anyways, the arab attack of which you speak of was neevr there, you made that up actually.

What if britain conquered the U.S. and gave it to the atheists in the world. Then in 2048, they changed the name of the U.S. to some other name and kicked you out of your home. I think you would be slightly pissed off too. So more power to the palestinians, both suicidal and non-suicidal ones. (note the use of susicidal..it means killing of other soldiers..and i think its a brave act to sacrifice yourself to kill as many of the other soldiers as you can) Killing school bus children though, that is wrong..that's osama's influence. But fighting for freedom will always be looked down upon...William Wallace did it, the american's did it, and so did many other various group..all of them have been labeled as terrorist or rebels or whatever. But a day will come when the palestinian cause will be heard. There will be a day when that young palestinian child yells out "that used to be my house" as a bulldozer runs it over for new jeiwsh settlements.
So don't pull any of your "no evidence" crap and try to make the palestinians look bad. Because they are guilty of nothing but existing there before the Israeli state.
Boy you get my blood boiling...the ignorance level in this forum is very high.

Yoda

03-22-04, 10:12 PM

Well, since you went on a rant about how these are unsupported facts, how about you chew on this story for dinner:
I very close friend of mine lives here in the united states next door to me. He is Palestinian. His father was living in a house twice the size of your's. In 1945, a british soldier ordered him to evacuate the premise leaving everything behind. So my friend's dad left,unwillingly (who willingly leaves their homes come on) and it wasnt just "a few scattered people" it was massive cities.Show me some evidence. Third-hand anecdotal evidence isn't enough to contradict empirical historical data.

As for "who willing leaves their homes come on" -- uh, maybe those who hate those in charge, and are told an attack is coming. Which ties into this next quote...

Anyways, the arab attack of which you speak of was neevr there, you made that up actually.Do your homework. From The History Guy (http://www.historyguy.com/arab_israeli_wars.html):

"Upon independence, Israel was invaded by the armies of six Arab nations: Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In addition, local Arab Palestinian forces also fought the Jewish Israelis."

As far as I can tell, you're taking what the father of a friend of a neighbor said, basically, and blindly claiming that not only is anything he said true (as well as being recounted correctly), but that anything he didn't say must be false. I'm left to assume that this was probably a kneejerk denial.

What if britain conquered the U.S. and gave it to the atheists in the world. Then in 2048, they changed the name of the U.S. to some other name and kicked you out of your home. I think you would be slightly pissed off too.Sure I would. But as I've stated, the Palestinians were not kicked out of their homes. Even if they were, your analogy still wouldn't line up, because the area was not a sovereign nation when Britain "conquered" it. It's not as if they were a free, established country when Britain took over. Beforehand, they had effectively been tenets of the Ottoman empire. It's been literally thousands of years since the Palestinians had any true claim to the land. That's, presumably, one of the reasons the land was given to the Jews: because it hadn't unequivocally belonged to any one group or race for quite some time.

So more power to the palestinians, both suicidal and non-suicidal ones. (note the use of susicidal..it means killing of other soldiers..and i think its a brave act to sacrifice yourself to kill as many of the other soldiers as you can) Killing school bus children though, that is wrong..that's osama's influence.Spin it however you want; the killing of civilians is not only a regular occurance in their repeated attacks on Israel, but a deliberate one. There is no way to defend that, and encouraging the idea, even if you believe they were wronged, is flat-out awful.

But fighting for freedom will always be looked down upon...William Wallace did it, the american's did it, and so did many other various group..all of them have been labeled as terrorist or rebels or whatever. But a day will come when the palestinian cause will be heard. There will be a day when that young palestinian child yells out "that used to be my house" as a bulldozer runs it over for new jeiwsh settlements.I don't think you appreciate how truly bizarre what you're saying is. You make Palestinian suicide bombers sound like Martin Luther King.

You also apparently do not see the irony in calling them freedom fighters when they're attacking the only Democracy in the Middle East. If you love personal freedom so much, you've taken the wrong side; the Arab world is severely lacking in that department, and is viciously attacking states like Israel, which generally exhibit much higher levels of cultural tolerance.

So don't pull any of your "no evidence" crap and try to make the palestinians look bad. Because they are guilty of nothing but existing there before the Israeli state.Actually, they're guilty of repeatedly attacking them and deliberatately murdering their civilians. Israel did not provoke them...they merely moved into the land they were given, and subsequently defended it.

Boy you get my blood boiling...the ignorance level in this forum is very high.Yeah, apparently it is.

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-22-04, 10:58 PM

Show me some evidence. Third-hand anecdotal evidence isn't enough to contradict empirical historical data.

As for "who willing leaves their homes come on" -- uh, maybe those who hate those in charge, and are told an attack is coming. Which ties into this next quote...

Do your homework. From The History Guy (http://www.historyguy.com/arab_israeli_wars.html):

"Upon independence, Israel was invaded by the armies of six Arab nations: Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In addition, local Arab Palestinian forces also fought the Jewish Israelis."

As far as I can tell, you're taking what the father of a friend of a neighbor said, basically, and blindly claiming that not only is anything he said true (as well as being recounted correctly), but that anything he didn't say must be false. I'm left to assume that this was probably a kneejerk denial.

Sure I would. But as I've stated, the Palestinians were not kicked out of their homes. Even if they were, your analogy still wouldn't line up, because the area was not a sovereign nation when Britain "conquered" it. It's not as if they were a free, established country when Britain took over. Beforehand, they had effectively been tenets of the Ottoman empire. It's been literally thousands of years since the Palestinians had any true claim to the land. That's, presumably, one of the reasons the land was given to the Jews: because it hadn't unequivocally belonged to any one group or race for quite some time.

Spin it however you want; the killing of civilians is not only a regular occurance in their repeated attacks on Israel, but a deliberate one. There is no way to defend that, and encouraging the idea, even if you believe they were wronged, is flat-out awful.

I don't think you appreciate how truly bizarre what you're saying is. You make Palestinian suicide bombers sound like Martin Luther King.

You also apparently do not see the irony in calling them freedom fighters when they're attacking the only Democracy in the Middle East. If you love personal freedom so much, you've taken the wrong side; the Arab world is severely lacking in that department, and is viciously attacking states like Israel, which generally exhibit much higher levels of cultural tolerance.

Actually, they're guilty of repeatedly attacking them and deliberatately murdering their civilians. Israel did not provoke them...they merely moved into the land they were given, and subsequently defended it.

Yeah, apparently it is.
You know sometimes I realize that you are a bigger terrorist than Israel itself. You must be jewish.

kaisersoze

03-22-04, 11:01 PM

the ignorance level in this forum is very high.

But isn't this what makes life interesting......imagine what this forums would be like if we just all agreed with each other.

What if I were to suggest a radical solution where we take all the land in question and divided it up equally down to the square nano squaremeter and say to the jews and palenstatians you stay on that side and I will stay on mine. To the outsider or the mathematician this may be the best sloution.

However one side... or in this case both sides -always feels they are getting ripped off.... but as you suggested in your secenario what about the innocent children who knows nothing about the political / religious / historical, etc etc mess.... shouldn't they deserve better?

If they keep at this rate I will tell you what going to happen in the long run... the extremely long run that is. I think thousands and thousands of years from now humans will be so advanced in space exploration that the avg. man like you or I will be living on distant planets and if countries are still around.......Canada, China, Russia, America, Japan, England, Country A, Country B, etc etc will have claimed serveral PLANETS and still the jews and palestanians will be here on earth fighting over a few thousand square kilometers of land. Everyone seems to think land is be all end all.... there is a couple trillion- gazillion-billion-million square light years out there filled with oppourtunities

we should use our brains to help each other..... one day everyone can have their own god damn planet if they wanted .... As humans we fight over things that down the time line will be minute and insignificant.....my people slaughtered each other for 5000 years, dynasty after dynasty only to realize in 1949 we are all chinese........what a waste. "He who does not learn from his past is doomed to repeat it" But hey thats serveral thousands years from now right?........ we have to start somewhere, but then again I'm an idealist

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-22-04, 11:51 PM

But isn't this what makes life interesting......imagine what this forums would be like if we just all agreed with each other.

What if I were to suggest a radical solution where we take all the land in question and divided it up equally down to the square nano squaremeter and say to the jews and palenstatians you stay on that side and I will stay on mine. To the outsider or the mathematician this may be the best sloution.

However one side... or in this case both sides -always feels they are getting ripped off.... but as you suggested in your secenario what about the innocent children who knows nothing about the political / religious / historical, etc etc mess.... shouldn't they deserve better?

If they keep at this rate I will tell you what going to happen in the long run... the extremely long run that is. I think thousands and thousands of years from now humans will be so advanced in space exploration that the avg. man like you or I will be living on distant planets and if countries are still around.......Canada, China, Russia, America, Japan, England, Country A, Country B, etc etc will have claimed serveral PLANETS and still the jews and palestanians will be here on earth fighting over a few thousand square kilometers of land. Everyone seems to think land is be all end all.... there is a couple trillion- gazillion-billion-million square light years out there filled with oppourtunities

we should use our brains to help each other..... one day everyone can have their own god damn planet if they wanted .... As humans we fight over things that down the time line will be minute and insignificant.....my people slaughtered each other for 5000 years, dynasty after dynasty only to realize in 1949 we are all chinese........what a waste. "He who does not learn from his past is doomed to repeat it" But hey thats serveral thousands years from now right?........ we have to start somewhere, but then again I'm an idealist
Well put, I just don't like how Yoda makes the palestinians look like the agressors. Its their land, what don't you get about that. Its theirs, they have deeds and contracts to property and homes that went void when in 1948 Israel became a state. I also hate how Yoda just saying im wrong or something. Yoda, YOU are wrong. Open your eyes and stop being decieved by CNN. I am willing to bet you have never set foot outside the U.S.

kaisersoze

03-22-04, 11:54 PM

not to poke fun on ALL OF YOU

but am I the only one who realizes how far we have deviated from I don't know............say the forum title :D and :eek: and :( (mixed emotions)

Yoda

03-23-04, 12:05 AM

You know sometimes I realize that you are a bigger terrorist than Israel itself. You must be jewish.No, I'm not Jewish. And if you call anyone on this board a terrorist again for simply disagreeing with you, you'll be banned. Consider this your one and only warning on the matter.

Now, do you have an actual response, or not? I'm still waiting for you to defend the incredible claim that there was no Arab attack on Israel following its independence. And for you to explain how you can be so high on individual liberty, yet support sustained attacks on what is far and away the freest nation in the Middle East.

Well put, I just don't like how Yoda makes the palestinians look like the agressors. Its their land, what don't you get about that. Its theirs, they have deeds and contracts to property and homes that went void when in 1948 Israel became a state.You keep saying this, but haven't shown anything to demonstrate it. They are the aggressors. It was not their land. It wasn't their land before WW2, and it wasn't their land after it. Simply repeating that it was isn't an argument.

I also hate how Yoda just saying im wrong or something. Yoda, YOU are wrong. Open your eyes and stop being decieved by CNN. I am willing to bet you have never set foot outside the U.S.Funny...you say you hate it when I say you're wrong, but in the next sentence, you say the exact same thing in reverse. And yes, I have been outside of the US, though even if hadn't, it wouldn't change this argument at all. This is just like your assumption that I'm Jewish: you're casting about for a complaint to avoid confronting the facts head-on.

If you can't handle being told you're wrong, go find a forum full of people who agree with you. This board is only for individuals mature enough to tolerate disagreement in a civil manner. If you can't do that, don't waste our time.

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-23-04, 12:09 AM

No, I'm not Jewish. And if you call anyone on this board a terrorist again for simply disagreeing with you, and you'll be banned. Consider this your one and only warning on the matter.

Now, do you have an actual response, or not? I'm still waiting for you to defend the the incredible claim that there was no Arab attack on Israel following its independence. And for you to explain how you can be so high on individual liberty, yet support sustained attacks on what is far and away the freest nation in the Middle East.

You keep saying this, but haven't shown anything to demonstrate it. They are the aggressors. It was not their land. It wasn't their land before WW2, and it wasn't their land after it. Simply repeating that it was isn't an argument.

Funny...you say you hate it when I say you're wrong, but in the next sentence, you say the exact same thing in reverse. And yes, I have been outside of the US, though even if hadn't, it wouldn't change this argument at all. This is just like your assumption that I'm Jewish: you're casting about for a complaint to avoid confronting the facts head-on.

If you can't handle being told you're wrong, go find a forum full of people who agree with you. This board is only for individuals mature enough to tolerate disagreement in a civil manner. If you can't do that, don't waste our time.
Nah, you harass me more than disagree with me. We seem to be debating about facts not concepts and principles. I refuse to argue with someone who doesn't know his ****. You are ignorant and that is my opinion of you. And you are a terrorist. That is my opinion too. Banning me will only prove that you are. By banning me you pretty much are silencing my voice. You seem to have many opinions that are wrong to me but I don't go around banning you. If you are not a terrorist, then don't act and talk like one.

kaisersoze

03-23-04, 12:22 AM

Nah, you harass me more than disagree with me. We seem to be debating about facts not concepts and principles. I refuse to argue with someone who doesn't know his ****. You are ignorant and that is my opinion of you. And you are a terrorist. That is my opinion too. Banning me will only prove that you are. By banning me you pretty much are silencing my voice. You seem to have many opinions that are wrong to me but I don't go around banning you. If you are not a terrorist, then don't act and talk like one.

Allow me to intervene here for a bit, Spider-man I see that you visit this forum pretty often.... I do so myself and vaule your opinion as well as Yoda's. Intellectual Arguements gets remembered but heated name calling, INTERNET arguments doesn't get you much and frankly it just embrassess the two of you while you are going at it ..... as immature, entertainment seeking people such as myself shout JERRY JERRRY from the sidelines, but this time I won't because I actually like the debate going on in this forum..........and now for my final thought:

we have already lost sight of IRAQ <--------I'd just thought I'd bring it to our attention

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-23-04, 12:24 AM

Allow me to intervene here for a bit, Spider-man I see that you visit this forum pretty often.... I do so myself and vaule your opinion as well as Yoda's. Intellectual Arguements gets remembered but heated name calling, INTERNET arguments doesn't get you much and frankly it just embrassess the two of you while you are going at it ..... as immature, entertainment seeking people such as myself shout JERRY JERRRY from the sidelines, but this time I won't because I actually like the debate going on in this forum..........and now for my final thought:

we have already lost sight of IRAQ <--------I'd just thought I'd bring it to our attention

I'd love to go back to Iraq. But I think Yoda is in the process of banning me forever. So whatever. I won't take back what I said. I think Yoda's views are very extreme and I don't like them at all. I didn't call HIM anything..just his views I dont HAVE to think his views are right. Whatever, if i get banned I know its because he didnt want me speaking anymore of the truth.

Yoda

03-23-04, 12:33 AM

Nah, you harass me more than disagree with me. We seem to be debating about facts not concepts and principles. I refuse to argue with someone who doesn't know his ****. You are ignorant and that is my opinion of you.Of course we're debating about facts; that's what happens when you make claims about what did or did not happen. You'd rather spit out some epic speech about fighting for freedom than actually stop and demonstrate that the things you're saying are even true to begin with. If I were really ignorant, you'd have demonstrated it, rather than just stated it again and again.

And you are a terrorist. That is my opinion too. Banning me will only prove that you are. By banning me you pretty much are silencing my voice. You seem to have many opinions that are wrong to me but I don't go around banning you. If you are not a terrorist, then don't act and talk like one.Of course you don't "go around banning" me. You don't do it because a) you don't have the power to, and b) I don't hurl ridiculous accusations of terrorism at people who disagree with me. You'll notice several people in this thread have taken issue with my defense of Israel. None of them are being banned. Why? Because they are reasonable and mature about it. That's all I require of anyone here.

I'd love to go back to Iraq. But I think Yoda is in the process of banning me forever. So whatever. I won't take back what I said. I think Yoda's views are very extreme and I don't like them at all. I didn't call HIM anything..just his views I dont HAVE to think his views are right. Whatever, if i get banned I know its because he didnt want me speaking anymore of the truth.Yes, I am banning you. You were warned. And no, you didn't call my VIEWS terrorist. Have you really forgotten your own words so quicky?

"...you are a bigger terrorist than Israel itself."
"And you are a terrorist."

You're right, you don't have to think I'm right. No one does. And I suspect several other people will continue to disagree with my defense of Israel here. But they'll do so without lowering themselves to comparing those who disagree with them to murderers.

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-23-04, 12:33 AM

Oh, looks lke its official...I am banned. Funny how one gets banned because of a thread about war on Iraq.

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-23-04, 12:35 AM

Of course we're debating about facts; that's what happens when you make claims about what did or did not happen. You'd rather spit out some epic speech about fighting for freedom than actually stop and demonstrate that the things you're saying are even true to begin with. If I were really ignorant, you'd have demonstrated it, rather than just stated it again and again.

Of course you don't "go around banning" me. You don't do it because a) you don't have the power to, and b) I don't hurl ridiculous accusations of terrorism at people who disagree with me. You'll notice several people in this thread have taken issue with my defense of Israel. None of them are being banned. Why? Because, unlike you, they are mature and reasonable.
Do what you have to do. Can I be more mature than that?

Yoda

03-23-04, 12:49 AM

Allow me to intervene here for a bit, Spider-man I see that you visit this forum pretty often.... I do so myself and vaule your opinion as well as Yoda's. Intellectual Arguements gets remembered but heated name calling, INTERNET arguments doesn't get you much and frankly it just embrassess the two of you while you are going at it ..... as immature, entertainment seeking people such as myself shout JERRY JERRRY from the sidelines, but this time I won't because I actually like the debate going on in this forum..........and now for my final thought:

we have already lost sight of IRAQ <--------I'd just thought I'd bring it to our attentionYou're kidding, right? I don't see what I've said that I should be embarrassed about. Enlighten me.

I realize you're trying to stay "above the fray" by not taking sides, but implying that I'm operating on the same level of conduct as Spidey here is beyond the pale. I'm providing sources and asking for evidence, and he's saying things like "you're a terrorist" and "you must be jewish."

Caitlyn

03-23-04, 01:26 AM

Allow me to intervene here for a bit, Spider-man I see that you visit this forum pretty often.... I do so myself and vaule your opinion as well as Yoda's. Intellectual Arguements gets remembered but heated name calling, INTERNET arguments doesn't get you much and frankly it just embrassess the two of you while you are going at it ..... as immature, entertainment seeking people such as myself shout JERRY JERRRY from the sidelines, but this time I won't because I actually like the debate going on in this forum..........and now for my final thought:

we have already lost sight of IRAQ <--------I'd just thought I'd bring it to our attention

I just read this whole thread and couldn’t find one line where Yoda even remotely sank to the level Spider did… what I did read was Yoda giving historical data (that with a few minutes of research, could be backed up)… and Yoda requesting that Spider do the same pertaining to his accusations… instead, Spider resorted to childish name calling and a few temper tantrums that would have made a 5 year old proud… if anyone should be embarrassed it is definitely not Yoda…

Anyway, pertaining to Iraq…. I was watching a program about Saddam on the History Channel the other night and it occurred to me that everyone had been having a fit about not finding “weapons of mass destruction” … but we did… hiding in a rat hole.

kaisersoze

03-23-04, 01:38 AM

You're kidding, right? I don't see what I've said that I should be embarrassed about. Enlighten me.

I realize you're trying to stay "above the fray" by not taking sides, but implying that I'm operating on the same level of conduct as Spidey here is beyond the pale. I'm providing sources and asking for evidence, and he's saying things like "you're a terrorist" and "you must be jewish."

alright, fine you didn't "name call" but he is my friend and you two were infact "going at it" (aruging that is) pretty heated-ly and as a friend of Spider-man I felt I had to step in, make him cool off and realize that it wasn't going nowhere... that's honestly was my only intention and now that he's gone with his ending few post I can't say he wasn't asking for it but I'm sad all the same.

LordSlaytan

03-23-04, 02:03 AM

I never liked the guy. Good riddance.

Hondo333

03-23-04, 05:15 AM

I have no particularly reason to distrust your interpretation, but I do know that people are prone to spin, conciously or otherwise, which is why I requested some kind of objective documentation of the issue.

Here (http://pilger.carlton.com/timor) is a great website from documentarian John Pildger, Should have what you want.

I'd point out, however, that even if it were proven that the US has confronted one kind of tyranny while ignoring another, it wouldn't change my point at all, as I've never made the case that America was purely altruistic. No nation is; but it should be beyond reproach that the United States has, for all its flaws, done a great bit of good, and continues to make efforts to improve life for those outside its borders, albeit in occasionally imperfect ways.

I am not talking simply about the USA not doing any thing but suppotring it.

Why has the USA gone into Iraq twice, shouldnt they "Share the Love"?

One country alone cannot fix the world's problems. It must be a joint-effort. And criticizing the countries that put just a piece or two of the puzzle in place simply because they didn't do it all themselves can only discourage others from stepping up to the plate.

But you are helping create problems.

Revenge of Mr M

03-23-04, 11:30 AM

Figures… Django gives birth and I didn't even get a bubble gum cigar…

:confused:
well. That's the most appropriate smilie I can find to express my disappointment at that comment.

As far as I can tell, SPIDEI2_MAN__ is an overexcited kid, whose obvious actual intention was to point out that Yoda supported state terrorism. Yeah, ok, he was being an immature prick. But his arguments are very typical of those used in forums populated by shall we say, younger folks. His banning was very fast and it's surprising that barely anyone seemed to care about the hate mail supposedly sent to him.
But anyway, that's your problem.

Bottom line though: I am 100% against the war on terror as it is so branded. Not for any particular political cares or anything like that, though I do believe the whole enterprise entirely lacks focus. Rather because it kills people, like my brother in law who is now a statistic.

Something smells bad here. The EU has decalred it will not provide economic support for anyone who fails to fully support the war on terror, in a move which will apparently ensure the safety of their citizens.

HA. I haven't come here very often recently, but this fair shocked me. I did a quick search on "Madrid" and came up with nothing about the recent bombing. No one wishes to express their condolences?

And now we have the assassination of sheikh Yassin too. Universal scorn poured on that act by every administration bar the US. Sharon is defiant, insisting he will carry on with his war on terror. But this is nothing but a spiralling tower of blood and violence.

Golgot

03-23-04, 06:12 PM

Are you saying you actually support the war, but just not the way it was handled? If so, this is news to me. Please elaborate...though not too much. :)

I support the idea of removing Saddam, but it needs to be done right.

I think it's been done very badly in certain key areas.

Therefore i opposed the invasion from its inception because of concerns about...

-the lessened chances of an improved and stable and nation forming
-the unresolved political climate and profit-motives surrounding the regime-change.
-the inter-relation of these things with the "war" on terrorism.

I worry about all of these things mainly because of the approach of the Bush-admin.

There's no way to talk about any of this briefly, but basically, here's the central thing they needed to get right, but didn't.

-Establishing a broad coalition

Not achieving this has knock on effects for:
-ensuring solid investment of manpower and money in Iraq
-establishing a broad base for global interventions with a peace-prospectus (and thus ensuring the US doesn't get over-stretched internationally too)
-co-ordinating effectively and freely on everything from counter-terrorism, to future regime-change, to oil-negotiation etc.

These things were achievable. The US is about the only country that could have brought about a broad-based Iraq invasion.

The Bush-admin lost that opportunity, and others, coz the Bush-admin wasn't interested in them.

They should have been.

The advantages of their bullish "unilateral" approach are undermined by the negatives IMO (i.e poor "after-war-care" for Iraq, and the neglected Afghanistan etc; increased international "grass-roots terrorism" recruitment; lessened respect/response for US criticism of oppressive regimes; lessened US ability to instigate action against oppressive regimes etc etc)

You know some of the details of my arguments. There are more. Feel free to pick on what points you will....for the longer answers ;) :)

It was a volatile situation, sure, but this line of reasoning only blames Britain for putting a wolverine and a puppy in the same room; the blame still must rest with the players themselves. The fact that the Palestinians couldn't stand the thought of a legally-recognized Jewish state is their own shortcoming.

Nah, i think your first analogy is good. The religiously dogmatic will bite deep and they won't let go, like animals.

For that reason i see the Brit facilitation of this nation-formation as an irresponsible action. I certainly think you're giving it too much weight with regards to validating Israels "right" to the land. It was a "legal" action, sure. But it was "legal" to form Iraq. The question is, was it wise? Will Iraq always need a dictatorship to keep its fractious factions "unified"? Will the racial and religious differences between Israelis and "Arabs", placed side-by-side, ever establish a peaceful co-existance?

As it is, i see both sides as aggressors. I think Sharon, and Peres the opposition leader, are right to be pushing for an exit from Gaza etc. That's a step in the right direction, away from unwarrented aggression.

I also think Peres was right when he said Hamas hurts the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.

And God knows Yassin probably deserves to be dead. It's just a question of whether his death in this way will lessen or increase suffering and death overall.

No sweat. Forgive me for mentioning cocaine instead of heroin, and we're even.

We are but human :)

Thanks for the links. I shall peruse.

Cool. I look forward to discussing the pros and cons of this one (again, i see approach as being key. And i'm really not a fan of the Bush-admin's approach. Again ;) :rolleyes: ).

Caitlyn

03-23-04, 07:29 PM

:confused:
well. That's the most appropriate smilie I can find to express my disappointment at that comment.

I’m crushed… my entire existence revolves around your approval… :indifferent: But if you knew me at all, you would know my comment was aimed at his attitude… not his opinions…

As far as I can tell, SPIDEI2_MAN__ is an overexcited kid, whose obvious actual intention was to point out that Yoda supported state terrorism. Yeah, ok, he was being an immature prick. But his arguments are very typical of those used in forums populated by shall we say, younger folks. His banning was very fast and it's surprising that barely anyone seemed to care about the hate mail supposedly sent to him.
But anyway, that's your problem.

You know… based on your comments, it’s rather obvious you either didn’t take the time to read this whole thread or else I have misread the posts… and I can’t help but find it a bit ironic that you are absent from this forum for weeks and then when you do show, you, once again, appear to be questioning the fact a member was banned… apparently assuming, once again, the ban was based on opinion rather then conduct… but anyway, that’s your problem.

Just out of curiosity though, are you saying members should be excused for their conduct based on their age? If so, at what age do you feel they should be held accountable? Spider is supposed to be 18... legally that puts him past “kid” status… and why do you think he was banned “very fast” ? He’s been here for a year… Also, in which post did you conclude that Yoda supported a terrorist state… I couldn’t find it…

Yoda

03-23-04, 08:12 PM

Golgot

03-23-04, 08:20 PM

Also, in which post did you conclude that Yoda supported a terrorist state… I couldn’t find it…

Terror's a very broad term. We all seem to prove that everyday. (i reckon it's time it got redefined/clarified in its common usage, but there we go)

I think "state terrorism" actually fits some of Israel's actions well. I think "terrorism" (in its old definition) is the correct term for Hamas's actions, too. They both use aggressive tactics to inspire fear and try and get their own way.

I think anyone who tries to excuse either side, or say the blame lies soley with the other, is off base.

What's sad about race/religion-based "terrorism"/war is that it's self-perpetuating, and it has no easy solution (mass annihilation or overwhelming-generational-grief seeming to be the only ones)

What's even sadder is that international "al Qaeda"-vs-"the West" terror has the potential to grow into a new, broad, parallel of that despicable national situation. That's if both sides get more and more entrenched in how they percieve eachother. And the death toll continues to rise.

Golgot

03-23-04, 08:28 PM

I'll get back to the debates at hand in a bit. Just wanted to note that I've talked to Spidey, and have agreed to reinstate him. It seems that these issues strike a very personal chord for him (for understandable reasons), and so I'm willing to let it slide this time. Hopefully everyone will manage to be civil from now on.

Hooray. "To ban one life from Mofo would be a misfortune, two ban two looks like caring-less-ness".

Well done oh compassionate one. Even if i do think webhead needs to dunk his head in a bucket of water.

Now, if you could just get a written statement from Django promising he'd be good and actually discuss points, you'd get a Sainthood ;)

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-23-04, 08:42 PM

alright, fine you didn't "name call" but he is my friend and you two were infact "going at it" (aruging that is) pretty heated-ly and as a friend of Spider-man I felt I had to step in, make him cool off and realize that it wasn't going nowhere... that's honestly was my only intention and now that he's gone with his ending few post I can't say he wasn't asking for it but I'm sad all the same.
Its nice to know that somone cares about me. :love:
Thanks Kaisersoze.

I never liked the guy. Good riddance.
Oh, this is coming from the guy who made a truce with me just a week ago about being cool with me. Strange how the truth comes out when I am not looking, right Slaytan? Anyways, its up to you not to like me, but I haven't done anything to you, and I think you owe me an explanation.

As far as I can tell, SPIDEI2_MAN__ is an overexcited kid, whose obvious actual intention was to point out that Yoda supported state terrorism. Yeah, ok, he was being an immature prick. But his arguments are very typical of those used in forums populated by shall we say, younger folks. His banning was very fast and it's surprising that barely anyone seemed to care about the hate mail supposedly sent to him.

Another thanks to someone who understands me. And also thank you for even remembering about the hate mail, which was never looked into. Oh well. Thank you anyways Revenge (Even though you were slighty off about me being an overexcited kid, I am more of a goofball).

You know… based on your comments, it’s rather obvious you either didn’t take the time to read this whole thread or else I have misread the posts… and I can’t help but find it a bit ironic that you are absent from this forum for weeks and then when you do show, you, once again, appear to be questioning the fact a member was banned… apparently assuming, once again, the ban was based on opinion rather then conduct… but anyway, that’s your problem.

Just out of curiosity though, are you saying members should be excused for their conduct based on their age? If so, at what age do you feel they should be held accountable? Spider is supposed to be 18... legally that puts him past “kid” status… and why do you think he was banned “very fast” ? He’s been here for a year… Also, in which post did you conclude that Yoda supported a terrorist state… I couldn’t find it…

This is coming from the very first person I met on this forum. Not only was Caitlyn my "welcomer" into the forum, but I also use her signature as my Senior Quote for our yearbook which is to be printed in only 27 days. So, therefore, No Comment.

Oh..I'mmmmmmm back!!!!

LordSlaytan

03-23-04, 09:41 PM

Oh, this is coming from the guy who made a truce with me just a week ago about being cool with me. Strange how the truth comes out when I am not looking, right Slaytan? Anyways, its up to you not to like me, but I haven't done anything to you, and I think you owe me an explanation.

Do you really think I care whether you know how I feel? I made a truce, yes...but you reverted back to your over the top ranting and accusatory bull. I don't like the way you behave, we've finally got rid of somebody just like that after a year of his crap...and you have done something to me, you have insulted me and the people here who have civil discourse and are also my friends. You rub me the wrong way. Maybe because Django put such a foul taste in my mouth with a year of the same attitude is what makes this so, I don't know. I don't care. If you quit flying off the handle I'd probably warm to you, I don't know that either. Why the hell do you care? I don't.

SPIDEI2_MAN__

03-24-04, 01:26 AM

Do you really think I care whether you know how I feel? I made a truce, yes...but you reverted back to your over the top ranting and accusatory bull. I don't like the way you behave, we've finally got rid of somebody just like that after a year of his crap...and you have done something to me, you have insulted me and the people here who have civil discourse and are also my friends. You rub me the wrong way. Maybe because Django put such a foul taste in my mouth with a year of the same attitude is what makes this so, I don't know. I don't care. If you quit flying off the handle I'd probably warm to you, I don't know that either. Why the hell do you care? I don't.

How mature of you. I think maybe you and I should just not talk, anymore. Sorry it didn't work between us (I sound like im breaking up with you or something)..well since im on it..its not you..its me, sorry. I'm sure you will find another man. :(

lol, i am kidding man. Its a shame we couldn't get along oh well...

ok back to the TOPIC..
What do you guys think about what has been happening in Israel in the past few days?

kaisersoze

03-24-04, 05:27 AM

Clarke's Allegations, Fact or Fiction
an editorial

Richard Clarke a former counter-terrorism advisor to the bush adminstration publicly accussed President Bush of linking Iraq to the attacks of Sept. 11. 01 despite being advised that Iraq had little or no direct links to the attacks.

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know" ....

he added

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. "

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

In my opinion, I find Clarke's accusations highly beilevable, all attempts to address or discredit Clarke thus far are attacks upon his character... they did not directly address the accusations but judged Clarke's character, I find that they are trying to celverly change the topic by attacking his character which is verifiable by few than addressing the issues with facts verifiable by many. In fact the only way the adminstration has addressed the problem thus far is denying that such a conversation existed all together.

Either way this is becomming a HE said / He Said battle and at this point in time I feel that NEITHER interpertation is no longer important. What is important is that we fix up Iraq, the war is fought and no matter what the outcome of "the truth" will reverse the damage to the land in IRAQ. Instead of putting the money and manpower into investigating whether or not the war is justified is not nearly as important than that of IRAQI citizens having homes. During the 60s the goverment did not want to spend an extra serveral million dollars to represent the years in 4 digits on their supercomputers leading to the Y2K bug prophechy which costed the WORLD slightly over 1 TRILLION in 1999. What we have to realize is the longer we delay and debate the more we can expect it to cost us in the long run. President Bush needs to sh*t up, swallow his pride and finish what he started.

LordSlaytan

03-24-04, 10:20 AM

How mature of you. I think maybe you and I should just not talk, anymore. Sorry it didn't work between us (I sound like im breaking up with you or something)..well since im on it..its not you..its me, sorry. I'm sure you will find another man. :(

Are you trying to bait me?

I thought about it a bit more last night and came to the conclusion that saying I never liked you was too extreme. Until that one day where you got angry and became rude to me and a few others, I had hardly noticed you (that's not a slam). That was the first time you acted that way, and it's unfair of me to hold you to a standard that I myself have failed to achieve a number of times. I have blown up at Yoda and a couple of others more than once during my tenure here, so who am I to judge you? It's probably that very weakness of having a quick temper that you and I both seem to share that makes it where you rub me the wrong way; I see a bit of myself in you, that is. Since you have only done this twice in an entire year, you actually have a better record than me. So, in other words; I apologize. You're not an *******, you're human.

Brian

Yoda

03-24-04, 10:48 AM

In my opinion, I find Clarke's accusations highly beilevable, all attempts to address or discredit Clarke thus far are attacks upon his character... they did not directly address the accusations but judged Clarke's character, I find that they are trying to celverly change the topic by attacking his character which is verifiable by few than addressing the issues with facts verifiable by many. In fact the only way the adminstration has addressed the problem thus far is denying that such a conversation existed all together.But if his claims are false, what ELSE would you have them say? As for "attacking his character" -- I do not see it that way. They've been miles away from anything unseemly or unprofessional. They've given reasonable, logical responses. Noting that he had been demoted beforehand, and thus might have been bitter, is a reasonable response. Noting that his judgement had been lacking in matters of cyberterrorism is also a perfectly valid retort.

Naturally, we're all going to believe whichever view we found more agreeable beforehand, but I see no way to spin this so that the White House is on the defensive more than Clarke. The timing of the book's release, and his expressing in his resignation letter that it had been a "privelege" (I believe that was the word) working with the Bush administration both indicate that this is not about truth, but about politics.

Let's also take note of the fact that John Kerry is on vacation. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but that's a bit of a coincidence.

Either way this is becomming a HE said / He Said battle and at this point in time I feel that NEITHER interpertation is no longer important. What is important is that we fix up Iraq, the war is fought and no matter what the outcome of "the truth" will reverse the damage to the land in IRAQ. Instead of putting the money and manpower into investigating whether or not the war is justified is not nearly as important than that of IRAQI citizens having homes. During the 60s the goverment did not want to spend an extra serveral million dollars to represent the years in 4 digits on their supercomputers leading to the Y2K bug prophechy which costed the WORLD slightly over 1 TRILLION in 1999. What we have to realize is the longer we delay and debate the more we can expect it to cost us in the long run. President Bush needs to sh*t up, swallow his pride and finish what he started.The 9/11 Commission is not putting money and manpower into finding out whether or not the war was justified; it's putting money and manpower into finding out who was responsible for 9/11, and how it can be prevented in the future. A very worthy goal, if you ask me. Thus far, they've concluded that neither the Bush or Clinton administrations did all they could.

As for Bush swallowing his pride and finishing the job; I fail to see how that even comes into this. Whatever complaints you may have against him, you certainly cannot fault his resolve. He's undeniably the type to see things through, and I do not think Iraq is an exception.