The ONE and ONLY Iraq thread.Thread originally posted by ComputronPosted by Computron on 03-07-2003 at 08:00 PM:
To prevent 15 gazillion topics on this issue, I'm creating this thread. Meanwhile all other Iraq threads will be closed.
This is to prevent the forum from become a war message board... Posted by Sheba on 03-07-2003 at 08:06 PM:
While A NZ woman offers to let Bush Crucify her, a British MP learns that Saddam is probably better suited for the job.
Having More Fun Than a Human Shield Should Be Allowed to Have March 5, 2003 If you think there's not a stupidity gene, consider this New Zealand woman who said that she was willing to be crucified by President Bush if he pledges not to attack Iraq. The "catch" is that Bush would have to drive in the nails himself - something she says is "the measure of a man." Lady, why don't you go to Iraq and let Saddam crucify you. He'll nail your tongue to a board while he's doing it. Consider this quote from the UK Independent from March 1991 out of Rush's Stack of Saddam Stuff: "In one cell, pieces of human flesh – ear lobes – were nailed to the wall, and blood spattered the ceiling. A large metal fan hung from the ceiling and my guide told me prisoners were attached to the fan and beaten with clubs as they twirled. There were hooks in the ceiling used to suspend victims. A torture victim told me that prisoners were also crucified, nails driven through their hands into the wall. A favorite technique was to hang men from the hooks and attach a heavy weight to their testicles." This is what happens under Saddam, not here! Then there are a couple of stories out there about the human shields taking a powder from Iraq. They're hilarious and infuriating, but they're also sad. Consider this guy Nathan Chapman. He sold everything he owned to make the trip to Iraq, but "the delicate, 20-year-old Englishman" discovered that Saddam wouldn't let him protect purely humanitarian sites. Did these idiots not realize what was going on in Iraq before they shipped out? Nathan is all upset that he can't go to a school or a hospital and dare his countrymen to blow him up. Saddam had - shocker - positioned him at military installations and this sort of thing. Well, hey, if you feel so strongly about this, defy Saddam and go wherever you want to save lives! Isn't that what protesting is all about? Ooooh, right, it's "not about dying," and you know Saddam will nail your tongue to a board if you try to speak out against him. I'm sick of these fools being touted as examples of courage and virtue and wisdom. They're dangerous fools, shocked that a dictator dictates where they can go! To listen to these people will lead to more and worse wars - the very thing they claim to oppose. British PM Brings Back Baghdad Horrors March 6, 2003 If any of these peace protesters could go talk to Kurds or marsh Arabs under Hussein's thumb - or took the time to read any of the stories we have by Iraqi exiles in Rush's Stack of Saddam Stuff - they'd do a complete 180 on the need to remove Saddam by force. Liberal British MP Ann Clwyd underwent such a transformation, and it helped bring about this massive switch in British public opinion which now favors Tony Blair's position by a 3-1 margin. Ms. Clwyd is a member of the left who has opened her eyes to evil. Read her column and master some of the horror stories, so you can educate everyone who asks about this. She told the UK Guardian of an under-nourished Iraqi teacher who gave birth in prison. She begged for milk to feed the child, but the guards refused. "For three days she held that baby in her arms and would not give the body up," Clwyd said. "After three days due to the 60-degree heat, the body of course started to smell, and [the woman] was taken away and killed." Remember that New Zealand woman who offered to let Bush crucify her if he'd leave Saddam alone? Clwyd writes of a tortured and crucified a 15-year-old boy: "On the walls were hundreds of photographs of piles of clothing, mass graves and skulls. Saddam's regime is like the Khmer Rouge and the Nazis." Anti-war protesters "scream traitor" at Clwyd, but she won't back down on the truth and now admires Tony Blair for his stance. She's seen the proof which, as I predicted, we'll all find when we liberate that country. That's when the world will ask the Frances of the world, "Why did you sit still and trade with this monster?" Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-07-2003 at 07:10 PM:
Okay.
I Am Stupid. Now then, tell me exactly what the point is to this little story. Humour me. Posted by Computron on 03-07-2003 at 07:12 PM:
I'm still trying to figure that out.
Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-07-2003 at 07:15 PM:
I guess you just like telling everyone that saddam hussain is scum?
That's cool. Posted by Sheba on 03-07-2003 at 07:22 PM:
quote:What's the point?! Good gosh. Well it's actually two stories that dovetail. And the point of it all is, here we have this abject IDIOT offering herself to be crucified if Bush will stop the war (god how stupid is that?!), and here we have Saddam engaging in the very practice that this woman wants Bush to do to her. Pretty ironic. These people are said to have courage. Well let that lady go to IRAQ and protest Saddam, and offer herself as a crucifixion at the hands of Saddam if he'll reveal and destroy all his WOMD. If she does that THEN I'll call her "courageous." And as an aside, a British MP has learned of the torture and horrors of Saddam's Iraq, and has CHANGED HER MIND ABOUT WAR TO THE FAVOR OF IT!!!!! Posted by Computron on 03-07-2003 at 07:24 PM:
Ok, on the torture bit, why aren't we going after Mugabe, Kim Jong Il and all the other dictators?
Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 03-07-2003 at 07:27 PM:
Because we aren't too good at sharing asskickings
 Posted by Sheba on 03-07-2003 at 07:32 PM:
quote: Dude you're leaving out of the equation the people with MONEY--government leaders and wealthy oil sheiks especially. Not everybody in a Muslim country is dirt poor. In fact, many of the Terrorists are well-heeled. Osama himself very nearly was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. These guys know better. Now, of course the poverty that brings lack of CNN to a household will of course make a person not have some information. But money has nothing to do with beliefs. The basic underlying belief isn't always "extremist", but rather what they choose to use for a remedy. Many conservative Christians and Jews and Muslims would agree that many Hollywood movies are full of immorality; however they would not do what Osama would do. And don't forget to throw in the mix the tin pot dictators who deprive the people and blame it on USA. That way they not only get the support of people who should be lynching them, they get the anti-americanism going. By any means necessary. Sometimes religious reasons (via extremist Mullahs), sometimes economic. But this isn't about what the leaders think. This is about what the regular Joe Iraqi/Iranian/Saudi etc thinks the problem is. Posted by Computron on 03-07-2003 at 08:33 PM:
Even Bush's own denomination of Christianity denounces war...
http://www.msnbc.com/news/882331.asp?0cv=CB20 Edit - Sheba, lust for money and lust for power go hand in hand. The poor want money and those with money who support terrorism simply wish for more power. There are always mulitple reasons. Posted by Master_Fwiffo on 03-07-2003 at 10:09 PM:
quote:But Compy fails to notice that there is an equal number (if not more) Christians who also think the war is a nescary evil. Go figure. Posted by Redstreak on 03-07-2003 at 10:11 PM:
If this thing follows the TFA version, three people will be banned and Sheba will be beaten with sticks by people who oppose her.
Booya indeed. Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 03-07-2003 at 11:41 PM:
Blix, that bastard: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-603370,00.html
Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 03-07-2003 at 11:42 PM:
quote:Compy, this is analgous to someone saying "All Muslims are terrorists". Just because some of Bush's religion are anti-war, does not mean they are all anti-war. Posted by Nightbeat on 03-08-2003 at 12:17 AM:
I give up. The human race just ain't worth the touble anymore.
Time to see to the evolutionary replacement of man by the Rat. I'd go with bears, but they tend to be grumpy this time of year. Rats don't fight wars. All they do is eat, sleep, breed, and live on radioactive islands. They're also pretty smart. I'm just sick of the whole concept of war. And all it's going to do is what one of Hussein's generals didn't have the guts to do after the Gulf War. Then on to North Korea, Mugabe, Viet nam, and, why not, Cuba's been a bit too quiet lately. I was hoping that all Bush and his people were doing was bluffing. I hate being wrong. Posted by Computron on 03-08-2003 at 12:51 AM:
quote:Not at all. I'm merely stating that the Bishop of Bush's denomination is against war. I never stated that all Christians are against war or anything close to that. Posted by Gekigengar on 03-08-2003 at 01:00 AM:
It's been 12 years of resolution on trying to get to 'Hussein', this time about BUSH is actually doing something about it, rather than pussy footing around a resolution from a resolution to deal with this resolution...
I do hope that there would be a resolution to end all this soon. Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-08-2003 at 06:22 AM:
My money's on the oran-gutans, nightbeat... assuming there are any left after we're through with the world...
and every so often they will sit around a little camp fire and tell stories of these strange, mythical creatures who walked on two legs, who made strange magic for talking and seeing over the other side of the world, and made weapons so powerful they could wipe out whole continents. And how their greed, corruption, lack of honesty, paranoia, self-righteousness, envy, lack of decency and easily-led populations led to their downfall. Political intrigue, murders, wars, discoveries, dizzying heights and crushing lows. A creature so wonderful that it walked on the very moon above, and yet so terrifying it could kill thousands of its own in a single move under the banner of 'war'. surely it will be the greatest story ever told, as far as whatever comes after us is concerned. {That was an intentionally bipartisan post} Posted by Computron on 03-08-2003 at 07:19 PM:
Posted by wideload on 03-08-2003 at 11:00 PM:
I dont think there will be a war
Heres my little theory on it Its just one big bluff. The only reason why people cant see this is just because it has to be as realistic as possible. If some protestor doesn't buy it why would saddam. By doing this Bush not only gets Hussein to comply with current resolutions but also gets newer more strict ones. As for the protestors... there doing exactly what Bush wants them to. In order to avoid war they will support the nations supporting new resolutoins (not war) and push iraq to comply with these resolutoins. Bush might not get a "regime" change, but he will get a neutered watered down version of iraq. Next you might ask where does the oil fall into this equation. Recent uncertainty has increased oil prices. Which is great... if you live in the state of Texas. Bush and his/family/friends/republican coworkers all currently have lots of financial investment in the oil patch, which means profits for them. After people realize there is no war the oil prices return to normal, Bush and co. pull out investments (with a tidy profit), and the american economy appears to go through a huge recovery. This also coincides with the next election. Bush is elected again and looks like a hero to both sides. To the right wing for challenging the world, and to the moderate left wing for, in the end, being reasonable about backing down from war. As for the extreme left, not only do they think they have a victory and are appeased, all the other evil things the Bush admisnistration does get swept under the rug without anyone really noticing. In the end everything is wrapped up into a nice little package. Posted by Nightbeat on 03-09-2003 at 02:53 PM:
Nah. Rats have the edge on this one. They'll do better with whatever shape we leave the world in. They're adaptable enough to live under any condition save oxygenless atmosphere and deep sea pressure. Besides, they already have hands
Posted by Nightbeat on 03-09-2003 at 03:00 PM:
And in strange, news-related events......
The front page of this week's Weekly World News has this as it's main cover story: SADDAM'S SECRET LIFE!!! He's really a transvestite! His X-rated gay movies! ... I can't remember what the third bullet headline for it was, but accompanying it was a pic of Hussein in a dress. This is, of course, the same tabloid that told us he was feeding Christians to lions. Let's hear it for tabloid journalism!!!!! Posted by Sheba on 03-09-2003 at 05:30 PM:
quote:Well I wouldn't put it past Hussein and company forging $#** up, letting the Weapons Inspectors get it, and all to make the UN and USA and Britain look bad. Posted by Sheba on 03-09-2003 at 05:34 PM:
quote:Mugabe was democratically elected. And in this day and age, that kind of puts a damper on things. Kim Jong Mentally Ill has nukes and will be dealt with, and Japan is going to get nukes so it can help us out. But Iraq is more important, because Saddam is an instability factor in the Middle East. Posted by Sheba on 03-09-2003 at 05:35 PM:
quote:hahahah I saw all that, it was funny as hell. Posted by the uiltmate prime fan on 03-09-2003 at 05:40 PM:
quote:indeed, lets here it for the voice of the redneck! Posted by Richard on 03-09-2003 at 05:41 PM:
quote: I know some instabile factors in the west Posted by Richard on 03-09-2003 at 05:47 PM:
quote:mugabe...no oil,no economic interests Kim Jong Il.... hmm no oil, he's got nukes other dictators..no elections yet, mabye when the time comes to boost public relations the'll bother old fidel again. btw how's america's economics going Posted by Sheba on 03-09-2003 at 05:48 PM:
quote:Religious leaders the world over are in the business of saving souls. The protection of America is not their job, and sometimes escapes their concern. There is a certain idealism in the opposition to war, a certain optimism that in many cases is unwarranted. But it all boils down to basic principles. Is a lion going to NOT eat a cape buffalo that just stands there instead of running away or fighting? Can the buffalo negotiate with the lion? Hell no. If surrounded by lions, a buffalo must fight or die. That's how it is in the world. Pacifists, if surrounded by two-legged predators, will be killed. It's as simple as that. And Compy, you've appeared to have overlooked a major linkage to the poverty and the terrorists. It's also a major linkage between the poverty of Iraq and Saddam. The linkage being, these jack@$$es with MONEY (like Osama, or even Hussein) COULD be USING it to HELP THEIR OWN PEOPLE. But they're not. Which means, they really don't give that much of a $#** about their own people. Only by removing them can we prove that what they were all about. That goes for Hussein double as it does for Osama, since Saddam actually runs a country and does give oil for blood (to France and Germany and Russia), so he does get lots good money, he COULD be using it for his people, but he's building umpteen million palaces instead. And this is the guy you think is OK to leave in charge over there? Do we have the right to interfere in how sovereign nations treat their own people? Damn right we do. Do we have the resources to address every nation that’s hurting it’s people? Not a chance. So when we do take a risk on deposing a dictator, people concerned with suffering should be glad – not scribbling placards at Starbucks. -Ed the Sock Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-10-2003 at 07:47 AM:
quote:unfortunately it doesnt work that way- to take the example of Bin Laden, to many muslims he is the equivalent of Robin Hood. Yes, he has huge wealth- but he sleeps with his troops in caves, eats his men's food and drinks his men's drink. He is seen as a freedom fighter- hence to many he is a hero. It all depends which perspective you look from I suppose. And as for Japan having nukes, I've heard nothing of this? Japan is supposedly a pacifist nation, (one which I adore greatly) i would be saddened to see it joining the ranks of the military powers [again]. Unless you mean for defence purposes? Which I could easily understand given who some of their neighbours are. Posted by impactor returns on 03-10-2003 at 07:56 AM:
japan does have nukes, they threaterned NK last month that they would be prepared to use them.
Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-10-2003 at 08:51 AM:
Hang on...
Mugabe was elected... So was Saddam. What's the difference here? Posted by Best First on 03-10-2003 at 09:41 AM:
"Doood - that like, wasn't, a real election. It was a setup - i read it in a newpaper"
"So was Mugabe's" "Doooood - its totally differnt" Theres ya go- 3 posts saved. Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-10-2003 at 10:30 AM:
 Dood! Sweet! Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-10-2003 at 10:33 AM:
Oh yeah, I'm doing glib 205... Nearly there!
Posted by Computron on 03-10-2003 at 10:56 AM:
quote:Where's my car? Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-10-2003 at 11:03 AM:
You don't get to drive the mod mobile - till you let me do 'things'...
You know what Papa Snarl likes... Posted by Computron on 03-10-2003 at 11:14 AM:
quote:Long walks on the beach at sunset? Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-10-2003 at 11:53 AM:
I'm not in love with you... I just need the gratification.
Posted by Gekigengar on 03-10-2003 at 01:07 PM:
Papa Snarl is in love with Sheba.
Posted by Blacksword on 03-10-2003 at 02:58 PM:
Bush was also elected - whoops no he wasn't. Damn I keep forgetting that part.
 Anyone happen to hear the theory about the Towers getting bombed because of all the Enron documents that are now ash in the rubble? Not the sanest theory but could have been another reason why it looks like thUS governmnet turned their head the other way as all the data pointed to a major terrorist strike. Not saying anything definite here but it has about as founding as some of the comments we've had from the rightside of the house.Posted by impactor returns on 03-10-2003 at 03:10 PM:
quote:Women dont understand... Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 03-10-2003 at 03:23 PM:
[Anyone happen to hear the theory about the Towers getting bombed because of all the Enron documents that are now ash in the rubble? Next person who says the World Trade Center was bombed is getting kicked in the nuts and beaten until they piss out their internal organs.
Posted by impactor returns on 03-10-2003 at 03:24 PM:
quote:Next person who says the World Trade Center was bombed is getting kicked in the nuts and beaten until they piss out their internal organs. The Trade towers were bombed! Posted by Gekigengar on 03-10-2003 at 03:42 PM:
I think Leatherneck was trying to convey that, "anymore consipracy theories about the bombing will get kicked" by him.
C'mon conspiracy theories... that's just a bunch of mallarchy. Next thing you know, "LaLiLuLeLo", actually runs the government. Now, where is Big Boss? Posted by Blacksword on 03-10-2003 at 05:07 PM:
In an underground lab somewhere. I swear everything is run by Walt Disney's frozen head.
But realy there's too much stuff that just doesn't add up about the whole affair. And it's not like the US government hasn't sacrificed its people before..... Anyone care to open up the Pearl Harbour can of worms? *runs* Posted by Computron on 03-10-2003 at 05:09 PM:
quote:Dude...don't even. Posted by Blacksword on 03-10-2003 at 05:25 PM:
quote:Dude you had had me frightened for a moment.... AGHHHHHHHHHHHHH THE SHEBA PLAGUE IS SPREADING!!!!!!!!!!! *lights himself on fire* Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 03-10-2003 at 05:48 PM:
quote:Actually, I think Leatherneck was trying to convey that if you're going to reference that tragedy, at least do the 3,000 people who were murdered the courtesy of correctly recalling how they died. IR it disturbs me that you said that with such glee. 9/11 adds up. There was no reason for the US Gov't to sacrafice its own people. At Pearl Harbor, there was a reason; we needed to get into the War to get out of the Depression. Posted by Blacksword on 03-10-2003 at 06:09 PM:
A plane is just an unusual type of bomb. But I suppose your right, one should be correct in their phrasing.
My problem with the whole affair is all those people who got calls not to go into work that day and the fact that almost no higher level people were in the building that day. My guess is that the government was expecting a bombing along hte lines of teh first Trade Center bomb and got suprised with the rest of us when two planes came in. Considering how the FBI and CIA weren't talking to eachother ans the general intelligence screw ups that have already been admitted to I'd say this sort of scenario is fairly plausable. I too doubt that teh US government would sacrifice 3000 civilians. I figure that hearign an attack was comming they cleared out the important people and called up a bunch of others to minimise casualties in anticipation of a conventional bombing like the last one to give reason for mailitary actions and a crack down on civil liberties. And this need not mean the whole governmnet either since the US government has time and time again shown that its right hand often has no idea what the left is doing. This scenario looks even more plausable given the fact that there are indications that plans to invade Iraq were in existence before 9/11. The US always like to look righteous when it goes to war and the Banner of Terrorism has given the US a boogie man as versatile as the red menace. Posted by impactor returns on 03-10-2003 at 06:30 PM:
quote:Im not sure how u determin how i said that with 'glee' but it wasnt. i was merely stating that the TT were bombed. because u said u would evicerate someone if they did. Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-10-2003 at 06:40 PM:
quote:But it's okay to laugh when British servicemen are bombed by your airforce? Posted by god on 03-10-2003 at 06:53 PM:
quote:japan is forbidden to have any offensive weapons and certainly not nukes the only nukes in japan are US and to be USEd in self defense only by teh US forces there. the whole idea has always been to keep all teh staes in the region nuke free, except for china Posted by impactor returns on 03-10-2003 at 07:05 PM:
well either way, they said they would use them.
Posted by the uiltmate prime fan on 03-10-2003 at 07:30 PM:
japan has a few nuclear missles subs, and thats it. but thats besides the point- until bush and his morons {and MR powell} get their act together, N.Korea is china's problem. only china has the direct power to control and contain Kim jong il, mainly by actually being present on the mainland along with the korean pennsula.
Posted by Gekigengar on 03-10-2003 at 09:08 PM:
quote:I was just trying to clear it up if you meant conspiracy theories... I did not mean any harm... sorry... and yes I do have family and family driends that lives and work within the area, (aswell as the Pentagon) so it does hit home for me aswell. Posted by Best First on 03-11-2003 at 07:13 AM:
quote:Maybe you should show them some respect by not swallowing every bull cookie that your democratically un-elected adminstration likes to feed you. Theres loads about 9/11 that does not add up, and there are definitely people in high places in the US not taking the kind of responsibility they should have. Lets remember these are the same people who scrubbed ligheters and matches from the lsit of items not to be taken aboard airplanes at the request of frigging Tabacco companies - despite the fact that the key ingredient in the case of the guy who hid a small bomb in his shoe was a lighter that he tried to use set off the bomb. So dont try and claim that the people in charge of your counry and beyone reproach - cos they care more about big business than they do about your safty. Posted by Sheba on 03-11-2003 at 07:25 PM:
quote:The difference was, there was an OPPOSITION party the other side of Mugabe. Those people coulda picked someone else. With Saddam, there was only TWO choices on the ballot: "Saddam Hussein" or "I no longer wish to live" Posted by Sheba on 03-11-2003 at 07:29 PM:
The World Trade Center WAS bombed. How many you blokes forgot 1993?!
Posted by Sheba on 03-11-2003 at 07:32 PM:
NUKING THE OIL ARGUMENT
From the Washington Post (NOT the Washington Times!) Fri. Jan. 24, 2003 Even a perfunctory acquaintance with the realities of the global oil market would indicate that the "oil war" theory does not stand up to analysis. As an imagined rationale it doesn't square with the facts; and in the unlikely event that it actually does factor into the administration's thinking, it is a specious argument that cannot justify sending American forces into combat. First, if the United States felt compelled to increase its access to oil from Iraq, it could do so by getting the U.N. Security Council to lift the economic sanctions that restrict Iraqi output -- no bloodshed necessary. Iraq's oil would flow freely into the global market, contracts already signed with Russian and European companies would increase Iraqi production and, as a beneficial side effect, prices would decline as supplies increased. Then assume the worst in Saudi Arabia: Militant anti-American extremists seize control of the government. Such rulers might refuse to sell oil directly to the American customers, but it's highly unlikely they would refuse to sell oil to anyone, because the country's other sources of income are negligible. Because the worldwide oil flow -- about 67 million barrels a day -- is fungible in a global market, the effect of such a move by Saudi Arabia against the United States would be minimal. To the extent that the Saudis shifted oil sales to customers in Europe or Asia, those customers would stop buying oil from wherever they get it now, and the United States could shift its Saudi purchases to those other suppliers. It might be necessary to modify refinery runs to account for variations in oil quality, and shipping costs might increase with distance, but the overall impact would be tolerable. Moreover, the record shows that even countries whose rulers are hostile to us are willing to sell us oil because they need the money. Saddam Hussein's Iraq itself sells oil to American consumers under the "oil for food" program. If the United States buys no oil from Iran or from Moammar Gaddafi's Libya, it is because we cut them off -- not because they cut us off. Libya would welcome the return of a petroleum relationship with the United States. Finally, an American takeover of Iraq would not, in the long run, give the United States guaranteed access to Iraqi oil. A democratic Iraq might well decide that its future prosperity would be best served by a supply relationship with, say, China, now an importer of oil with rapidly growing demand. The days when industrialized countries acquired ownership of oil in producing countries are decades in the past. Conversely, a fragmented Iraq, breaking up along ethnic lines, might produce less oil than currently, rather than more. Thomas W. Lippman, an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute, is writing a book on U.S.-Saudi Arabian relations. Posted by Computron on 03-11-2003 at 07:42 PM:
quote:The difference was, there was an OPPOSITION party the other side of Mugabe. Those people coulda picked someone else. With Saddam, there was only TWO choices on the ballot: "Saddam Hussein" or "I no longer wish to live" An opposition party that mysteriously lost votes, members were threatened or killed, and happened to lose horribly. Gee. Democratically elected for sure... As for the oil, oil isn't the sole reason Bush is going in, he's also doing it for public support of his presidency, to ignore domestic issues, and to provide a 1984 continuous war environment. But oil still plays a factor. Posted by impactor returns on 03-11-2003 at 08:02 PM:
i dont belive the oil argument.
why? because this war has already cost $70 billion. do u know how many barrels of oil $70 billion will buy u? Probably more then there is in the whole of Iraq. So i dont buy it, not to mention the cost of international relationship damage. the cost of putting the before mentioned right and knowing (the US) that they will most likely be responsible for the expense of putting other situations right around the world again. Personal bug-bear. the fact France continues to tout world peace then harbours ppl like Mugabi with open arms. Tossers. Posted by Best First on 03-12-2003 at 06:50 AM:
quote:You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?  Posted by impactor returns on 03-12-2003 at 07:53 AM:
quote:The difference was, there was an OPPOSITION party the other side of Mugabe. Those people coulda picked someone else. With Saddam, there was only TWO choices on the ballot: "Saddam Hussein" or "I no longer wish to live" What? Have u any idea what gos on in Zimbabwe? 10 of thousands are beaten every year. powerfull groups of miltants controll the land under the guise Mugabi name. The situation is totaly identicle to the way Saddam rules his state. The only difference is that reporters are banned from the region.... Posted by Computron on 03-12-2003 at 01:39 PM:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/884225.asp?0ql=ctp
Music to my ears. Let's hope Powell does it. Waging war in Iraq - Several billion dollars. Crumbling economy at home - Several billion dollars. Knowing that Powell could torpedo this administration at any given second - Priceless. Posted by Blacksword on 03-12-2003 at 03:43 PM:
quote:I can't be sure of everything I've said but I can say for certain it's full of less **** than his stuff. Posted by Sheba on 03-12-2003 at 08:04 PM:
quote:how can that be? That guy STUDIES Middle East Stuff for a LIVING! Where do you get your information? Posted by Sheba on 03-12-2003 at 08:08 PM:
quote:How much of a factor? Dude they could have ALL the oil from Iraq they want JUST BY LIFTING THE SANCTIONS! NO BLOODSHED REQUIRED! This ISN'T about oil! The last gulf war proved it! Oil went down to $10 a barrel after the Gulf War...and the oil companies took it on the chin! Same thing's gonna happen here! It's NOT about OIL PROFITS! It's NOT about Access to OIL. But I will tell ya how oil is a factor. France and Germany want to keep their "in" for Cheap Oil--in VIOLATION of the UN Sanctions I might add! They are the ones that are doing blood (of tortured and killed Iraqi civilian dissidents) for oil business. Posted by Sheba on 03-12-2003 at 08:10 PM:
quote:Actually the only difference is that people like Nelson Mandela will reaaaaaaaaally get mad and call USA racist against African people. Posted by impactor returns on 03-12-2003 at 08:17 PM:
quote:err i think your in the wrong part of the country dear. Posted by Sheba on 03-12-2003 at 08:27 PM:
quote:NO. I KNOW that Nelson Mandela runs South Africa. But he opened his big yap and called USA racist (not against black people, but whatever works for him) for wanting to go into Iraq. That's what I'm talking about. Posted by Sheba on 03-12-2003 at 08:29 PM:
Iraq/Al-qaeda link CRYSTAL CLEAR!
March 12, 2003 Last November 2001, we shared with you the details of a story contained in the UK Guardian newspaper about an area of Baghdad called Salman Pak, where a Boeing 707 fuselage is located and where Islamic terrorists are trained in the art of hijacking and commandeering aircraft in flight. Remember, we kept focusing this program on the fact that there was no need for a new congressional resolution for war against Iraq last fall, and that the resolution Congress authorized and passed after September 11th of 2001 authorized anything that the president needed in terms of using force because all it said was that the president has total discretion. This story about the 707 was just one piece of evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda, but has since disappeared from the discussion, along with other links, which are all contained in our Stack of Saddam Stuff, right here on this website. Well, guess what? It turns out that George Tenet, the CIA director, testified recently about Salman Pak, this area of Baghdad where al-Qaeda terrorists are trained. He mentioned the fuselage of the Boeing 707. Then, The New York Times ran a story in January of this year, referencing the same thing. Iraqi defectors told the story of Salman Pak and the 707 fuselage and the training, and so we trained satellites on it and found pictures of it. The U.S. government has known this for a long time. Aviation Week and Space Technology, on January 7th of 2002 had a story about the satellite images. So this news has been confirmed three or four times now since the original report in the British newspaper. Many didn't want to take the word of a British newspaper, particularly the Guardian, but now it's been confirmed by numerous other sources, including the U.S. government and the CIA. So you have to ask, what are we waiting for? Vice President Dick Cheney was on this program last September 11th, 2002. He said then that action in Iraq would come in weeks, not months. Well, it's been months. So why the wait? There's an answer. Somebody in the administration, wearing the pro-diplomacy hat, won the day. And we're paying the price for it now. for more info click these links http://www.nysun.com/sunarticle.asp?artID=608 THIS link here is from the UK Guardian (NOT a 'right wing' rag by ANY stretch of the imagination!) http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,591439,00.html Posted by impactor returns on 03-12-2003 at 08:59 PM:
quote:NO. I KNOW that Nelson Mandela runs South Africa. But he opened his big yap and called USA racist (not against black people, but whatever works for him) for wanting to go into Iraq. That's what I'm talking about. Mandela has no authority over Mugabi. Posted by Computron on 03-12-2003 at 09:30 PM:
quote: Posted by impactor returns on 03-12-2003 at 09:34 PM:
It seems the US and the UK etc will get thier seconf resolution.
They have also issued a 6 point plan saddam must connceed by or face milatary action. im interested to see what saddam does now. and i think it will be of much interest if he doesnt comply... Posted by Blacksword on 03-12-2003 at 10:22 PM:
I love how I make one flippant statement and the rest of my psot gets ignored. How about responding tothe rest of it Sheba.
Posted by Computron on 03-12-2003 at 10:25 PM:
quote:Welcome to the world of debating Sheba. Posted by Blacksword on 03-12-2003 at 10:28 PM:
Oh and your article means nothing. The 9/11 terrorists were Saudis not Iraqi. Saudi Arabia doesn't get along with Iraq.
How many times does this have to be said. SADDAM IS A WESTERN STYLE MILITARY DICTATOR. HE IS A SECULAR RULER OPRESSING A SHIITE MAJORITY. THE RELIGIOUS FANATICS WOULD NOT WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH HIM. Sorry fo rthe caps but some people need to pay attention. Heck even the so-called Bin Ladin tape from a few weeks back supported this point of view. The religious extremiosts want Saddam's head on a spike as much as the US does. Posted by Sheba on 03-12-2003 at 10:33 PM:
quote:This has nothing to do with authority. This has to do with a "respected" african leader having the potential to talk trash about USA and people listening. Only, on a far stupider level than about the war in Iraq. Posted by Sheba on 03-12-2003 at 10:36 PM:
quote:Who said anything about Saddam? This has nothing to do with whether Saddam runs with those gangs or not. It has to do with the fact that terrorists are TRAINED there, by whomever. Terrorists are nothing without means. Take away their means, and they've had it. That included flushing them out from wherever they hide. Including Iraq. Whether or not Saddam gets along with them is irrelevant. Posted by Blacksword on 03-12-2003 at 10:39 PM:
But this war issupposed to be against Saddam not Iraq, atleast that's what the line from the hill is.
Posted by Blacksword on 03-12-2003 at 10:41 PM:
Oh and I'm still waiting for a proper response to my refutation of your 'war isn't about oil article'.
Posted by Computron on 03-12-2003 at 10:42 PM:
quote:Let the Red Herrings fly! Posted by Blacksword on 03-12-2003 at 10:44 PM:
*sets up a seafood restraunt beside Sheba*
Posted by Sheba on 03-12-2003 at 11:17 PM:
quote:Who the hell cares?! The important thing is I have yet to see his information sources. I'm waiting... quote:And who told you that's what they want to do? Come on I'm waiting. Work with me here people. quote: Who the hell cares. That's just MY theory about why they aren't too eager to go after Mugabe. And I think it's a damn good theory too because Mugabe is in the process of "equalizing" stuff, and to attack that would be to invite people to say that USA is for oppression of blacks by whites. That carries a hell of a lot more weight than any anti-Iraq slogan. People are scared $#**less of being labelled racists. And you KNOW Mandela will pick up on anything like that. He already did with the Iraq situation. Of course it didn't fly, because Iraq has nothing to do with Africa. quote:Dude there is clearer evidence that will come out once this is all over and done with. A lot of antiwar people will have MASS egg on their faces. Whatever we will find after beating Saddam will be far worse than we ever DREAMED. And you wanna talk about Evidence? Well it's enough for me that Iraqi Defectors LED Weapons Inspectors, back in 1995 to THOUSANDS of VISIBLE litres of ANTHRAX, VX, SERIN, MUSTARD GAS, BOTULIN. NONE OF THESE WERE OBSERVED TO HAVE BEEN DESTROYED. IF THEY HAD BEEN DESTROYED WE SHOULD HAVE EVIDENCE OF IT FROM SADDAM. BUT WE DON'T. And it's scary to me that you don't see this. Posted by Nightbeat on 03-12-2003 at 11:34 PM:
I'm just going to pop back into this again with the latest headlines from Weekly World news:
Lead Headline: US ARMY FINDS NOAH'S ARK IN MIDDLE EAST and apparently some new Biblical revelations. Odd thing about that is the fact that Noah(if that was indeed his name. Gotta read Constantine's Sword at some point.) didn't write anything Biblical. Nothing was written down until Moses, who wrote Genesis and Exodus as memory serves. Follow up headline: CIA top secret reports prove- HUSSEIN TO RESIGN POWER AND MOVE TO FRANCE-- France to name him new ambassador to U.S.! Posted by Computron on 03-12-2003 at 11:36 PM:
quote:Sheba if you are going to commit logical fallacies and acknowledge it in such a fashion just don't debate at all... Bush Jr. has stated the following reasons for invading Iraq, all of which are accurate except the last: (1) Iraq used chemical weapons, (2) Iraq tried to build nuclear weapons, and (3) the US tried to bring Iraq into the "family of nations" (said first by Bush Sr). He is correct that Iraq was willing to use chemical weapons and has been trying to build nuclear weapons for years. Of course, he just fails to mention that the US was willing to sell, and to help Iraq use, chemical weapons of mass destruction and that his friends profited handsomely in so doing. He also fails to note that today Hussein is not seen as an immediate threat by it's Arab neighbors, none of whom have called for his ouster, and that Iraq has only a shadow of the power it had in 1990. There is no evidence to support Bush or Blair's claims that Iraq has and is preparing to use chemical or biological weapons. Lastly, what about Bush Jr.'s third contention, that the US had tried to bring Saddam into the "family of nations?" In view of the thousands upon thousands of women, children, and men butchered with US battle plans and arms, as well as arms from Europe, one could only characterize that family as being composed of unscrupulous, profiteering, vile accomplices to mass murder. Perhaps this is also a reason why the Bush administration opposes the formation of the World Court and needs US politicians and military personel exempt from international law. http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html Posted by Sheba on 03-12-2003 at 11:48 PM:
quote:well because of how quoting works out it didn't make it on the page. OK so now here we go: But that doean't turn into dollars for the US. The US has consitently ensured it's businesses get "fair treatment" before. Plus the chances the US are going to do that is about as likely as Bush having an intelligent thought. They've been baying about this blockade of theirs for a decade and saying it stops Saddam from buying supplies to build WOMD's so they can't back down from this stance without serious loss of face and the US has done plenty of stupid **** in the past to save face. Plus who knows how much oil Saddam would let on to the market. Also he hasn't the funds to properly rebuild the oil infrastructure. #1 if it truly is a "blockade" it sure as hell isn't working. France and Russia still get oil in spite of the sanctions. And may I remind you that sanctions were put in place by The UNITED NATIONS!!!!! And who cares what the USA (often under Democrat presidents, but who cares) did in the past. And that bit about Saddam not having the money to work on infrastructure--that's sophistry. He has it. He's just spending it wrongly. He's got like what, FIFTY palaces right now? What exactly is your bubbling source of information? I wanna see it for myself. I don't know how much of its oil quota the US gets from Saudi Arabia but I know it's a lot. The US produces less than half of the oil it consumes so if its supplies ever get cut it grinds to a halt. ANd this situation is only going to get worse. The ammount of US produced oil has been plumeting since its peak in the seventies. We all know how bad things were then when the last embargo hit. And the US produced about 70% of its oil need back then. Now there are lots of other sources around right now that weren't in use back then but they are being exploited to the hilt right now just to keep up with the demand. Do you seriously think other countries are going to let the US waltz in and buy the oil they are using right now? We're having power drops in Canada right now because we're selling too much power to the US. The US ain't getting any more from us. So they are screwed if they get cut off. Every body is going to look after number one and given the state of the US economy they won't be able to outbid for anything for a while. Look man, the USA TRIED to get more domestic production by trying to open up ANWR but the environmental lobby got the Democrats to not let them. If they'd been allowed to get from ANWR, they'd have part of the problem solved. The blame for USA's domestic oil woes rest solidly on Environmental lobbying so that they CAN'T GET any new sources from home. A quick Google search turned up the info about Saudi Arabia and the amount it sells to USA: 1,657 thousand barrels for the year 2001. In contrast Canada sold USA 1,786 thousand barrels of oil in 2001. Dude don't you know that there's MORE oil in the Alberta Tar Sands than in all of Saudi Arabia? Then why isn't USA trying to take over Alberta? USA TRIES not to buy from hostile nations but sometimes it's not possible. Nonetheless, USA imports NO OIL from Libya, Iran, or Algeria. Damn that takes restraint  Right! see aboveDude what are your sources. I WANT TO SEE YOUR SOURCES. And how does the US intend to take the high road on that. We'll buy oil from this scum so we can fight that scum overthere. Really ethical there. Grind down one to free another really sounds good. Dude you better stop talking about the moral high ground because the truth is, Innocent people in Iraq will die WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A WAR OR EVEN SANCTIONS GOING ON. Western anti-war protesters only seem to get a bee in their bonnet on the occasions that the U.S. is involved in a conflict. If these people are so concerned with Iraqi civilians, where were they en masse when Saddam was gassing Iraqis, torturing them and starving them? Where are they every day when countries around the world torture and abuse their own citizens, or make war or terrorism against other countries’ citizens? I‘ll tell you where they are – sipping lattes, scribbling bad poems, sucking on bongs and having a kegger. So far, I’m not convinced that a war on Iraq is a good idea – but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t be convinced by decent evidence. Sometimes, the only moral choice is to wage war instead of letting injustices continue. Do we have the right to interfere in how sovereign nations treat their own people? Damn right we do. Do we have the resources to address every nation that’s hurting it’s people? Not a chance. So when we do take a risk on deposing a dictator, people concerned with suffering should be glad – not scribbling placards at Starbucks. The real debate should be over the best way to make life better for Iraqi citizens and the rest of the region, not whether or not it’s right to kick Saddam Hussein’s ass. When you only have a problem with war, and not with the injustices that can be remedied through military action, the moral high ground can get a bit slippery under your Birkenstocks. I'm Ed the Sock. Who said anything about the Iraqis getting any choice. If the US is dumping that much money in you can bet all the oil contracts will go to US companies. IF I recall from a presentation I saw recently, the pre-9/11 plans had US oil companies in charge of everything so I can't see that changing. The US has used economic control before and they will again. It's the only way they can recoup the expense of this war. Their payoff to Turkey which hasn't gone through yet is another 30 billion they can't afford. IF you want proof about US companies running the government and controlling foreign countries just look up United Fruit. Besides with the US puttin up a government and staying there for a few years (if you're optimistic - a decade if you're a realist) you can bet US companies will get in. Heck given how divided that country is a democratic government left on its own would collapse in days. Especially considering how not a single opposition figure can pull even half the country behind them. Anyone who thinks a democratic government will be up and running in a couple months deserves to be in an asylum. Yes a break up would hurt the US getting any oil but you think they're going to stand back and let it happen? Look man, there are PLENTY of people in Iraq that oppose Saddam that are perfectly capable of forming a decent democratic government. The movement as such is starting in Iran. Those people are FED UP with the Mullahs and the Ayatollahs. They are protesting in the streets of Tehran EVERY DAY and do you think the western news gives it much play? Not on your life! It would crush the deeply held belief by some on the left that somehow the Middle East could not possibly "handle" democracy. That's pessimistic reasoning and it's elitist at its core. So what's to say that all the people who are fed up with Saddam can't form a decent government based on freedom? We're supposed to leave them the way they are?! Tell me something. WHY does it ONLY matter to YOU when Innocent people die, ONLY if it's caused by USA or the West, especially in a "war"?! And why are you listening to conspiracy theories? Posted by Blacksword on 03-12-2003 at 11:48 PM:
So let me get this straight. Little miss unsupported statement is criticisng me for not having sources at my finger tips? And newspaper articles do not a fact make.
As to the figures on Us oil production I got hose from a presentation someone did in one of my classes here at university - and it wasn't in a politics class. It was in an engineering and society class which looks at the interpaly of technology and social forces. The US uses 1/4 of all oil production - hard fact, check anywhere. Us oil reserves are dropping and have been doing so since the seventies, look it up anywhere. The fac that the US is over fifty percent dependend on foreign oil is yet anothe common fact. That the US needs a secure supply of foreign oil is an implication which anyone can figure out. Oh in five seconds lookie what I found. here's a pretty chart: http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill/charts/chart8.pdf Here's some more. http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw191.shtml 2.5 million barrels a day in 2000 is a sizable ammount and I wish the US good luck finding sources to repalce it if ever they getcut off by the Persian Gulf. Better yet if things ever go sour wiht Russia there's another national fiasco. As to us selling the US too much power it was on the news recently, like the CBC. SO they ain't gonna get anymore from us. Putting US companies over Iraq's oil supply is simply the wisest choice economically and in terms of survival. The US is currently at teh mercy of those Saudi fanatics who are the real source of most radical muslim terrorists. Not saying the US should be doing this but morals aside it is simply the logical action. And morals have never been a halmark of US foreign policy and I can back that fact up with a list that will bury this board. Posted by Computron on 03-12-2003 at 11:52 PM:
quote:Funny. I thought President Bush was in office when the sanctions were put in place? Or is the UN run by Democrats all of a sudden? Stop with the Red Herrings! We're all stocked up here. Posted by Computron on 03-12-2003 at 11:53 PM:
quote:Ooo! Me First! http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/index.php Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 12:02 AM:
quote:You're not supporting the statements I was asking you to. I know about the oil numbers because I checked them myself. I know how much USA imports for oil. The thing is, USA COULD be searching for new sources that nobody knows how big they could be, because of a problem with getting authorization for NEW offshore drilling. IT may be no Saudi Arabia but every little bit helps. But it IS true that dependancy on the Persian Gulf Oil supply is exacerbated by environmental lobbying. When was the last time you saw protesters chaining themselves to a Saudi/Iraqi/Kuwaiti oil well? Yeah I thought so... What I REAAAAAAALLY want to know is WHO is telling you that USA wants to take over Iraq for its oil? And nobody's questioning that in the past the US Government has made some choices that are best characterized by "The lesser of two evils." But in many cases it's like criticizing Britain for being allies with Russia during WW II. What's it going to get you? Anyway the EASIEST way to get oil from Iraq, no bloodshed required, is to get the UN to lift sanctions. Posted by Computron on 03-13-2003 at 12:05 AM:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/884211.asp?0cv=CB20
WHATEVER YOU THOUGHT of Bill Clinton, it was nearly impossible not to feel disgusted and saddened by his sexual misadventures. Here was the leader of the free world apparently so obsessed with a twenty-something intern that he couldn’t keep his pants zipped long enough to comprehend the foolishness of his actions. Yet in the end, the scandal factor and efforts to impeach him aside, Clinton’s lust, mean as it was, was his alone. Not so George W. Bush, whose lust for war has, before the first bomb is dropped, already shredded decades-long international alliances and polarized the United Nations, the American people, and nations and citizens across the globe. We are captives of a president who cannot be trusted to tell the truth, as demonstrated by his repeated efforts to link the 9/11 attacks to Iraq. It is a lie that Saddam Hussein has threatened to attack the United States; he had not. It is a lie that this war is not about oil but democracy, when already the spoils of a war that has not yet commenced are being divided up. Is anyone surprised that Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former place of employment, has already received a contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars to fight possible oil fires in Iraq and is bidding to become lead contractor on rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure, the one the coming war will destroy? ~ MSNBC http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html His views are of course supported by the new Iraqi government-in-waiting. Faisal Qaragholi, the "petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States" says that "Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people." Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, put it more bluntly and sadi that he favored a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which would replace the existing agreements that Iraq has with Russia and France. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi said. Bush Jr. has stated the following reasons for invading Iraq, all of which are accurate except the last: (1) Iraq used chemical weapons, (2) Iraq tried to build nuclear weapons, and (3) the US tried to bring Iraq into the "family of nations" (said first by Bush Sr). He is correct that Iraq was willing to use chemical weapons and has been trying to build nuclear weapons for years. Of course, he just fails to mention that the US was willing to sell, and to help Iraq use, chemical weapons of mass destruction and that his friends profited handsomely in so doing. He also fails to note that today Hussein is not seen as an immediate threat by it's Arab neighbors, none of whom have called for his ouster, and that Iraq has only a shadow of the power it had in 1990. There is no evidence to support Bush or Blair's claims that Iraq has and is preparing to use chemical or biological weapons. SpamRaider11: *Cuts and pastes* JGwinn1048: Lastly, what about Bush Jr.'s third contention, that the US had tried to bring Saddam into the "family of nations?" In view of the thousands upon thousands of women, children, and men butchered with US battle plans and arms, as well as arms from Europe, one could only characterize that family as being composed of unscrupulous, profiteering, vile accomplices to mass murder. Perhaps this is also a reason why the Bush administration opposes the formation of the World Court and needs US politicians and military personel exempt from international law. Oh and Sheba, Concession Accepted seeing as how you ignored my refutation of your post... Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 12:15 AM:
quote:It's really a stretch to say I was committing a logical fallacy. I haven't seen his sources yet. I WANT TO SEE THEM. I can't discredit them until I've seen them. Therefore, the fallacy has not yet been committed. And come on, don't tell me I can't disbelieve a source and act like I'm committing a fallacy by questioning its reliability. You guys are then committing the same fallacy when you say the BUSH administration is lying. Geebuz, try to be consistent will ya? quote:*sigh*... first of all the Halliburton Oil Company stuff the link mentioned is a RED HERRING. Halliburton DOES NOT DRILL FOR OIL. And speaking of filthy dirty rotten immoral practices and blood for oil, why the HELL aren't you criticizing FRANCE?! This is from National Review Online: Consider for a moment the current French position — and, no, I don't mean prone. This week they announced that containment works. The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, declared, "Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process." Well, if France knows for "a fact," then France also knows for a fact that Iraq has such weapons programs. After all, you can't block or freeze what doesn't exist (if you don't find this logic compelling, go right now and tell your wife that your longstanding efforts to bed Filipino hookers have been "largely blocked, even frozen" by her constant inspections into your bank account and that she therefore has no reason to take a more aggressive posture towards you. Then, see what happens). So, if France knows for "a fact" that these programs exist, then it knows for a fact that Iraq lied in its weapons declaration. Because, you see, the Iraqis themselves insist they have no weapons programs to halt. In short, France wants to keep inspections going because that's the best way to keep Iraq in a permanent state of non-compliance. I could have sworn that when the U.N. said Iraq had one last chance to cooperate with the U.N., it didn't mean it had one last chance to make the U.N. look stupid by playing keep-away. Imagine your kid has been playing with matches. You confront him. He puts his hands behind his back. You say, Let me see what's in your hands. He says no. You insist. He shows you one hand. You say, Let me see the other. He returns the first behind his back and shows you the other one. You demand to see the other hand. He says no. He plays the same game for a while. Then he hides the matches in his pants. And so on. According to the great minds of Old Europe, a smart and sophisticated father would keep playing this game indefinitely, while a boorish (i.e., an American) father would say, "Listen, kid. If you don't stop this B.S. — and right now — it'll take UNMOVIC a year just to find my boot in your ass." Well, color me doltish because we know Saddam Hussein has tons of chemical and biological weapons he's hiding behind his back. President Bush — another alleged dolt — was right when he said this feels like the replay of a bad movie. What's so insulting is that the French and the Germans seem to expect us to take their arguments seriously. And what's so disappointing is that so many Americans are taking them seriously. Wading through the internal contradictions and verbal mobius strips of the peace-at-all-costs idiocy spouted by our domestic mau-maus of the antiwar argy-bargy has me feeling like one of those muppets whose eyes bounce around independently of each other. For example, there's the crowd that insists there's no proof that Saddam Hussein has nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons — while simultaneously arguing that we shouldn't disarm Saddam because he might use those weapons on us in retaliation. "Don't shoot! He's unarmed! And if you do he might shoot back" is an argument fit for a world where clocks melt, hands draw each other, and people take Barbra Streisand seriously. I don't want to rehash all of the same old tired antiwar arguments (see here and here), but just to be quick: If we wanted Saddam's oil we could have taken it in 1991 when we won the first Gulf War. For that matter, if we were the oil-hungry empire these buffoons keep saying we are, we could have taken Kuwait's and Saudi Arabia's while we were at it. Or — if we wanted so badly to get Iraq's oil to flow through America's "Big Oil" — we could simply agree with Saddam that we'll lift the sanctions if he gives us the oil contracts. He's indicated more than once that that would be fine with him. And if we're responsible for "creating" the monster that is Saddam Hussein, our moral obligation isn't to let him continue torturing and killing, it's to fix the problem by getting rid of him. If war is "always" a failure, then we failed when we stopped Hitler and the Holocaust. It was a failure when the slaves were freed and it was a failure when America broke from England. And — if you're of a lefty bent — it was also a failure when the Bolsheviks beat the White Russians and it was a failure when Castro pushed Batista's troops to the sea. But, as the German who was tired of fighting said, let's get back to the French. President Chirac now favors containment, as does the editor of The Nation — a magazine which now more than ever reads like it was poorly translated from Le Monde's reject pile. What's so funny is that these are the very quarters from which the bleating over the cruelty of containment has been loudest (see my syndicated column on France). France, to the head-bobbing approval of the American Left, has been arguing for years that sanctions should go. The French bailed out of our enforcement of the no-fly zones years ago. Throughout much of the 1990s their mouths have been running like a piece of Brie left on top of your TV set about the devastating impact sanctions have had on Iraqi children. And just to set the record straight: The sanctions regime has improved the health of all Iraqi children not under Saddam Hussein's thumb. In the Kurdish North — where American and British, but not French, planes prevent mass slaughter — there is no mass starvation or child-health crisis. Saddam, and not sanctions, has killed hundreds of thousands of children in order to score propaganda points, which have in turn been manfully presented to the world community by Mr. Chirac in exchange for fat oil contracts. In effect, the French (and Russians) do not want a war-for-oil because the current peace-for-oil allows them to collect billions from the corpses of dead Iraqi children. So when the French now say they are in favor of sanctions and continued inspections, they merely mean they are in favor of preventing the U.S. from changing the status quo and depriving the French of blood money. One would not normally associate the word "chutzpah" with a country so hostile to its Jews, but there you have it. But there is a positive moral to this story. The irony is that the very fact that so many members of the peace-at-any-cost school now favor sanctions proves that the threat of violence has its uses. After all, if Bush weren't threatening war, the French, The Nation, et al., would still be crying about the need to repeal the sanctions rather than the need to stiffen them up. So malleable are their convictions, you almost get the sense that if Bush were to threaten genocide these people would champion "mere" war as an acceptable alternative. But Bush need not make such threats to put some steel in the Gallic spine. Should it look like Bush will go to war without U.N. approval, France will jettison its principles like so much ballast and sail right along in the American armada's wake, so as not to miss out entirely on the new division of Iraq's petroleum pie. And that's the point. Here in America, France's useful idiots — as Lenin would surely call them — believe the French are staking out their position on the basis of principle. These Americans are, frankly, fools. Just because you're principled in your opposition to war hardly means that everyone who makes your case does so for your reasons. You may think the U.S. needs U.N. approval and, because France says the same thing, you think they agree with you. But the French spout this righteous drivel because they want to hamstring American influence to their advantage. After all, they virtually never seek U.N. Security Council approval for their own military nannying of their basket-case former African colonies. France is doing what it thinks is best for France — not the world, not America, not humanity, but France. If that involves screwing America, they'll do it. If that involves leaping to America's defense at the last minute like the cartoon dog who's got the big dog at his side, they'll do that too. If you are a dedicated opponent of an American war, fine. It's perfectly defensible to be rooting for France's success at the U.N. But if France's righteous bloviating against war makes them your Dashboard Saint of International Integrity, it's either because you are sand-poundingly ignorant of how the world works or it's because you think France's self-interest is more important than America's. If the former applies to you, read a book. If it's the latter, maybe you should move there along with Alec Baldwin, Robert Altman, and the rest of the crowd who promised to leave a long time ago. But whatever you do, don't call France's position principled, because that just insults us both. Posted by Blacksword on 03-13-2003 at 12:20 AM:
Was the overthrow of Guatemala's democratically elected governmnet in 1954 the lesser of two evils? - a side bar but you and I know your lesser of two evils statement is full of ****.
About the tar Sands I know how much ter is there I'm not an idiot. see the problem with those is that they are difficult to utilize and oil production is expensive. They are going at full tilt and can't go any further. Also the US doean't need to invade you dope since almost all of our oil is owned by US companies. Trudeau tried to stop this back in the seventies by creating Petro Canada, thereby nationalizing our oil. This pissed off teh US majorly. For things like this and others, Nixon on his own security recordings is known to on sever occasions to have referred to Trudeau as "that Canadian ***hole". Then the government allowed Petro Canada to be privatized and the Yanks own our sorry arses. SO yes I know about our oil, do you? Just felt like answeering your side bars. I need some time to remember where I got my information. Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 12:22 AM:
Nuking the oil argument EVEN MORE:
From National Review ONline: One outstanding question is whether there will be automatic succession of the existing agreements should Saddam be overthrown. Regime change could bring about a shift in fortunes, with American and British petroleum companies being the primary beneficiaries. So goes the theory. However, note that Kuwait has been reticent to extend such privileged access to American oil firms, and that country owes its very existence to the United States. Nevertheless, all of this will be moot if war breaks out, because the oil wells will likely not survive. Saddam will seek to destroy Iraqi petroleum production facilities to deny them to potential successors, a concept discussed last year in NRO and now generally accepted as the most likely scenario. Whoever inherits these flaming ruins will face years of reconstruction and billions in investment to restore full Iraqi production. This is hardly a bargain — but if no war is fought, the oil wells will survive, sanctions will be lifted, and the contracts could be executed. The fact that French oil interests tend to mitigate the potential conflict is an irony for the Greens to ponder. Read the full article HERE: http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins021103.asp Posted by Computron on 03-13-2003 at 12:22 AM:
quote: Posted by Computron on 03-13-2003 at 12:25 AM:
quote:1) Kuwait doesn't hand the oil to us because it's THEIRS. Iraq will have no government to tell our companies "No". 2) The American/British Militaries will have large chunks of Iraq, including the oil wells, under control in the early part of the war to stop such a disaster. That's part of Bush's war plans if you haven't noticed. So reconstruction will be minimal in that aspect. Posted by Blacksword on 03-13-2003 at 12:26 AM:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/03/1044122320739.html
not about the oil supply but it does show evidence that the US has already chosen Iraq's new government and rather aribitrarily. As to that argument it is a paer tiger. When Desert Strom was alunched there was teh same risk. Kuwait is producing oil today so there goes that counterargument. Posted by the uiltmate prime fan on 03-13-2003 at 12:30 AM:
ah, point to the liberal side sir. it seems to the casual reader that our side is winning this debate.
Posted by Blacksword on 03-13-2003 at 12:33 AM:
I'm bloody tired. Why do we let Sheba do this to us folks? I've got twenty minutes then I'm off to bed.
Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 12:36 AM:
quote:Far Left Socialism is DEFINITELY an evil. It's regimes like that which become friendly with USSR. It was the COLD WAR ERA! The context of that action has to be considered in the times in which it occurred. That was long before the Cuban Missile Crisis, and CRIPES IT WAS BACK IN 1954 FOR GEEBUZ SAKE! Why harp on stuff that happened so long ago that the major players are either in a nursing home or dead?! And just because it was democratically elected doesn't make it good. Look at how people b**** about Bush's election. And besides, how do you know the Guatemala election wasn't rigged? As for Pierre Eliot Trudeau Rips Off Canada, (PETRO CAN), don't you remember the finger to the west and the energy policy that screwed over the West?! I don't give a $#** if the Americans own our sorry @$$e$ in terms of oil companies. It's not important. Nationalizing the oil was the STUPIDEST thing P.E.T. ever did. He's the one that started the fad fashionability of anti-americanism around here. We STILL have a "made in Canada" price for our oil! So what the hell difference does it make if US companies are running it or not? And I think we'd BETTER find out WHO owns the oil companies around here. As far as I could find out online Petro Canada is NOT owned by the Americans nor is Husky. And Nixon was right about Trudeau. He was an @$$hole. Finger pointing west, picture-get-the? Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 12:43 AM:
quote:Iraq still has people. Lots of Iraqi exilees are itching to return and set up a government. THEY would be able to say "no" if they wanted to. It still doesn't fly. It's MORE risky to the oil supply to fight the war than it is to lift sanctions. Lifting sanctions = ZERO chance of Saddam lighting it all up. Also from National Review: As to measures we could take in the meantime to decrease oil imports, somehow Nader forgot to mention government bans over the last 20 years on oil activity covering more than 300 million acres of federal land onshore and more than 460 million acres offshore. Just one of these reserves, the coastal plain of the Antarctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), is estimated to contain from 10 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That alone could replace about three years of imports. But the ultimate problem with Nader's reasoning is that, if all we wanted was cheap abundant oil, we could get it peacefully by simply lifting oil-export sanctions against Iraq and demobilizing. Petroleum prices would plummet instantly, with the stock market rocketing at almost the same speed due both to cheap oil and the end of war fears. All of this couldn't fail to spur the economy, putting Bush and the GOP on the path to continued dominance of the White House and Congress. Nader proffered the seemingly plausible idea that the U.S. could be seizing Iraq to divvy up its resources among some American oil companies. But he immediately contradicted himself when he pointed out that Russia, China, and France already have major contractual interests there. Are we really going to yank all those wells from beneath the noses of three of the world's most powerful nations? Consider this, too: Doesn't U.S. "Big Oil" profit from the sanctions currently in place, since restricted Iraqi exports prop up the price for all the oil they drill elsewhere? Instead, Bush is about to embark on a very risky move for his presidency and his party. The logical reason is the one Bush gives: Saddam poses a serious regional threat now and a serious worldwide threat in the near future. He will never stop until he gets the Bomb, along with some shiny ICBMs to toss wherever he pleases. Would he use them to kill, or merely to intimidate, the rest of the world? Do we want to wait a few years to find out? A post-Saddam Iraq carries with it not the promise of secure oil — we already have that. Rather, it carries the guarantee of a more secure world. By the way, Nader and his cronies at Greenpeace U.S.A. also attempted to stage a demonstration at the downtown headquarters of the American Petroleum Institute. Judging by the turnout, the organizers cannot have been happy. It was even accompanied by an anti-Saddam rally. All that was missing was an anti-Saddam chant — perhaps this would do: "Hell no, we won't glow!" — Michael Fumento Posted by Computron on 03-13-2003 at 12:44 AM:
quote:Because we know better than to let it go unchallenged... *looks at 17 page Evolution thread* quote: Posted by Computron on 03-13-2003 at 12:54 AM:
quote: Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 12:54 AM:
quote:OK so they picked a new leader. Yip yip yip yip yahoo. And about that oil in Kuwait... Kuwaiti oil fires Table 10. Chronology of well capping and extinguishing By May 1991 140 Wells By July 1991 265 Wells By August 1991 350 Wells By September 1991 500 Wells By November 1991 750 Wells Don't forget this was twelve years ago dude. Of course they're producing oil today. Why? Well for one thing THEY FOUND NEW SITES TO DRILL FROM!!!! duhhhhhh... here's a chronology from the fires onward: 1990-1996 - Aug. 2, 1990: the operations stopped as a result of the Iraqi aggression and occupation. - February 1991: the occupying forces destroyed 792 oil wells. - February 26, 1991: the coalition forces liberated Kuwait, and they began to comb the areas where Kuwait Oil Company used to operate in search for mines and explosives. Burning Oil Wells - March 1991: extinguishing of the burning oil wells started. - July 27, 1991: the first cargo of crude oil after the liberation was exported. - Sept. 14, 1991: digging operations in Al-Muqawaa field were resumed. - Nov. 6, 1991: His Highness, the Amir, extinguished the last burning well (Burqan 118). - Sept. 24, 1992: the first cargo of the oil from the lakes was exported. Celebrations made after extinguishing the last well - Feb. 25, 1993: the productivity of Kuwait exceeded 2 millions bbl/d. - Apr. 13, 1993: long-term service certificates were distributed to the workers of the company in the first honoring celebration after the liberation. - Apr. 16, 1993: former U.S. president George Bush visited the company and inspected the destroyed main office, the oil lakes and gathering center number 14. - May 3, 1993: the rotating anchorage was reopened. - October 1994: 97% of the lakes' oil was treated. - Sept. 26, 1995: the 2-D seismic survey agreement was signed. - Oct. 18, 1995: Karaa Al-Marw1 well was discovered west of Kuwait. - Oct. 23, 1995: the 3-D seismic survey agreement was signed. - Dec. 30, 1995: an agreement was signed between Kuwait Oil Company and the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation to establish gathering centers number 27 and 28. - January 1996: the establishment of two rotating platforms for freighting was completed. - June 30, 1996: the Golden Jubilee for Exporting, the first cargo of Kuwait's oil, was celebrated under the auspices of Amir Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah. - August 17, 1996: the Kuwait Oil Company exhibition was reopened under patronage of the minister of oil, Dr. Abdul-Mohsen Mudaaj Al-Mudaaj. Reference: Kuwait Oil Company Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 12:56 AM:
quote:What is it with you and red herrings? Dude you're being too smart by half. The UN is fully stocked with tinhorn dictators and such, as well as politicians that have much in common with the Democrats. But anyways, the point is that the Sanctions against Iraq are NOT a result of US unilateral action. You CANNOT blame USA totally for that. The U.N. agreed to it so some of the 'blame' rests on them. Posted by Computron on 03-13-2003 at 01:00 AM:
Ah, yes Sheba, but you know, we learn from our mistakes. The Army won't let Iraq do the same thing again. 12 years has made huge advances in warfare. I may not support the war, but I will support our troops and I know they'll do the job with amazing brilliance. Iraq won't know what hit em and I doubt the oil will be set afire the way it did before.
Now then, nationalism aside, the war is still a POS. Posted by Computron on 03-13-2003 at 01:06 AM:
quote: Posted by Blacksword on 03-13-2003 at 01:09 AM:
It ahd nothing to do with pro-USSR policy. It had everythign to do with governemnt corruption involving the United Fruit corperation which owned Guatemala until democracy set in. Half the Eisenhower government had either been on the board of United fruit ahd realtatibves on the board were former board presidents, o were former company lawyers. THe conditions on Castillio Aramas (the guy the US made the new Guatemalan leader) included letting United Fruit do waht it wanted. One of the other people who the US government interviewed for the job was asked the same questions. This turned up in one of my courses. The only tenuous USSr connection was a batch of Czech riffles which the Guatemalan governmant bought only beacuae the US wouldn't sell it arms. Yes it was fify years ago but this mindsetr was around when the US aided Pinochet's rise topower and when Bush's daddy was VP to the Reagan regime who gave millions to murdering geurilla's called contras.
And no Trudea wasn't perfect but he protectedthis country's sovereignty unlike that piece of **** Mulroony who sold us out. The reason why we don't want US oil companies owning our oil is the same reason why we didn't want it in the seventies. All our oil was going to the States and we had none thanks to them owning our oil. It wasn't the best plan but it kept Canadian oil in Canada. If I hear onemore Albertan complain about how bad they have it I'll scream. The only ones inteh west who have a right to compalin are the farmers of Manitoba and Saskachewan. They are getting screwed. Albertans are doing just fine and the rich little whiners among an otherwise good province shoul shut their mouths and go help the farmers because they have the money do so. And don't go calling me a Liberal supporter. Cretien is a useless tool and Martin will sell us out to the staes even further. Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 01:09 AM:
This kind of got left out of one by technical difficulties:
quote:What invasion(s) are you talking about? quote:No, you're the one that's resorting to red herrings. Tell me exactly how I'm committing the fallacy of "poisoning the well". You guys poison the well all the time. Stop accusing me of the very crap you guys pull off 24/7. quote:Like hell it is. http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel021301.shtml quote:Probably because there's a damn good reason for it. And it's scary to me that you don't see this. quote:No, the fact is that WAR is the ONLY solution left AFTER TWELVE YEARS. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?! One more week, one more month, one more year of waiting and dithering is NOT GOING TO MAKE 3/5ths of F*&^%-ALL POSITIVE DIFFERENCE. This is HARDLY a rush to war! It's been FOURTEEN MONTHS since Bush suggested we should go take care of Saddam! He went and did the diplomatic route. He went to the UN. IT didn't freaking WORK. What more do you want? It's like the kid hiding matches behind his back (see article somewhere above in an earlier post) No you don't need France for an anti-war argument. Actually it's a pro-war argument. Posted by Blaster_86 on 03-13-2003 at 01:10 AM:
And Trogdor smote the thread and all was lost to the burnination
Posted by Blacksword on 03-13-2003 at 01:13 AM:
I'm out of here folks, need some sleep and I've got an essay to write tommorow.
Posted by Redstreak on 03-13-2003 at 01:15 AM:
That in addition to the one you wrote tonight, eh?
Posted by Computron on 03-13-2003 at 01:21 AM:
quote: Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 01:21 AM:
quote:But it is VERY relevant to the PRO WAR position. Anyhow, many of the anti-war crowd is saying we HAVE to listen to what France is saying. Am I going to have to use smaller words here so you can understand what I'm saying? Or am I speaking a different language altogether here? quote: And you've been dishing out a hell of a lot of those in recent days. Posted by Computron on 03-13-2003 at 01:29 AM:
quote: Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 01:34 AM:
quote:You're implying that Bush ALREADY had some invasions going on. What were they?! No, you're the one that's resorting to red herrings. quote:There was a perfect example of it just a few days ago in an IM conversation we had. quote:NONONONONO! HE was impugning MY source and I was defending it! He did NOT come up with any reason why his source was more believable than mine. HE was implying that MY source was wrong or untrustworthy WITHOUT stating why. Therefore the root of my objection had D*CK to do with this "poisoning the well" nonsense. He had already poisoned the well. So accusing me of doing so is a bit hypocritical, seeing as you SEEM to agree with him. Therefore, by extension, since you didn't pick up on that, you too are guilty of poisoning the well. You guys poison the well all the time. Stop accusing me of the very crap you guys pull off 24/7. quote:Blacksword did it and you didn't pick up on it. Like hell it is. http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel021301.shtml quote:Well Mugabe didn't pull the equivalent of a Kuwaiti invasion, for starters. And for the rest of the argument I defer to Ed the Sock: Sometimes, the only moral choice is to wage war instead of letting injustices continue. Do we have the right to interfere in how sovereign nations treat their own people? Damn right we do. Do we have the resources to address every nation that’s hurting it’s people? Not a chance. So when we do take a risk on deposing a dictator, people concerned with suffering should be glad – not scribbling placards at Starbucks. When you only have a problem with war, and not with the injustices that can be remedied through military action, the moral high ground can get a bit slippery under your Birkenstocks. I'm Ed the Sock. Probably because there's a damn good reason for it. quote:Well why can't you be content with the fact that NOBODY KNOWS what happened to the VX, Serin, etc that was found in 1995 WENT?! No, the fact is that WAR is the ONLY solution left AFTER TWELVE YEARS. quote: None of which will remove Saddam from power, nor halt the oppression and torture of the people therein. Come on Compy WHAT IS THE REAL REASON FOR YOUR OPPOSITION TO THIS WAR?! quote:Speaking of logical fallacies, that's a non sequitur if I ever saw one. Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 01:43 AM:
quote:I go for what I find information on at the time. The rest I leave for later. I don't always have all day you know. Anyways you are a nitpicker by picking on how I say something rather than refuting what I say.I DID NOT DO THAT!!!!! quote:ARE YOU BLIND?! Didn't you see what he said before?! NO I was NOT trying to "poison the well." HE was the one that poisoned the well! I was defending my source from his lame ass attempt to discredit it. quote:Well it's kinda hard to carry on a debate when one side is CLEARLY either lying or mistaken. HOW do you determine who's telling the truth? Huh? Explain that to me. But it is VERY relevant to the PRO WAR position. Anyhow, many of the anti-war crowd is saying we HAVE to listen to what France is saying. quote: It's VERY relevant to the "no blood for oil" argument! Whatever you think about this, it remains that SOME people DO think we should listen to France. France is a hypocrite. This is in answer to THOSE people. If it doesn't apply to you then it doesn't apply to you. Yip yip yip yip yahoo. And you've been dishing out a hell of a lot of those in recent days quote:I seem to recall a certain IM conversation that you packed FULL of red herrings... Posted by Blaster_86 on 03-13-2003 at 01:58 AM:
Okay Ed The Sock is funny but the fact you are resorting to a hand puppet to argue with you is sad.
and just a few days ago you called him a left wing commy bastard. Posted by Best First on 03-13-2003 at 06:09 AM:
quote:well... it would be rude if people just ignored you. Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-13-2003 at 07:13 AM:
LMAO!
Posted by impactor returns on 03-13-2003 at 07:27 AM:
quote:This has nothing to do with authority. This has to do with a "respected" african leader having the potential to talk trash about USA and people listening. Only, on a far stupider level than about the war in Iraq. Actually its to do with the fact that u said that Saddam and Mugabi were different leaders, as one was elected fairly. Well both have been elected un-fairly. then u went on to talk about Mandela which has got sod all to do with it. Posted by Best First on 03-13-2003 at 10:09 AM:
 Posted by Computron on 03-13-2003 at 10:11 AM:
quote: Posted by Best First on 03-13-2003 at 10:18 AM:
Dooooood - i said all that in one line.
i think this guy has it spot on, anyway: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,913373,00.html Posted by Computron on 03-13-2003 at 10:19 AM:
quote: Posted by impactor returns on 03-13-2003 at 10:27 AM:
so what do u think the chances of war are now whatever is said?
90%? Then again i guess thier is the chance that Saddam will compy to the 6 rules hes been giving, no matter how daft they are... One of them is stupid. 'go on live TV and say u have WOMD' Now, surely if he does that, the US/UK will just turn about and say "i knew it!, right its time for war!!!" ... ffs  Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-13-2003 at 11:17 AM:
to add my worthless opinion to the general melee...
There is a genuinely strong case for action by force in Iraq- but it has been made exceptionally badly by the politicians, and has no semblance of honesty because they refuse to even hint at the real reasons why doing something about Iraq's political situation would be a good plan. 1. The political system in Iraq is absolute. Saddam is not stupid, he has crafted a system whereby assasinations and coupes are just not possible. The system is never going to change without outside help- the country is controlled far too well by its government. 2. Saddam will not last forever. He has made certain when he shuffles off this mortal coil, his son will take over. This will lead to huge problems in the region, as Saddam Junior is in the literal sense of the word a total psychopath. He is reported to have personally overseen live prisoners being dunked into acid baths, hanging people by meathooks through their eyes and worse. When he takes over, Iraq can be considered as unstable a threat as North Korea. 3. Iraq sits atop the 2nd most plentiful supply of oil in the known world. It would be of great value to the world community for this oil to be operated and distributed by a country that at least made the pretence of being half responsible. 4. The Iraqi people are miserable, and would be hard to make moreso by an occupying force. The general concensus is that no matter how bad whatever comes after Saddam might be- it would be difficult for the people to be any worse off. Bearing these factors in mind, it is fairly reasonable to say that it would be in everyone's interests to plan a short, sharp military exercise to remove Saddam with as few casualties on all sides as possible, and then to try and run the country in a sensible manner. Especially if the world is of the opinion that everybody has a right to the same basic freedoms in the world, including the Iraqi people. Various other countries also meet many of these points- but few come together so neatly in a nice little bundle which has such a history of military action anyway (numerous UN resolutions and the original Gulf War). Evil as they are, Mugabe and N. Korea are not so easy to deal with in many ways. However this argument has not been made by any politician- instead they have made blatantly condescending and distracting reasons which bear little relevance to the actual situation- i.e. Iraq is a threat to the USA, Iraq harbours terrorists, the Iraqi people want him gone etc. etc. etc. This was not helped by the initial plans of the USA (I seem to be one of the very few people who actually remember how this situation started). The USA decided after Sept. 11th that 'dangerous' states were to be destroyed. First on the shopping list: IRAQ. Everyone in the world then asked- hang about, would you mind consulting us FIRST possibly, before wiping countries off the face of the earth? So they were dragged to the UN, where Washington's attitude was STILL "12 years of ignoring resolutions- lets go blow him up". The general answer from the UN was "but why? Everyone (including you) never raised any objections before, and now without any relevant provocation the camel's back has been broken and you want to invade iraq? What in the name of God do you know that we dont?" And from here on in its got worse. France's position is even worse than the USA- at least the American administration have made SOME concessions, made SOME effort to try and get a concensus from the UN on action. The French govt. have turned the principle of the UN on its head. The basic idea is that all the countries on the security council discuss ideas and work out a course of action everyone agrees upon- instead they have decided no matter what is said, the French will veto it. That is NOT how things are meant to work. As I've said before and will say again, this whole affair is a complete mess, from start to finish. As it has been stated by the politicians, there is no reason to go into action in Iraq. It is unsurprising that a great body of people do not support the war. Looking in purely factual, sensible terms there is a good reason for doing something about Iraq's govt. (although through EXCEPTIONALLY well thought out methods that will not do Al Queada's job for it). However as things have been played by the supposedly democratic govts. of the USA and Britain (who instead of being the people's servants have decided to give orders not only to their own people but everyone else too) as well as the blatant selfishness of France (which interestingly enough is reputed to have sold military plans for Operation: Desert Storm to the Iraqis during the last Gulf War) we have come to this ridiculous situaiton. The UN reduced to an arena for unsubstantiated accusations and threats left, right and centre whenever anybody contradicts somebody else's views. And the world, ultimately, no closer to being a better place. France, the USA and GB need to stop screwing around and work on a proper compromise, then the security council can think of a strategy that is in WORLD INTERESTS- as the UN is supposed to work. Thats what I think anyway. As it stands I don't believe this ill-conceived war will make anything better: only in the purest, most logical 'ideal situation' scenario can I see any justification for it. As reality goes I think the world will come out of this the worse. ...Although hopefully without blair... {prays} Posted by impactor returns on 03-13-2003 at 11:24 AM:
that new bomb looked good didnt it?
Posted by Best First on 03-13-2003 at 11:47 AM:
In reference to Karls post:
Well said - im not sure if i have achieved it but thats more or less what i have been trying to say on this matter all along. Of course some simpleton will no doubt respond to your post with 'dood! - this is what the 'pro-war' (sigh) people have been saying all along' - which is hogwash, and off we will go again. Posted by impactor returns on 03-13-2003 at 11:53 AM:
Yeah, but Dude. wheres my car.
No i too agree with Karl, and like i said early this month. what annoys me more then anything is the simplfication of 'pro war' - 'anti-war' its so stupid. I hate ppl trying to stick me into catorgries etc, im not total for war, im not toaly against, parts i belive, parts i do not. its such a complicated situation. i think to be totaly for it or totaly against it is the most stupid thing of all. its like totaly ignoring all the other factors. Posted by Best First on 03-13-2003 at 12:02 PM:
quote:Hence the fact such people are so spectacularly easy to argue with... Posted by Blacksword on 03-13-2003 at 12:13 PM:
If the US had in all honesty proposedthis in 1988 when the atrocities started becoming noticible I would hvae supported such an action. If they had caried on into Iraq in Desert Storm, (though there were reasons not to) I would have been okay with that. But the fact of the matter is that they didn't. The US put Saddam in the possition he is in today, funded him and gave him weapons (along with the Frech and Germans) to go kill Iranians earlier in the 1980's. I oppose an action that is being done for largely imperialist ends, which are the only reasons why it is being done now, not for any of the other more valid reasons which have been ignored for well over a decade. I oppose the US regime and Saddam.
Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 12:57 PM:
quote:Well the way you had it written, it sounded like you were citing some sort of prior precedent. Since an invasion ACTUALLY hasn't happened yet, your argument doesn't fly. There was a perfect example of it just a few days ago in an IM conversation we had. quote:OTHER people brought up Mugabe. THEY committed the fallacy. I was just responding. Why are you accusing me of something other people did. And you wanted an EXAMPLE of red herring you committed and I gave it to you. Here. You want a red herring YOU made from THIS discussion? Here it is man: How about we deal with the other countries that already have these weapons or are much closer to getting them? RED HERRING RED HERRING RED HERRING RED HERRING!!!!!!! HE was impugning MY source and I was defending it! He did NOT come up with any reason why his source was more believable than mine. HE was implying that MY source was wrong or untrustworthy WITHOUT stating why. Therefore the root of my objection had D*CK to do with this "poisoning the well" nonsense. He had already poisoned the well. So accusing me of doing so is a bit hypocritical, seeing as you SEEM to agree with him. Therefore, by extension, since you didn't pick up on that, you too are guilty of poisoning the well. quote: Tell me, what IS the proper response to this then: I can't be sure of everything I've said but I can say for certain it's full of less **** than his stuff. I want to know on what basis he makes that claim. You're looking for problems where none exist. Youj're INVENTING problems. 2)How the hell did I commit such a fallacy? Care to point out the line where I did so? Blacksword did it and you didn't pick up on it. quote:As opposed to you, who are picking up on stuff that doesn't exist in the context. Well Mugabe didn't pull the equivalent of a Kuwaiti invasion, for starters. No, he's only committed mass atrocities etc etc... And for the rest of the argument I defer to Ed the Sock: Sometimes, the only moral choice is to wage war instead of letting injustices continue. True enough. Do we have the right to interfere in how sovereign nations treat their own people? quote:Well TOTALLY denying them ANY freedom, and and killing them for dissent comes to mind... Damn right we do. Do we have the resources to address every nation that’s hurting it’s people? Not a chance. quote:We have A BUNCH of nations willing to help! It ISN'T just USA! This Unilateralism argument is sheer B.S. And USA does NOT need permission from France, Russia, or Angola when it comes to defending itself. So when we do take a risk on deposing a dictator, people concerned with suffering should be glad – not scribbling placards at Starbucks. quote:Um NO, how about in the LONG RUN there will be LESS suffering? When you only have a problem with war, and not with the injustices that can be remedied through military action, the moral high ground can get a bit slippery under your Birkenstocks. quote:Birkenstocks or no Birkenstocks, the point is made. Well why can't you be content with the fact that NOBODY KNOWS what happened to the VX, Serin, etc that was found in 1995 WENT?! quote:NO. France and Germany gave him some too. FACT: France helped build a nuclear reactor in Iraq that the Israelis ended up blowing to smithereens. FACT: Chirac tried giving them weapons grade uranium and the President of France found out and quickly traded up for 3% grade before it was too late. None of which will remove Saddam from power, quote:Ok and have YOU thought about the consequences of LEAVING HIM IN POWER???? nor halt the oppression and torture of the people therein. quote:That's a theory. NOT a fact. Come on Compy WHAT IS THE REAL REASON FOR YOUR OPPOSITION TO THIS WAR?! quote:Fine and dandy, but the fact is that INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE IN IRAQ REGARDLESS OF IF THERE'S WAR OR NOT. YOU CANNOT STOP IT. SADDAM HAS ALREADY WANTONLY KILLED 1-2 MILLION OR SO OF HIS OWN PEOPLE. JUST FOR DARING TO OPPOSE HIM. THEY WANT THIS GUY GONE! It IS A JUST WAR since the people of Iraq that feel brave enough to go against Saddam PRAY for USA TO TAKE THAT GUY OUT!!! If a lot of civilians die in an Iraq war, it will be Saddam's doing, just as it was in the previous Gulf war. He will kill people just to make it look like USA did it. Now does that mean we shouldn't go in? Dude if there's a rapist in your neighborhood, what do you do? Do you take him off the streets using the cops, or do you make a deal with him hoping that he won't rape one of your family members? NOWHERE does Christ say ANYTHING about war in the context of when to or not to do it. When it comes to "turning the other cheek" governments do NOT have that luxury! The Government is the "Servant of God to punish evildoers." (Whether it acknowleges it or not). Christ's rules for individual conduct do NOT apply to the government. France has made a deal with militant islamic terrorists to leave France alone. Talk about a deal with the Devil. And don't forget, Christ himself said "Think ye that I came to bring peace? No, I tell you, but a sword." rather than refuting what I say. quote:How can I determine the truth of your refutations? What are your sources? How do I know that your sources are to be believed and mine aren't? Well it's kinda hard to carry on a debate when one side is CLEARLY either lying or mistaken. HOW do you determine who's telling the truth? Huh? Explain that to me. quote:What makes you think I'm losing? I'm making a valid point. This ALL boils down to WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH? WHOM DO YOU BELIEVE? AND WHY? I WON'T FREAKING KNOW WHETHER I'M LOSING OR NOT UNTIL I FIND OUT WHAT YOUR SOURCE IS AND WHAT IT SAYS AND HOW CREDIBLE IT IS!!! Geebuz cripes! How difficult is that?! quote: No I should be saying "Concession Accepted" every time you do that because you have NOT GIVEN ME ONE GOOD GODDAMN REASON WHY I SHOULD BELIEVE YOUR SOURCES. Why is that so hard for you to do? This is in answer to THOSE people. If it doesn't apply to you then it doesn't apply to you. quote:Because YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ANTIWAR PERSON ON THE BOARD EINSTEIN! There's lurkers too you know. I seem to recall a certain IM conversation that you packed FULL of red herrings... quote:I know EXACTLY what a red herring is. It's something thrown down to distract from the real issue. Other people have been doing that and you've been ignoring it. Dude you'd have a lot more credibility if you'd not just selectively criticize by logic only the posts that disagree with you. OTHER people mentioned Mugabe and that's how that became a "red herring." People were mentioning it and I was responding. And in the IM conversation you never got to the real issue that I asked you to address because you were too busy dragging stale $#** up from the past that had ALREADY BEEN FIXED to distract from the real issue. Posted by Blacksword on 03-13-2003 at 01:18 PM:
HE was impugning MY source and I was defending it! He did NOT come up with any reason why his source was more believable than mine. HE was implying that MY source was wrong or untrustworthy WITHOUT stating why. Therefore the root of my objection had D*CK to do with this "poisoning the well" nonsense. He had already poisoned the well. So accusing me of doing so is a bit hypocritical, seeing as you SEEM to agree with him. Therefore, by extension, since you didn't pick up on that, you too are guilty of poisoning the well.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Computron: 1)You really do not know what poisoning the well is do you? Blacksword committed no such fallacy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tell me, what IS the proper response to this then: I can't be sure of everything I've said but I can say for certain it's full of less **** than his stuff. I want to know on what basis he makes that claim. You're looking for problems where none exist. Youj're INVENTING problems. I said a long time agao that that particular statement was facecious. There is no discussion, as I already admitted it was a useless commnet. You focused on one errant statement and took your sweet time answering teh rest of my post. 2)How the hell did I commit such a fallacy? Care to point out the line where I did so? Blacksword did it and you didn't pick up on it. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because there was nothing to pick up on. If there was post the exact quote. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Compy's right. There is nothing, see above. I'll find the rest of my sources in time. But your sources are far from unimpeechable and my facecious statement was basically saying that just because a university proffessor say it doesn't make it right. THere are tons of Middle east experts on both sides of the issue. My statement about there being pans for an invasion of Iraq pre- 9/11 is one supported by a professor who is an expert on the Middle East. One by the name of Joel Beinin. I can't quite recall where I heard it first but it cam upe in one of my classes recently which is why I repeated it. Now, since I don't make my life's mission one of finding articles to support what ever opion I have at the moment I don't have things at my finger tips. Also I don't read leftie propaganda, unless you count the Bible by my bedside. Should really read it a bit more closely, the US and most of the West lives in total contradiction to it. Posted by Computron on 03-13-2003 at 01:19 PM:
I think it's time to unleash level 2 refutations upon Sheba:
" "Bam! [/Emeril] In other words I'm not going to make the same mistake I made before with the 17 pager archive topic... Tho I would love to know how Mugabe is a red herring in all this? If anything he is supremely relevant! You want to take out Saddam for being an evil bastard, yet there are tons of other evil bastards that Bush has said nothing about. Your laughable use of Red Herring is refuted. Concession Accepted in advance. Posted by Best First on 03-13-2003 at 01:39 PM:
Would it have any impact on the coherence of Sheba's points if she could actually use quotes correctly?
just curious. Posted by Jim on 03-13-2003 at 03:27 PM:
The royal we keeps popping up in your argument, Sheba.
Posted by Best First on 03-13-2003 at 03:35 PM:
quote:do you mean wee? Posted by Jim on 03-13-2003 at 03:37 PM:
quote:I thought it was just we, not wee. Posted by Computron on 03-13-2003 at 03:39 PM:
quote:You mean the way this thread has turned out? Posted by Best First on 03-13-2003 at 04:38 PM:
quote:one side of it - certainly. urine soaked one might say. still - whatever turns you on... Posted by impactor returns on 03-13-2003 at 05:14 PM:
*drools*
Posted by Blacksword on 03-13-2003 at 05:51 PM:
That's one thing I never ever, ever wanted to know.
*begins to melt down.....*  Posted by Getaway on 03-13-2003 at 06:00 PM:
Since this is the sole Iraq thread I'm going to ask a question thats on a light tangent, what do you think will happen in the war? Will it be slow or quick, relativly successful or messy and what will happen after?
Personally I see it going very well until they get to Baghdad, that is the one place that will hold out, total cost in terms of allied lives, maximum of 1000, total Iraqi military losses about 50,000 total civillian losses around 5,000. However, I am more worried about the consequences, as Bush has already told the officail Iraqi opposition groups inLondon and Europe to get stuffed it will be an American apointee government, which will anger the iraqi people who even the ones who want Saddam removed do not want any American presence in their country after the war. I see Turkey getting into a bloody fight with the Kurds and I see Israel launching an attack on the Palestininas and stealing more land. Nothing will really be solved as potentially one problem is solved, with 2 others created. I would have nothing against strikes to remove dictators if we actually went after all of them, but we won't. as distastefull as it assassination is I would rather someone got Saddam with a sniper than sent in an army. Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-13-2003 at 06:07 PM:
unfortunately saddam cannot be removed by sniper, but thats another story.
I think it will probably go relatively painlessly for the most part (lets hope so anyway, theoretically the faster the war the fewer the casualties) and the USA/GB will take over. Problems will arise soon though... Considering we have bombed Iraq to pieces many times, and starved it's people through sanctions I dont think we will get many thanks when we walk into Baghdad and proclaim it a democracy. Oh for a week there will be parties and celebrations... but then the questions will start "How long are you staying?" "When are you going?" "Who gets our oil?" etc. etc. etc.  Posted by Best First on 03-13-2003 at 06:13 PM:
quote:It appears that it will just be the US tho - it has already been made clear by the US adminsitration that the contracts to 'rebuild' Iraq will be offered more or less exclusibly to US companies. Which nicely underlines the accusation of imperialism. I think Getway's projections are relaistic, altho that doesnt mean they will prove to be accurate. Posted by Blaster_86 on 03-13-2003 at 06:23 PM:
Here we are again boys and girls.
It's lessons by pictures for Sheba so she can find out her national identity. Sheba, you think you would learn but no so here we GO! Your Men's Olympic team in 2002 was lead by this guy:  (see the flag? Pop quiz is that yours?)Not this guy:  This is your dollar:  This is not your dollar:  Your Country produced this Star Trek Capitan:  Not this Capitan:  Study, learn and remember there is a Quiz next week. Posted by Blacksword on 03-13-2003 at 06:33 PM:
Given the number of opposition groups who have refused to take the US government's **** the new governmnet will be ready to topple in a room with air conditioning if the US leaves in anything less than five years. It took decades to sort out thing in Germany and Japan, and as the warhawks are so fond of saying Saddam has built a governmental structure like nothing else seen before. Are all these agencies just going to vanish when the US marches in. A bunch will be causes of instability and others will be incorperated into the new governmnet (as they'll be the only ones with experience) which will cause all sorts of trouble. Then there are the Kurds who'll be freeer than they've been, about ever. IF tehy decide to link up with their Turkish bretheren (though I don't know iff all the gruops among the Kurds get along) there could be a nasty situation. The US will either have to allow a Kurdish state to form and piss off Turkey or supress the Kurds inboth countries whcih will be just a change in oppressor. No one knows what will happen when the cap comes off this bottle. But I can tellyou waht the US military's primary concern will be in the even t of any chaos: ensuring the safety of the oil wells and the Americans who will own it. Besty or Compy, do you have any sources to prove the US will take over the oil fields so we can shut Sheba up or atleast ignore her more effectively? Anyhow I can only see chaos inthe region and a heck of a lot more terrorist attacks thatwill grow in number with each passing year of the occupation, both on US targets in Iraq and on domestic targets on the continental US. This invasion and the occupation to follow will do wonders for the recruiting progammes of terrorist organizations. And if tactical nukes get used in the take over - don't even get me thinking about that.
Posted by Blacksword on 03-13-2003 at 06:57 PM:
Face it Balster, Sheba is yet another American lacky in this country of ours. We've had these shmucks since Laurier government at the beginning of the 2oth century with their reciprocity agreements, that fortunately got shot down by Borden's Conservatives. About eighty years later we got a very different kind of Conservative who sold us out like a cheap whore. Mulroony should be hung, drawn and quartered like the traitor he is. People who love the US so much should wise up or get the hell out of this country. Whoops there goes my latent nationalism again. Oh well its too late, the stars and stripes will be hanging over Parliament Hill in a couple decades thanks to people like Sheba so I might as well have my rage now.
Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 07:52 PM:
quote:"American Lackey" my freaking @$$. You don't know what you're talking about if you want to call me that. Yeah Mulroney should be quartered but NOT because of America. Tell me dude, if USA is so inferior to Canada, why is it that: -Our dollar is lower -They have social programs that rival ours in scope (even though they don't have Universal Health Care they have Medicare and Medicaid--but in every other field of welfare they spend more and do more). -Their military is better -People flock to USA in greater numbers than they do to Canada. -The phrase is "The American Dream" NOT the "Canadian Dream" in terms of success. Hmmm? And speaking about propping up unsavory dictators, DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED about P.E.T. and Castro, or a bunch of Canadian Intelligentsia apologists for Stalin and other USSR leaders. Canada is not lily white in terms of the stuff you're accusing USA of. And who pray tell did people blame in centuries past, BEFORE the USA was even thought of? Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 08:00 PM:
quote:No it's not refuted. MUGABE has NOTHING to do with Saddam violating 17-count em-17 UN RESOLUTIONS. Mugabe, last I heard, was not suspected of developing WOMD. Bringing up Mugabe is DIVERTING ATTENTION FROM SADDAM. Therefore to bring him up is a red herring. Resolution 1441 says that by SEPTEMBER 7th (long past!) that Saddam had to have shown evidence of destroying any WOMD (including the ones they KNOW he had in 1995) and the USE OF MILITARY FORCE IS AUTHORIZED if Saddam fails to comply by then. So is the UN a paper tiger now? All these requests for delays that won't do D*CK to solve the problem only weaken us in the eyes of the Middle East. How do you think Osama recruits people? By saying USA is really strong? HELL NO! HE SAYS USA IS WEAK (especially after that Blackhawk Down Real life performance)!!!! And continuing to dither, in THEIR interpretation according to THEIR culture, makes the rest of the world, (ESPECIALLY USA) look WEAK AND THUS VULNERABLE! That's the danger you don't see! Oh so you're saying because we're not acting on someone like Mugabe just yet, that we SHOULDN'T take out Saddam? That's stupid reasoning! That's like saying we can't possibly arrest all the murderers in the country, and therefore shouldn't even try. oh, and "we" is me and at least one other person Posted by Computron on 03-13-2003 at 08:06 PM:
quote:Strawman fallacy. I've said no such thing. What I have said is that the justification for going after Saddam is applicable to plenty of other dictators yet we don't go after them... And why am I wasting my time. Bah Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 08:13 PM:
quote:OK fine. The truth is, I wasn't TRYING to make any fallacy. So the charge against me is false as well. The intent was not there. I was asking a freaking question, not trying to launch a pre-emptive strike against your source's credibility. Alright, so it's gonna be the duelling middle east experts. Of course I took my sweet time. I need to find evidence before I can knock down some of these rotgut assertions you have. quote:Ok fine. I will be patient with you finding your sources if you will allow me the same leeway. Incidentally, BILL CLINTON is the one that FIRST suggested regime change in Iraq. NOT Bush-43. So why is it OK for Bill Clinton to think that but not Bush? And incidentally where were you guys (Compy too) when BILL CLINTON lobbed 450 Cruise Missiles into Iraq in 1998?! quote:Well maybe you'd better start in that direction. It's not hard. Internet Searches ARE at your fingertips. quote:WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Show me WHERE in the Bible the GOVERNMENT is violating something that THE GOVERNMENT was addressed to?! Tell me about law and gospel then. Rationalize the forgiveness of sins as to what a COUNTRY is doing. Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 08:14 PM:
BTW what the hell happened to separation of church and state?! Posted by Sheba on 03-13-2003 at 08:15 PM:
quote:Well if that wasn't what you were trying to say then what was the point of what you were saying? Dude we have to start SOMEWHERE. Iraq's as good a place as any. Posted by Blacksword on 03-13-2003 at 08:48 PM:
quote: Posted by Blacksword on 03-13-2003 at 09:06 PM:
As to the Bible I was adressing the sins of the West not Saddam.
Here's a list - the huge gap between rich and poor in Western antions - the exploitation of thridworld countries thorugh sweat shops, prohibitive loan repayments - ignoring the AIDS pandemic, and just letting get out of control when it coul have been contained a decade ago. - allowing the Third world to starve while we have out big screen TV's cars and homes big enough to house two orthree third world families - not doing a damn thing to repair the damage colonialism did other than throwing chump change at the problem - having an economic system where the strong exploit the weak. - having a monetary system which is based on usary. Lending money at interest goes against eh Law of Moses. Our whole economy is based on this - having slums right next to mansions. LA is a prim eexample ot this The Gospel's main thrust was social justice and there is precious little of that in the West in general and even less in the States. So yes Saddam is a dangerous vicious tyrant but we have very little moral authority on which to stand. I suggest we remove the plank from our own eye before we look to our neighbors. Just appealing to whatever Christian ethic you might have since I get the impression from your Creationism/Evolution debates with Compy you are some sort of fundamentalist or literalist conservative. Could be wrong but I often feelthe need to remind some my right wing brothers and sisters of what the majority of scripture is about. Posted by Blacksword on 03-13-2003 at 09:29 PM:
Oh and here's the oil policy informationyou wanted Sheba:
News World Communications December 28, 2002 The question of what should happen to Iraq's oil fields if Saddam Hussein is removed from power has become yet another source of fierce division between hawks and Republican "moderates" within the Bush administration. A sharp and very inside-the-Beltway struggle is taking place behind the scenes over planning for a post-Saddam Iraq with the future of Iraqi oil taking center-stage. A proposal drafted by Elliott Abrams, a special assistant to President George W. Bush on the National Security Council [NSC], arguing for the United States to assert de facto control of Iraqi oil fields has stunned State Department officials. It doesn't help that Abrams [right] was convicted of withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra scandal, only to receive a presidential pardon from the current president's father. Bush-administration "moderates" have raised legal and practical objections to the Abrams proposal, arguing that only a puppet Iraqi government would acquiesce to U.S. supervision of the oil fields and that one so slavish to U.S. interests risks becoming untenable with Iraqis. Furthermore, they argue, the move would trigger a wide political backlash in the Middle East and confirm overseas suspicions that U.S. actions against Saddam are driven by oil politics. Abrams, who in early December was promoted within the NSC to senior director for Near East and North African affairs, heads one of a dozen administration working groups tasked with drafting post-invasion plans. But critics in the State Department say his group has been going beyond its authority - officially, it is meant to focus on planning for a humanitarian crisis in the immediate wake of an invasion - and is involving itself in post-Saddam politics and broader issues of economic reconstruction. Pentagon sources say Abrams has the backing of Paul Wolfowitz, the conservative deputy defense secretary, and the support of the office of conservative Vice President Dick Cheney. "This is a case of stealthy micromanagement by the Wolfowitz hawks - they use what bureaucratic vehicles are available to make their imprint on policy," says an ally of Secretary of State Colin Powell. The group has not been forthcoming in providing information, refusing to brief not only top State Department officials but also aides of Gen. Tommy Franks, the commanding officer of the U.S. Central Command [CENTCOM], about what it is doing, claim rival Defense Department sources. Powell allies fear that the Abrams group is part of a concerted and stealthy effort by hawks to steal a march on reconstruction planning, in the process keeping it away from the State Department and the United Nations. CIA sources say there also is frustration at Langley about post-invasion planning and that agency heads there believe they are being shut out as well. Conservatives who hear such complaints respond that they hope this is just what is happening. The Abrams group includes Joe Collins, a deputy assistant secretary at the Pentagon and a one-time Wolfowitz speechwriter, and Robin Cleveland, a former aide to Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and now an influential staffer in the president's Office of Management and Budget. All the members of the Abrams group are fiercely opposed to U.N. involvement in post-Saddam planning, are closely allied to Wolfowitz and are firmly pro-Israel. In their efforts to derail the group, internal administration critics are questioning why a convicted felon, pardoned or not, is being allowed to help shape policy. Abrams, who served as an assistant secretary of State during the Reagan administration, was a key player in Iran-Contra and pleaded guilty to "withholding information from Congress." President George H.W. Bush pardoned him. Abrams' supporters say the conviction was part of a political vendetta by Democrats against Reagan. Other Wolfowitz foes argue that focusing on Abrams' past is irrelevant. They contend that his role should be placed in the broader context of the split within the Bush administration pitching liberals and supporters of Powell against hawks who cleave to Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Within that broader split, the philosophical and ideological disagreements are sharp. The Wolfowitz hawks argue that Iraqi oil - the second-largest reserves in the World - could be a godsend for the United States. Supervision of it could help Washington shape U.S. and global energy prices, act as a counterweight to Saudi Arabia's dominant influence in the oil markets and erode the power of the Arab-led Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC]. In the event that Saddam doesn't set fire to the oil wells, the hawks maintain that during a "transitional reconstruction period" the United States should supervise Iraqi oil to prevent future sabotage and avoid disruption of the oil market. Certainly a surge in production would do no one - except possibly Western consumers in the short term - much good. As one British oil-industry source pointed out, increased Iraqi oil production would be harmful even to the major U.S. oil companies, which would see their profit margins cut with lower prices. For oil-producing countries the results could be devastating. The Kremlin already has let it be known that it could not live with the price of Russian crude falling below $18 a barrel. And the Saudis reportedly are amassing a huge "war chest" to be ready to weather a period of low oil prices. Bush-administration sources say that Powell and Franks favor a continuation of the U.N.'s oil-for-food program following Saddam's removal. The program, which allows Iraq to use its oil revenues to buy humanitarian goods, could be used to hold production down and allow nondisruptive phased-in increases over years. U.S. allies, who also are being shut out in terms of information, are becoming increasingly anxious about the possible division of Iraqi oil spoils following Saddam's removal. Downing Street privately has urged British oil companies to press their case in Washington, say British government and oil-industry sources. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/1228divides.htm Posted by Jim on 03-13-2003 at 10:10 PM:
quote:FYI - Resolution 1441 wasn't passed until Nov 8, 2002. Not sure where you got that 9/7 stuff from. Posted by Nightbeat on 03-14-2003 at 12:37 AM:
Okay, I agree with what Karl said. But I'm seeing so much argument and counterargument, my brain hurts.
Posted by Computron on 03-14-2003 at 04:21 PM:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/884919.asp?0cv=CB30
I'm heading to Mars...I'll see you guys after the apocalypse. Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-14-2003 at 04:24 PM:
Need a bisexual, mentally disturbed actor on that trip?
Posted by god on 03-14-2003 at 04:41 PM:
well as soon as we don't need oil anymore we can nuke the middle east , solves most problems, to bad about the radiation......., lol, but it's the most economical solution , people always complain about costs saw a nice panorama docu about IRAN and the 1979 revolution and i have to objectively conclude that they are either moronic or just can't handle the 21st century and should be cut off from the west permanently. umm the topic about the halt of human evolution seems to be true.. you can't have it both ways Posted by Blacksword on 03-15-2003 at 06:56 PM:
You know what I find funny? After I find proof for my statements Sheba vanishes and this thread lies dormant for a couple days. GD is pretty dead right now so lets see if this catches anybody'd attention.
Posted by Computron on 03-15-2003 at 07:02 PM:
quote:Like I said, welcome to the world of debating Sheba. If you really want her to return simply write out in big bold letters. Concession Accepted. Posted by Best First on 03-15-2003 at 07:07 PM:
Is it ok that i didnt even bother trying this time round?
It gets a bit wearying. and theres so much scope for entertaining mockery.... But i feel so cheap! Posted by Jim on 03-15-2003 at 07:58 PM:
Concession Accepted.
Posted by Best First on 03-15-2003 at 08:33 PM:
quote:He feels so cheap too! Posted by Blacksword on 03-15-2003 at 11:42 PM:
No problem, Compy and I had it covered. I even got to call her an un-Canadian lackie. No offense to a good American like Compy but any Canadian who wishes we were like the states needs their head examined, and their but shipped across the border.
Posted by impactor returns on 03-15-2003 at 11:49 PM:
i love forum descussions/arguments. when ppl know they have nothing to say in return to anothers post they tend to walk away... convient that.
Posted by Best First on 03-16-2003 at 06:25 AM:
quote:One of the joys of the net - people can unleash opinions they cant back up and either run away or ignore peoples attempts to challenge them over it. oh the fun! Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-16-2003 at 10:58 AM:
hee hee another allied victory
Posted by Blacksword on 03-16-2003 at 02:01 PM:
And since this is the ONE and Only Iraq thread, we'll actually get som epeace and quiet. No more pointless articles of morons who don't represent the peace movement asa whole.
Posted by Tired Tracks on 03-16-2003 at 02:11 PM:
quote:Bush is the internet? That description sounds oddly like his speeches.... Anyway, I really haven't read much of this thread as political debates upset me quite a bit but... I was just telling Compy that one of my ex(for now?) girlfriends lives in Azores right now. That fact alone has gotten me a bit freaked. Posted by impactor returns on 03-17-2003 at 10:38 AM:
Well its war then ppl.
ok. as its gonna happen, i hope this happens. A: its quick B: saddam really is kicked out C: the ppl of Iraq are helped in a rebuild D: The resources of Iraq belong to the Iraq's. and are used to help them only Posted by impactor returns on 03-17-2003 at 11:25 AM:
And in breaking news, there are reports from that saddams front line men, not his imperial gaurd, already showing signs they will surrender at the start of the war.
Posted by Redstreak on 03-17-2003 at 11:41 AM:
Here's your bizzare fact of the day so far...supposedly opinion polls strongly back this dumbass idea.
I've a name for it now: "Bush's War." Posted by god on 03-17-2003 at 12:36 PM:
well impactor is right
Posted by god on 03-17-2003 at 01:11 PM:
quote:yeah reminds me of you Posted by Nosecone on 03-17-2003 at 01:27 PM:
Well I hope the UN places loads of restrictions on the UK and USA for going to war Illegally.
Also the suggestion I heard that Bush and Blair could both be taken to court accussed of War Crimes (by going to war illegally) is a pleasing one as well Posted by Best First on 03-17-2003 at 01:46 PM:
quote:*runs away! Posted by impactor returns on 03-17-2003 at 01:49 PM:
actually the UN have said its legall.
A: ress 1441 has a clause signed by all partys of the UN that a 2nd ress was never needed. or allowed B: saddam has failed to comply to 11 points of this ress. thus he is in breach now, no one get all anti-war or somthing on me, im just telling u the facts of the situation and how this works from a legal point of view. im not touting pro war ethics etc, im just putting somthing straight. Posted by god on 03-17-2003 at 02:07 PM:
another 10 years of economic sanctions and inspections will not help the irakis
so i opt for the short pain, war will kill people yes, but so will doing nothing Posted by Best First on 03-17-2003 at 02:38 PM:
quote:A lot of lawyers in britain dont agree.... Anyway - i would agree with Gods posistion if i didnt think the iniative was being run by idiots whose top priority was far from the welfare of the prioroty of the iraqi people and if we had taken the time (we have had 12 years as a number of people like to point out) to actually formulate a decent and morally sound post war plan for iraq. But as things stand i dont support this action - th eonly thing that is in place are the troops. That said its not going to change anything and i share IR's hopes for an outcome now that 3 nations have decided that war is inevitable. And i wish our boys a safe return home. Posted by impactor returns on 03-17-2003 at 02:54 PM:
well, is a classic case of reading bewtween the lines and red tape etc... i really dont think theres much of a basis for things myself, from a legal point of view.
The best thing that can happen now is everything else is donw correctly for the good of the Iraq people. And if we are gonna fight , i hope our lads give saddam and his imperial gaurd wankers a good fooking kicking for causing so much crap! Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-17-2003 at 03:40 PM:
my position is that whilst I certainly hold no ill-will against any of the Allied forces and have nothing but respect for their abilities and devotion to duty, I believe their force is being misdirected.
I am also greatly saddened by the final propaganda schemes of Labour "Well we're going to fight anyway so DARE you speak out again those brave lads fighting for your freedom? {sniff} gawd bless the queen blah blah union flag underpants etc. etc."nobody in their right mind blames the armed forces- but that doesnt mean they can be used to silence objections against what i firmly believe to be a mistake by our govts. i just hope im proven wrong... Posted by Blacksword on 03-17-2003 at 04:01 PM:
If I were in the armed forces I'd be pissed about being used. Toomany soldiers have had their lives wasted in pointless wars all for the greed of those in power. This is the same type of mentality which sent teenagers out to face the barbed wire and the machine guns with no hope of survival. Not quite the same thing here but its that mentality. Who knows what they'll face once Saddam gets desperate.
Posted by Computron on 03-17-2003 at 04:27 PM:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp?0cv=CB10
A NEW WORLD? I PREFER THE OLD ONE When George Bush took office in January 2001, he did not have majority support of the nation or the legitimacy of a genuine winner, but he did have a nation at relative peace, a budget in surplus, a Dow Jones Industrial Average that was approximately 30 percent higher than it is today, a nation with most of our civil liberties intact and the good opinion of much of the world, particularly our NATO allies. That America is gone forever now. And while much of the changes that ensued can be laid at the feet of Al-Qaeda and the attacks of 9/11, a great many of them are merely the result of the Bush Administration’s unconscionable but successful exploitation of that tragedy. We are now about to enter a world in which the values we practice are pre-emptive war, fiscal indiscipline, domestic theocracy and the good opinion of human kind be damned. Since 9/11, Bush and company have done almost everything possible to alienate the world and inspire more terrorists to hate us, despite the initial wellspring of sympathy and solidarity the attacks inspired worldwide. Meanwhile, for all its collective bluster, the Bush crowd has done almost nothing to protect the nation from the entirely predictable consequences of their folly and the hatred we have engendered across the Islamic and Arab worlds. (Read this incredible TNR story on homeland security by Jonathan Chait if you doubt my word.) All I can say at this deeply depressing moment in our history is that may Providence have mercy on our nation and those who are about to become the victims of our misguided crusade, and may its beneficiaries in Iraq make the most of it. Posted by Best First on 03-17-2003 at 04:58 PM:
quote:dont count on it. I agree entirely. Posted by impactor returns on 03-17-2003 at 05:04 PM:
Propganda, first worl governements? surly not!!
Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-17-2003 at 05:43 PM:
Just thought I'd share my prayer here. I appreciate most people here probably don't have a Catholic God, but feel free to alter whichever bits make it relevant for you. Even if it means just expressing your best hopes for our future. {or feel free to ignore
 i would never foist religion upon anybody}Our father, who art in heaven, Hallowed by thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done On earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, And forgive us our tresspasses As we forgive them who trespass against us, And lead us not into temptation; But deliver us from evil. For thine is the Kingdom, The Power And the Glory Forever and ever. Dear God, please aid the judgement of our leaders and our soldiers. Our errors and malpractices are only too obvious in your eyes, but please guide us to make amends for our mistakes- and to help make the world a better place for all: be we British, American, European, Canadian, Asian or Iraqi. We appreciate that you cannot make our judgements for us, and that you cannot deflect a bullet in flight... but perhaps with your guidance that bullet might never be fired. Help us to make this world a better place, even though we approach your most wonderful of visions with the tools of death. Spare the innocents, and help to safeguard the lives of all those involved in the Middle East tomorrow. We have sinned, Dear God, and we beg for you to forgive us and to lead us in the path of your righteousness. Watch over our loved ones, our brothers and our sisters in this war of our own making- whichever country they are from. As it was, is now, and ever shall be, World Without End. Through Jesus Christ, our lord, Amen. Posted by Computron on 03-17-2003 at 05:56 PM:
Very nice Karl.
Posted by MaximusFan on 03-17-2003 at 05:57 PM:
I'm an atheist, but at times as these I'd wish we really had a God, and one willing to intervene as well. I can only hope this will come to pass with as little bloodshed as possible.
Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-17-2003 at 06:26 PM:
Has anybody got a full transfcript of Robin Cook's speach?
I'd like to see Sheba argue that. Posted by impactor returns on 03-17-2003 at 06:36 PM:
Personaly im still sitting on the fence.
ive heard good reasons from both side. some legal, some moral, some synical, some true. i really cannot belive anyone of the public can be so right as to have a decent logical answer to all of this. Now wr is gonna happen i just hope that 'they' know what they are doing is correct for untold reasons, and the truth in time will be revealed to us all when the time is right. As for RObin cook. great man, but surely he was just getting back at blair after blair made him commons tea boy? he apposed gulf war 1, kosova and afghanistan. so its no wonder he apposed this, he apposes every war. Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 03-17-2003 at 07:11 PM:
Just a quick thingy on speaking out against the men and women fighting for you...
Don't you dare speak out against them. It isn't their decision to fight. You should praise them, risking their lives for their country. If you want to speak out, speak out against the people who sent them in, not the men behind the rifles. Posted by the uiltmate prime fan on 03-17-2003 at 07:21 PM:
leatherneck, i think i can sum up what i see as the basic feeling of the people in this thread {correct me if im wrong}...
We're not against the soldiers, we're against the war. Posted by the uiltmate prime fan on 03-17-2003 at 09:03 PM:
well, thats it. my European Friends, welcome into the Pax Americana. im sure you'll enjoy the removal of your civil liberties. the American People do, apparently.
Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 03-17-2003 at 09:22 PM:
Death, or not be able to associate with terrorists? Gee, which would you pick?
Posted by the uiltmate prime fan on 03-17-2003 at 11:12 PM:
it would help if i knew what the hell your talking about...
Posted by Best First on 03-18-2003 at 05:11 AM:
quote:Well, they arent actually fighting for me as you try and claim, but if you actually read what people have posted you will find that they are focusing their points on the decision makers. You are raging against nothing. IR - if you are so keen to listen to arguements from both 'sides' why do you completley dismiss Robin Cooks comments? Perpetually sitting on the fence is of no use to anyone. Anyway: Cook's speech, which upon reading i cannot help but agree with more or less entirely. The only thing i think he has glossed over is the fact the 'pro-war' lobby were not alone in arming the Iraqi's but i dont think that detracts from his points; quote:And this is what the Right Rev Mike Moore had to say: quote: Posted by Blacksword on 03-18-2003 at 08:23 AM:
quote:So true. As are the comments about no one in government having their sons or daughters over there. It's not like this is going to bleed their families. Posted by impactor returns on 03-18-2003 at 08:51 AM:
quote:well for starters Robin Cook is a great speaker, and will be missed. Yet Robin apposed the last 3 conflicts, so why pick this conflict to stand down? the only difference is that he was demoted to commons leader, a low postion by any terms. sp is this a real act on Robins behalf or conicdence of postion and timing? What Robin said can be countered by other pro war arguments, so im not convinced, either which leads to... I cant call this situation either way, im sorry if your perfectly clear of mind as to what we should be doing, well im not. im sorry if you think thats of 'no use to anyone' but thats my postion. and i wont just jump one side of the fence to appease my critics. Posted by Blacksword on 03-18-2003 at 09:23 AM:
Could be the whole ingnoring the people thing and going against the UN. That's the big difference in this war. When was the last time a million people came to to protest a war in England...? No he has damn good reason to resign.
Posted by impactor returns on 03-18-2003 at 09:38 AM:
ok, this is how that argument is countered.
THere are 60 million ppl in the UK, and only 1 million turned up. silly, but thats off the top of myhead. for everything said there is somthing equally said on the other side. im not here to argue over Robin cook, i sat upp all night listening to many views and opinions. and frankly, just because someone leaves, doesnt make any difference to whats right and wrong. u cant tell how many have stayed can u? Posted by Blacksword on 03-18-2003 at 09:51 AM:
Its not necessarily the numbers but the fact that this has happened at all. Resignations of issues atleast to my knowledge are not that common. Neither are large scale protests. I can't recall a time when there was such an air of discontent. I have to go back to before I was born to the Vietnam protests to see that.
Posted by impactor returns on 03-18-2003 at 10:10 AM:
True. it is unusuall. but that doesnt mean they are right, and nor does it mean i should follow. im not following either side.
If i was to be honest. i would have to say that prehaps without a real standing view point. then prehaps the UN inspectors should be left to do what they were doing. I would then say that if milatary action needed to be taken then i dont think the US or the UK should be looked apon again to undertake this. a mobile world army devised by the UN should be made instead. there is also still somthing in my gut that tells me that if we do step back now, then we could be making a big mistake on behalf of the wolrd, the middle east peace process, and the Iraq ppl. not to mention the threat of terrorism. Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 03-18-2003 at 10:14 AM:
Best you really don't have any respect for anybody do you. These people sign up knowing they could die for disrespectful, ungrateful bastards like yourself yet you still scoff them.
And yes, somewhere between 150-200 someone badmouthed the soldiers. Posted by Computron on 03-18-2003 at 10:17 AM:
quote:Who said it, and what was said? Posted by Blacksword on 03-18-2003 at 10:44 AM:
That's what I'd like to know. Care to enlighten us LN cause I know it sure wasn't me or Compy or Best First or Impy.
Edit: or Karl, Pops or UPF Posted by Jim on 03-18-2003 at 12:48 PM:
quote:Best First is from the UK, so how does US troops effect him? Either way, he has presented his view on this war as unjust, and did so without the name calling. I assume you're American, so you should be able to respect Free Speech, I hope. Your post also seems to lack any... oh what is it... substance. You call Best First a bastard, but do not refute the very well thought out arguments by Robin Cook and Michael Moore that he posted, nor Best's other comments. While on Moore, I do have to ask how you can be supportive of Bush's actions. I've seen how you are Mr. Marine this and that, yet Bush, as Moore said it, went AWOL like a bitch... On a final note, I do have to question what you stated in your "refute" on Best First. "These people sign up knowing they could die for disrespectful, ungrateful bastards like yourself yet you still scoff them." I do have a problem with that part of your statment, as it is a volunteer army. It is _NOT_ conscription-based. I might have found your statement acceptable prior to the mid-1980's, but since Reagan started to count the military in economic figures to bolster poor unemployment, the military has become a job. A risky job, obviously, but a job. No one pointed a gun to their head, and told them to enlist. HOWEVER, this does not mean I want any of them to die. I feel sad that they are being used as pawns in an unjust war for oil. The evidence is before you in this thread, and online on several news sites. You can choose to ignore it for comfort, but its there. Posted by Best First on 03-18-2003 at 01:27 PM:
NB - thanks to all those who pointed out the obvious flaw in the below quote.
quote:Ill tell you what i have no respect for - people who post crap thay cannot support - show me where i scoff at the soldiers. Come on. ill get back to the letter im writing to my mate in the gulf now thanks, you know, the one that contans the phrase 'you will be pleased to hear that, despite the differences in political feelings, people here are 100% behind the troops'. i have the utmost respect for the British armed forces, and some strong personal ties to them. However that is entirely irrelevent to the politics involved - which is what i have commented on in this topic. I would have thought anyone with the ability to read would have been able to make that distinction. As regards nationalities outside the British, i will be equally agrieved to see innocent iraqi's (which i would say includes those forcibly conscripted) or american soldiers, both of whom are irrlevent to the politics of situation, killed. I don't take the lives of soldiers lightly, and i apprecaite what it is they do and the mentality required to join the armed forces and be a professional soldier (so heaven forbid the day you get into the military) . Just as i do that of policemen, firemen and these days teachers and nurses. And nothing i have said in this topic suggests otherwise. So - I suggest in future you actually try reading what people have posted and engaging your ****ing brain before posting more unsubstantiated nonsense. Altho i am unoptomistic that that will be the case. Posted by Best First on 03-18-2003 at 01:31 PM:
quote:70 Grand a year is hardly a low posistion. Anyway - its not the only differnce - in each of those cases there was a visibale degree of international consensus, be it in one or more of the UN, Nato or the EU. Thats not the case this time round. Posted by Sheba on 03-18-2003 at 01:44 PM:
quote:No it's called being shafted for internet time for 4 days duuuuuude. Posted by Sheba on 03-18-2003 at 01:45 PM:
quote:hahahahaha. Same to you Posted by Nebbie on 03-18-2003 at 01:51 PM:
I had respect for the soldiers before all this crap. It has not diminished in the least. I have lost my respect for the people who make the decisions, not the ones who are forced to carry them out.
What makes me sad is that most of the soldiers over there had no intention of ever going to war. I don't know if you've ever seen the recruiment ads and stuff, but all they emphasize is getting an education, and mad pay and being able to retire early. They don't say anything about having to go to war. I bet a lot of the people going over there are getting a rude awakening. I'm going to go off on a bit of a tangent here, somebody said something about firefighters. I had the utmost respect for firefighters and police people BEFORE 9/11. My father and uncle are firefighters, and another of my uncles is a cop. I've lost count of the number of times my dad has nearly lost his life. It makes me sick that it took 9/11 for these brave people to get the respect they deserve. Posted by Sheba on 03-18-2003 at 02:27 PM:
quote:You are right about the banks and gold standard, no question. But don't forget, Canada has PURPOSEFULLY been keeping its own dollar down for the fact of trade. -They have social programs that rival ours in scope (even though they don't have Universal Health Care they have Medicare and Medicaid--but in every other field of welfare they spend more and do more). quote:How about the people that have LOST THEIR LIVES due to the RIDICULOUSLY LONG WAITING LISTS?! Have you read the latest Reader's Digest this month? 141 cardiac patients in Ontario have DIED between 1991 and 1995 while waiting for surgery! USA has MUCH GREATER access to facilities for diagnosis and treatment. The LEVEL of health care delivered is HIGHER. And OMG you've fallen prey to this STUPID IDIOTIC notion of "the gap between the rich and the poor." Now I'm POSITIVE you've been listening to left wing "barbra streisand".(euphemism for bull$#**) The REASON the gap between the rich and the poor is greater in USA is because the RICH are richer. BUT their poor are RICHER than OURS! Therefore it's a STUPID notion that the "gap" is "criminal." And it also smacks of this ridiculous idea that the rich (either here or in USA) ARE rich BECAUSE the Poor are poor! And the REASON the SOCIAL PROGRAMS ARE NOT WORKING is because the purpose of a social program is NOT to make the poor not poor--it's to KEEP THE POOR DEPENDANT SO THEY KEEP VOTING DEMOCRAT. It works much the same way here--except the people in question keep voting NDP or Liberal. When a Federal Cheque becomes a Father and the real dad goes see the cops later, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN?! quote: Look man, Canada with its great resources, sparse population, and IMPOTENT military, would be annexed in under three seconds if we lived next to ANY OTHER "Great Power" than USA!!! China? DONE! Former USSR? DONE! Iraq? DONE! -People flock to USA in greater numbers than they do to Canada. quote:Well it's kinda like the hypothetical person that gets mugged by a black person, and thereafter is "made racist" by the incident. It's unfortunate but it's human nature. The truth about USA though, is that utter destitute people, without a dime to their name, can MAKE IT in USA. People fleeing the communism of Vietnam particularly. Without social programs. And usually they come, not knowing a WORD of english. And some have become very successful. How often do you hear tell of that in Canada? Hmmmmmm? -The phrase is "The American Dream" NOT the "Canadian Dream" in terms of success. quote:OH COME ON. Do you REALLY freaking believe that a Vietnamese Boat Person became successful on 'the backs of my brother'?! How about the East Indian running the Corner Convenience store? Did he get where he was going on the backs of the poor or whatever? WHERE did you get this IDIOTIC notion that you SEEM to have, where Wealth is ONLY achieved by cheating and whatever? WHO have you been listening to?! quote:That rating is biased and you know it. The UN is filled with a bunch of envious America-haters. I don't know about you, but I have relatives in USA. They seem to do just fine there. None of them are "rich" but they're ok. BRITAIN?! You HAVE to be joking! What incidentally is "pollutional" about "American Thinking"?! If where I was living now became part of USA I WOULD NOT LEAVE. I WOULD STAY PUT. Dude the polluted thinking you're thinking of is not "American Thinking" it's LIBERAL DEMOCRAT THINKING!!! Which we already had, in spades! And speaking about propping up unsavory dictators, DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED about P.E.T. and Castro, or a bunch of Canadian Intelligentsia apologists for Stalin and other USSR leaders. Canada is not lily white in terms of the stuff you're accusing USA of. quote:Boy you are young aren't you. Trudeau flipped the bird to the West (used his middle finger) and embarked on policies that favored the East (ANYTHING east of Manitoba) over the West. Including the National Energy Policy. There are some British Columbians and Albertans, (not to mention Saskatchewan and Manitoba) that will NEVER vote Federal Liberal as long as they live because of what Trudeau did. Trudeau was also bosom buddies with Castro, and in his younger days was a member of the Communist Party of Canada. quote:Don't tell me you are one of those Castro apologists. Sure he's not a Saddam Hussein, but the guy oppresses Christianity, locks up people that disagree with him, and ROBOTS THE CHILDREN. At least Batista never gathered up the kids at age 7 in order to send them to factory farms to cut sugar cane and tobacco or pick strawberries for FREE (Child Labor laws anyone?!) under squalid conditions, not seeing their families more than once a month, all while being brainwashed by the Cult of Fidel. quote:Dude I would TAKE illiteracy over being roboted by that tyrant ANY DAY. Freedom to me is MORE important than all this idealistic crap. quote: SHOW ME where ANY of those other dictators you mentioned took children from their parents a la Hitler Youth and made them work like slaves in the fields for "The Revolution" (in other words, NOTHING). Know what? The Education and Health Care of Cuba is BEING MADE ON THE BACKS OF THE CHILDREN!!!! HOW do you think they can PAY for it? With BUTTONS?! Who cares if he is "better" in relativistic terms. The point is they're ALL bad! America (and Britain and them) was allies with Stalin because they pretty much didn't have a choice. quote:Aaaaaaand that's all in the past! What do you mean we weren't as bad? Chinese and East Indians were treated HORRIBLY in the past in Canada! And well DUH if you're in a war OF COURSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE!!!! Canada never really went to war with its native populations, so of course less people died. But if you listen to some native people today, they'll say that Canada was just as bad because they "infected" charity blankets with smallpox to kill natives off. Stealth genocide instead of outright war. And who pray tell did people blame in centuries past, BEFORE the USA was even thought of? quote:And are you still blaming these other Empires for the stuff they did 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, 1000 years ago? Posted by Sheba on 03-18-2003 at 02:35 PM:
quote:Pardon me I meant December 7th. Posted by impactor returns on 03-18-2003 at 02:37 PM:
quote:well its not a postion of power. it wasnt his old job, which he was very pevved about losing. ANyhows, like u say its not the point. if he felt he needed to leave, then fine. FUnny how clair didnt tho. Dont attack Impy! has a ring to it that. Just wondering to all. if the commons vote gos in favour of war later on tonight will ppl be changing thier view points? Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-18-2003 at 03:03 PM:
i will not change my viewpoint.
I refuse to fall victim to the final weapon of the govt. spin machine - 'we're doing it anyway so speaking against it is a betrayal of the people fighting for you'. I have prayed for our soldiers in the gulf and for all the people there to be kept safe, but that doesnt mean I should tolerate the folly of the government, as I see it. Nor will I have my arm twisted behind my back by clever psychological games. I will only change my view point IF we go into Iraq and we do find huge stockpiles of nuclear materials etc. (which i sincerely doubt). Posted by Sheba on 03-18-2003 at 03:10 PM:
quote:lol. You sure don't know a joke when you see it do you? quote:ROFLMAO I'm sorry but this is LAUGHABLE. The POOR in Western nations are LIGHT YEARS ahead of the poor in the Third World! In AMERICA, the focus of ALL EVIL in YOUR world, those classified as POOR, are INCREDIBLY RICH compared to the poor in other countries! Over half own a dishwasher! Most have a CAR! Nearly all have at least ONE television set! You can never wipe out the poor because the standard for being poor KEEPS RISING! Equalizing outcomes and ensuring everyone a mediocre minimum was what communism tries to accomplish. That's what the socialists tried to accomplish. They tried to produce a Utopia and failed. They failed because Utopia is IMFREAKINGPOSSIBLE. Every human being has different abilities, talents, desires, and characteristics. There is NO WAY those differences can be equalized, other than through the use of force (that's where the totalitarianism of communist countries comes in). I don't mean military force, but laws backed up by force, if necessary, which redistribute wealth and penalize achievement. The Utopians (and obviously you personally) believe it's unfair that some have so much and others so little by comparison. But that only stirs up envy and bitterness among people and doesn't create any new wealth. The way to help the poor improve their lot in life is to empower them to do it themselves. When someone earsns something by virtue of his own effort, as opposed to its being given to him, he has infinitely greater appreciation for it. quote: I can't believe you are mentioning this and YET you are TOTALLY IGNORING SWEATSHOP LABOR--OF CHILDREN YET!!!--by CASTRO IN CUBA?!! You wanna talk about the rich exploiting the poor. Well HELLS BELLS there ain't nobody better at GETTING AWAY WITH IT than good ol' Comrade Fidel! He gets paid $ 9,000 Canadian by a Canadian Mining company. Yet he pays the actual workers a PITTANCE of only a few dozen dollars a month! And Canada is ALLOWING this! Wanna talk more about eeeeeevil exploitation of the poor? As for loan repayments, well maybe they never shoulda loaned them the money in the first place. quote:Oh this IS rich. Whenever ANYBODY has a problem WHO DO THEY GO RUNNING TO? THE UNITED STATES!!! Well HOW is it USA's fault that some ignorant fools believe that they can get rid of HIV by sleeping with a VIRGIN? Or any of those other crazy beliefs and customs, like going out for hookers after work much like Canadians go out for beer? Hmmmmmmm? quote: How is it OUR tvs and homes is the reason the other people are poor? Dude the reason for poverty in the world is NOT because of unequal distribution of wealth. It's unequal distribution of FREEDOM and CAPITALISM!!!! Those other people are poor because they are living under some tin pot dictator or semi-socialist regime that can't make the best use of the resources available. quote: Oh? What would your solution be? quote: Oh, how's that? quote:That I have to agree with you on. But CANADA is JUST as GUILTY! So is EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRY ON THE PLANET! Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, it doesn't freaking matter. EVERYBODY'S is based on this. And this problem will NEVER be fixed. Why the hell do you think Lincoln was assassinated. It wasn't over slavery. quote:What exactly is sinful about that? quote:I should have guessed. In fact I did. Main Thrust of the Gospel, social justice??? NO!!!! This PROVES to me that you have NEGATIVE understanding! The main thrust of the Gospel is salvation of souls! Christ told us to take care of the poor. But that is NOT the end-all and be-all of the Gospel--it is but one of the good works that results from believing! quote:OMG this is funny. TOTAL misuse of scripture. In case you didn't realize, the PLANK is in SADDAM'S eye! When was the last time YOU heard of USA using a tree shredder on human beings?! This moral equivalency nonsense would be hilarious if it weren't so utterly stupid. Besides, scriptures such as that DO NOT APPLY TO THE GOVERNMENT. It applies to INDIVIDUALS! Government is there to act in the place of God for the country! It does NOT have that luxury of turning the other cheek and all that. quote:MY Christian ethic is that I TRUST that whatever happens, I DON'T need to get my shorts in a knot. Jesus told us to NOT WORRY. You seem to be worrying and that is DEFINITELY unscriptural!!!! HOW MUCH do YOU trust in God? If you trust in God to ANY degree then WHY IN HELL ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THIS WAR???? If this war is going to be stopped it will NOT be by anti war protests. God could very easily robot Dubya and Blair into not doing the war if it was not meant to be. AND don't forget that in Mark 13:7 Jesus says, "But when you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars,, do NOT be troubled. FOR SUCH THINGS MUST HAPPEN." I can't think of any clearer statement against protesting war in the words of Our Lord. quote:Well I'm NOT "fundamentalist". I am LUTHERAN, and that's whatever that is. I do think that most of the Bible, where meant to be taken "literally", is LITERAL (metaphors and similies of course being what they are but does not change the truth of what is said). quote:Actually you are the one that is incredibly and profoundly mistaken. If you want to try me out on this go ahead. My grandfather was a Lutheran Minister. Posted by Sheba on 03-18-2003 at 03:11 PM:
quote:hear hear. Posted by Sheba on 03-18-2003 at 03:12 PM:
quote:Will you people please QUIT THAT?! I got shafted from internet time for like 4 days through no fault of my own. My brother was hogging the internet for schoolwork in Computer Engineering. That kinda takes precedence over a stupid little iraq debate. For the last GODDAMN TIME, if you DON'T see me reply it's because I am UNABLE TO! Posted by Sheba on 03-18-2003 at 03:14 PM:
quote:Boy you don't know very much about me do you. My father is Canadian. My MOTHER is American. Why can't I be both? Posted by Sheba on 03-18-2003 at 03:25 PM:
quote:Hmmm I'm suspicious of this. It seems to be information from the UN or some leftie group. At any rate we will soon see what the truth is. But even if USA does get Iraq's Oil by whatever means, it is definitely the case that terrorist groups will no longer benefit from Iraqi Oil--especially Palestinian Suicide Bombers. THERE is your Saddam-Terrorist link right there. Iraqis wouldn't know al-qaeda from al-schmaeda. To them they're all just extremist terrorists. Posted by Sheba on 03-18-2003 at 03:30 PM:
quote:New World? As in "New World Order"? That guy's got the wrong Bush. Johnathan Chait? From the New Republic? The magazine that Michael Kinsley's at? Dude you have to be joking. That thing is more biased than the Washington Times. It's like reading Monday Magazine in Victoria. You know what's really funny? These antiwar doomsayers are ALWAYS WRONG with their predictions. They were wrong about Gulf War I. They were wrong about Afghanistan. So why do we bother giving them any credibility?! Posted by Sheba on 03-18-2003 at 03:31 PM:
quote:Hang on to your hats, people: I have resigned from the cabinet because I believe that a fundamental principle of Labour's foreign policy has been violated. If we believe in an international community based on binding rules and institutions, we cannot simply set them aside when they produce results that are inconvenient to us. I cannot defend a war with neither international agreement nor domestic support. I applaud the determined efforts of the prime minister and foreign secretary to secure a second resolution. Now that those attempts have ended in failure, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance. This is a joke. SECOND resolution? Try the 18th, buddy. The paper it's written on is just as much toilet paper to Saddam as the first 17 were. And, what rules is this guy yapping about? Since when does Britain need ANYBODY'S permission to defend itself?! In recent days France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed at no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of President Chirac. And he's deluding himself if he doesn't realize that it's Chirac's fault that Saddam's gotten as bad as he has, starting in the mid-70's! The ONLY reason Russia, France, and Germany are opposed is BECAUSE OF OIL. THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR LUCRATIVE CONTRACTS. What a bunch of hypocrites. The harsh reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading member. Not Nato. Not the EU. And now not the security council. To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year ago we and the US were part of a coalition against terrorism which was wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. The UN is made up of a bunch of tin pot dictators and thugs that are afraid that THEY'RE NEXT. And these doomsayers are ALWAYS WRONG about their predictions. They should have NEGATIVE CREDIBILITY by now. Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected, not by unilateral action, but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened. The European Union is divided. The security council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of war without a single shot yet being fired. And whose fault is that?! The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians in the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq. But the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at the very least in the thousands. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate invasion. Calling Neville Chamberlain...where are you?! And any Iraqi civilian that doesn't get the heck out of Baghdad YESTERDAY is a freaking MORON! And some claim his forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in days. And the problem with that is WHAT, exactly? We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a serious threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term - namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had them since the 1980s when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories. Tell me something. Is this guy one of the same crowd that demanded Nuclear Disarmament of USA? If so, I rest my case. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years and which we helped to create? And why is it necessary to resort to war this week while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is frustrated by the presence of UN inspectors? Isn't it a principle of COMMON F***ING SENSE that YOU FIX THE PROBLEMS YOU CREATED?!!! WHAT AN IDIOT! "Oh we created this problem, so we mustn't try to fix it." WHAT KIND OF IDIOTIC BACKWARDS CONVOLUTED REASONING IS THAT???!!!! I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to disarm, and our patience is exhausted. Yet it is over 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. Two Words: Nuclear F***ING Weapons. That's why. Because THEY GOT THE BOMB, Okayyyyyyy? We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops to action in Iraq. It's pretty hard to get a nation to agree to leave itself naked to aggression when the opposing side has made it CLEAR that NOTHING LESS THAN GENOCIDE OF THE JEWS WILL SATISFY THEM. I believe the prevailing mood of the British public is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. But they are not persuaded he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want the inspections to be given a chance. And they are suspicious that they are being pushed hurriedly into conflict by a US administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain taking part in a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that the House of Commons has lost its central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for parliament to stop the commitment of British troops to a war that has neither international authority nor domestic support. You know what, Mr. Cook? Keep talking. When this is all over and done with you will have sooooooo much egg on your face. Posted by Sheba on 03-18-2003 at 03:32 PM:
quote:You're ignoring the most vital part of what you posted. THY WILL BE DONE. In which case, if it is indeed God's Will that War with Iraq go ahead, what's the point in protesting? Posted by Sheba on 03-18-2003 at 03:34 PM:
quote:what the hell are you talking about. If their kids CHOOSE not to go into the Military then who the hell are you to tell them this and that?! What do you want them to do, robot their kids? Maybe their kids want to do something else. This isn't a draft you know. It's VOLUNTEERS. Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-18-2003 at 03:48 PM:
Could all you bs be kept to one post?
It's not hard... Oh, and Robin Cook is a self loathing, lying leftie. And please feel free to continue the centre of london road fee debate that you stopped responding to. Posted by Sheba on 03-18-2003 at 03:51 PM:
quote:refresh the page. I responded to Robin Cook above. Just tell me one thing Snarlos, is traffic ANY better for the fee? Cuz I think it's mainly a tax grab. Posted by HoistKeeper 2.0 on 03-18-2003 at 03:54 PM:
quote:Karl posts something nice and you still have to make something off it, can't you leave it? geez. shame on you. Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-18-2003 at 03:55 PM:
sheba that is ignorant in the extreme.
God does NOT make war, nor does he make any bad thing happen in this world. The universe runs on free will- as do humans. Through the structure of the earth and the way it evolved, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions DO occur- that doesnt mean God causes them. God started the universe as an exercise in free will- the Universe evolved freely from his influence. He wanted to give his children the ultimate gift- the gift to choose our own destinies. How dare you accuse the Almighty of causing a dreadful war that will kill thousands of people? Wars and made by MEN, not by God. Wars are totally evil. Or dont those tens of thousands of graves in the fields of Flanders and on the monuments all over Europe and the USA bring home that message? God is working in the hearts and souls of those we love and care about to guide them to make the right decisions, but ulimately cannot make anybody choose their own destinies. I will not only have to keep the soldiers and civilians in my prayers, but I will have to add you in as well, that somehow God may subtly guide you back to true reason. God is Love, Love is God. War is a blasphemy in his eyes and an affront to the destiny he wishes for humanity. IMHf*****gO of course. Posted by Jim on 03-18-2003 at 04:12 PM:
quote:If God is playing behind the scenes, then we don't have free will. free will - noun - The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. You are contradicting yourself. We either do, or don't - Make your choice. Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-18-2003 at 04:19 PM:
when did i say 'god was playing behind the scenes'? God tries to advise our hearts and souls but never tells us what to do.
go back and read what i wrote and you should discover that (it is after all what i typed). So please dont try that schoolboy argument 'your contradicting yourself' because im not. God guides, but does not control. Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-18-2003 at 04:46 PM:
I don’t think Iraq were asked about the second resolution – seeing as that was put forward to the un over whether or not Iraq is invaded.
And Who are we defending ourselves against? Last time I checked, nobody was planning to invade us… Oh, Iraq, we’re defending ourselves against Iraq? In what form are they going to attack us then? Could I get some evidence that Iraq are going to attack us – or even have the mans to attack us - dood? Whether or not the countries mentioned are opposing war based on honest intentions is immaterial – War should be the absolute last option. Oh, and I beg to differ over which nations have helped equip saddam with arms to keep him in power… Hmm, the UN is made up of tin pot dictators, care to name some and then back that up? Or are you just talking out of your arse again? They’re thugs as well? So what does that make the nation who opts out of the war-crimes court treaty? Probably Dubbya’s, since he has eff all idea of how to keep successful relations with countries going. Get out of Iraq immediately? It’s not that simple though is it… Provided they can get out, you prepared to have them over at yours? And I think he’s suggesting that you can’t really say ‘hey, they’re weak, lets invade and get saddam out of power’ whilst also saying ‘hey, iraq pose a threat to us’. Kind of contradicting statrements aren’t they? But they’ve got the bomb haven’t they? Evidence? And why hasn’t he used it yet? Like the way you earlier pinned the blame on France for Iraq being in power, and then when it’s pointed out that USA and Britain actually armed him, you neatly sidestep the point with a consideration of such complete wankery that it would struggle not to make the internet stink of sex-wee just by existing. Next - I don’t think Mr Cook has anything against removing Saddam from power, just the circumstances – Now, I actually double as a spy, and coan confirm overhearing Bush say this: ‘Hmm, I’ve screwed my country up, but I do like this job… What did daddy do when he was in my position… Got it, I'll have a war! Hey, I’ll get a ****load of oil into the bargain if I invade the right country as well!’ Nuclear ****ing weapons… Again, speculation. Show me proof. ‘oh, but when we get proof it will be too late’, again, more speculation. Basically, you’re talking a big load of pubes. But maybe god wants saddam to bomb us… Actually, I doubt if he exists that this is the case - but you gotta admit, that is one helluva a handy load of bollocks to have up your sleeve! I mean, how do you respond to a complete load of crap like that! You must be thinking that I cannot be being serious, right! But I am! Don’t quite get that whole ‘genocide of the jews’ thing you went off into… And how can that last part of Robin Cook statement = him getting egg on his face? He simply said that there is little support for the war - And there is very little support for the war So… There has been a decrease in traffic on the roads of London. But it could well be a stealth tax on businesses in the city. I would love it if that was the case. Thing is, I seem to remember your argument being that it favoured the rich…. So… [This message has been edited by Papa Snarl (edited 03-18-2003).] Posted by Getaway on 03-18-2003 at 05:19 PM:
Yet Robin Cook has stated several times that his crowning achievement was when he helped remove Milosevic, of course this was done by military action unsanctioned by the UN, somewhat hypocritical of him? If it had genuinly damaged Blair I wouldn't have minded, but with Calire Shirt reneging on her promised resignation, it doesn't amount to much.
Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-18-2003 at 05:25 PM:
As has already been mentioned, there was substantial backing for that campaign -
There aint a lot of support for this one. Posted by Master_Fwiffo on 03-18-2003 at 06:03 PM:
I am afraid I'll have to argue theology here...
quote: Posted by Computron on 03-18-2003 at 06:13 PM:
quote: Posted by Master_Fwiffo on 03-18-2003 at 06:21 PM:
Wow. Best First, I'm really disapointed in you for bringing up the most pointless peice of liberal trash I've ever seen. Allow me tto elaborate.
quote: Sigh. Why did you even bother to post this Besty? I thought you had more integrity then that. This is just some bitter guy ranting, much like I do. So the hell with it. This was trash. Why did I even waste my time arguing it... Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-18-2003 at 06:28 PM:
you're misconception Fwiffo is that a. the bible is to be interpreted literally and b. your beliefs/established Catholic views are MY views.
that is not true- i have clearly labelled everything as MY OPINION and have never once tried to foist that opinion onto other people, although I have been forced to DEFEND it from people who, for some reason, have decided im wrong. im not trying to lecture anybody on what they should think, but I'll be in the cold hard ground before I let somebody tell ME my own religious views. i would like to know why when i express my own religious beliefs- EVEN when i clearly label them as my opinion and APPOLOGISE to people who hold different ideas- people have INSTANTLY jumped on the chance to try and lecture me? "you're contradicting yourself" "im sorry to argue theologically" "the point your missing is this" I'm EXTREMELY sorry I believe in a loving God when obviously I know nothing of my own beliefs! I will in future keep my prayers to myself as they are apparently so unacceptable to various entities here. I hope you are pleased with yourselves. What is it about my personal beliefs that gives you such affrontery as to believe you can decide what I should and should not believe? thankyou for sticking up for my computron. at least SOMEBODY doesnt want to tell me the principles of my own God. Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-18-2003 at 06:31 PM:
Marvellous piece of analysis there. Really mint. But I think I can go one better.
Judging by what I read in your post, this should eclipse anything of interest you just said. You ready for it? I'm not quite sure what it all means, although I'm sure you'll uinderstand it compeltely. It goes a little something like this: (for full effect, you have to think that this is being said in a overtly excessive pompous voice - also, please apply this ansswer to any and all points raised in the above post) Sure, mr Fwiffo, sure, oh rally, yes, rooleyes, yeah, ooooooh, oh, exactly right PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT! PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT! PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT! Posted by Master_Fwiffo on 03-18-2003 at 06:46 PM:
quote:WOAHWOAHWOAHWOAH I didn't mean it like that! Either I read your post wrong or you read my post wrong or something but I didn't quite mean it like that! And I'm sorry. First, I'm not Catholic. Second, I do take the bible more or less literaly (which is, as I feel, the way its supposed to be taken) But you are right, I did assume your views are the same as mine, and I shouldn't have. I apologize. I didn't see you apologize IN THAT POST (note I probably didn't read any other posts) and only took THAT POST as I saw it. I shouldn't have done that, misinterpreted that and am sorry. Umm... I betetr end this before I say something stupid and offend you more. Im sorry, ok.... Posted by Master_Fwiffo on 03-18-2003 at 06:47 PM:
quote:You lost me somewhere... Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 03-18-2003 at 06:52 PM:
quote:My bad, I saw this and didn't read the whole thing. It's what I was referring too. And Best First, you still don't realize that whether you like it or not, they signed up to fight for you, no matter how much of a mistkate it would be... so get over it and buy a soldier a beer. They deserve it. Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-18-2003 at 06:52 PM:
so long as we understand each other as entitled to our own views about our God, thats fine. I was just getting fed up of having to defend myself left, right and center for posting a prayer for the lives in the Middle East (even when I qualified it by saying it was for myself only and that anybody who did not agree with it was free to change it/ignore it to make it relevant for them).
I had assumed you had gone back and read all that and were arguing on that basis. If you say you didnt, I beieve you- which makes me equally wrong for misunderstanding you. I've just spent my last 5 posts having to defend myself when all I did was pray is all that gets to you quickly, especially on a topic of belief.I am also sorry for the misunderstanding and appologise to you for it as well. Posted by Sheba on 03-18-2003 at 06:55 PM:
quote:Ummm you are wrong. Might I go as far as to say that YOU are the ignorant one. Whenever the Children of Israel needed their heads screwed on straight again, he used WAR (AND OPPRESSION) by other countries to get them to repent. When they repented, they went to war again and BEAT the oppressors and sent them packing. Besides, we've left a critical thing out of the equation: the Devil. And even if bad things happen, God can turn GOOD out of it LATER. quote:Well actually according to Martin Luther, it's BONDAGE of the will. We are ALL slaves to sin. It's not exactly free will. I used to think it was free will until I started reading something written by Martin Luther. God may not cause things in any event; but regardless, he ALLOWS it to happen. NOTE TO COMPUTRON AT THIS JUNCTURE (and Blacksword while I'm at it): YOU DO NOT KNOW THE INEFFABLE PLAN! God started the universe as an exercise in free will- the Universe evolved freely from his influence. He wanted to give his children the ultimate gift- the gift to choose our own destinies. That much is true...until the Fall of Man. Then it was BONDAGE of the WILL to sin. quote:You do not know the ineffable plan. He's definitely LETTING it happen, that much is clear. quote:What do you mean, wars are TOTALLY evil? Well then, when the Israelites were rising up against the Canaanites, or the Philistines, or whomever, they were engaging in EVIL? Even though God told them to? Sometimes the evil of inaction is greater than the "evil" of action. Just ask any Holocaust Survivor. quote:Well, it's actually more correct to say that God can't force anyone to be saved against their will. He can however robot other things. quote:WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! There is NO POINT in protesting a war if doing so makes 3/5 of F*** ALL DIFFERENCE. In fact, the antiwar protesting EMBOLDENED Saddam to NOT follow the resolutions. It gave him FALSE HOPE. And ironically, THAT was partially responsible for the INEVITABILITY of war. And hell's bells, maybe God has had it up to here with Saddam. You never know Dude you are the one that needs to return to true reason.[i] quote:Yes that is just your opinion. FACT IS the BIBLE SAYS, OUR LORD SAYS, "SUCH THINGS MUST, <I REPEAT> MUST HAPPEN!!!!" Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-18-2003 at 07:05 PM:
Sheba, I'm sorry to resort to infantile arguments, but for the love and peace of mankind: go and get a boyfriend/girlfriend.
did you read NOTHING of the misunderstanding between Fwiffo and I? 1. I do NOT believe the bible is to be taken literally 2. It may or may not be God's word, but it is God's word filtered through 4000BC knowledge. 3. My religious views are my own entirely, and I refuse to be lectured on my own beliefs by a loud-mouthed, arrogant, self-obsessed, reactionary bigot deluded into visions of her own omniscience. For the love of God, woman- all I did was pray. I didn't FORCE you to believe it, I actively said anybody could change it/ignore it to make it relevant for them: I did not post it to have my own views put on trial. Has it finally come down to this? That you have so little tolerance for other people's independant thoughts that even my views on God must be vetted by your all-powerful mind? I have got a fine idea- Until you decide that other people have a right to think what they want about God (if nothing else) without having to justify themselves to you- why don't you just keep your bloated, self-serving opinions to yourself? Curse you, I was trying to do something nice- I was trying to ask for something good, that minimal casualties are incurred in the Gulf. I'm sorry for going 9 to the dozen at Fwiffo earlier, my frustrations at him were obviously misdirected as they should have been at you. Dear Lord, is NOBODY allowed to think differently to you? Posted by Computron on 03-18-2003 at 07:10 PM:
quote: Posted by Computron on 03-18-2003 at 07:35 PM:
quote:Ill tell you what i have no respect for - people who post crap thay cannot support - show me where i scoff at the soldiers. Come on. ill get back to the letter im writing to my mate in the gulf now thanks, you know, the one that contans the phrase 'you will be pleased to hear that, despite the differences in political feelings, people here are 100% behind the troops'. i have the utmost respect for the British armed forces, and some strong personal ties to them. However that is entirely irrelevent to the politics involved - which is what i have commented on in this topic. I would have thought anyone with the ability to read would have been able to make that distinction. I don't take the lives of soldiers lightly, and i apprecaite what it is they do For your sake Leatherneck, do try to read what is posted before accusing people of things they haven't done. Posted by Master_Fwiffo on 03-18-2003 at 07:38 PM:
quote: Posted by Master_Fwiffo on 03-18-2003 at 07:40 PM:
Thank you Compy, that quote fits me sooo perfectly ^^
Posted by Master_Fwiffo on 03-18-2003 at 07:46 PM:
And while I'm off topic, just for the heckofit:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/bombsaddam.shtml Posted by Redstreak on 03-18-2003 at 07:50 PM:
It boggles the mind...
Yes, the war and the load of monkey crap that is their reasons for it, but that's not all... Did my eyes deceive or did Sheba post 9 straight times? My predictions for this thread are close to coming true...we already have the beating with sticks, now all we need are 3 bannings... Anyway... God bless our boys on their mission, may they return home safely from attacking Iraq. And God damn George W. Bush for making them do it. Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-18-2003 at 08:04 PM:
Fwiffo... are you feeling alright?
It's just that... You're coming across as completely effing mental... Posted by Master_Fwiffo on 03-18-2003 at 08:16 PM:
quote:Your only just now noticing a basket case? Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-18-2003 at 08:22 PM:
Never really took much notice before.
Posted by Computron on 03-18-2003 at 08:36 PM:
quote:Ok that deals with Fwiffo, this is addressed to Sheba. Sheba, tell me why you could NOT have condensed those 9 posts or some such ridiculous number into 1 or 2 posts? Next time open Notepad, and make your responses there, and then post it all at once instead of wasting bandwith repeating your sig and breaking the flow of the thread by making it far more confusing to follow. Ok, now onto Leatherneck, I said this before, I'll say it again, make sure you actually read what other people are saying before you jump at em. Your attack on BF was completely unwarranted and irrational. Posted by Nosecone on 03-18-2003 at 08:38 PM:
really. UN Support? or Coalition Support? Cause, beleive it or not, we HAVE a coalition.
Where? the only country truly supporting you is Britain and that is done with only 40% of the public supporting it (with troop support, excluding people supporting it for the troops its closer to about 20%). Blair has just had the biggest revolt of backbenchers of any Labour goverment and is really not in a healthy position. Your other support is from weak, poor countries who are only supporting you because failure to do so would result in USA aid being reduced and/ or other threats. But its making a giant climb back up. I dont think the Stockmarket stays steady, its goes up and down.... Nope its gone back up as War generates income for a country (sorry short wars generate income for a country). Bush knows this and also knows the US economy is screwed, the solution is a major conflict against a totally inferior country. That is why the market went up, all the stockbrokers want to get those stocks now before the war and watch them reap dividends after. Ever since we realized that the UN was trying to become another League of Nations... Or to put it more accuratly, ever since the spoilt brat in the White house couldn't get his own way. Whilst some people are saying this won't damage the UN I expect it will, I so want Iraq to go to the UN to ask for help defending itself against foriegn invaders - just to see Bush's face if Russia and France both offered military support to Iraq as they would be entitled to (In fact as perminant members the UK and USA would also have to send troops to protect Iraq which could cause some problems ) - It won't happen but one can dreamDid it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, this war isn't about oil? Juuussssttt maybe? Nope, this war is all to do with Iraqs oil (oh and an attempt to make up for Bush's complete desimation of the US economy). Expect in teh upcoming months US lawyers attempting to say the Contracts between Sadam and Russia/ France/ China over Iraqi oil to be Null and Void - Now if Bush really is stupid enough to force that issue then things could get interesting Howszat? Because Baghdad is not an easy place to get into, Its a fortress city with only three ways to get at it 1) Bomb it into dust 2) Send troops over the top "WW1 style" and hope they run out of bullets before you run out of men or 3) Parachute in meaning your troops are entering a city prepared for them, most will die in the jump (shotin teh air) and a load more once landed will find themselves alone in a hostile city. Posted by impactor returns on 03-18-2003 at 08:46 PM:
quote:in both cases it was unsanctioned under UN law. But if enough ppl back it,its OK ? Posted by Nosecone on 03-18-2003 at 08:57 PM:
quote:NATO & the EU actually backed that war - With this war NATO, the EU and the UN all say No Posted by Jim on 03-18-2003 at 09:05 PM:
quote:God is working in the hearts and souls of those we love and care about to guide them to make the right decisions free will - noun - The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. quote:Concession Accepted. quote:I'm not a school boy, pal. It's a contradiction, period. I'll copy / paste again. God is working in the hearts and souls of those we love and care about to guide them to make the right decisions free will - noun - The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. No editing of your words, exactly what said. It's a contradiction. Posted by impactor returns on 03-18-2003 at 09:09 PM:
quote:its funny how 'backing' is defined. because according to res 1441. saddam is in breach, so in theory the UN and all its members who signed it, do back it. The 2nd ress was never needed because acording to res 1441, another ress was not allowed. Posted by Blacksword on 03-18-2003 at 09:44 PM:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sheba:
You are right about the banks and gold standard, no question. But don't forget, Canada has PURPOSEFULLY been keeping its own dollar down for the fact of trade. Thanks for reminding of one other reason why our dolar is lower. How this helps your argument about the higher American dolar proving the US is better than us, I can't see. How about the people that have LOST THEIR LIVES due to the RIDICULOUSLY LONG WAITING LISTS?! Have you read the latest Reader's Digest this month? 141 cardiac patients in Ontario have DIED between 1991 and 1995 while waiting for surgery! USA has MUCH GREATER access to facilities for diagnosis and treatment. The LEVEL of health care delivered is HIGHER. To those who can afford it. Doesn't help the poor schmuck earning $20,000 a year who can't affort health insurance. The federal government should be puttingmore money into healthcare, and shouldn't have cut the transfer payments to the degree tehy did in teh first place. But atleast in Canada it is harder to buy your way to the front of the line. And OMG you've fallen prey to this STUPID IDIOTIC notion of "the gap between the rich and the poor." Now I'm POSITIVE you've been listening to left wing "barbra streisand".(euphemism for bull$#**) The REASON the gap between the rich and the poor is greater in USA is because the RICH are richer. BUT their poor are RICHER than OURS! Therefore it's a STUPID notion that the "gap" is "criminal." And it also smacks of this ridiculous idea that the rich (either here or in USA) ARE rich BECAUSE the Poor are poor! Because the rich are richer that means they should be using their wealth to help those less fortunate. Given the huge national wealth in the US and the West in general the degree of relative poverty which exists is criminal. The thousands upon thousands of homeless should not be wandering the streets and no one should be forced to go hungry as many people do. Plus you seem to have ignored the much higer cost of living in a first world country. You have to have a certain level of wealth here to survive or wind up on the street. No they may not be as badly off as those in the third world but you can't tell me they don't suffer. That such suffering should exist in the middle of such bounty is a crime. And the wealth of all of the West is criminal in view of the poverty of the rest of the world. And the REASON the SOCIAL PROGRAMS ARE NOT WORKING is because the purpose of a social program is NOT to make the poor not poor--it's to KEEP THE POOR DEPENDANT SO THEY KEEP VOTING DEMOCRAT. It works much the same way here--except the people in question keep voting NDP or Liberal. When a Federal Cheque becomes a Father and the real dad goes see the cops later, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN?! Well you've been listening to right wing propaganda now dear. Plenty of people on the dole voted Tory in the last provincial election here in Ontario and Harris was just as Right-wing as your beloved Ralph Cline. And the Liberals aren't left wing. They're a centrist party who moves where ever the voters are. How do you think they've governed for so much of this country's history. Trudeau was an anomally. Look at Martin he's right wing economicaly as much as many people inthe Alliance. They are owned by big business and the rich and so sure as hell are not a populist party. Look man, Canada with its great resources, sparse population, and IMPOTENT military, would be annexed in under three seconds if we lived next to ANY OTHER "Great Power" than USA!!! China? DONE! Former USSR? DONE! Iraq? DONE! The reason we don't have much of military is because we've lived next to the States. We've grown dependent. If we'd lived beside any of those countries we would have had quite a different history. However when the US was perceived as a threat we responded. Whne under British rule before confederation, British and inigenous forces threw the Americans out of Canada and came very close to taking all of New England. Confederation happened because the various colonies felt threatened by the huge post Civil War US army. And we are DONE as you so eleoquebtly put it as we have virtually no economic sovereignty and unless we resist we will son have a common currency whcih will in a matter of years end our political sovreignty (such as it is). Well it's kinda like the hypothetical person that gets mugged by a black person, and thereafter is "made racist" by the incident. It's unfortunate but it's human nature. The truth about USA though, is that utter destitute people, without a dime to their name, can MAKE IT in USA. People fleeing the communism of Vietnam particularly. Without social programs. And usually they come, not knowing a WORD of english. And some have become very successful. How often do you hear tell of that in Canada? Hmmmmmm? All the time. Have you looked at teh population of Toronto anytime lately? Immigration has been going on at a dramitic pace for years and people are more free to keep thaier native culture here than in the melting pot conformity of the states. At my university you're bound to hear about four different languages a day in passing. I see successful childrean and grnadchildren of immigrants all over the place every day. Just becuase where you live it is a s white as snow doesn't mean teh rest of the country is like that. OH COME ON. Do you REALLY freaking believe that a Vietnamese Boat Person became successful on 'the backs of my brother'?! How about the East Indian running the Corner Convenience store? Did he get where he was going on the backs of the poor or whatever? WHERE did you get this IDIOTIC notion that you SEEM to have, where Wealth is ONLY achieved by cheating and whatever? WHO have you been listening to?! Well unless he's extremely lucky that Vietnamese boat person will not get rich he may do okay and maybe his childrem or their children will get rich but not him. How many wealthy Vietnamesse boat people have you heard of? None thought so! The rich got rich by being ruthless and exploiting others. Look at Bill Gates, Microsoft is built on stolen ideas. The Kenedy's were rich becuase old man Joseph was a crook who was a rum runner. Capitalism favours a ruthless survival of teh fittest mentality which leaves little room for morality. That rating is biased and you know it. The UN is filled with a bunch of envious America-haters. I don't know about you, but I have relatives in USA. They seem to do just fine there. None of them are "rich" but they're ok. BRITAIN?! You HAVE to be joking! What incidentally is "pollutional" about "American Thinking"?! If where I was living now became part of USA I WOULD NOT LEAVE. I WOULD STAY PUT. Dude the polluted thinking you're thinking of is not "American Thinking" it's LIBERAL DEMOCRAT THINKING!!! Which we already had, in spades! Yes the rating is weighted but the facts of rapant poverty in the US the presence of teh death penalty, massive ghettos in all major cities and other factors ruin the US's chances. And I suppose verybody' envious of the US and hates tehm solely because they are wonderful... Who's been brainwashed. American pollution includes the notion that everything should be privatised, that business should be free to do what it likes. We've seen a rapant increase in the power of lobby groups in this country over the last decade and a massive increase in teh money spent on elections both of which are characteristics of American politics. Politics around election time has become sensational and a war of mudslinging. I get New York campaign commericals all the time here and its only recently that our relatively clean election campaigns have come to resemble the trash from Buffalo. And speaking about propping up unsavory dictators, DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED about P.E.T. and Castro, or a bunch of Canadian Intelligentsia apologists for Stalin and other USSR leaders. Canada is not lily white in terms of the stuff you're accusing USA of. never said it was Boy you are young aren't you. Trudeau flipped the bird to the West (used his middle finger) and embarked on policies that favored the East (ANYTHING east of Manitoba) over the West. Including the National Energy Policy. There are some British Columbians and Albertans, (not to mention Saskatchewan and Manitoba) that will NEVER vote Federal Liberal as long as they live because of what Trudeau did. Trudeau was also bosom buddies with Castro, and in his younger days was a member of the Communist Party of Canada. And all communists are evil godless heathens wh are enemies of freedom.... Did you grow up in the fifties? Trudeau's measures were done to keep Canadian oil in Canada during the Arab embargo, though I will say Trudeau wasn't overly fond of the West and di have somewhat of a spiteful streak in him. I never said the man was a saint. Oh and your patronizing tone really makes you look really good darling. Don't appreciate getting my head bitten off over a simple question. As to Castro, i'm not an appologist. I just like to point out America's hypocrisy over its reaction to Castro against the actions of worse dictators. Castro is a brutal oppressive dictator but he wouldn't be there if the Americans had handled teh situation differently. If they had done something about Batista and his predecessors instead of supporting them Castro would not have had teh support to take over the country. If there was no embargo or BAy of Pigs fiasco, he would never have gone to the Soviets and Kenny and and his even dummer advisors wouldn't have nearly gotten us all killed (not how I am attacking a Democrat). To cement his power all Castro has had to do is make the very valid staemnet to his people that it is not him who keeps them poor, it is the American embargo. You'd think the US would have figured out that the embargo is a failure. Open Cuba up to the outside world and Castro would have been out in a couple years or would have atleast had to moderate his policies. SHOW ME where ANY of those other dictators you mentioned took children from their parents a la Hitler Youth and made them work like slaves in the fields for "The Revolution" (in other words, NOTHING). Know what? The Education and Health Care of Cuba is BEING MADE ON THE BACKS OF THE CHILDREN!!!! HOW do you think they can PAY for it? With BUTTONS?! Who cares if he is "better" in relativistic terms. The point is they're ALL bad! Ah, but Castro hasn't made thousands of people vanish in the night as all of those otehr Latin American dictators did with their death squads. HAve you not heard of the Madres, The Mothers of the Disappeared? These women who speak for the husbands brothers and soons who were murdered en masse by American created and supported monsters. Castro has killed many people and has done what you say and is justly condemned for it, but he US stood by and did nothing and even supported the monsters who slaughtered thousands of innocents. All these dictators are bad, but Castro is one of the least and yet he is the only one who is condemned. Blatant hypocrisy. I am attacking the US not supporting Castro. Aaaaaaand that's all in the past! What do you mean we weren't as bad? Chinese and East Indians were treated HORRIBLY in the past in Canada! And well DUH if you're in a war OF COURSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE!!!! Canada never really went to war with its native populations, so of course less people died. But if you listen to some native people today, they'll say that Canada was just as bad because they "infected" charity blankets with smallpox to kill natives off. Stealth genocide instead of outright war. US did all of that too. We are all guilty but we did not send troops, small difference as both Native populations are decimated but atleast our has some measure of self government We acknoledge our crimes, well some of use do. They claim to be the champion of truth and justice, looking down their noses at others while ignoring the pile of skeletons in their closet And are you still blaming these other Empires for the stuff they did 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, 1000 years ago? The US is the Empire of the moment and I will criticise it for as long as it stands. I deplore its hyprocisy and will decry it to my dying day as I will decry any hypocrisy be it from any nation (and before you make a snide remark is decry France's and Germany's) or from my self. Posted by Computron on 03-18-2003 at 10:09 PM:
quote:It's not a contradiction at all. Guiding someone, or telling them the "right" path is not nearly the same as making someone, or forcing someone to choose that path. As per the definition, notice the word "unconstrained". In no way is a constraint put upon the agent to make only one choice. The agent has the capability to choose a, b, or c. A lack of free will would simply have choice a, and nothing else. Essentially I can tell you what I would do, I could suggest you take a course of action, and even explain a step by step process of how to do it, but at no moment am I forcing you to do such a thing. There is no coercion or constraint against other choices. Same here. God can suggest a proper course of action, but s/he won't make you do that. Posted by Blacksword on 03-18-2003 at 10:56 PM:
quote:That I have to agree with you on. But CANADA is JUST as GUILTY! So is EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRY ON THE PLANET! Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, it doesn't freaking matter. EVERYBODY'S is based on this. And this problem will NEVER be fixed. Why the hell do you think Lincoln was assassinated. It wasn't over slavery. Learn to read wise-arse, I said theWest. That included Canda at alst check. Just because it is impractical to change rapidly doesn't make it right. Everybody used slaver, did that make it right? And yes I am aware of the fiscal reaons why Lincoln was assassinated. Those reasons existed as far back as Caesar's assassination. QUOTE]Originally posted by Blacksword: - having slums right next to mansions. LA is a prim example of this What exactly is sinful about that? Are you blind or are you just making a dumb joke? Can you seriously see sucha situation as right. Have never read the Gospels or any of the Prophets. Jeremiah, Amos, Isaiah and c. condemned this **** up and down for chapters. Ignoring the plight of the poor was the main subject of the prophet's condemnations. quote: I should have guessed. In fact I did. Main Thrust of the Gospel, social justice??? NO!!!! This PROVES to me that you have NEGATIVE understanding! The main thrust of the Gospel is salvation of souls! Christ told us to take care of the poor. But that is NOT the end-all and be-all of the Gospel--it is but one of the good works that results from believing! I have never have and never will advocate works righteousness. I over sinmplified and made teh miatake of assuming you'd understand. Christ's message was one of REPENT and believe. Repentance means to make a complete change of direction and bringing yourself into line with God's ways. TO look after your brother and sister is the way of God. One must deny the self and love God and your neighbor and ignore yourself. Belief cannot come without repentance and belief cannot be true unless you have obedience. And what was the primary thrust of Christs teachings on liveing in accordance with God's will? To look after the poor, the sick, the needy, teh widow, the orpahan and the out cast. Those who don't don't get in and do not know Christ. Check Matthew 25: 31-46 and there's exactly what I'm talking about.As to works it si very simple to have faith is to do works, to do works is to have faith. Works are an extention of faith. Faith without works is dead to quote Paul. But at the same time we are warned not to do works in expecation of reward. The Gospel is bout Christs salvation and it si about belief in him but to belive in him and to love and trust him we must obey him and he is very explicit in his commands with regards to the less fortunate. and these commands make up the bulk of Christ's teaching on how to live. quote: OMG this is funny. TOTAL misuse of scripture. In case you didn't realize, the PLANK is in SADDAM'S eye! When was the last time YOU heard of USA using a tree shredder on human beings?! This moral equivalency nonsense would be hilarious if it weren't so utterly stupid. Besides, scriptures such as that DO NOT APPLY TO THE GOVERNMENT. It applies to INDIVIDUALS! Government is there to act in the place of God for the country! It does NOT have that luxury of turning the other cheek and all that. The point of that turn of phrase is to not put the sins of others before your own sins. The plank speck of dust thing is to show what you should be more concerned about, not the severity or sizeof the sins. ANyways all sins are equal. If you have broken one part of the law you hav broken the whole of the law. Which isn't to say some sins don't need to be dealt with first. Oh and agovernment is made up of individuals. And there is no exception for governments anywhere in scripture to the turn the other cheeck rule. Plus you seem to have a rather limited understanding of it as well. MY Christian ethic is that I TRUST that whatever happens, I DON'T need to get my shorts in a knot. Jesus told us to NOT WORRY. You seem to be worrying and that is DEFINITELY unscriptural!!!! HOW MUCH do YOU trust in God? If you trust in God to ANY degree then WHY IN HELL ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THIS WAR???? If this war is going to be stopped it will NOT be by anti war protests. God could very easily robot Dubya and Blair into not doing the war if it was not meant to be. AND don't forget that in Mark 13:7 Jesus says, "But when you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars,, do NOT be troubled. FOR SUCH THINGS MUST HAPPEN." I can't think of any clearer statement against protesting war in the words of Our Lord. But that does not mean we are to sit back on our hands and do nothing, twidling ourthumbs while we wait for God to do something. God acts through people who follow his will. Would you advocate that we all go to our rooms and retire in prayer forever while the owrld rotsa round us. As a flip side God is also acting throughtese protesters. It works both ways luv. We also have free will and are obligated to do what we feel God has commanded us to do. I see this war as unjust and hypocritical And I will speak out against it. If "worrying" about hings was pointless what the heck were the prophets about, why did Paul write his letters? There is a difference between worrying and caring. To worry is to make your self sick over that which you cannot change, control or effect. I fell we of the peace movement can make changes and have an effect. Thu sit is not worry but concern. quote: Actually you are the one that is incredibly and profoundly mistaken. If you want to try me out on this go ahead. My grandfather was a Lutheran Minister. My father has been an ordained Presbyterian minister for over 20 years. My mother has been a Deaconal misister in the same church for 35 years and has over the last number of yers added to her education and now can also be ordained. So trust me when I say I know what I am talkign about. We come from the same Reformed tradition (Presbyterianism is an offshoot of Calvanism) and I have lived in my faith all my life and ahve grown up surrounded by ministers and dedicated believers. I know a fair bit about what I'm talking about. Posted by Blacksword on 03-18-2003 at 11:05 PM:
quote:Gotta love how your sources are unimpeachable yet anyone else are leftie propaganda. There are no unbiased sources but this one is just as good as any of yours. And I don't see how you can brush off the fact that a man who was convicted for crime agaisnt the state is now in such a position of power. Ths article shows a lot of sides and doesn't paint the Bush regime as a single evil whole. There are a lot of good arguments here and you brush them off with out a single good reason. Genius! As to terrorists Saddam only is known to support anit-Israli terrorist groups which while reprehensible to say teh least it is not a direct attack on the US. He has no definte ties to US directed terrorism. SO that is not a reasonable excuse for the war. IF the US was honest and said teh primary reason for this war was regime change and a goal of stabilizing the oil suppy frothe US and not this WMOD/terrorist and helping the Iraqui BS then I'd have a bit less of a problem with it. The lies and hypocrisy only serve to sicken me further. Posted by Blacksword on 03-18-2003 at 11:32 PM:
As to the whole will of God thing earlier I just figured I'd throw in my two cents. THe two facts that God is absolutely sovereign and the human will is free represents one of the many fundamental paradoxes of Christian belief. BOTH statements are true. One does not have to make God a puppet mast for him to be in control. Human will is totally free with in its constraints. And those are a lot. You don't decide where you are born, to whom you are born, when you are born, your genetic make up, you r basic brain chemistry which determines your underlying personality etc. These factors deicide who you know and determine all the factors from without which will shape you asa human being. There's also plenty of things youcan't change: physical laws, the weather, natural disasters etc.
But after that its up to you but all these factors govern your life as does the nature of teh soul you were created with. Your decisions are your but as God exists outside time and knows every decision in your life and knows how everything in the whole universe will occur he is in one sense in control your decisions shape the world around you and the decisions of others shape your decisions. The power pof placement of people who GOd knows down to the last quarkof their being means he has absolute control but the will is still free because we can make any decision we want, but it is known and accounted for. So it is both free and controled at the same time. Put ti this way Einstein is famoud for his statemtn that God does not play dice. But is it really chance when God knows every molecule in the die, and knows every sungle variable in its fall? Our decisions are our own but we do not make them in a vacume. We could make other decisions. The circumsatnces from without are not totally responsible for the actions of teh person within. And God only judges the person within. That is why it is why you get the statement from Christ that to have thought about copmitting adultry is to have already gone and done it. I'm sure this is all confusing (I'm confused myself more than a little) but to say it's preordained an we can do nothing is not a valid statement. God has made the rules butwe play the game. The fact that he knows the end result and that this end result is the best does not make us any less responsible for our actions. Posted by Nebbie on 03-18-2003 at 11:48 PM:
quote:Since when is stating your opinions whining? quote:You took the words right out of my mouth. P.S. I did vote for Gore. And I will deny that Shrub is the rightful President of this country until I have no more breath in my body. Posted by Best First on 03-19-2003 at 05:43 AM:
quote:hahahahaha. Same to you Concession accepted! (kidding) ah im sharing a joke with sheba - whatever next... Posted by Best First on 03-19-2003 at 06:19 AM:
quote:Whats what you were reffering to? i notice you still havent directly quoted anyone. if you read what i posted (sorry, ill try and use more monosylabbic terms next time) i only said thay are not fighting for me in this case, becuase until they uncover WOMD with a serious threat capacity i will maintain that iraq is no dircet threat to my homeland. This is not a matter of defence. And i cant buy my friends in the army a beer - COS THEY ARE ALL IN THE ****ING GULF. So drop your cute little military cock sucking platitudes because some of us are actualy ealing witht the reality of the situation rather than trying to romanticise it to paper over the cracks. If you had any cpacity for being honest with yourself you would realise that you owe me an apology, you attacked me over something i never came close to doing. And you know it. Of course this apology will never come, but the truth of the matter seems pretty apparent to everyone in the topic - so who cares. ---------------- Fwiff seeing as how you have dedicate 2 or 3 posts to it now, your refutes mainly consisted of 'pfft' and 'uh-huh' and whatever the spin placed upon them it still contained more facts than that appalling mirror article you posted a month or so ago, i stand by my decsion to post a letter by one of the worlds foremost social commentators (and anyone who doubts that is the case - i suggest you tune into the oscars at the weekend). That you see this as an opportunity to heap insults on my integrity is up to you. ---------------------------- Sheba computorn is right - you need to stop this multi-posting crap - it renders the middle of the last page very difficult to get thru - you dont win debtes based on volume of posting. So i am asking you PLEASE, stop it. Its not hard. ----------------- Finally - good call reducing this to one topic comps - i know its a bit messy - but christ imagine what the board would look like now if you hadnt started this... Posted by Blacksword on 03-19-2003 at 07:45 AM:
Yeah I appologise my multi posting too Besty, but I can't possibly let her have the last word no can I? Stupid verbosity why can I never keep it short...?
Posted by impactor returns on 03-19-2003 at 08:17 AM:
Ok speculate time.
The war gos well in Iraq. lasting but a few days. Saddam and his tyrant crew are kicked out of state or somthing else. The Iraq ppl will deff be alot happier. and WOMD are found? now this is a ideal view leveled at us by pro war govermental movements. yet if the above points are met. then surely this is a good thing? -Side note. bloody fire fighters. Posted by Computron on 03-19-2003 at 10:38 AM:
We spend billions on weaponry while people ****ing starve, live in poverty and die of disease every day.
What the hell is wrong with humanity? **** that. Something needs to change. It's not right dammit, it's not right at all... Posted by impactor returns on 03-19-2003 at 10:50 AM:
well u could argue that millions die due to ppl like saddam and we are 'trying' th change this.
Posted by Nebbie on 03-19-2003 at 11:04 AM:
quote:Fine. Next time they'll let your house burn to the ground, that make you happy? Are you deliberately trying to make people angry or just wanting attention? Posted by impactor returns on 03-19-2003 at 11:24 AM:
What?
Do u know what im talking about? or do u just want attention? Posted by Nightbeat on 03-19-2003 at 11:30 AM:
quote:Compy, humanity's been like this for millenia. No matter how you try to guide them, help them, protect them from planetary invasion, etc, they'll keep fighting each other, the enviroment, and whatever. Not because God is making us, not because the Bible says we have to, but because it's human nature. Besides, in this case, we're apparently about to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. It's not about oil(Venezuela's still on strike, guys), well not completely, anyway. I don't want war. I don't think anybody does. And Impy's right, if 1441 says that war is an allowable option because of breach of condition. Love it or hate it, it'll happen. I just wish it didn't have to. Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-19-2003 at 11:56 AM:
resolution 1441 was sold to the security council on the understanding it did not contain an automatic trigger for war
and as for impy, you made comment 'bloody firefighters' and nebbie's father is a very brave firefighter- so you can understand why that upset her a tad? Posted by Computron on 03-19-2003 at 12:22 PM:
Who wants some oil?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/885939.asp?0cv=CB30 Posted by impactor returns on 03-19-2003 at 12:30 PM:
quote:I should have said UK firefighters then. Its got nothing do with bravery either. Posted by impactor returns on 03-19-2003 at 12:34 PM:
im confused over what difference it makes over who buys the oil?
So what if the USA wants to buy every last drop of oil from Iraq? isnt that good buiss = money for the Iraq ppl. If on the other hand they bought the oil fields from the Iraq ppl that would be different, but it doesnt seem to be the case. this is another reason wny im not utterly fussed over the oil situation. If someone wants to buy somthing, then does it really matter who buys it, all evils aside? Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-19-2003 at 12:46 PM:
quote:yes you should have. Posted by impactor returns on 03-19-2003 at 12:50 PM:
a slight mistake on my part.
i could have always been asked what i was talking about though instead of being looked down upon from a high horse postion. Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-19-2003 at 01:15 PM:
well there didnt seem that much to ask- 'bloody firefighters' comes across as rather self-explanatory, in case you hadn't noticed.
Posted by impactor returns on 03-19-2003 at 02:38 PM:
Well i would have asked what it reffered to.
if it was taken at face value then i suppose it means firefighters are bloody then? Posted by Blacksword on 03-19-2003 at 02:47 PM:
quote:What that means is that US oil companies will own Iraq's economy and have control over it's politics. The oil belongs to Iraqi citizens and it should be up tot hem to decide to whom they sell it. The US has done this before, where it goes in with its corperations controls a county's main resource and thereby controls the country. Has everyone forgotten the bananna Republic in Latin America. They were called that becuase powerful US fruit companies for all intents and purposes rule those contries along side which ever dictator suited US purposes and would allow the companies to do as they pleased. I doubt that the oil companies would have as much free rein today but with all the US troops that are going to be in Iraq for a long time I doubt the Iraqis are going to have much say in how their economy is run. If the US pulls Iraq out of OPEC then it will be solely those US corperations who will decide the price Iraq gets for its oil and it will be nowhere near the market value of today. And you can bet those oil revenues will be going to pay for teh $20 billion a year cost of occupying Iraq. Even if it would do such a thing for free it can't now considering the US is teetering on the edge of bankrupcy. It all comes down to the issue of hypocrisy. Bush has been peddling this lie about how this war is about WOMD, terrorism and the Iraqi people, when this war is about oil, regime change and persoanl pride. THere is a certain factor of the Iraqi people. But if they were the primary cause this war would have been fought back in 1988. And even then everybody from Middle East experts to the CIA says this is a bad idea for teh stability of the region. That's why they stopped at the border last time and its why its a bad idea to invade this time. Posted by impactor returns on 03-19-2003 at 03:52 PM:
it comes down to what u want to belive. nothing at all can be proven at this stage.
u either feel the US will take over Iraqs oil. or They will allow Iraqs ppl to have controll over a resource that saddam has stolen from them for years. i personnaly dont see how a war that will finnish costing the US $100 billion can ever be over oil. theres not enough oil in Iraq to get that kind of money back. thats probably around 400 billion gallons.at 25 cents a barrel. and that minus export cost. Posted by Blacksword on 03-19-2003 at 05:19 PM:
Hey I never said Bush could do math.
If you go back to my article there's a bunch of people in Cabinet, mostly in the State Department who want no part of this garbage and who its not worth it.Posted by MaximusFan on 03-19-2003 at 05:24 PM:
Death...destruction...tell me, when does it finally end, when will we finally be one?
Posted by Blacksword on 03-19-2003 at 05:28 PM:
Now all I can do is say my prayers and hope for the best. Less than two and a half hours now. Bush, I hope you're happy and I hope I'm wrong cause Lord help us if what some of what I've envisioned comes true.
Posted by MaximusFan on 03-19-2003 at 05:33 PM:
It will probably come true. This is part I of the "Untergang des Abendlands". Perhaps it's our time to go too, our own greed will be our downfall. The end of the west is near... Thanks Bush, and you too Blair, for destroying our hopes for a peaceful future
Posted by Computron on 03-19-2003 at 05:41 PM:
quote:Personally I don't think it's that bad, but the main problem here is that it sets back foreign relations progress back quite a few years...along of course with the casualties... Posted by impactor returns on 03-19-2003 at 05:44 PM:
well im still hoping what they are saying has some truth behind it.
A: the Iraq ppl will be free of oprresion B: they will have thier oil C: saddam will stop screwing about in the middle east. U never know it might come true... Hey on a bright side we can look forward to loads of GUlf war movies...no wait a second... three kings..OH GOD NO! Posted by Blacksword on 03-19-2003 at 05:51 PM:
Normally I'd sppreciate the levity Impy but I can only see another bosnia here. I see nothing good coming from this other than in the short term after the war is over and then the **** will hit the fan in a few weeks or months and we'll have a new black hole on the horizon for another decade. Like I say, I hope I'm wrong but I can't see it comingout better than 50% of my projections being off. Occupation will be long term and that will lead to nothing good. Either that or a pull out and the region disintigrates.
Posted by MaximusFan on 03-19-2003 at 05:58 PM:
It is bad.
1. The UN is severely undermined. Nobody will take it seriously anymore. Boom, there goes worldstabilizer #1 2. The west is divided. Not just US vs Europe but also Europe vs Europe. And almost everybody vs the west. 3. The west is losing in demographics. Populationfigures are stagnating. My generation will have to bear the full costs of an enormous amount of 65+ people who aren't suitable for work anymore. I'm sure it's every like that in the west. In the meantime, the middle east, the near east and asia will grow and grow. This is related with -> 4. Chasm between rich and poor which will widen because of this. The poor parts of the world are rapidly growing populationwise, and the rich ones stagnating. Which leads me to five -> 5. The west is heading for a disaster and that disaster could destroy the whole world. The big poor parts will someday overwhelm the richer parts and this could drag the world into a cataclysmic war. We have the means to destroy the world and we have the politicians mad enough to use them just to ensure the survival of our sick capitalist-system which has kept the larger part of the world poor and the west rich during the past 50 years. Imperialism never stopped, we just found ways to continue it without overtly physically controlling our "colonies". In fact, countries like Saudi Arabia are mere colonies of the west, just not in name... Posted by impactor returns on 03-19-2003 at 06:07 PM:
well im still sitting on the fence.
From all i can see this world is run by loads of stupid ppl, wanting stupid things. what ever u want upsets someone at some point, and we all end up fecked anyway. Dont tell me that anything we do will help because someone, somewhere, doesnt agree. ive felt this all along, and i get an overall feeling of how i really dont care much anymore. Even, and a big even, if this war was purely, and 100% nothing more then for the good of Iraq, someone somewhere wouldnt agree with it. so in short, ive lost faith with just about everything going. Posted by MaximusFan on 03-19-2003 at 06:14 PM:
Well, there's quite a lot of people protesting this war this time. Can't remember that about Kosovo or Gulf War I. I think a lot of people just don't want the truth to be raped by Bush Inc. in the name of freedom and democracy. I think that's the most important victim here, truth. Truth has been raped so many times you can't be sure anymore what's complete BS and what has some degree of truthfulness.
Posted by impactor returns on 03-19-2003 at 06:17 PM:
well i think they done it the wrong way. if they had done it the right way this wouldnt be happening.
its all crap really Posted by MaximusFan on 03-19-2003 at 06:24 PM:
There's not really A right way IMO, the world is not divisible in shades of black and white, no matter what Bush Inc. might say. With regard to Iraq and the available options I think they've choosen one of the less right options. There's no absolutely right solution to the Iraq thing, but they could have easily choosen a more right solution than what they're pursuing now.
Posted by Getaway on 03-19-2003 at 06:24 PM:
Nebbie Impactor is talking about the Firefighter repeatedly going on strike because they won't accept a 16% pay rise, they want 40% with no modernising of their work practices. The 16% is tied to modernization such as allowinfg them to do overtime if they wish to, sorting out the shift system, carrying medical gear with some trianing in its use etc. The military has to cover for the firefighters while they are on strike.
Our total military strentgh in all 3 arms is only about 150,000 whcih is less than the armed forces of Luxembourg. about 50,000 will be involved in the Iraq war, 15,000 in Northern Ireland and 25,000 at our other commitments. At least 17,000 are required to cover the firefighters, we are stretched to thin, we cannot afford to have 17,000 men stop training and just fight fires all day for less than half the pay of what of firefighters get already. Posted by impactor returns on 03-19-2003 at 06:29 PM:
quote:which they have gone about in the wrong way... Posted by MaximusFan on 03-19-2003 at 06:32 PM:
Elaborate? I think we're on different wavelenghths right now?
Posted by impactor returns on 03-19-2003 at 06:46 PM:
they got parts of this all wrong, nothing more to be said. i agree with your black and white, and i agree.
THats why i sit on the fence, because parts of the anti-war are utterly correct, and so are parts of the pro war lobby. its all been set upon in the wrong way tho. Posted by Master_Fwiffo on 03-19-2003 at 07:26 PM:
quote:So... you think this is the end of the world? Oh come on, its not THAT bad. At very, very worse, we (the US) get a big sock in the face. At best, Husseins gone and Iraq is liberated and we return to the smewhqat stable pattern the Middle East is now. Whoopie. Where did your massive war come from? Posted by Gekigengar on 03-19-2003 at 08:53 PM:
okay, I wanted to post this in it's own forum, but seeing that this will the only Iraq thread I tohught I post something a little funny... to get ppl's spirit up for abit, no matter the political view.
http://goodreverend.resnet.gatech.edu/nf/saddam.swf Posted by Master_Fwiffo on 03-19-2003 at 09:18 PM:
I already posted that. Nobody noticed =-(
Posted by Nightbeat on 03-19-2003 at 09:33 PM:
Let's see.... if I read that file extension right, does this mean that Hussein in a single white female?
Posted by Nebbie on 03-19-2003 at 10:07 PM:
quote:Impy, I apologize for jumping all over you, but I didn't realize you were just talking about firefighters in the UK. I can understand why you'd be upset with them. I probably would be too, regardless of my dad. Over here, firefighters aren't unionized, and they have to take whatever pay the city they work for can afford. My dad has been working for the fire dept 15 years and still only makes about $30,000 a year, which isn't a lot for his kind of experience. Okay, rambling again. Point is, I'm sorry, Impy. *hugs* Posted by Redstreak on 03-19-2003 at 10:23 PM:
I said it before, and I think it's probably going to go in my sig after this...
God bless our brave men and women in their attack on Iraq. And God damn George W. Bush for making them do it. I'm not gonna sleep very much tonight... Posted by Gambit on 03-19-2003 at 10:41 PM:
Frankly, Im surprised Im still here and not over at the Sandbox.
*knocks on wood* Posted by Blacksword on 03-19-2003 at 10:56 PM:
Right now I can only hope the UN will be the leading party in the reconstruction. Its teh only way to head off a massive wave of anti-US sentiment in the region and to give any new government any kind of legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the Arab world and in the eyes of teh Iraqi populous. I'm just waiting to hear Canada's official response tommorow. We've got to push to get in there right after the war's over and make sure with the rest of thUN that this new Iraq is laid out right and that the doomsday projections don't happen.
Posted by impactor returns on 03-19-2003 at 11:26 PM:
Nebbie.
I should have said UK fire fighters, i have nothing against the bravery of fire fighters, i think they are great for what they do. but it in the UK are FF are being led up the garden path by thier spokesman who is asking for totaly unreasonable things. I sshouldnt have got grumpy either, i was having a suddern stress at work and got shirty. sorry Posted by Sheba on 03-19-2003 at 11:58 PM:
quote:  Photos Prove Connection Between Iraq and Al-Qaeda Terrorists March 14, 2003 About 20 minutes before show time, we posted satellite imagery of Salman Pak - home of the terrorist training center in Iraq we've been telling you about. I want to thank Gary Napier and his whole staff from Space Imaging, Inc. for these images from their IKONOS satellite. It's not in geo synchronous orbit, so they can move it to map, measure and monitor anywhere on earth. The third of the three shots zeros in on what looks like a Boeing 727 fuselage to me. Everyone says it's a 707, but its wings would be farther forward if that were the case. So it's probably a 727, or at least a tri-jet. One of the stories I read this week and put into Rush's Saddam Stack of Stuff in researching all this, cited Aviation Week and Space Technology's article on this facility. This confirms the existence of that fuselage; it's right where the Iraqi defectors said it was. Photo Credit: Space Imaging According to former UN inspectors, Salman Pak was once and could be the site of probable BW research. The facility also includes, according to defectors, a terrorism training facility where they train on this civilian airliner. The entire facility sits in an ox bow of the Tigris River, 25 km south of Baghdad. This series of shots gradually gets closer to the plane’s fuselage, located at the southern (bottom) part of the facility, above the bend in the river. IKONOS travels 423 miles above the earth's surface at a speed of 17,500mph, but it's done a better job of pointing this out than the UN Inspectors who saw it on the ground. quote:See above. quote:What do you mean you beg to differ? Sure USA gave him SOME stuff. But the bulk of the stuff he has now is RUSSIAN. Bulk of the bioweapon and nuke research stuff came from FRANCE AND GERMANY. It does NOT matter if USA gave him some stuff as it pertains to FIXING THAT PROBLEM. In other words dude, if we helped make the problem OF COURSE WE SHOULD TRY TO FIX IT. Duhhhhhh. quote: Fine fine fine not a problem. It's so easy you don't even know. Here's a shortlist of the most prominent ones: Cuba (Fidel Castro) Iran (Whichever Ayatollah it is now) Iraq (SoDamnedInsane) Libya (Khaddaffi) Vietnam (Communist) Zimbabwe (Mugabe) North Korea (Kim Jong Mentally Ill) quote:Lemme see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying USA has to SUCK UP to OTHER COUNTRIES NO MATTER WHAT?! quote: Well getting AWAY from any POSSIBLE targets, that's just common sense. Like out of Baghdad proper and out to the boonies where there is NOTHING. Or maybe scoot off to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. They've had plenty of time. And if they wanna come on over I'd love to have them. There's lots of room on this island. They might not like the rain though quote: Well first of all, all the evidence we have is from defectors. They FOUND stuff in 1995 thanks to defectors. So we KNOW Saddam has this stuff. The fact that he did NOT openly destroy it is cause for suspicion. And come on use your common sense. Saddam HAS used biochem weapons before--against his OWN people. He knows that if he uses them now USA WILL NUKE HIS ASS. So his next best option is to keep them hidden until he can sell them to some terrorist, like a Palestinian Suicide Bomber. In THAT way, HELL YEAH he poses a threat. quote:I didn't blame france for iraq being in power. I blamed france for TRYING to help Iraq get nukes back in the '70s and 80s. That aside, have you completely lost your marbles? Since when does it NOT make sense for someone who "helped" cause a problem to NOT take steps to CORRECT that problem?!!!! quote:Ahhh wankery at its finest. WHERE WERE YOU WHEN CLINTON WENT INTO KOSOVO? HAITI? SOMALIA? Bush did NOT screw his country up. 9-11 had a lot to do with that. Besides, the Economy was going south WHILE TWO YEARS WERE LEFT IN CLINTON'S TERM. You know what I say about this war? ABOUT F***ING TIME!!!! quote:we shall see, Galvatron, we shall see[/Lord Zarak] quote:What do you mean, proof? How old are you? ISRAEL HAS NUKES. I'ts COMMON KNOWLEDGE. EVERYBODY KNOWS IT. I wasn't talking about Iraq in that sentence. quote:Well the argument is to all those that do believe in God but yet are opposed to this war. You know those machines like tree shredders, only for shredding plastic? Saddam's got a couple those. AND HE USES THEM ON PEOPLE! "Some fell in headfirst and died quickly. Others went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die this way"-Iraqi defector speaking to a reporter from the Times of London. That's barbaric. That makes anything the USA's been accused of pale in comparison. Now tell me, what God wouldn't get fed up with that kind of wickedness after awhile? quote:If you're going to keep up on world events you really do need to see more about what exactly is going on pertaining to Israel. The Jewish People have suffered enough. Why the hell should we let them suffer more at the hands of terrorists? Anti-Semitism is an oooooold problem. Didn't you know that the desire of the Palestinians is to "drive the Jews into the [Mediterranean]Sea"? They don't want to peacefully coexist. They want to KILL them! HOW THE HELL DO YOU REASON WITH THAT? AND HOW CAN YOU GET ALONG WITH THAT? YOU CAN'T!!!!! quote: So what? The non-supporters will be WRONG and if I'm right about what will be found in Iraq post-war, they will be profoundly embarrased for the stand that they took. I'm betting this will look as bad as Auschwitz, at least, in terms of horribleness and utter depravity. quote: Yeah. The Rich by their wealth benefit from less traffic. If it's working, that means that somebody that USED to drive there, isn't driving there anymore. So what are we to conclude? Who's giving up driving thru London? Hmmmmmmmmm? I betcha it's not the Uber-rich! [This message has been edited by Papa Snarl (edited 03-18-2003).] [This message has been edited by Papa Snarl (edited 03-18-2003).] Posted by Redstreak on 03-20-2003 at 12:08 AM:
So answer me this, Sheba...are you happy now that this has begun? Are you glad that the USA is launching this attack?
Posted by Sheba on 03-20-2003 at 12:12 AM:
quote:No I did not. quote:And your evidence for that is what exactly? quote:Meaning what? quote: Of course your views are your own. And they're wrong. I'm not all-knowing. And I'll take that as a compliment. quote: The prayer had nothing to do with it really, but I do find it interesting that you do not appear to trust God. That's what it looks like to me. quote:Oh I can tolerate your views. That doesn't mean I can't try to prove them wrong or mistaken. quote:Erowr? What's self serving about it? You can think whatever you want about God. That is your right. You also have an inalienable right to be wrong. quote:Well nobody wants FEWER casualties than I do, believe me. But I trust that God will take care of things. I don't worry. It's harmful to worry, as in bad for a person's health. Pray all you want to, I will be too. I'm not objecting to that. quote:well I didn't see it until now. quote:Of course they are allowed. But I'm kinda getting tired of this liberal unilateralism that infests this board. Me posting my opinion, and pointing out where I think someone's wrong or mistaken DOES NOT MEAN THE PERSON is "not allowed" to have a different opinion. where the hell did you get a goofy idea like that????  Posted by impactor returns on 03-20-2003 at 12:40 AM:
WTF is that picture? its a freaking plane in a field, it could be an airstrip in any country in the world. and any plane in the world. WTF does that prove?
Is this just me? Posted by Sheba on 03-20-2003 at 01:38 AM:
quote:Yes I have. We have a couple of reserves right here in town. quote: Not unless television counts. quote: I have seen homeless people in Victoria. A good many of them are teenagers or in their 20s. Did you know that a good portion of the older 'homeless' are in fact on the streets as a result of legislation passed--in both USA and Canada--that no longer required them to be institutionalized? In other words, a LOT of the homeless have mental problems and/or addiction issues. quote: What are you talking about?! USA has thrown nothing but money at the problem of poverty and homelessness for a looooooong time. It started with FDR and matured into LBJ's "Great Society." You CAN'T say they didn't TRY. quote: Ok here's where I think you lose focus on what the command is. God did NOT command the GOVERNMENT to care for the poor. The government's got NOTHING to do with it. Jesus did NOT go to the Roman Rulers of the day and demand that the Roman Government start a welfare program. It's obigatory upon the INDIVIDUAL. Lots of people give to the food bank, or other charitable causes. quote:Have you been reading American History textbooks? What proof do you have that "much" of our wealth was made off the backs of the Third World? Are you saying that like, NIKE, if it sets up shop in Indonesia, has to pay $8.50 CDN an hour, or it's exploiting people? Or is there something you just don't understand about the world economy? Taking into consideration, the average wage in the country BEFORE Nike came in, the currency value compared to the US dollar, and the cost of items in the country, can you say they are NOT better off than if Nike wasn't there?! quote:Separation of Church and state dude. quote:"Corporate Greed"? Man you're cynical. May I remind you that without "corporate greed", these drugs would probably not have been discovered in the first place. R&D requires fundage. As in, profits. Without profits, R&D grinds to a halt. Problem we face here isn't just one of money. It's of morality. Change in people's BEHAVIOR is a lot more effective than throwing money at a problem, hoping some miracle drug will fix it. And Bush has just promised a ton of money to Africa for AIDS prevention anyway. Answer me this one question please. HOW MUCH IS "ENOUGH"?! quote: HUH? They didn't have freedom BEFORE Colonialism! They had NO INFRASTRUCTURE. Yeah when the colonialism ended it was dumb of them to just leave them to the strong men, no question, but please don't try to pretend that colonialists took something away when they never had it to begin with. quote: Ummm no, Capitalism is the ONLY way for the poor to climb out of their squalor by their own means! You're not understanding how the world works here. Western governments pour billions of dollars of aid into various third world countries. Yet what good has it done, since their leaders steal it all? So the companies trade, hoping to open the country to the idea of freedom. Why do you think Nixon decided to start relations with China back in the '70s? Look at China now. It's actually allowing some semblance of economic capitalism! Capitalism MAKES THE MOST EFFICIENT USE OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES. Socialism is fatally flawed. As one Russian guy my dad talked to one day said, "They pretend to feed us, and we pretend to work." Fact is dude, socialism FAILS, EVERY TIME IT'S TRIED. If these countries themselves WERE FREE AND CAPITALIST, they would be prosperous. And stop blaming the West and Companies for all the exploitation. That's just a line of bullcrap fed to people to deflect criticism from the regime. quote: Dude we ALREADY do that! We send them all kinds of money. Oh? What would your solution be? quote: Let them make their own companies...sure, right. WITH WHAT MONEY??!!! AND WITH WHAT KNOW-HOW??!!! You know the reason "Western" companies go in there? Because they KNOW how to do it! The culture of the people in a lot of those areas is such that it is not conducive to technological advancement. Heck, a lot of them think they're stinking rich if they have 500 head of cattle. quote: Well I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying that at all. It's just that the risks are too great to try to stop it. Anybody who tries will be assassinated (talk about deterrence, maaaaaan). So there's no point in even trying to fix it. Right or wrong, it CANNOT be fixed. quote: Who exactly is sinning? The people in the mansions? How exactly are they sinning? THEIR TAX MONEY WENT TO BUILD THE FREAKING SLUMS!!!!! Or have you NOT heard of "Public Housing"?? Yeah that's GOVERNMENT FUNDED. Let me tell you something pal. The fact that we've MOVED 'charity' to the realm of Government is WHY we have a 'problem'like that!!!! Why should people think they need to stuff dollar bills into the pockets of the starving hoi polloi, when they can rest assured that the money they're paying in taxes to the GOVERNMENT is taking care of that for them?! See, there's your problem right there. quote:Ok that is good we like that. quote:AND TRANSFERRING THESE WORKS TO GOVERNMENT NEGATES THE BENEFIT OF THAT!!!! I think you are misunderstanding quite a few things here. First you are taking what Christ said to INDIVIDUALS and misapplying it to GOVERNMENT. Not everyone is a believer that pays taxes. Yet government takes their money and uses it to "help the poor." Now tell me, HOW does transferring the taking care of the poor to the government help the person who's not a Christian anyway benefit by the fact of caring for the poor? It CEASES to become an act of faith and relegates it to a chore that the person is no longer personally involved in! A person being taxed forcefully is not conducive to cheerful giving. It ruins the whole concept. quote:AND NOWHERE DOES HE SAY TO RELEGATE THAT TASK TO THE GOVERNMENT. HE SAYS WE MUST DO IT INDIVIDUALLY. Otherwise it takes away from the whole purpose. quote:Ok then tell me where Christ went to Roman rulers and told them any of this. Dude you are forgetting SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force. Paul said that the government "Beareth not the sword in vain." The government has a SPECIFIC JOB and authority that individuals (civilians) do not have. And we are to obey it, for the most part (except if it tells us not to worship God, etc). I am surprised you do not understand the differentiation. You need to get off the gospel and realize there is also an old testament that is also part of the Bible. quote:Ummm no. It is MY firm belief that this war is necessary. quote:My brother read that and said "That's garbage!" And I wanna know HOW DO YOU KNOW????!!!! quote:Fine and dandy for you, but WHY do you think it is unjust? quote:Oh you made an impact all right. The peace protests virtually GUARANTEED there would be war. How, may you ask? Well it emboldened Saddam to feel that he did not need to cooperate fully, and gave him a false sense of security. Congratulations. You just ensured that that which you oppose is what is GUARANTEED to be going on now. Hmmm maybe God did work thru the protesters (but not in the way you expected ).Gotta love reverse psychology quote:My grandfather died in 1988 (in his 70s), but he was a Lutheran Minister for many many years--at least since before he was married to Grandma. And my mother has a lot of his books lying around that I can read from--my uncle has the rest. Yes I know what Presbyterianism is. I know what Calvinism is. I'm not Calvinist. And doing good works via government--[i]which ultimately takes the responsibility, caring, FAITH, and personal involvement OUT of the equation was never an edict of Christ. Or are you one of those guys that thinks that "Separation of Church and State" is a crank? And I also know what communism and socialism is. It is antithetical to Christianity. Tell me, if "socialism" or "communism" is so "Christian" then WHY is it that EVERY socialist or communist regime is highly intolerant of religion, especially Christianity? Care to explain that? Posted by Sheba on 03-20-2003 at 01:44 AM:
quote:Because. I find newer posts to reply to after having been shafted for net time. Never mind about it. Posted by Sheba on 03-20-2003 at 01:53 AM:
quote:Please tell me how the status quo is any better than that phoney scenario. Pleaaaaaaase, the "banana republic" business was back in the 1950's for pete's sake. The people who did that are like old or dead now. You having trouble differentiating between different governments and different times? This whole idea of it being about oil is sooooo phoney it clearly counts as one of them whacko (as in unsubstantiated in fact) conspiracy theories. IF the USA EVER does try to control the supply of oil in taking it from Iraq, you know what's going to happen? If it really were about profits to oil companies, high prices are the key. If USA in control of Iraqi oil wants profit, they sell at high prices. How would they do that? BY RESTRICTING SUPPLY. OPEC could pull the rug out from under them if they wanted to then by flooding the market with their oil, thus decreasing the price. quote:What evidence do you have that a) Bush is lying? or b) your "Experts" are more right than the experts I listen to? Posted by MaximusFan on 03-20-2003 at 04:47 AM:
 Hey! That's my backyard! I build plastic airplanemodels. Why are they spying on me Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-20-2003 at 07:47 AM:
As per usual, you mis quote so your crap answers can fit.
Okay, we are invading to sort out a problem we created. If you weren't completely 'special', you would see that I acknowledge that - I asked why has it taken 12 years for this to happen? Why is it only now that action is being taken? I think Cook was suggesting that it could possibly coincide with the fact that the US economy is now in a pretty bad shape, and that a quick war would help it. Now, I'll try and work on your level here... You're not the only one who can post complete cack, radom generalised comments with no foundation and meaningless images that although mean nothing are actually legitimate answers to all my questions... So here is my answer to every question/comment you have ever made.  Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-20-2003 at 07:52 AM:
quote:oh i dont know, how about a page long post on why my views are wrong? it is literally this simple- I dont like or appreciate having my religious views dragged through the mud or made to look foolish by people that they dont concern and have no bearing on. I did not put them up for DEBATE, this topic is on IRAQ, not the disassembling of Karl's religious opinions: hence my surprise and extreme anger at having to continually post to defend something that I didnt even want attacked and is nothing to do with the subject matter. so i return to my original question, what on earth makes you so special that I'm not allowed to PRAY without having to read an essay on why my religion is wrong because its different to yours? Considering my prayer hurt no-one and could quite easily have been ignored by you by saying 'thats what he thinks, i can appreciate his religious perspective'. And you still have yet to bring any proof to the discussion as to why my ideas are wrong- the standard church interpretation of the Bible is no more proof than my word. I will say it again: all i was doing was sharing a prayer and yet it has been made into this damn overblown nonsense because you categorically REFUSE to leave it alone- what on Earth are you defending? Your right to make a b**ch out of yourself? There is a difference between posting an OPINION and just rubbishing someone elses views- and considering you have no more proof for your views than me, that makes you a bad person. This led me to the inevitable conclusion that your just trying to be vicious. Leave me and my bloody views alone and stop trying to use them to somehow make your own case (which i what I meant by selfserving). Post what you damn well want Sheba- I have utterly had enough of this total bull. I was PRAYING- yet I've had to go through all this because of your sheer ornery cussed-ness: you won't let a SINGLE thing slip through without you having your all-important 2-cents. Have you got no appreciation that some things people don't like to be told 'thats wrong because i said so'? Like I said- post what you want- "the bible says this, if you believe in god you take the bible at its word, religious leaders opinions are worth more than yours are blah blah blah f*****g blah" I honestly care so little for your miserable, repetitive and predictable self-righteousness that you can do what you bloody want. Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-20-2003 at 07:58 AM:
Do the image, man!
Do the image, I think it might get through to her then! Posted by MaximusFan on 03-20-2003 at 08:28 AM:
Sheba must be without sin, because she keeps on casting the first stone over and over again.
Being an atheist, I could rip both your views apart if I felt I needed to. Some times it's just totally inappropriate to do so though, like in this case. Sheba, you need to learn tact. Your complaining about Karl's religious views is about as well-timed as a theology discussion during a funeral would be. Posted by Best First on 03-20-2003 at 08:38 AM:
SHEBA LEARN TO START PUTTING ALL YOUR STUFF IN ONE DAMN POST OR YOU ARE ON A TEMP BAN.
i asked nicely, and it didnt work, so maybe THIS WILL MAKE YOU PAY ATTENION. Everyone else manages it (thanks for the apology Blackie) Posted by shaxper on 03-20-2003 at 08:42 AM:
Don't mean to break up the current discussion, but since this is the "One and only" Iraq thread, let me get back on topic for a moment here:
We've staged our first attacks. We tried to kill Hussain, took over State radio, launched missiles, and fought through the Kuwait border. All that's happened in return is four scuds were fired into Kuwait. So at this point, let's think. If Saddam really DID have WOMD or was crazy, overly malicious, and a horrible threat to the international community, how come all we got were four missiles? Where are the nukes, mustard gas, etc? Posted by impactor returns on 03-20-2003 at 08:49 AM:
id be more worried at present over where his armies are? ie thier are now bar a few troops here and there.
I have a bad feeling over this. i think old Hussain is up to somthing... Posted by god on 03-20-2003 at 08:59 AM:
umm i laughed today at the reactions from other states:
Irak: saddam calling strike "INHUMANE", right he has to say that with his CV Russia: "show off force is not the right way"...reminds me of tjechnia... China: "this is against international law"....if there is 1 country on earth who treatens a democracy (CF. Taiwan) and Never holds to international law it is CHINA! I rest my case for now Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-20-2003 at 09:05 AM:
It's all bollocks really isn't it? The world is run by a load of idiots.
*edit* I don't think Hussein is up to anything sly. Most of his troops a are'nt loyal enough to him for him to allow them to do anything other than stay exactly where he can watch them. Posted by shaxper on 03-20-2003 at 09:29 AM:
Actually, the news reported last night that most of his troops were ordered back to Baghdad. He's creating a stronghold in the capital and leaving only minor forces to defend the rest of Iraq.
He's "up to" preserving his life. Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-20-2003 at 09:55 AM:
well i dont think Saddam will play any chemical/biological attacks until the last- theyre his trump card when all else has failed.
what hes hoping is that he can draw the war out, and cause as many civilian casualties as possible, hoping to use that to stop the war. Only when he's convinced it is all over and he's finished will he take his revenge on the neighbouring territories with chemical weapons (assuming he has any). thats what i think anyway. I also appologise for diverting this thread away from its topic i dont mean to get all caught up and go off at the deep end...Posted by Computron on 03-20-2003 at 09:57 AM:
quote: Posted by shaxper on 03-20-2003 at 09:59 AM:
quote:You had every right to be upset. I wasn't trying to criticize your post when I rediverted the topic. I just wanted to talk about Iraq and this is the only place we're supposed to Posted by impactor returns on 03-20-2003 at 10:10 AM:
i think its part of this topic to think about what the war at presnt might bring. the moralitys and such go on and on, but at present we are faced with the situation at hand, which tonight i assume will be a full out strike.
Im hoping that saddam cannot strike at his neighbouring countrys using chenical weapons. i think the patriot missle systems will be enough to deal with them if he does. It was interesting to note how he fired scud missles at Kuwait, when he wasnt supposed to have any, and the inspectors couldnt find them. Posted by shaxper on 03-20-2003 at 10:16 AM:
quote:He's allowed to have missiles, just not missiles with a certain range, and those were still in the process of being destroyed when the UN troops pulled out and we began attacking. Posted by Computron on 03-20-2003 at 10:21 AM:
quote:They weren't scuds, but actually Al Samoud missiles... Posted by impactor returns on 03-20-2003 at 10:29 AM:
quote:i didnt think that al summoud missles could go further then 180km, or they were in breach of UN law, and Kuwait is 400km away. they would have had to have been within 180km or, they were totaly in breach of UN laws. *hard to belive as US forces are everwhere* Or they were mobile scuds. Posted by Sheba on 03-20-2003 at 03:19 PM:
quote:Dude didn't you read? It's SATELLITE PHOTO of Salman Pak in Iraq. THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS HAVE SEEN IT FROM THE GROUND AND KNOW THAT IT IS THERE. Posted by MaximusFan on 03-20-2003 at 03:25 PM:
Yeah, but you must have obtained it from some tacky rightwing source, so it's disqualified. Too bad.
Posted by Best First on 03-20-2003 at 03:30 PM:
quote:Dude didn't you read? It's SATELLITE PHOTO of Salman Pak in Iraq. THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS HAVE SEEN IT FROM THE GROUND AND KNOW THAT IT IS THERE. They know what is there? The field? Are you trying - it was in a paper so it must be true again? Anyway... Got a letter from my mate out there today - sent last week, so it will be all change now, but it sounds like morale is (or was) quite high - which is good. if any one has friends in the uk military out there they can send them an 'e-bluey' from http://www.bfpo.org.uk assuming you have the right address info. Moving on again - its not been confirmed that it was a SCUD as yet - but IR is right that the range is telling. God's points about the records of some of the countried pouring scorn are fair enough - but i dont see how they make a case, and they can easily be countered with the US's history of interventionism, not to mention that of its 'coalition'. and just for the record I DONT EXPECT TO SEE ANY DOUBLE POSTING SHEBA. Posted by Sheba on 03-20-2003 at 03:37 PM:
quote:No speakie English quote: *sigh* Because it's taken THIS LONG for SOMEBODY TO HAVE THE FREAKING BALLS TO DO IT!!!! Clinton didn't have the balls. Bush-41 didn't have the balls. The UN didn't have the balls. And it still doesn't. You know something? It's kowtowing to this STUPID UN that's made this take so freaking long. And FINALLY we get a President that says what he means and does what he says. I betcha if Dubya (Bush-43) was Prez 12 years ago THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. quote: Now that's really funny. All along the experts have been saying how the war will KILL the US economy.... quote:Actually I was the one that was working at YOUR level. quote:Hahahahaha. Posted by Sheba on 03-20-2003 at 03:39 PM:
quote:Well since I didn't see this before posting a bunch more extra stuff then I guess it's "I'll take the Temp Ban for 500 please Alex" quote:I dunno, you seem to be thinking that whatever you're seeing or reading has to be true if you agree with it. Come on, it cuts both ways.Posted by impactor returns on 03-20-2003 at 04:17 PM:
Im confused.
It seems confirmed now that missles fired were from scud launchers. Now when they got all shirty about the al-sumoud 2 missles that was due to thier range exceding by 50km or somthing. but scuds can fly much further. yet its been said UN inspectors knew he had around 30 of these scuds, but are these things not in breach of Iraqs missle range resoloution? Im confused now... Posted by Best First on 03-20-2003 at 04:17 PM:
quote: Posted by MaximusFan on 03-20-2003 at 04:19 PM:
Okay, we are invading to sort out a problem we created. If you weren't completely 'special', you would see that I acknowledge that - I asked why has it taken 12 years for this to happen? Why is it only now that action is being taken? *sigh* Because it's taken THIS LONG for SOMEBODY TO HAVE THE FREAKING BALLS TO DO IT!!!! Clinton didn't have the balls. Bush-41 didn't have the balls. The UN didn't have the balls. And it still doesn't. You know something? It's kowtowing to this STUPID UN that's made this take so freaking long. And FINALLY we get a President that says what he means and does what he says. I betcha if Dubya (Bush-43) was Prez 12 years ago THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. Oh, how easily you dismiss the UN as stupid. Have you learnt nothing from history? The Un was installed as a result of WO II, the war that destroyed large parts of my continent thank you very much. To dismiss them as stupid just because they're not taking crap from Bush is spectacularly simpleminded and bordering on the idiotic. Bush is undermining UN, and through that action, undermining worldstability and thus worldpeace. The UN isn't perfect, but at least it was something to start with. But now, the UN is certainly on it's way to its demise (thanks to Bush and Blair) and we'll soon be in a pre-WWI social-darwinist free-for-all world again. Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-20-2003 at 04:46 PM:
I do believe I get my chance to accuse you of strawman!
I said a quick war - read it, yes, I think you'll find I said a quick war - would help the us economy. And I did as well. And this is exactly how it's been pitched to us. All the self loathing, liberal commie bastards have been protesting against violence. Tony and Dubbya say - don't worry, it'll be quick, civilian caualties will be low. And I think you'll find 'the experts' suggest that whilst a long war could screw the us economy, a short war will help it a lot. So what did you do AGAIN DOOD?!?! You failed to quote me properly, so your argument could hold water. That's strawman, I believe. NOW GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ARSE AND ANSWER PEOPLE PROPERLY. No doubt you'll post some more crap, the word DOOD and a 'roll eyes' smilie. But I won't really care. *EDIT* I want to see some material from your experts backing what you said. Posted by Blacksword on 03-20-2003 at 06:01 PM:
If you're not Sheba don't bother reading this unless you're actually interested. THis has only limted direct relevance to the main stream of discussion so you may skip it and not worry about missing much. I appologise for the length of this post.
quote: I have seen homeless people in Victoria. A good many of them are teenagers or in their 20s. Did you know that a good portion of the older 'homeless' are in fact on the streets as a result of legislation passed--in both USA and Canada--that no longer required them to be institutionalized? In other words, a LOT of the homeless have mental problems and/or addiction issues. I am fully aware of such things. I can remember when there were a couple people kiiled when mentally ill people who should have been in hospitals psuhed them infront of sunway trains. All done inthe name of cutting the "fat" from the health care system under Mike Harris. Yes the transfer payments were cut severly by the federal government (I think I've made it fairly clear I'm overly fond of the Liberals) but such cuts were totally uneccessay as he some how manged to make tax cuts at the same time. Harris' primary advisors were young radical Republican whiz-kids from the States. Backbenchers in the Tory party and even some in cabinet have been screaming about having no voice. What are you talking about?! USA has thrown nothing but money at the problem of poverty and homelessness for a looooooong time. It started with FDR and matured into LBJ's "Great Society." You CAN'T say they didn't TRY. Do you know how badly social programs got cut back in the fifties. New Deal died in the communist backlash and most of its adherents were either forced into silence or joined the right to save their skins. FDR's plan's wer great but htey didn't outlive him. And the meassures since have been rampant failures. Trying isn't good enough. Look at the military budget. How much of that is actually necessary? The US outspends the next highest country by about tenfold. It would be better spent on Americ's poverty issues and abroad to make the world more stable so that America won't need sucha huge army. Ok here's where I think you lose focus on what the command is. God did NOT command the GOVERNMENT to care for the poor. The government's got NOTHING to do with it. Jesus did NOT go to the Roman Rulers of the day and demand that the Roman Government start a welfare program. It's obigatory upon the INDIVIDUAL. Lots of people give to the food bank, or other charitable cause A government is made up of individuals. As such God's commands apply to them too. The very notion that anything human is outside God's commands is certainly a cracked notion. Besides the state did not distribute welfare at that time there wasn't the extra resources available then as now. Besides the Romans didn't govern Judea directly in Jesus' time. Judea was somewhere between province and a client kingdom at that point. It was ruled by four kings, and the Sanhedrin under the supervision of a Roman procurator and his army. The Roman's did very little other than maintain order and ensure that taxes were paid. The people who had the power to change things were the people Jesus spoke to, teh Pharaises and Saduccies. THey were the actual government. They needed Roman permission for somethings and others were forbidden, like executions. But he region was largely self governed. That was part of the Empire's early strength. As to lost of people who give, most of those who do make under $30,000 a year or are on pensions. Of those who earn over $100,000 a year less than one percent give anything apprecable to charity. Those figures come from StatsCan and from the years my Dad prepared income tax returns on the side he can tell you those figures are spot on. Have you been reading American History textbooks? What proof do you have that "much" of our wealth was made off the backs of the Third World? Are you saying that like, NIKE, if it sets up shop in Indonesia, has to pay $8.50 CDN an hour, or it's exploiting people? Or is there something you just don't understand about the world economy? Taking into consideration, the average wage in the country BEFORE Nike came in, the currency value compared to the US dollar, and the cost of items in the country, can you say they are NOT better off than if Nike wasn't there?! Debateable. THe presence of these companies raises the cost of living and causes traditional subsitence farming under. THey make more money bu theri standard of living remains the same and their working conditions become worse. The money they earn is barely enough for food and shelter which was what they already had as subsistence farmers. Ther is some improvement but NIKE is exploiting these workers. Just look at how much a shoe costs in the stores againsthow much it's manufatured for and tell me with a straight face these people aren't being exploited. Theire wages could be doubled without much loss of profit since they're paid so bloody little right now. Separation of Church and state dude. Never said I didn't belive in it. I'm a fervent beliver in the total separtation, more so than it is now, especailly in view of Bush's theocratic BS. However I feel obligated to put pressure on the government to behave in a more Christian fashion. If we as belivers ee something wrong we are obligated to comment on it and try to change it. I doubt atheists and non-Christians would be offended if the government was more social justice oriented since most major religions have some care for the poor and all the atheists I know are humanists. "Corporate Greed"? Man you're cynical. May I remind you that without "corporate greed", these drugs would probably not have been discovered in the first place. R&D requires fundage. As in, profits. Without profits, R&D grinds to a halt. Problem we face here isn't just one of money. It's of morality. Change in people's BEHAVIOR is a lot more effective than throwing money at a problem, hoping some miracle drug will fix it. And Bush has just promised a ton of money to Africa for AIDS prevention anyway. Answer me this one question please. HOW MUCH IS "ENOUGH"?! Simple, when the pandemic is under control. You're right education is the key and the African countries where this has been done are battling AIDS very effectivly. And these are some of the poorest countries in Africa. But keeping medicine away doen't help things and money needs to be spent on education as well. AIDS is wiping out teachers as well and if AIDS drugs can keep these teacher alive long enough to teach the next generation it will be worth it. And education will not help those already sick other than keep them , maybe from spreading it, but since its acting so fast most victims are incapacitated so quickly that speading soon becomes a mute concern. And you're right I am Cynical and I have a right to be. To stand by and watch a house burn while you have the fire hose is despicable. Money shouldn't enter teh picture when human lives are at stake. As to the promise. teh money is all tied up in red tape so far and it has been reduced. even $15 billion isn't enough. This could have all been a lot cheaper if people had wised up to this problem even five years ago, now it's gonna cost a lot more. HUH? They didn't have freedom BEFORE Colonialism! They had NO INFRASTRUCTURE. Yeah when the colonialism ended it was dumb of them to just leave them to the strong men, no question, but please don't try to pretend that colonialists took something away when they never had it to begin with. Actually there was an infrastructure there. There were several prosperous kingdoms in Africa in pre-colonial times. The Congo had a fairly advanced civilization. Westerner's didn't recognise it because it was spread ut and decentralized since Africa in most parts doesn't support urbanization. There were several nomadic cultures tehre that were doing just fine until we came as well. Not the greatest existence but they manged fairly well. Compared to what was to come it was in amny ways better. We of urbanized mechanized cultures should not judge the fitness of other cultures. Ummm no, Capitalism is the ONLY way for the poor to climb out of their squalor by their own means! You're not understanding how the world works here. Western governments pour billions of dollars of aid into various third world countries. Yet what good has it done, since their leaders steal it all? So the companies trade, hoping to open the country to the idea of freedom. Why do you think Nixon decided to start relations with China back in the '70s? Look at China now. It's actually allowing some semblance of economic capitalism! Capitalism MAKES THE MOST EFFICIENT USE OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES. Socialism is fatally flawed. As one Russian guy my dad talked to one day said, "They pretend to feed us, and we pretend to work." Fact is dude, socialism FAILS, EVERY TIME IT'S TRIED. If these countries themselves WERE FREE AND CAPITALIST, they would be prosperous. And stop blaming the West and Companies for all the exploitation. That's just a line of bullcrap fed to people to deflect criticism from the regime. Rampant unrestricted Capitalism is totally unhumanistic. Only tempered with socialist elemts has it been made tollerable. A free market economy does function best but it must be held to ethical constraints. Socialsim in the sense of a government controlled economy has problems but one should not look at the Soviet and Chinese models as the only ones. I favour a certain degreeof government control to humanize a largely free market. I'm against corpratism and believe all businesses should be run as co-operatives. Pure Socialism, where the government runs everything doesn't work, but pure Capitalsim is utterly unethical. If you don't belive that you obviously haven't read any accounts of the industrial revolution. quote: Dude we ALREADY do that! We send them all kinds of money. Oh? What would your solution be? But nowhere near enough. And a gain and again they are taught Western methods which are unsuitable for Africa's climate geography and culture. We need to work with them to find African solutions to African problems. Its this bloody Western arrogance that we know best. I too belive in hand up not a hand out, but handouts requre much less effort so that's what's been done. Let them make their own companies...sure, right. WITH WHAT MONEY??!!! AND WITH WHAT KNOW-HOW??!!! You know the reason "Western" companies go in there? Because they KNOW how to do it! The culture of the people in a lot of those areas is such that it is not conducive to technological advancement. Heck, a lot of them think they're stinking rich if they have 500 head of cattle. We help them set up their own corperations, possibly setting up Western companies first and tehn handing them over to African ownership later. Profits hould be going back into Africa not over here to fat white businessmen. Economic Imperialism must end. And how do you know that culture isn't inducive to technological advancement have you tried teaching them? And that last phrase is just ingnorant. In an agricultural society that's going to be the measure of wealth. Heck it's us who've got it backwards. This western fixation on things is one thing they don't need. You're treading awfully close to implying cultural inferiority with the way you've worded things. Marx IS a crank. He's WRONG. What about the industrial revolution? I know how all that went, so what. The fact is we've moved BEYOND that in THIS country! Perhaps, but you've missed out on the context. If labour hadn't gotten concessions from management and if humanism had started spreding though the more enlightened of the upper classes there would have been a revolution. When ever the gap between rich and poor is as great as it was then a revolution is invitable. England was lucky in that safety valves appeared before it all blew. Russia wasn't, the gap was too big and the Bolshevics with their twisted view of Communism took over What do you mean "totalitarian"? Meaning you have no decision as to what you're work is worth, you have no decision in the direction your company takes, you r job can be eliminated at the drop of hat, you take orders which your only alternative to is finding another job. The corperate structure is a fuedal pyramid which has teh option of some degeee of social mobility, but that is rather limited. And the difference between labor and capital? Those who do the work verses management. The huge, ridiculous divide in paymakes this split quite clear. Also in capital are large investors. The division isn't as clea cut and defined as it was in teh early days of Capitalism. And while you're at it, explain to me how we're supposed to: a) help the poor in a system that discourages creation of wealth and condemns millions to suffering and poverty, not just the regular poor, By discouraging the accumulation of wealth it makes sure it goes where its needed. People aren't known for their genereosity I'm afraid, especially the rich, see stats above. As to the second part I have no idea what you're talking about, unless you happen to be confusing general Socialism with Bolshevism and Maoism and the like. b) follow the advice of someone who was deeply and profoundly anti-religion (especially in terms of Christianity)! Somehow I don't think Adam Smith's basic rules demanded the removal of religion from society. Marx's observations as to the class struggle aspect of history are perfectly valid. He just was a tad extreme, and his basic theories are fairly sound, while his views on religion were common for the period which still was close toa time when religion was used to control and manipulate people. Religion has been used as the opiate of the people, to keep them in line. The medieval Catholic church and the Catholic Church in Quebec prior to the Quiet Revolution are good examples of this. His views are not unfounded, as an atheist he did not see the use of religion in this way as a twisting of some basic truth, but rather as ideas manufactured for social control. One can take from Marx's theories those items whicha re of value and leave behind those that aren't. Well I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying that at all. It's just that the risks are too great to try to stop it. Anybody who tries will be assassinated (talk about deterrence, maaaaaan). So there's no point in even trying to fix it. Right or wrong, it CANNOT be fixed. I like to think that it can, all things are possible, if only enough people have the will and the courage to do what's right. To say societal change is impossible is to say the Gospel is powerless. It not only is for the next life but it is for the world right now. To stand back and let the world have its way is to shirk away from our Christian duty. No one ever said teh Christian way was easy or safe. Who exactly is sinning? The people in the mansions? How exactly are they sinning? THEIR TAX MONEY WENT TO BUILD THE FREAKING SLUMS!!!!! Or have you NOT heard of "Public Housing"?? Yeah that's GOVERNMENT FUNDED. And its woefully inadequate. I think that should have been obvious. They didn't give that money of their own free will so it is no credit to them. The fact that they have a mansion at all when others live in boxes is a testament to their sinfulness. Unless they are atleast making the tithe from theri gross income they're not ven doing the minimum we're supposed to. Everyone's guilty of this but the rich more so because they can more easily afford ten percent of their income than the person in the middle class. Let me tell you something pal. The fact that we've MOVED 'charity' to the realm of Government is WHY we have a 'problem'like that!!!! Why should people think they need to stuff dollar bills into the pockets of the starving hoi polloi, when they can rest assured that the money they're paying in taxes to the GOVERNMENT is taking care of that for them?! See, there's your problem right there. I agree the state shouldn't have to do it but it does because people are greedy and self serving. There wasa time when there was no social welfare of any kind, no public education, no healthcare, and people suffered and died and life was horrible again I suggest you read up on the industrial revolution, or read Dickens. People didn't give so humanitarians convinced the government to do something about it because private individuals weren't. quote: Ok that is good we like that. Your smug self-righteousness is unapreciated. That is a truth and it matters not whether you like it. AND TRANSFERRING THESE WORKS TO GOVERNMENT NEGATES THE BENEFIT OF THAT!!!! I think you are misunderstanding quite a few things here. First you are taking what Christ said to INDIVIDUALS and misapplying it to GOVERNMENT. Not everyone is a believer that pays taxes. Yet government takes their money and uses it to "help the poor." Now tell me, HOW does transferring the taking care of the poor to the government help the person who's not a Christian anyway benefit by the fact of caring for the poor? It CEASES to become an act of faith and relegates it to a chore that the person is no longer personally involved in! A person being taxed forcefully is not conducive to cheerful giving. It ruins the whole concept. Again government is made up of individuals and it represents individuals so to say Christ's teachings do not apply to government is simply ridiculous. Again to say that Christ's teachings do not apply to a single thing that is humna reeks of heresy my dear. All are under God and the state especially so because it is entrusted with the care of society. Also we live in a demoracy and our voices make government policy so we should be pushing for policy which helps others. As to removing the element of faith, such a point is mute, (and I'll take a page from your book and yell beacause you seem to be sorely missing this) PEOPLE DO NOT GIVE ON THEIR OWN. People are suffering and we cannot in good conscience let it continue. The state must intervene since private individuals have failed. AND NOWHERE DOES HE SAY TO RELEGATE THAT TASK TO THE GOVERNMENT. HE SAYS WE MUST DO IT INDIVIDUALLY. Otherwise it takes away from the whole purpose. Again governments are made of individuals, and he did adress the government, the priests scribes and Pharasees. It would defeat the purpose if people actually gave.. Ok then tell me where Christ went to Roman rulers and told them any of this. Dude you are forgetting SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force. Paul said that the government "Beareth not the sword in vain." The government has a SPECIFIC JOB and authority that individuals (civilians) do not have. And we are to obey it, for the most part (except if it tells us not to worship God, etc). I am surprised you do not understand the differentiation. You need to get off the gospel and realize there is also an old testament that is also part of the Bible. I'm not forgetting the separation, but humanism is a trait that is not exclusively Christian. I only say sin in this case because you are a beliver and thus should be aware of what is sinful. To a non-beliver I merely say it is wrong. I don't see how I am muddling church and state. I am only using Christian terms when speaking to a Christian. And I will never get off the Gospel for it is the corner stone of our faith. And I am aware of the Old Testament, I metioned the prophets incase you didn't notice and one cannot understand the Gospel properly without the Hebrew scriptures fort eh Gospel is a commentary and clarification of the Old Testament. Christ said very little that was new, he merely clarified and distilled what he had been sayign for millenia. So please do not lecture me. I know the basics. Ummm no. It is MY firm belief that this war is necessary.[/b[ That's fine but I happen to disagree quote:My brother read that and said "That's garbage!" And I wanna know HOW DO YOU KNOW????!!!! I merely put that statement in to show how circular and useless such statements with regards to whose side God is on are. All that happens is God's will. No one can go against the will of God. You can break God's commands but to say anything is out of his control and will is to say God is not sovereign. Fine and dandy for you, but WHY do you think it is unjust? I see hypocrisy on behalf of the US, I see an imperialist action. As you'll see in the article I posted, I happen to belive there are highly unscrupulous people inteh cabinet who want this war for their own reasons. IF this war were about the Iraqi people it should have been fought fifteen years agao or more. In terms of the stability of the region it is an unsound move especailly if the US is the reconstructor and ingores large sections of the Iraqi opposition as they are doing. There was a reason why they stopped at teh border alst time. Idon't like the precedent it sets which allows a more powerful country to change the government of acountry which is less powerful. The UN should have been given more time since with the military pressure the inspections were workign again. The threat of attacks from Iraq was low compared to say Saudi Arabia which is a much more dangerous breeding ground for terrorists and N. Korea is more globally dangerous. A few more months would not have made a difference. This action has weakened the UN and the EU and set international diplomacy back decades. The damge out does the reward. It is a selfish war whose aims were lied about IMHO and it is a decision of extremely poor judgement with regards to the way it is being carried out. Oh you made an impact all right. The peace protests virtually GUARANTEED there would be war. How, may you ask? Well it emboldened Saddam to feel that he did not need to cooperate fully, and gave him a false sense of security. Congratulations. You just ensured that that which you oppose is what is GUARANTEED to be going on now. Hardly Saddam didn't need protestors to think he was invincible. Various reports say he considers himself Nebuchadnezzar reborn. he's even rebuit sections of Babylon's palaces. He is utterly convinced of his own superiority and invincibility. He needs no aid from protestors. Yes I know what Presbyterianism is. I know what Calvinism is. I'm not Calvinist. And doing good works via government--which ultimately takes the responsibility, caring, FAITH, and personal involvement OUT of the equation was never an edict of Christ. Or are you one of those guys that thinks that "Separation of Church and State" is a crank? See above with regards to Chuch and state and involvement of faith. And I also know what communism and socialism is. It is antithetical to Christianity. Tell me, if "socialism" or "communism" is so "Christian" then WHY is it that EVERY socialist or communist regime is highly intolerant of religion, especially Christianity? Care to explain that? Socialism is a theory of social structure. It can be held by atheists or people of faith. There are plenty of Christian socialists. However due to people's suspicion of organized religion at eh time of he origin of these movents they gained a strongly atheist undertone. People were and stilla re serious disenchanted with the failings of organized religion. It was one of the ills of those societies. So in wanting to get rid of the entire old system they tried to start fresh and threw faith out along with religion not understanding that the two are different things. Lenin was a deicated atheist so of course the Bolshevic movement he lead would be atheist. Stalin was a former student of the preisthood so his antipathy towards religion is fairly easily understood. Leaders shape the directions of thier followers. There is quite abit good in socialist and communist [i]theory. Not all of it and certianly hardly any good at all in their application. Sheba I feel this has gone on far too long, atleast in this topic. Lets either start a new one or move this elsewhere.Also I don't appreciate you patronizing tone and extensive and continual use of caps to yell at me like I'm an idiot. If you want to continue this debate conduct yourself in a slightly more mature fashion or don't expect me to respect your points. Posted by impactor returns on 03-20-2003 at 06:13 PM:
Can i turn the UK ppl eyes, or anyone else who gets bc 1 and 2 in the world to the programme question time.
Fantastic disscussion, points for both pro and anit being made. nothing makes me sit on the fence more. Posted by MaximusFan on 03-20-2003 at 06:16 PM:
hear hear!
(at Blacksword) Posted by shaxper on 03-20-2003 at 06:47 PM:
quote:Considering that you edited that post three times, I see no reason why the entire post couldn't have been an edited addition to your previous post. Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 03-20-2003 at 07:04 PM:
I've just got a general question: For all the people who still believe Iraq doesn't have its illegal weapons, will you believe if/when they use them against coalition forces? And then would you believe this assault is justified?
Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-20-2003 at 07:09 PM:
Define illegal weapons, then give me a few names of posters that you recon believed Iraq had none of them...
Cause I recon you're just dumping all the anti war peopl under one banner, and applying this line of thought to them. And here's another point to consider. The weapons inspectors in Iraq were far better equipped to carry out a program of destroying Iraqi weapons then an invasion is ever going to be. Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 03-20-2003 at 07:11 PM:
I wasn't accusing anybody of that belief. I was just wondering if anybody here still believed it, and you know damn well I was not going to sort through 353 LONG posts before mine to find out.
EDIT: And I believe the weapons inspectors, while better able to destroy the weapons, are less efficent. The military is going to go in, secure what it needs to, and then bring in people who are trained to destroy whatever we find. Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-20-2003 at 07:13 PM:
Well, show me - just one person who said they never had weapons.
I don't even want an example. Just give me a name off the top of your head of a poster who thought that Iraq never had hidden weapons. *edit* What makes you think the military will succeed in uncovering the hidden weapons? Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 03-20-2003 at 07:15 PM:
Damnit man, I never said anyone believes that. You don't have to get defensive over it...
Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-20-2003 at 07:16 PM:
So you are in fact addressing the question to nobody?
Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 03-20-2003 at 07:18 PM:
I'm addressing it to anybody who feels as though they can answer it.
Posted by impactor returns on 03-20-2003 at 07:18 PM:
I dont actually belive the inspectors would have ever have found the very weapons saddam is now firing at our troops. they have been trying for years to find these weapons and found nothing. its a game Saddam has become very adapt at playing, somthing that would have continued i belive had hans blix and his team stayed in Iraq.
What i find a typical show from Saddam is the way he targets the city of Kuwait in generall in his defiance of the Colaition. Posted by Computron on 03-20-2003 at 11:30 PM:
The Sarandon situation illustrates a larger truth in show business at the moment. While a dozen or so high-profile celebrities spoke out against a war in Iraq in the last few months, in recent weeks it’s become somewhat riskier to do so. Last week, Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines said at a London concert that she was “ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.” Her words angered a lot of music listeners, especially in the group’s core country audience. Some former fans publicly stomped on Dixie Chicks CDs, an image widely broadcast by television. Airplay decreased by 20 percent across the country. Maines later apologized publicly to Bush and respun her statement. “I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect,” she told the press. “I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children and American soldiers’ lives are lost. I love my country. I am a proud American.”
~ MSNBC.COM Ok what the ****. Why is it that if a left wing person says something barely controversial, it's the end of the world and there is vitriolic hatred directed at them, but if a right-wing person says something controversial they get away with it scot free? Only rarely do they get slammed and that only for obvious craziness. (Trent Lott) I mean we have people dumping expensive French wine into rivers, destroying CD's, and renaming anything "France" or "French" into "freedom". Are the collective right a bunch of toddlers who are afraid of criticism? Pisses me off. Argue the issues, don't behave like babies. Posted by Blacksword on 03-20-2003 at 11:35 PM:
The last time this renaming BS happened was in the World Wars when sour kraut was renamed Victory cabbage and places were renamed. And the US wasn't even at war with France when last I checkec. How puerile can people get?
Posted by god on 03-21-2003 at 05:57 AM:
teh current strategy of teh US forces troubles me.
it sounds so towards minimalising casualties under the iraki forces and people, but that puts your own forces at risk Posted by Blacksword on 03-21-2003 at 07:23 AM:
Well this is ostensibly (if we are to believe Bush) a humanintarian campaign in part so I think protecting Iraqi's should be up near the top of the list of priorities, don't you think? Honestly, unless Saddam pulls out a few chemical weapons there's going to be virtually no casualties until they hit Bagdad. No one seems to be in charage of the Iraq defences and the whole thing is crumbling like rotten paper. So far there is only one Allied casualty from action if we belive the reports.
Posted by Best First on 03-21-2003 at 08:38 AM:
quote:i was actually quite moved by the quality of the debate, altho i thought that the 'pro-war' arguement had to be propped up somewhat by the audience as Hague was, well Hague and the Welxh sec kinda lost everyone when it cam to 'yes or no'... Piers kicked botty. The big fop. As for the WOMD arguement. I never thought he had no WOMD, but its a very broad classification, and skimps on the detail that: -He deosn't have WOMD that are a threat to me, or indeed the US. So how does the claim that he is a threat to security or an affront to my way of life work? -How this issue ties into the humanitarian aspect precisly - becuase this seems to be something that has only been bought up to placate people. And dont say that he could use them on his own people because on that basis we would have gone in years ago. -Why now? Why when there was no-one flying planes into The World Trade Centredo we do nothing about Saddam, but as soon as a guy pops up with a big sign saying 'i hate the west beyone reason and i definitely have the will and the capacity to hurt you', do we take moves against someone else that fractures the global coalistion to nail bin laden? Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-21-2003 at 08:45 AM:
I was very surprised to hear the editor of a tabloid speaking actual sense. I tend not to read papers anymore, and whilst I new the mirror was anti war, I had written that off as a flip side to the sun's argument.
But Piers did actually make his case very well. Loved it when he hammered the guy who started the nazi comparison. It was exceptional stuff, I was talking about for hours with several people on msn instead of drawing bludgeon stuff. Good thing that work is quiet. Posted by Blacksword on 03-21-2003 at 09:13 AM:
I miss proper debate. It's been so long over here. Though I have moderated an all candidates debate for our Federal elections before. I had to cut off my member of Parliament when she went over time, and got a dirty look for it.
Posted by impactor returns on 03-21-2003 at 09:58 AM:
I found piers and hague to be the best of the pannel. the other two just dithered around subjects, and moaned about party politics themselves.
I didnt find any side to be overlly convincing, and that somthing i find odd about this whole war anyhows. Against the war no one could clarify if saddam has WOMD. as ususall. and no one could say what we should in about this man in return either. as no one wants him. For every anti war statement there was a pro war statement i felt was equally usefull. At the same time i felt by the end, ppl had gone very quiet, tired of the same old argument. seems to have reflected the overall feeling of this debate. Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 03-21-2003 at 01:55 PM:
On the subject of 'weapons of mass destruction' are they're any other kind? Surely not at military level.
What did anyone expect him to be armed with, clubs, knives, sticks? Did the UN inspectors uncover a huge hidden stockpile of rocks? (I would imagine that Iraq has quite a few of these). Posted by Jetfire1138 on 03-21-2003 at 10:46 PM:
i'll speak my piece, and keep it short.
if it is neccesary to ensure the safety for future generations i guess it has to be done. however , war is hell. we are all human. human life is being destroyed. on both sides sombody's father, brother, son, mother , ect are dying. more pain, more misery. more destruction. what an advanced "civilization" mankind has become. Posted by Best First on 03-22-2003 at 04:14 AM:
quote:Anyway - on a seperate note - Question Time is def something the BBC can be pround of, and Dimblby does an excellent job. On a seperate note - ok, so we have obviusly gone to war. How much do people think that the 'anti-war' movement has influenced the government(s) to proceed in how they have gone to war? Personally i dont think there would be any talk (or certainly no where nears as much)of a middle east road map or plans for iraqs future if everyone had agreed ith Bush or said nothing. Posted by Nosecone on 03-22-2003 at 06:30 AM:
Well this is probably a temp ban of a post but I'm glued to the news and am loving the Iraqi's actually causing trouble for the coalition
Some of the strategies are quite clever, the first helecopter crash was due to the Iraqi's. The burning of the oil fields created a thick black smoke that clogged up the engines of the helecopters and the one crashed, the rest had to return and call off the misison - note that very little will be made of this till after the end of the war as they are using the burning of the wells as an act of terrorism by the regimne against its people rather than an effective weapon. Also they are holding onto that port town and whilst they won't hold on indefinatly they I hope they hold on as long as possible. I obviously don't want many casualties I would love the coalition (particulaly the Americans who from the pre-attack reports from their camps were all "Gung ho they aint gonna stop us, we are invinsible, Smoke me a kipper.....") to get their asses wooped. Baghdad will be difficult and expect an awful lot of casualties, hopefully the "gung ho" ones, teach them and their family a lesson about the true effects of war. Posted by HoistKeeper 2.0 on 03-22-2003 at 08:11 AM:
quote:proof? quote:i'd like to see you say that if it was someone from your family out there fighting. Kindly stop talking BS. Posted by god on 03-22-2003 at 10:03 AM:
quote:wanting your own to die is an act of treason in my eyes..... you have no idea what war is and what it does, just another lefty comment from a person sitting in a comfy chair thinking he can solve all problems in the world by protesting Posted by shaxper on 03-22-2003 at 10:04 AM:
To temper Nosecone's last remarks here (I agree with the sentiment, but think the comment wa sa bit extreme and insensitive) there is a major double standard in our thinking that we want our troops to come home safe and sound, yet many of us boast about "kicking ass" and get all excited about it. Maybe Saddam needs to be taken down. Maybe not. But deriving pleasure from a conflict in which people are being killed is a little sick, especially when such a thing happening to our own people is totally unacceptable.
The moral of the story: don't wish death on anyone, and remember that war can only count as a failure to achieve desired goals through diplomacy. No one should EVER want a war, even if it's necessary. Posted by Nosecone on 03-22-2003 at 10:10 AM:
quote:The first Helecopter that went out had to return with engine problems due to the smog clogging up the engines. Plus it is a well known fact that smog and stuff easily clogs up the helecopters, sands also has this effect which is why you won't see many copters out flying during sandstorms quote:But I doubt many in my family would be all "We're gonna go in there and kick some but, I can't wait to shoot me some Iraqi's.... I am loving watching the news whenever Iraq actually sends up some resistance and am eagerly awaiting the fighting actually in the centre of Baghdad - can't wait for it to be honest and am also eagerly awaiting the day the Monkey in the white house declares war on North Korea. I love it when peoples arrogance comes back to bite them and the bloodbath in IRaq will be a wake up call for the Generals in the US forces who seem to think they are untouchable. And all this bombing won't have the desired effect. In WW2 London, Coventry and various other places were bombed to the ground. The effect was to stregnth the resolve of teh British public to back Churchill (who to be honest was a crap PM & once war was over was promptly voted out) and to vow to never give up. This is the exact same effect the bombing in Baghdad will have. Just think how you felt when the World trade centre was bombed, did you say "lets surrender and give these people what they want"? nope the reaction was we will fight on. Having never been bombed really on its own land the USA seems to have no concept of the effect that invaders and bombings have on a population. When a couple of your cities have been levelled then maybee you will understand the effect of foriegn invaders Posted by shaxper on 03-22-2003 at 10:24 AM:
To repeat, I agree with your sentiment. I believe that there is a lot of ignorance guiding and supporting this war, and people are going to have to wisen up one way or another.
However, wishing the worst on people so that a lesson may be made is pretty horrible. If you believe in peace, believe in peaceful resolutions and peaceful enlightenments. Otherwise, shut up. Wishing death on anyone, whether Iraqi or American, is ridiculous and horribly insensitive. You don't need to be an ass to make a point. Posted by HoistKeeper 2.0 on 03-22-2003 at 10:47 AM:
quote:whilst it is true that sandstorms affect the choppers i still want to know your source that it was the smoke that caused the helicopter to crash. There are reports that it was a mechanical failure but where does it say that it was the smoke from the oil field that caused it? Posted by Nosecone on 03-22-2003 at 11:04 AM:
quote:The first chopper that was forced to return was reported on the News here in the UK (I believe it was the ITV but as I'm switching between that and the BBC it could be either). Then I'm mostly just doing something called investigating to come up with the smog. Facts like 1) Smog was clogging up the helecopters 2) The misison was aborted afterwards 3) Sadam knows about this, he has planted oil around his cities for the exact same reason, Baghdad has these oil trenches to burn in an attempt to stop air attacks and I'm pretty sure the northern oil city (name eludes me at the moment) does as well. Here is what I think happened: The first chopper went with the commander as does happen in these operations, I'm guessing the mission would of been a "behind enemy lines" secure oil well type mission. The wells in the way were lit and the smoke went up. The first chopper got clogged up and the commander returned, he probably thought it was a one off and hoped to return on another one. However the chopper that went down carried on (or maybe came back but it was too late - I suspect they carried on as I will mention later). The front set of blades would be the ones that were most exposed to the smoke and it would of stopepd, the back ones would of been ok for a while at least as due to the forward movement the first blade would clear for the rear one. With the front one broken and the read one working the effect would be to send the chopper in a nosedive as the front would have no lift and would fall and the rear wouldn't be able to support the full wieght (only the back) Realising that the choppers couldn't get through they called off the misison as if it was a simply crash they wouldn't call off a vital misison. Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 03-22-2003 at 11:09 AM:
And you are obviously an authority on helicopter mechanics so what you think counts...
Posted by Best First on 03-22-2003 at 11:16 AM:
Well, firstly, gods comments about lefties in arm chairs with no concept of war (cos, obvioulsy he is Defence Secretary for Belgium) is a load of right wing horse dung - any suggetsion that people on the left are more or less likley to have seen combat is a nonsensicla myth.
As for nosecones comments; I think there is a fairly large moral descrepency between hoping that Bush's arrogance and beligerence do not go down in the history books as a successful and effective approachto the situation and saying 'i hope servicemen die' and ' i cant wait for the fighting in bahgdad. Wishing death on someone because you dont approve of how they act, regardless of wether they are 'on your side' or not marginalises you from mature and rational debate. As does seemingly taking pride in insensitivity. We have stated before that we will not have people here wishing death on anyone - that stands. Cosidering the sensetive nature of this topic that will be your one and only warning. Posted by Computron on 03-22-2003 at 11:26 AM:
I'm sorry Nosecone and Shaxper but I can't even begin to see how to even agree with the sentiment of your post(s).
Wishing harm and death on your own friggin armed forces to extend a war is well, horrifically evil. One can hate why they are there, but dammit, once they are there you hope that the war is over soon with as few deaths as possible. Those people are out there risking their lives day in day out. You may not agree with the mission, but that doesn't mean you condemn them to death. I dare you to go to the families of those soldiers who have given their lives so far and tell them what you just posted here. Posted by Nosecone on 03-22-2003 at 11:31 AM:
quote:No expert but I did two years of an engineering degree which included a module on fluid mechanics (gas & fluid are covered in this). Which is why I know that the front engine would be exposed to more (also its pretty common sence - to me at least but that might just be from the years studying) also in regards to IR - I have never once said I am wishing death on someone, wishing someone dead and wishing the military opperation suffers huge problems are two separate things, Those words are words that have been put up by others, I am gonna double check and see..... Nope, I actually used the words quote:So can I please have an appolagy Posted by Computron on 03-22-2003 at 11:35 AM:
quote:Also they are holding onto that port town and whilst they won't hold on indefinatly they I hope they hold on as long as possible I would love the coalition (particulaly the Americans who from the pre-attack reports from their camps were all "Gung ho they aint gonna stop us, we are invinsible, Smoke me a kipper.....") to get their asses wooped Posted by Nosecone on 03-22-2003 at 11:37 AM:
yes, and the total lack of the words in that saying "I wish death on someone" is quite noticable. Maybee I need some glasses cause Ican't see it
Posted by Computron on 03-22-2003 at 11:42 AM:
quote:By logical extension saying you want the military to get their asses wooped [sic], implies you want them to die. Getting you ass whooped in a soccer match is one thing. The worst that happens is you lose the game. Getting your ass whooped in war means you're losing men, and materiel. No one gets their ass kicked in war and suffers 0 casualties. Posted by Nosecone on 03-22-2003 at 11:55 AM:
Not necisarily, Getting your ass wooped in a soccer match doesn't mean you get injured, It means you fail to complete your objective (win) whilst being embarissed at the same time.
Not being able to walk straight into Baghdad in this case would be really embarising to the USA, not being able to get in by this time next week to me would be a bit of a pasting from Iraq. IMO the fact the US Marines were unable to secure that town (ar-quar or whtever its called) immediatly is a victory for Iraq as the US were meant to march straight to Baghdad with no fighting. Also UN restrictions on both the UK and US would be most enjoyable as would a total lack of any WOMD being found and making both sides look like complete fools and turned into the jokes of the international comunity. **still waiting for my appolagy, I will gladly be accussed of wishing the campaign to fail but not for people to die** Posted by Blacksword on 03-22-2003 at 12:00 PM:
Sorry Nosey but you aren't going to get much sympathy with statement's like:
quote:Eagerly awaiting death is despicable. I think a lot of us would like the US to fall flat on its face but considering the horrible consequences of such a fall for the region I find myself hoping (against hope) that all goes well. You only put your proviso in your first post and it seemed more like an aside to meke you look better than anything real. Be a bit more clear when you're talking such BS or don't complain when people turn on you. Enjoying the prospect of deaths (and it will be more death's on both sides) doesn't make you look great. When you have clearly caused the greater offense Nosey, you don't demand an appology. Compy, I think Shax was sympathising with Nosecone's wish for America to fall on its face but I saw he was clearly denouncing Nosey's wish for deaths. Is it even possible for Shax to wish death on anyone? You can annoy the man, but when it comes down to it Shax loves eveybody. Posted by Nosecone on 03-22-2003 at 12:14 PM:
Yes where did I say I wish death, wishing for the fighting in Baghdad is because for the first time ever probably (at least since they have become a real superpower) the US will find themselves unable to take a city.
Then all the people who think the USA are suddenly able to do anything they want in the world will realise that all the technology in the world can't beat human spirit when they are willing to fight to the end and maybee, just maybee will teach them that the reason diplomatic solutions are so much better is because you can't force people to do stuff against their will without consequences - something the USA still hasn't really cottoned onto yet Posted by Best First on 03-22-2003 at 12:52 PM:
Everything in bold posted by Nosecone: obviously don't want many casualties Infers you are quite happy/want to to see some. Otherwise you would have used the word 'any', see? I would love the coalition to get their asses wooped In the context of the situation hardly infers grazed knees does it? Unless the iraqis are using some new kind of ammo here or some revoloutionary new humane tactical approach that Hussien and co have developed (sound likley to anyone?)the allies getting their asses whooped will mean allied deaths. expect an awful lot of casualties, hopefully the "gung ho" ones, teach them and their family a lesson about the true effects of war So you want the deaths that will happen to happen to a spcific group of people - you are wishing death on people right there. You are not saying 'its a tradgedy' - you are saying someone is going to die so lets hope its the people i dont like. I love it when peoples arrogance comes back to bite them and the bloodbath in IRaq will be a wake up call So... this is a non fatal bloodbath is it? Lots of stubbed toes and a few scratches one assumes? am eagerly awaiting the fighting actually in the centre of Baghdad the one you said to expect an awful lot of casulaties in? You are eagerly awaiting a situation with a lot of casualties. Altho obviously these will all be non fatal casualties you are looking forward to right? Which is why you made a point of distinguishing that. Except you didnt, and its a nonsesne anway - while some people will only be injured plenty will be killed, and you know in it. So really - the fact that you didnt use the explicit terms is quite irrelevent, and therefore you can shove your 'apology' up your rear, hopefully it will muffle the sounds of your ill thought arguements for a little while. Posted by shaxper on 03-22-2003 at 12:55 PM:
quote:Um, what part of quote: didn't you read? I agreed with Nosecone's sentiments that there's something wrong with hoping our soldiers kick butt and celebrating when they do so, but I also did not agree with wishing death or defeat on anyone. I thought I stated that rather clearly. quote: Thanks, man Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 03-22-2003 at 12:56 PM:
nosecone i'd love it if someone decided to put a large caliber bullet in your head.
Posted by Best First on 03-22-2003 at 01:06 PM:
quote: so when i refute him with 'we wont have anyone wishing death on anyone here so knock it off' - you though what exactly?. Cos it applies to you too. Knock it off. Posted by Master_Fwiffo on 03-22-2003 at 01:08 PM:
quote:I can tell you right now your gonna get modsmacked for that oner, no matter how much I agree. BUT.... Maybe we should put Nosecone on the front lines and see if he starts anticipating a long attack.... Posted by Computron on 03-22-2003 at 01:14 PM:
quote:That's what I disagreed with. If anything hoping our soldiers "kick butt" is hoping for lesser amounts of death. The quicker the war ends the less casualties. In essence I hate to have any mention of hoping the conflict lasts longer than it has to, or that our forces lose... Posted by Nosecone on 03-22-2003 at 01:59 PM:
Infers you are quite happy/want to to see some. Otherwise you would have used the word 'any', see? War = Casualties, Saying any would just be kidding myself and everyone. Whilst we can't eliminate them all we can hope there are as few as possible So you want the deaths that will happen to happen to a spcific group of people Well if some have to die (note the word have) I would rather it be the people who are eager to kill some Iraqi's than those who are simply there cause its there job the one you said to expect an awful lot of casulaties in? You are eagerly awaiting a situation with a lot of casualties. Nope, I would much rather they didn't go in but they are all going to go in thinking they are invinsible just like the US marines did in Somalia. The only difference is that this time the media is focussing on it and so they won't be able to keep the whole thing a secret. WIth the whole of the USA watching what war is really like maybe the ones who are eager for the USA to go round the world kicking butt will see the folly of their wishes. Of course if it goes the other way then it won't matter because they are only Iraqi's getting killed defending their home country, good job their lives don't matter, just make sure its not coalission forces. Anyone else see the double standard here and saying they should surrender won't matter. If the russians invaded the USA during the cold war simply to kill Reagan then would our US friends gladly allow them to come in and kill him or would they defend their country with their lives? same thing here but the news seem to make out that the lives of the people defending their country don't matter as much as our own and I still want an appolagy, accuse me of anything else but wishing deaths on people is not what I said, or shall I start saying that those who wish for a quick war are wishing for Iraqi deaths?? nosecone i'd love it if someone decided to put a large caliber bullet in your head. Sadly living in a country where the people in charge realise allowing the general public to have free access to lethal firearms is not a good idea means that your more likely to be the one on the end of a bullet than me <- Not a threat, just pointing out facts Maybe we should put Nosecone on the front lines and see if he starts anticipating a long attack.... But I disagree with the war, so I simply wouldn't fight. In fact if I wanted to fight I would of joined up, Its not like service isn't in my family, In fact I think I'm the first eldest son not to join the army for generations, loads of my family have been/ are in the forces and have gotten quite high (starting from the beginning). Posted by shaxper on 03-22-2003 at 02:12 PM:
quote:Well, first off, you did accuse me of "Wishing harm and death on your own friggin armed forces to extend a war", which is hardly the same as wishing for peace. I still have not said anything about wishing to extend the war. But by your logic, Hussain's people kicking our butt would end the war just as quickly. I'll look at the news and say "well, it's happening", but I won't say "I sure hope we kill them quickly so that the death stops" because that strikes me as one heck of a contradiction. Unlikely as the chances may be, I'll continue to hope that either Saddam surrenders, the US is faced with enough international pressure that it pulls out, or that the Iraqi forces put up enough resistance (and, no, this is not synonimous with killing Americans, but rather creating a situation in which the US cannot push further without it resulting in many American deaths), that we're forced to slow down and, eventually, pull out, which would also mean less deaths. Stating that not wanting our troops to win quickly is synonimous with wishing for death is an oversimplification of a situation with many potential outcomes. Posted by Nosecone on 03-22-2003 at 02:18 PM:
quote:Thank you, that is a top notch post and a big deal of what I've been trying to put accross Posted by Computron on 03-22-2003 at 02:51 PM:
quote: Posted by Nosecone on 03-22-2003 at 03:16 PM:
just a quick pointer
Yes Armour does stop, that is why you need infantry. Tanks and that are great for open area combat like the desert (edit: where any strongholds of troops can be blown up from a distance) but up close they arn't great. That is why infantry are always used to secure close combat fighting areas like towns. All these tanks we are seeing heading towards baghdad - it is very unlikely most will actually get sent in until marines have secured it (and then they will be used to secure places not to attack) one thing having a dad who was in the QDG's (Queens Dragoon Guards) for 20+ years teaches you Posted by Computron on 03-22-2003 at 05:46 PM:
Usually that's the case. But an M1A2 Abrams stops for no one. An RPG would do jack crap against Choabham armor except make the Tank crew angry.
Posted by shaxper on 03-22-2003 at 06:07 PM:
Even if the likelihood of a low fatality outcome in this war is improbable without America winning and winning fast, I will not lend them my support for this reason alone. People oppose the war, so the Bush administration says "once we go in, they'll have to support us" and I won't be a part of that. I do not want high casualties, and I don't want a drawn out war, but I will not wish for ass kicking either. Bush will not yield for anything short of defeat and Iraqi weaponry in no way compares to ours. it's an unfair situation that will cause many deaths if the US doesn't win easily. It didn't have to be like that, and I won't lend my support to it. Instead, I'll continue to pray that someway, somehow, Saddam surrenders or the Bush administration chooses to pull out. When Godzilla began destroying Tokyo, no one said "just support him and hope he finishes up quickly so less people will die." Death is death, and I won't sanction any of it.
Posted by Sheba on 03-22-2003 at 06:17 PM:
quote: Actually the mental health rules were starting to be changed for the worse long before Mike Harris came into office. A lot of this business came from human rights organizations (such as the ACLU in the states, and similar organizations in Canada) saying it was inhumane to keep these people in rubber rooms if they weren't an "imminent" danger to themselves and society (in their opinion). There comes a point in economics where if you start taxing above a certain percentage, you start getting negative revenue growth. In which case, tax cuts are certainly necessary. Our excessively high tax rates in Canada make us uncompetitive. Not only that but such a practice of "punishing" the "rich" stifles wealth creation. And it's WEALTH CREATION that makes it possible to "help the poor" in the first place! quote: The Fifties aren't what's important right now--LBJ came into office in 1963. His "War on Poverty" is kinda like the War on Drugs--the more money you throw at the problem the worse it gets. There's a huge difference between helping the poor, and fostering dependancy. The Federal Government for years in the States was giving extra money out to single mothers if they had kids. What was intended as a compassionate measure turned into something else. From thenceforward, some women purposefully had kids out of wedlock in increasing statistical amounts through the years just so they could get higher welfare cheques. What resulted is a huge jump in the numbers of kids without a daddy. For no good reason whatsoever. You wanna talk about the rising crime rate and immorality of the West, there's your answer right there. Those kids weren't raised by their mama, their parents were Madonna and Axl Rose. Children raised without moral values. All because we thought the Government was the best means of distributing "compassion." Understand something and understand it well. Government handouts ruin lives, communities, and entire societies. The First Nations of Canada have been given handouts for years and years and years. And it hasn't done a lick of good. You need to tackle the underlying problem first, which is something the Government can never do. Especially with Separation of Church and State in effect. and don't forget the most important part of this whole thing: "If anyone does not want to work, neither shall he eat."-II Thessalonians 3:10b quote: Actually no it's not a cracked notion. Government has very different functions from individuals. People are not allowed to go around committing vigilante justice. Yet the Bible clearly states that the Government "Beareth not the Sword in vain--he is a minister of God to punish the evildoer." Ordinary people are not to punish the evildoer. That job rests squarely with the Government in temporal matters. It would indeed be a cracked notion to do the reverse; that all things the Government must do is what ordinary citizens can do. Government does not have the luxury of "turning the other cheek"--its job is to protect its citizens. It cannot follow "turn the other cheek" because rogue states are eager to take advantage of such things. However, speaking of following God's Rules and Government following them, you seem to be a little inconsistent here, as last time I checked "Thou Shalt Not Steal" was still in effect. Christ NEVER told us to forcefully separate a rich person from his property in order to help the poor. Thats' exactly what taxation is. Taxation for government infrastructure and defense are legitimate concerns ("render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"), but in all cases the help of the poor has always fallen to the Church ("render unto God what is God's"). quote:That is interesting, considering you're getting things backwards in one crucial way: you're totally ignoring the fact that most people who pay high taxes consider the charity work to be included in their tax bill. That is why they do not give much extra when they don't. If government did not take such a huge freaking chunk of their gross income in taxes, the situation would be quite different in regards to charitability. After all it is logical to understand that if a person thinks the Government is already "helping the poor" thru taxation and redistribution, the thinking is obviously WHY should the person give extra out of their disposable income, since the Government already ostensibly took care of that?! In doing so, regardless of "goooooood intentions", the actual result is less charity, not more. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Speaking of Taxation levels and charitable giving, here are some revealing numbers from the US: "Charitable donations by individuals rose from $64.7 billion (in 1990 dollars) in 1980 to $102 billion in 1989, an increase of 57.7%. Moreover, after declining relative to national income during the '70s, charitable donations rose from 2.1% of income in 1979 to a record 2.7% in 1989"-National Review Please take note that the US top marginal tax rate up until 1981 was 70%, while in 1989 it was 28%. Yet in the 12-year period of Reagan-Bush, federal income tax revenues doubled. And the Rich paid more as a percentage of their income under Reagan's 28% top rate than they ever did under Carter and his 70% top rate. For more info on that go to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html Only The Rich Pay Taxes Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes October 23, 2002 The IRS has released the year 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite. quote: Nobody is putting a gun to these peoples' heads and forcing them to work for Nike. They work for them because they want to. Nike only pays them about what they expect to be paid, but the fact is that Nike is paying them what they are willing to work for. If they wanted to be paid more they could just quit their jobs and go back to subsistence farming until Nike offers better pay. That's how it works here. The labor pool over there is so great that the cost of a worker isn't very high there. And the skill level is entry level basically, so it certainly doesn't merit rocket science wages. Entry level positions there, by Nike, if they were paying $8.50 an hour Canadian, would be swamped not only with poverty-stricken subsistence farmers but also those in other professions that are more important, because $8.50 Canadian an hour is more money than even they make. And, local businesses in these countries cannot compete with that kind of money. Everybody would want to work for Nike then, and nobody would want any other job, and this would totally disrupt the workforce and economy of the country in question. So please consider full ramifications of your statements before you start going off about exploitation. (But for that money, yeah the shoes probably SHOULD be cheaper. But again, Nike shoes are in Demand. That hikes the price, regardless of production cost. Nikes cost what they do because people are willing to pay it. If nobody bought Nike shoes on account of the price, they'd lower the price. That's how the market works. Gotta love economics class...) quote:What theocratic bs exactly? Faith-based initiatives?! That's closer to what Christ intended than what's going on now, I'm telling ya that! quote:A tall order, when a good many in government don't even believe in God (like right here in Canada). Why would they, when they don't even believe in Him? They'd be thinking you're advocating abrogation of seperation of church and state. quote:Well the only "social justice" that involves the government IMHO is the kind that punishes racist pieces of $#** for blatantly criminal acts, or absolutely ridiculous discrimination (like not hiring a perfectly qualified person of the "wrong race"--be they black, yellow, white, red, or purple). Economic equality cannot be achieved by the current means, nor by Marx's doctrine. It only serves to make everyone equally miserable and dirt-poor. quote: Red tape eh. Gotta love government efficiency... quote: OK now this is getting kooky. Yes some African cultures were doing ok (Egypt comes to mind). But technologically speaking, even Chinese culture at the time of "colonialism" of Africa was light years ahead of them. The importance of technology includes the ability to invent things, including lifesaving drugs. If something like AIDS had swept the planet back before Europeans even had much contact over there, they'd still be in a much worse position to stop the spread. That's a fact of life. And what's this business about not "judging the fitness" of other cultures? I'm talking about belief systems here when it comes to "fitness". Technological progress is just an outgrowth of that, a mere "symptom" if you will--and thus it's not the main concern here really. Belief systems affect everything about a society. It shapes how the people live. To me it's not so imporant [i]that a person is living in a mud hut growing yams for pennies a day, as it is to why. If a relief system is encouraging the spread of HIV, how fit do you think that belief system is?! Not to mention, the evils of slavery began with some African tribes capturing weaker tribes and selling them off to the highest bidder. That's definitely an unfit cultural practice right there. quote:Aaaaaaaaaaand herein lies the problem. What do we temper it with? You favor socialism. Well back during the Industrial Revolution, believe it or not a lot of the "robber barons" were socialists, and very many were not religious by any stretch of the imagination. They were merely using Capitalism as a means to usher in Socialism. By mistreating the workers, they were hoping that the workers would rise up and make a "workers' paradise." What would this do? Well basically nothing much would change, other than the poor would get poorer and they would keep their wealth, as government officials. This can be seen in modern times, with individuals such as Armand Hammer and Maurice Strong--wealthy corporate owners and also devout socialists. Baking Soda magnate Armand Hammer was a bigtime communist. And don't forget, when Darwinism became popular, a lot of Industrialists were using the theory of "survival of the fittest" in a whole new way--to justify ripping people off and exploiting them. Blatantly criminal acts of oppression are to be punished by the government, but this to me does not justify socialism. People should be helped when in need, but it should be a social safety net, not a hammock. quote: Western methods of what, exactly? Tell me what's not working. quote:Huh?! I don't think so. It's not arrogance it's confidence. After all, people of the West have Freedom. Freedom is what enables people to accomplish great things. You can't try socialism in a place that has no encouragement of accumulation of wealth to begin with (and thus no wealth) and expect it to work. quote:Maybe you should get involved in your government more. quote: Helping them set up their own corporations is probably a good idea, but this business about Economic Imperialism is a code word of the Socialist Worker's party. Any time I hear that, I get suspicious. A company's job is to make profits, not solve the world's ills. quote: It depends on their beliefs. A sticking point would be some kind of societal taboo. For instance, the First Nations traditional beliefs around here are that you do not "mess with" a body after death. The attached belief is that the spirit of the person will wander without rest if someone messes with the body in any way. If our society believed that way, we'd have a much harder time solving murder cases because Autopsies would be outlawed. See what I mean? quote:It's not so much "cultural" inferiority as "belief inferiority." Different belief systems impact cultures in different ways. Christianity/Judaism and Atheism are remarkably similar in how they affect cultures technologically (although not so much morally). This you cannot deny. It's not the culture that's inferior, it's the underlying religious belief system. And in fact, some cultures would consider ours inferior by various indicating factors. You can't call me down for implying "cultural inferiority" when you're really doing the exact same thing with your "Western Culture" bashing. quote: What a disappointment, eh? quote:Your problem is you're focusing on the "gap" rather than the actual money. You wanna see socialism in action and failure, long before Marx or Bolshevism? Check this out: On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of their new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That's right, long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future. "The eperience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing--as if they were wiser than God," Bradford wrote. "For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend tehir time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice." Do you hear what he said, Ladies and Gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property ownership. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result? "This had very good success," wrote Bradford, "for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Is it possible that supply side economics could have existed before the 1980's? Yes. Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the "seven years of plenty" and the "Earth brought forth in heaps" (Gen. 41:47). Now let me ask you: Have you read this history before? And if not, why not? Can you think of a more important lesson one could derive from the Pilgrim experience? quote:Well you really don't understand the risks that a person takes when they create a corporation. That's why the CEOs and such get the big bucks. People who are willing to take risks of course also stand a better chance of getting a higher position. Those further down are less and less skilled, and the further towards the bottom you go, the less demand for the job and thus the less the pay. A guy in off the street that starts in the mail room may or may not be the equivalent of Michael J. Fox's character in "The Secret of My Success", but there are examples in people's lives of guys at the bottom working their way to the top. It's all about motivation and the potential that a person has. Of course someone who owns a corporation is going to have more say in how it's run. Just like parents get more of a say in how a household is run than the kids do. quote: Are you implying that white-collar workers don't actually work??? That would be an ignorant statement... quote: The "huge ridiculous divide in pay" is due to factors that you obviously don't understand. Are you of the thinking that a teacher should be paid more than a basketball player? quote:That's so ignorant you don't even know. By discouraging the accumulation of wealth, you're basically killing the Goose that laid the golden eggs. quote: The problem with the stats above is they are skewed by years of high taxation. Of course the Rich aren't going to be in a "giving mood"--they know the Government is taking half their income in taxes, including the part that goes for welfare! Are you having a hard time understanding this? If you want to honestly evaluate the givingness of the Rich, you'd better find some stats about what charity giving levels were at before Canadians were starting to be taxed the **** out of... quote: No I'm not confusing the two. Socialism in ANY form does not work. Period. See above. quote: The problem is that the whole class struggle business is based on a very unchristian principle--hating people. In this case, the "Upper classes/the "Rich." Jesus told us to love our enemies. He never told us to "steal from Peter to pay Paul". And the situation of USA and Canada (and other Western Countries) proves the Class Struggle theory to be obsolete. Now a bunch of internationalist marxists are plying their hopes and dreams of "class struggle" by transferring the "worker" status effect to other entire countries. It failed here, so that's all they have left. quote: Yeah but how much societal change can you effect if you are dead-diddly-ed? I'm not saying don't try, but I have a hunch you won't get very far. You do not know the ineffable plan. Revelations paints quite a picture as to what the end times will be like. There will be a One world government (that's why some people are against the United Nations). Should we try to stop it? Well we can try. But some people, in trying to effect change, have their priorities all out of whack. It is a greater priority to me to tear down a regime that puts people thru tree shredders feet first than it is to allow the status quo to continue. At this point I really don't give a $#** if it is a war for oil or not, since the effect is going to liberate Iraq for its people. And you know the naysayers are absolute kookburger nutbars when they start going on about the "Zionist Oil Mafia" (quoted off the CNN news ticker today). quote:Exactly! Inefficiency of Government is why it's never enough. Only 28 cents of every dollar spent on welfare ever reaches the recipient. Government is just not an efficient handler of such things. And you want to give them more money to play with?! *sigh* quote:Dude in case you didn't know, taxation takes from the rich a HECK of a lot more than just 10% of their income. And the ones that don't go to church, of course those guys aren't tithing. Tithing only counts when it's sent to the church, really. Government certainly doesn't count. And it's none of our business whether or not some rich person is "sinning" in their wealthfulness. If we got rid of this excessive taxation, we would see a lot more charity on the part of the "rich." You don't know what's in their hearts. You don't know what they do or do not give. Some have misguided notions about how to "help" the poor (especially in Hollywierd), such as eating beans and slop to "empathize" with the poor, or kicking a homeless person off a sewer grate and sleeping there, in order to "understand" the homeless. All those guys have is gooooooood intentions. Sin is for God to punish, not us. quote:And that perpetuates the cycle of the Rich not caring...and the poor becoming dependant on Government and staying there. Dude the problem isn't anything more than godlessness. We have to fix that problem or other problems just won't get fixed. I'm not saying the government shouldn't do anything for those truly in need; however the total socialism principles will only make matters far worse. quote:Smug self righteousness??? The f*** are you talking about???? I was merely agreeing with you.quote: Look, you cannot on the one hand say that the government must follow all the rules of individual conduct, and on the other hand you advocate an even greater violation (technically speaking)--the violation of the commandment "thou shalt not steal" in order to remedy the situation. And the problem with a mere democracy is that it is mob rule. A representative republic, like the one south of us, is a bit different in that morality plays a part in what the laws are. Simple democracy would have two men and one women, and the two men voting to rape the woman, and there would be nothing to stop them. Whereas, in a representative republic, it would be wrong to rape the woman, no matter what was voted. quote: Christ was addressing those that did not give of their own money. And the Pharisees were more properly the Religious leaders, making the charity the overview of the Temple (akin to the Church), not the "Government". Christ did not command that the Pharisees be stripped of their wealth by other individuals in order to help the poor. It is very easy to be charitable with other people's money. Interestingly enough, Pharisees were misusing temple funds. To entrust them with a government "welfare" program such as ours would have been disastrous. It would only feed their power. Just like it does with politicians today. quote:Alright. quote:You may know the basics, but you're taking scriptural passages out of context. God condemning the wicked people that just happen to be rich has nothing to do with remedying the situation by implementing socialism. Nowhere in the Bible does God advocate taking from the rich to give to the poor. quote: Yeah but I see the liberation of the Iraqi people as more important than any internet-spawned theories about oil. To me it looks like you are opposing the one chance these people have for freedom. quote:Of course it is. At this point I'm really not caring "whose side" God is on; but I'm hoping that whatever happens God will turn out for good. quote: Look you're comparing apples and oranges here. Bush has only been in office for 2 years. Comparing it to earlier things is tricky. As to imperialist, that's just more socialist worker party-spawned buzzwords. There is nothing imperialist about this. USA is not making an empire. Iraq is not going to be the 51st state. I see rather an opportunity for democracy to take root in the Middle East, something that is desperately needed in a lynchpin country like Iraq. It will serve as an example of fighting for freedom to Iran, whose people are about ready to throw out their Ayatollah on their own. Precisely the reason why USA doesn't always topple dictators is because often the people of the land do it on their own. It happened in Rumania to dictator and worthless shred of human debris Nicolae Ceausescu. The people there lynched him. And I don't care what ulterior motives the Left assumes, anything is better than a sick b@$t@rd and his two worthless sons that put people through tree shredders. People in Iraq are too scared to do Saddam in themselves because of the high cost of failure. Only USA has the power to help them now. And I place my hope in that help. And, "God-is-on-our-side" arguments aside, I really do feel that God would want us to free the people of such a horrible regime. He's big on rescuing people you know. quote:God can still use unscrupulous people to do things that need doing. And you're forgetting that 12 years ago (let alone 15), the United Nations would not allow for the idea of regime change in Iraq. All it was about then was kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. This argument that it should have been done earlier is kinda hollow, considering the same people also argue that we should put it off even longer. Where's the logic in that? Are you forgetting that USA changes presidents every 4-8 years? You can't blame Bush-43 for going in now because Clinton refused to do anything prior to that, nor whatever Bush-41 didn't do. That's just ridiculous reasoning. Delays are fomented by Democrat politicians who controlled the House and Senate for years before 1994. In making your arguments you are totally not taking into account the individual political climates of the times. You are totally ignoring the difference between Republican and Democrat (trust me, there's a huge difference--it's like the difference between the NDP and the Canadian Alliance), and lumping them all in together unjustly in order to make a point. As for who they're ignoring, well we'll just have to wait and see how that plays out. quote:Yeah it's called the United Nations. And all the tin-pot dictator members that were afraid they'd be next. quote:Dude where have you been. That 'precedent' has been around since there were countries to be had. It's the way the world works. It's always been so. quote: Don't you recall the Kosovo problem? It was VERY similar to this one. Russia threatened to veto any UN vote regarding actions against Serbia and Slobodan Milosevic. So, USA and a host of other countries--INCLUDING CANADA--went in without a UN resolution. Where were the antiwar protesters then?! You're forgetting that there are al-qaeda members in Iraq itself that could have gotten their hands on any chemical or biological weapons of Saddam. Inspections were not working! Those guys weren't supposed to be marching around a country the size of California looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack! That right there is proof they weren't working. The stuff that did turn up was stuff the UN inspectors already knew that they had, back from 1995! And I think you're wrong about all this doom and gloom stuff. If this is so "selfish" why is Tony Blair basically committing political suicide? Popularity isn't everything you know. But it is for a politician who wants to be re-elected. This idea that it's for selfish reasons and lies is goofy IMHO. Especially if you rely on Socialist-based sources for your information. The idea that it's all about oil is in itself propaganda and a huuuuuuge lie. quote: Didn't you hear what Saddam said when he heard about the protests? He was emboldened. ANY chance (however faint) of him backing off was totally destroyed by the fact of the "support" he fed off of by watching antiwar protests. It gave him the sense of security that is false; he was convinced that somehow the antiwar crowd (especially from france) would prevent the UN from acting. And he was right about that. However, antiwar protests did not keep the USA from acting. The problem isn't that the USA acted; it's that the UN failed to act on its own resolutions. quote:See above, the story of the Pilgrims, to see how wrong this really is. quote:ok. Posted by Getaway on 03-22-2003 at 06:29 PM:
A couple of points the helicopter went down bascially because it was crap, old and a proven dangerous vehicle, why are Marines were in such a death trap is beyond me.
I approve of the way the war has gone so far, it actually looks like the vast majority of the Iraqis will surrender thus saving casulties for both sides, then again we havn't reached Baghdad yet. The air riads I have mixed feelings about, If we have/had knocked out Saddam and his leadership, then it wwas allright, but I shudder to think of the numbers of civillian dead caused by it, those pictures of the civillians killed(accidentally) by the US Marines in that town they captured in the Al Faw peninsular were pretty nasty, anyone else see them? When we get to Baghdad I hope we don't use armour, it will mean more infantry casulties for us but at least we won't irradiate the city becuase of our tank shells, the areas where tank shells exploded in the last Gulf war still give off dangerous levels of radiation, possible cause of Gulf War Syndrome? If we end up using our Uranium tipped tank shells we could potentially be ensuring the deaths or mutations of people in 10 years time. Posted by Computron on 03-22-2003 at 07:12 PM:
quote: Posted by Nosecone on 03-22-2003 at 07:44 PM:
quote:As said above, Armour won't be used in close quarter fighting. To be blunt it is crap because its not manuverable enough. The streets won't support the tanks, round the corners and all. For those living in a city/ town/ built up area try and imagine the effectivness of 10+ tanks manuvering around the streets and trying to shoot targets. The infantry will go in and the armour will be used to secure locations (i.e stick a tank on a corner and let it cover the street to make sure no one sneaks up from your rear) Probably repeating myself from somewhere but to Computron whilst very little in terms of a heavily fortified area could stand up against a choabham(?) a few guys with a couple of explosives each manuveruing round teh streets of a city could destroy (or at least disable) it. Tanks are weak on eth belly and in streets you are able to get close enough to hit them underneath. If not you simply put one down whatever open holes are visible on the tank and if it fails you simply rrun round a few corners. Most of the armour you see in this war is a) for show and b) to transport troops (and a side point of c) for protection in the desert from sneak attacks) Posted by Sheba on 03-22-2003 at 08:16 PM:
quote:I didn't bail out; the thread got buried after I was unable to post for a couple days and forgot about it. So let me answer you with: No. WRONG. They did NOT prosper "the following year." Don't you know what "sundry" means?! Posted by Computron on 03-22-2003 at 08:18 PM:
quote:Eagle One to base, I got a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on radar...request permission to engage with logic... Either A)They did prosper which just means they learned to farm effectively and not starve, Or B)They didn't prosper which just means that capitalism, free market etc etc didn't work either. This helps you how Sheba? Posted by Computron on 03-22-2003 at 11:48 PM:
 Proving once again, the world is full of idiots. Posted by Best First on 03-23-2003 at 08:51 AM:
ah, so niave computron. The only way to protect democracy is to silence all those who disagree with you, didnt you know?
Posted by Computron on 03-23-2003 at 10:20 AM:
Posted by Best First on 03-23-2003 at 10:53 AM:
ugh.
Good to see neo-facism is alive and stupid. Posted by Nosecone on 03-23-2003 at 10:53 AM:
quote:lol, Is there any way we could send them to the front lines? I mean they appear to be in the correct age range? In fact this would be my ideal war speach when speaking to a large crowd of these people (if I were pres of America) quote:gee I really am bored Posted by spiderfrommars on 03-23-2003 at 03:43 PM:
Hey guys. I know I've joined the debate pretty late but after watching the news today I've got a very bad feeling about the whole thing.
Not only have there been 3 fatal accidents in the coalition forces in as many days, the friendly fire incident, and the US POWs paraded on the television, there is also urban fighting STILL going on in south iraq's cities. These pockets of resistance seem a lot worse than they expected and its taking a lot longer than they thought as well. When/where will it end? Posted by shaxper on 03-23-2003 at 04:26 PM:
As far as I am from happy about being right, I've yet to see Iraqi citizens coming out of their homes and embracing American troops. Actually, there have been reports of citizens coming out of their houses firing machine guns.
This is just plain ugly. Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-23-2003 at 04:30 PM:
its turning into a mess all round
well maybe things will turn around... I would pray... but I remember what happened last time ...Posted by Best First on 03-23-2003 at 04:35 PM:
not to be cold. But we are still seemingly making excellent progress and casualties on the 'co-alition' side are extremeley low.
as regards the accidenets, i would suggest that this is again not untypical in a war situation, and it is only due to the unprecidented amount of scrutiny and access that the media has that these stand out. Of course this in no way detracts from the tradgedy of these deaths, or those of the people forced to fight on behalf of a mad man. To answer some earlier points - any suggestiuon that a quick coalition victory is synonomous with kill as many iraqis as quickly as possible is a nonsense. The co-alitions aim is to take out certain key figures, it is not a body count, and any prisoners taken along the way will be treated in a humane manner as regards the geneva convetion. Plus the faster the allied advence the greater tha chance of large number of iraqi soldiers surrendering. Any suggestion that POW's on the other side will be treated in a humane manner is a nonsense, and Saddam has no such interests in keeping enemy casulties low as he does not have to worry about re-election. So really, and suggestion that, now we have gone to war, a prolonged or difficult campaign will do any good is a nonsense, because while it may will make Bush and Blair look like fools, any benefits this may have will be horrendously over ridden by the fact that LOTS MORE PEOPLE WILL DIE. On both sides. anyone who suggests any good will come from an extended conflict is talking nonsense. I am equally saddened by deaths on both sides, but an expedient end to this conflict, now it has started, is in the interests of everyone who values life above all else as the most important thing. Posted by impactor returns on 03-23-2003 at 04:37 PM:
quote:well u must watch different TV to me, all ive seen is Iraq ppl coming out of thier homes cheering once they know they are safe. And to be within 60 miles of Baghdad by day 4 is quite impressive. And the accidents/death. its War ppl, accidents happen, ppl die. what do u expect exactly? Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-23-2003 at 04:50 PM:
well dont forget you have to read between the lines a little with the broadcasts-
firstly (obviously) ignore just about anything thats come from an Iraqi news source. Secondly the Allied military are vetting information reported by journalists. While ive got no doubt, in general, they are pretty much marching, unstoppable, through the desert, I sense there is somewhat more resistance in Iraqi cities than they were guessing there would be. Also Iraq is a large country, but not THAT large- four days to Baghdad is hardly slow, but it's not exactly speedy either; it seems to imply they are meeting intermittent resistence pretty much all the way. As I said, im sure its nothing that isn't little more than an inconvenience (considering the hardware thats moving on the Allied side down there) but I don't sense it's exactly an easy ride either... Course thats just what I think- sort of a mixed barrel of cheers for the Allied 'liberators' and jeers for the 'conquering force'. Posted by impactor returns on 03-23-2003 at 04:57 PM:
tis 'resistance' can be looked upon simply.
Either the allied forces go hell for leather and blow the crap out of everything, unleashing the full force of everything they have to win a postion, MOAB,clusster weapons etc. or they pressure troops into surrender. now what do u think they are doing? the resistance only exsits because the allied forces allow it to do so in the name of humanity. Posted by Sheba on 03-23-2003 at 05:09 PM:
quote:*sigh* Logic? What logic? You can't use logic when your premises are faulty. You're making assumptions based on the meager history you got in school, which is woefully inaccurate and incomplete. They learned how to farm properly. That wasn't the problem. The problem was, when they engaged in the socialist way (for a couple of YEARS, man, not just one freaking year) (with plenty of time to know how to farm properly), they did NOT prosper. The very harvest-year that they switched to "capitalist" way, THEY PROSPERED. And didn't you read the bit about Pharaoh and Joseph? Same idea. . Here's the whole bit about Bradford, even more than what I'd posted before. See if you can see what it's saying this time. First harvest (1621) They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercised in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was a great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides they had about a peck a meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to the proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports. Private and communal farming (1623) All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1650bradford.html#Private%20and%20communal%20farming Socialism considered as SLAVERY! What a concept! Actually Professor Walter E. Williams (Economic Chair at George Mason University) also believes Socialism to be slavery! quote:Proving once again, that you have no sense of humor. It was a joke, man. Illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Showing how idiotic the protesters' arguments really are by making fun of them. quote:Proving that you don't get it Speaking of which, how about you expose the strawman fallacies of the antiwar protest movement? Hmmmm? Posted by Obfleur on 03-23-2003 at 05:10 PM:
Can the allied forces </Command & Conquer> bomb Bagdad to smitterins?
Cause if not, Mr Hussein and his remaining forces will hide inside Bagdad and hope for some street-fighting. This is just what I've read in the papers - but I don't know about the bombing. It wouldnt look to nice if the allied forces blew up Bagdad and destroyed alot of civilian buildings, and killed civilians. Posted by impactor returns on 03-23-2003 at 05:12 PM:
well my theroy is once Iraq ppl know they are safe to turn sides, they probably will.
Posted by Tenoh on 03-23-2003 at 06:31 PM:
I would realy like to see Saddam win and kick US butt!
Posted by Computron on 03-23-2003 at 06:41 PM:
quote:So long and thanks for all the fish! Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-23-2003 at 07:29 PM:
quote:...now firstly that assumes that I am somehow in the position that the Allies are meeting resistance from their own poor battle techniques: my point was they ARE meeting resistance and it is probably causing more hassle than they are letting on. The precise circumstances as to WHY they are meeting resistance were never touched by me, so why I'm being asked 'what do you expect them to do?' I can't guess- I never made any criticism of what they WERE doing. My observation was of what was happening, I made no attempt to try and give explanation to the happenings. If I were feeling malicious I'd say you'd taken a dislike to me because I ran to my fiances (Nebbie's) defence when you started questioning her clarity of thought over your misunderstanding with firefighters. Well I'm sorry about that- but it is a reaction most people give when their future wife is being called names due to someone else's unclear sentiments. Posted by Computron on 03-23-2003 at 07:42 PM:
quote:I seriously doubt it. The only surprise is that the Iraqis didn't surrender in that area yet. All it takes is a few A-10 strikes or a few Abrams and resistance = smashed. Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-23-2003 at 07:44 PM:
i already agreed that there is precious little that any resistance can do that will actually cause any real problems for the invasion.
Posted by Computron on 03-23-2003 at 07:52 PM:
quote: Posted by Computron on 03-23-2003 at 07:53 PM:
quote:Ah. Alright then. Posted by impactor returns on 03-23-2003 at 07:56 PM:
Karl.
A: i hold nothing against your future wife or you. B: it was a rehtorical question not aimed at yourself. Sorry it was unclear, but i can assure you i hold nothing against u or your future wife. i enjoy reading both of your posts. Didnt mean it to seem it was aimed at u directly. Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-23-2003 at 08:01 PM:
in that case i sincerely appologise for my misunderstanding.
Posted by Computron on 03-23-2003 at 10:16 PM:
Michael Moore is the MAN!
Anyone else see his Oscar speech! Oh man it was beautiful! Posted by impactor returns on 03-23-2003 at 10:20 PM:
oh sod, i forgot the big O was on...
im gonna be mighty interested to see how this new WOMD plant is gonna effect ppls thoughts on all of this. not confirmed as of yet, but known so far is. 100 acre site. using a sand blasting technique to hide the site. UN inspectors were not told. and have no knowledge of the site. 30 republican gaurd found and a general at the site. A news reporter actually found it, and the US 3rd armoured devision moved in. more to follow, but very interesting. Posted by Nightbeat on 03-23-2003 at 11:19 PM:
I'm going to throw my two cents in here.
Well, it's a bit more than two cents, but there ya go. To digress back to the armor issue: Back at Normandy in WW2, the Nazis moved a division or two(if not more) of Tiger tanks to try to throw the Allies off the continent of France. Even though the Tigers were lords of the battlefield over the Russian T-34s and T-37s(I think the Russians had T-37s), the Tiger crews didn't know much about city fighting. So they'd go through streets, buildings, whatever was in their way. And even without good tactical grasp of tanks in city fighting, they came incredibly close to throwing the Allies back into the sea. The lack of city fighting tactics coupled with the sheer number of Sherman tanks the Allies managed to land was why the Tigers got pushed back. What does this have to do with the current situation? Simple. The US Army tank divisions would have trained for city fighting for this particular cause. If I understand the Abrams setup properly, they do have track shields, which will drop down to keep some errant enemy soldier from shoving a hand grenade or block of C-4 into the track gears. Tanks are still kings of the battlefield, with the appropriate point defense systems. In city fighting, it's more even, but that doesn't mean tanks are totally slagged in the cities. After all, infantry can flush people out of buildings, while tanks tend to crush the buildings. Understand, this is what I know, and knowledge is only as good as the information on which it's based. But I am going to cheer the day the first Bolo rolls off the assembly line. If anyone is wondering what a Bolo is, if you've ever heard of the Ogre Tactical Miniatures game, it's based on the Bolo concept(no cybernetics, it's all computers in Keith Laumer's Bolo stories) and would have been called the Bolo Tactical Miniature game, but there were some legal issues, and the deal never got hammered out. Ah, well, such is life...... And now, on to a slightly different topic.... Why is there this sudden move to stop calling french fries "French"? It only refers to the cut of the fries, doesn't it? And, in light of Impy's post... Jordan's just kicked 4 of Iraq's diplomats out of the country, because they were doing more than being diplomatic. Facinating........ Posted by impactor returns on 03-23-2003 at 11:26 PM:
i agree, i think the clever ppl who work out battelfield techniques understood the situations tanks might face upon desinging.
its worth pointing out that Baghdad itself is designed for tank deployment. it has 6 main avenues which were built so that mass tank formations could be deployed in a battle situation. this is probably going to be a massive problem now for saddam, against the superior, super battletank of the Abrhams A1 (A2 around yet?). Posted by Blacksword on 03-23-2003 at 11:59 PM:
Sheba, been home all weekend, with dial up and I really haven't had time to look at that monster post. I'll respond in a new tread when I get the time sometime tommorow.
Posted by Computron on 03-24-2003 at 12:49 AM:
Some thoughts from the ol' Compy-brain.
Anyone else notice a subtle problem with the war strategy? It's based on shock and awe with the hope of making the Iraqis surrender after they see our ability to employ mass precision and power in our attacks. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working as well as hoped. Sure a division did surrender the other day, but it was a conscript army begging to surrender anyways. The real threat are the Republican Guards, and they are not surrendering yet. I don't doubt that we will win, but rather it's not going to be easy. Consider this, the original plan drafted by Rumsfeld and Bush was advocating going to war with...50000 troops. Now I don't doubt the ability of our military, but I'm pretty glad the Pentagon said no to that. But it seems that even with the 350K soldiers we have there, it may not be enough. We'll win, but we won't have enough to effectively pacify the country. The Marines are still in Umm Qasr and Basra, while the 3rd Division is entangled in Nasiriya. Meanwhile our supply lines, flanks and rearguard are suffering from a lack of protection. Proof? Yesterday 12 troops were taken as POW's after their supply convoy was ambushed. Pockets of resistance still exist in Umm Qasr and Basra despite the effective end of organized resistance. Missile attacks are still being fired at US Bases despite the fact that those missiles have a range of around 100-200KM, which means that they are literally sitting at the Iraqi border and firing behind coalition lines. If we had another division in the Gulf they could be used as a rearguard to sweep up after the front line forces and prevent all this. Yes our air power is amazing, but in the end it's the people on the ground that win a war. There's an old Cold War joke. A Soviet General is talking to another Soviet General in downtown Paris. The 1st general asks the other one, "By the way, who won the air war?" The same applies here. Our air power is immense, but an A-10 can't stay aloft forever guarding an area, and helicopters are very vulnerable to anti-air. And neither can win a war. Kosovo is an exception simply because the Serbs left after ground war was threatened. In effect I'm saying we went in undermanned. We're still going to whomp em, but it isn't going to be as easy as Gulf War 1. In the rush to war, Bush seems to have forgotten that in order to win one must have overwhelming force along with the will to fight. I'd love to be proved wrong tho...but from these indications it just seems that it's going to take a bit longer than was perceived by many. Then again even if we win inside of 2 weeks that is still amazing given that we would have conquered another nation in half a month... From the Michael Moore rocks files: http://www.systemofadown.com/Videos/BOOM_ExpVidFull_ref.mov ~ Quicktime http://www.systemofadown.com/Videos/BOOM_ExpVidFull.ram ~ RealAudio http://www.systemofadown.com/Videos/BOOM_ExpVidFull_100.asx ~ WMP - Medium http://www.systemofadown.com/Videos/BOOM_ExpVidFull_300.asx ~ WMP - Large Rock on Mr. Moore. Rock on. Posted by Computron on 03-24-2003 at 04:17 PM:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp?0si=-
"How scary is this Quote of the Day, from Sunday’s New York Times: “‘This is just the beginning,’ an administration official said. ‘I would not rule out the same sequence of events for Iran and North Korea as for Iraq”? Anders Stephanson puts it into perspective." Well then. Pax Americana indeed. Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 03-24-2003 at 04:42 PM:
I think we can safely rule out the SAME sequence of events in North Korea. They have Nuclear weapons. Anyone who tries invading them on a whim is likely to suffer from rather more than friendly fire and faulty equipment.
Posted by Blacksword on 03-24-2003 at 04:54 PM:
There's the main reason I oppose this war. Where will this administration stop? Is the whole Middle East to be rubble. Where will they get the money for this. To get an idea of how far US fanatics will go any one care to hear about Operation Northwoods. This wonderous bit of info recently got declassified.
Posted by Computron on 03-24-2003 at 05:09 PM:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/889982_asp.htm?0cv=CB10
Under the impression that the airman had been captured, thousands of cheering Iraqis chanted and clapped, shooting AK-47s in the air for joy. People in both uniform and civilian clothes eyed us with hostility during this celebration. “Where are you from?” demanded an armed Iraqi, looking at me. “Germany,” interjected my government guide, abruptly grabbing me by the arm and yanking me away. “Do not tell them you are American,” he whispered as he rushed me to the car. “We must leave. It is very dangerous here.” Holy Crap. Posted by Blacksword on 03-24-2003 at 05:15 PM:
If anyone thinks we have no reason to be wary of atleast certain factions in the US government read this about a proposal that thank God was was canned by the Kennedys called Northwoods: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html
Godbless the American miliary structure (not the guys on the ground I'm going after the command structure) which gives us such prized barbarians. Its not Bush I fear its the guys hidingbehind his idiot posturings, Rumsfled and Cheny among them. Can't speak for everything else on the site, but het research seems fairly valid and there were a lot of pychos in the US military at the time one of the most famous being Curtis Le May. Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-24-2003 at 05:43 PM:
quote:you got to admit, i did say so. I suspected as much that this had a nasty habbit of appearing all too often as a general state of affairs in iraq... the big hope is that the support for Saddam comes from a very vocal powerbase minority, and once the general people realise whatever happens that Saddam is little more than a bad memory most people will support the Allied force... thats the hope. Posted by Blacksword on 03-24-2003 at 05:52 PM:
All the civilian bodies piling up and every day of US soldiers slowly eats away at that hope I'm afraid. Rumsfeld's weapons with humanity **** really pisses me off. Most of these missiles are cheaper GPS guided weapons which aren't as accurate as otehr guided weapons. THE US doesn't even classify these as precision weapons, only semi-precision. But I suppose that's good ebough even though nearly all of these targets are in civilian areas. The fact that thousands of weapons have been launched makes the 70-75% accuracy of tehse weapons all the more disturbing. This means hundreds of missiles and boms have missed. Hardly the most cheery thought.
Posted by Computron on 03-24-2003 at 05:55 PM:
Actually to be fair I was under the impression that JDAMs and JSOMs are the most accurate of weapons. Upwards of 90% and rising.
The precision isn't the problem so much as the fact that a 2000 pound bomb hitting it's target still does tremendous damage to surrounding areas. Posted by impactor returns on 03-24-2003 at 06:45 PM:
Well i see that we are now 50 miles from Baghdad, supply lines have been stablized.
So probably by day 7 u will see us around Baghadad. Now, to get there in 1 week is totaly amazing. there is no war problem, just hype. we will finnaly get to see the real Iraq'i view when the force reachs Baghdad. lets judge if we are doing the right thing then? I think the next week is going to be very telling. Posted by Nosecone on 03-24-2003 at 07:36 PM:
Just wondering if anyone else has found the reactions by the US goverment over the treating of teh POW's slightly hypocritical?
They argue over the fact that showing them on TV was against the Geneva convention and they will prosecute on behalf of war crimes whilst they hold a load of Afghanistan POW's in crap conditions with no trial in a place that they are only able to get away with it by th efact its not US territory. Pot calling kettle black? p.s Tanks will not be used unless by some moronic general who doesn't know about warfair and is simply gonna try and please the US citizens by showing tanks roaming into the city of Baghdad. Why do you think the tanks of the Queens Dragoon Guards (who are primarily a tank division) havn't just rolled into Bazra or Al-Qzar (or whatever that ports called)? because they can't engage tanks against troops in cities -> They know this although I am starting to think that in an effort to end this quick the Military top brass (mainly the US who will be under more pressure) will decide to send in waves of tanks, sacrificing them in the hope to overwhelm the enemy Posted by Computron on 03-24-2003 at 07:47 PM:
The US military in this day in age no longer kowtows to political pressure in terms of applied military tactics. They won't send in tanks in a WW2 like invasion through the cities. Urban warfare will be a hassle tho, but don't expect the US military to act idiotically.
Posted by impactor returns on 03-24-2003 at 07:50 PM:
the POW situation isnt hypocriticle.
in one instance it shows lines of POW's being told to join a line. In another a POW is being questioned, obvioulst scared, paraded infront of an audeince. So in short as i cant be assed to write it all out, no it is not hypocriticle Posted by Redstreak on 03-24-2003 at 08:05 PM:
quote:Indeed...and we all know what happened with Pax Romana. Beginning of the end, for the USA at least*...like all empires it will fall, just how soon. My projection for the sake of my novel was 400 years, but wow are they jumping the gun...oh how life imitates art; just can't figure if that's a bad thing... Time to buy a gun and move to Canada, yes? *To clarify, I've had this attitude for many years, and it's changed many times. I firmly believe that a Bush re-election would be the deathblow at this point...warmonger. Posted by Blacksword on 03-24-2003 at 08:11 PM:
Better leave that gun at the door Red, one more gun and the cost of our gun registration program goes up another million bucks.
Posted by Best First on 03-25-2003 at 03:41 AM:
time to sell your gun and move to Canada one thinks....
Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-25-2003 at 04:34 AM:
i agree with you impy, the next few days will be very telling. we've just got to wait and see.
Posted by Computron on 03-25-2003 at 01:36 PM:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/889519_asp.htm?0cv=CB30
"But there’s something sick about what the whole thing is doing to the values of our government. As we marvel over military prowess, let’s not forget about other, less covered stories: that the National Security Agency bugged the delegation of every other member of the U.N. Security Council except Britain; that the CIA was either too incompetent or too politically corrupted to spot a crude forgery of a document tying the Iraqi regime to purchases of nuclear materials in Africa; that the president of the United States is so petulant and so oblivious to the basic diplomatic requirements of the job that he has not spoken to the president of France for a month." ~ Jonathan Alter Posted by impactor returns on 03-25-2003 at 01:53 PM:
i always wonder how we look back on times like this in say 50 years time...
Posted by Sheba on 03-25-2003 at 02:42 PM:
Look, USA has been GOING OUT OF ITS WAY to make sure as FEW civilians are harmed as realisitically possible! They haven't taken out the TV, the power stations, the water plants, NOTHING like that.
The Iraqis have been told big fat lies about the Americans. Not because anything is "America's fault" but because Saddam (and others like him) use America as a scapegoat to divert attention from his own misdeeds and outright savage cruelty. There was a pastor from America, affiliated with a Syrian church, who went to Iraq as a Human Shield. But after talking to people, and hearing stories that made his hair curl, he retreated to Jordan. And he said that some people in Iraq told him that if USA DID NOT start the bombing SOON, (at the time), they were going to COMMIT SUICIDE. And others said, "What took [USA] so long? [USA is] late!" Add this to the stories of Saddam putting people through the equivalent of Tree Chippers, and the former wannabe "human shield" pastor said,"I'm convinced that Saddam is a monster the likes of which we haven't seen since Hitler and Stalin." So he gave up being a human shield and now supports the war in Iraq. People who are worried about civilian casualties conveniently have NO solution to the civilians that die every day in Iraq via Saddam's torture chamber or outright shooting. I will GUARANTEE you that MORE people have died under Saddam's cruelty--if he's left in power--than would die in a war by Coalition Hands. Especially since, even if Saddam were to eventually die in a "contained" Iraq, there's still his two worthless sons who are just as bad as he is if not worse. Imagine the years of torture, mayhem, and absolute horror that would go on if we didn't get rid of those two spawns of hell. And it doesn't help that Saddam's treachery has him using basically plainclothes Terrorists to fight for him, pretending to surrender and then firing on the Marines. He's doing this on purpose to have the situation where Marines hopefully (to him) will shoot first ask questions later. Regardless of any antiwar arguments, the fact is that the STUPIDEST thing USA could do (and therefore won't) is pull out of this war like it was Blackhawk Down. What do you think Osama used for inspiring his troops? The fact that USA RAN like a scared little girl from Mogadishu! It's not STRENGTH that emboldens terrorists, it's WEAKNESS! After Libya started giving USA trouble, what happened? Reagan bombed the crap out of Khaddaffi's pad. Did it spawn any September-11th style attacks? No it did not! Libya was remarkably quiet after that. The antiwar crowd has it backwards. MORE terrorism will come from not completing the action, not from the war itself. More terrorism will also come from doing NOTHING. ONLY VICTORY can ensure peace. That's a concept the antiwar crowd seems to fail to realize. The ONLY times war has NOT solved anything is if Victory is not involved. That's why Vietnam war had no benefit. Victory was NOT achieved by USA. They were not ALLOWED to win. (insert globalist-etc conspiracy theory here). That is also why the Palestinian/Israeli conflict has been going on as long as it has. Neither side has victory. Trying to talk peace FIRST, before victory, is putting the cart before the horse. And notice that the bulk of the terrorism started during Ehud Barak and his willingness to give Arafat 90% of what he wanted. Just look at how terrorists have been dealt with previously. The 1993 WTC bombing. Those guys were prosecuted as criminals. Did that stop further terrorism? Hell no. The bombing of various embassies. Same deal, same result. USS Cole--the guys committed suicide in their bombing. Only by showing these terrorists that we will not back down like beaten dogs, by showing strength, not weakness, can we prevail. Barry Cooper, at the University of Calgary, suggests another argument that's really cynical and morally repulsive. If we keep our head down in Canada, the terrorist-killers in the rest of the world will give us a kind of sanctuary. The only people we know who have actually done this, in any explicit kind of way, are the French. 10 years ago, made a "deal with the Devil" by negotiating with Algerian Terrorists to leave France alone--resulting in no bombing campaigns in Metropolitan France. 100,000 people in Algeria have died as a result of terrorism. To hate war is understandable, but to believe that by not supporting the Americans we will be left alone is just nuts. Posted by Nosecone on 03-25-2003 at 02:47 PM:
An old topic but I was speaking to my dad today about Baghdad and was amazed when he told me how easy it is to disable a tank in street fighting.
I originally thought it was as easy as chucking eplosives either under it or trying to blow up the tracks. I was wrong, it is actually even easier than that. You simply create a petrol bomb (bottle, fill with oil, bit of cloth, light it) and then drop it on top of the tank. How does this disable it you might ask? Well the tanks engine has an air coolant system that is at the top of it. If you look you will see two panels (I will try and get pictures). One sucks air in and one pushes it out -> It is for the engine this air supply. Now this is the same design on all tanks and all you do is drop the petrol bomb on that and it gets sucked into the engine and the engine gets fried and destroyed. Even the Abrams that can withstand a pounding will still be crippled by this action. He told me that he would never take tanks into a hostile city (he was a tank commander with the QDG's for 22 yrs so I trust what he says) Now back on topic as I've just cemented a point I made somewhere oh btw, I've just bought stupid white men, and good?? Posted by impactor returns on 03-25-2003 at 02:52 PM:
Abrhams and challanger tanks have been fire proof for some time now by using seperate oxygen mixing sytems.
Posted by Getaway on 03-25-2003 at 06:28 PM:
Not sure if this would go in this topic or the other, but do you get the feeling that the Coalition has underestimnated the Iraqis, resistance seems to be firming up and more people, civillians as well are taking up arms against us, there are reports that Iraqis who had fled Saddam and gone to Refugee camps in places like Iran have returned to iraq to fight against the coalition in their words they hate Saddam but don't want us in there country either. The US Marines as expected are getting hammered by the Iraqis which means that British troops such as the Commando Brigade hwill have to do the street fighting and the dying, were the US troops really prepared for a close combat war, when it comes to the long distance, artillery, tank stuff they are excellent, but it looks like they are getting/going to get chewed up in the cities.
Posted by Computron on 03-25-2003 at 07:02 PM:
quote: Posted by Computron on 03-25-2003 at 08:27 PM:
For those of you just joining us, here is a summary of the anti-war/pro-war debate...
http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/pt_the_war_on_iraq.html Posted by the uiltmate prime fan on 03-26-2003 at 12:12 AM:
just a quick note: the term, Pax Americana isnt really acurate. the term that fits far better is that of a Neo Delian league, in the pattern of athens maritime peusdo Empire, which could be assosiated {sp?} with both the UN and NATO. the delian league was a loose union of states, created after the persian invasion by darius I.
theoriticly, each state was atleast as politically powerful as its strongest member, Athens, but in practice, athens did what it pleased and its alies were expected to go along with it. it wasent until a stronger power, Sparta, fought Athens in the peleponesian war, that the Deilan league was desolved. the term Pax Americana, the new American Empire, is still admissible. Posted by Best First on 03-26-2003 at 06:48 AM:
anyone notice the net as a whole (in terms of the usual places you visist)has been a bit quiter since this thing has kicked off?
or is it just me? Posted by impactor returns on 03-26-2003 at 08:18 AM:
yup.
Its all very quiet. except online RPG, which seems as busy as ever. i put this down to ppl being bored of the War subject which exists at every web site u visit. Posted by Nightbeat on 03-26-2003 at 03:44 PM:
Watching CNN right now..... Looks like a cruise missile hit a market complex. Iraq says it's a US missile, the US isn't sure. My thought, and CNN's commentators had the same thought, if the missile that hit the market might have been an Iraqi missile, then say the US did it to whip up support among the Iraqi public for Hussein. I'd like to say I can't even think of somebody doing anything like that, but I can't.
Posted by Nosecone on 03-26-2003 at 04:41 PM:
Its not that far to imagine the US missiles going off target, I mean they have even managed to miss the country and hit Iran instead so going off a few miles to hit a market isn't to far streched
Posted by Getaway on 03-26-2003 at 05:01 PM:
The ones who have been advancing on Iraq are the Armoured troops. When it comes to a battle in the open the Americans are the best in the world but they are not as good in close quaters fighting, the US Marines are not an elite force, they are ordinary infantry without the Bradleys or Abrams, despite the fact that their training is more Close combat orintated than the US Army, they do not have actually experience in it, British troops serve tours of duty in Ireland and Peacekeeping roles accros the world, The Americans specialise in Open, Mechanized warfare, we specialize in urban warfare, it will end up with British troops doing the lions share of the street fighting, while the Americans wipe out anybody who tries to fight in the open.
Posted by Nightbeat on 03-26-2003 at 08:01 PM:
I know some of the US missiles have been going off course and landing in Turkey, Iran, etc, but they've been able to keep them under observation on their way in.
Haven't heard anything since then, though. All of CNN's info is second hand off of Iraq's new channel. Posted by Sheba on 03-26-2003 at 08:46 PM:
Some missiles that they originally thought were American that landed in Iran, were in fact Iraqi missiles.
And that busload of "innocent civilians" that got blasted on that bridge? Turns out it wasn't innocent civilians at all; it was Palestinian Terrorists on their way to join up with Saddam. That bus was blown up on purpose to put a stop to stuff like that. Posted by Best First on 03-27-2003 at 03:18 AM:
quote:yeah, they had their 'Palistinian Terrorist' Club cards in their wallets. As shown on... no mainstream objective news ever. Getting news from the little neo-fascist org you are promiting with your sig eh Sheba? Posted by impactor returns on 03-27-2003 at 04:09 AM:
Ill be first to defend the military. i dislike arm chair generals.
But that bus load thingy? just like BF said, how on earth can u prove somthing like that. And even if it was a mistake. not to sound cold. but its war, it happens, what do u expect? Posted by Computron on 03-27-2003 at 01:53 PM:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/891595_asp.htm?0cv=CB10
Bush had made the decision to go to war in March 2002. Not surprisingly the UN debacle was merely a charade. Time magazine reports that the president poked his head into the office of Condoleezza Rice, his national security adviser, in March 2002 and told three senators sitting there: ”[Expletive deleted] Saddam. We’re taking him out.” Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 03-27-2003 at 01:58 PM:
What about the British plane the Americans shot down? Was that an Iraqi plane in disguise? And am I correct in think that Terry Lloyd (is that right the probably deceased ITN journalist?) came under friendly fire.
Frankly it seems to be safer to be the enemy of the US army, there's less chance of being shot by them. Posted by Computron on 03-27-2003 at 02:44 PM:
Posted by Sheba on 03-27-2003 at 05:37 PM:
quote:How the f*** do you figure the organization is "neofascist"???? For your information, that info was NOT from that site anyway. It was from the Phil Hendrie show. He's a liberal democrat that just happens to support the war. By the same token why did you automatically believe what you hear that you want to hear? I don't automatically believe everything I hear on the news ESPECIALLY in war. The thing is, there was a prior report that the bus contained civilians of innocence. Intel would have told the guy in the F-16 who the guys on the bus were. Look, since it's in Saddam's best interest to appear as though there's as many casualties as possible, and he's a liar, a cheater, a treacherous individual, and all that and a bag of chips, I am HIGHLY SKEPTICAL of ANY news that comes from "Iraqi Officials"! DUHHHHHHH. Saddam is trying to fight Mogadishu basically. In Mogadishu the terrorists of the land learned that USA can't take casualties without running away crying like a little girl. That's Saddam's ONLY hope. That's why I'm suspicious of any reports of civilian casualties. It will all come out in the wash later. However it is more believable to me that Saddam is killing his own people, or is making it look like civilians are dying when the people aren't civilians. So then. It's FINE with me if you don't want to beleive mainstream news. It's Ooooooo-kay. But don't turn around and believe every piece of crap from the other side that you hear. That's just inconsistent. Posted by Best First on 03-27-2003 at 06:35 PM:
quote:Because they use psuedo-aryan imagry  Because their use of language is entirely remeniscent of a less erudite Mosley; UPDATE(3/16/03): We have just completed another successful infiltration of San Francisco's hate-America peace protest. This time we had 30 new ProtestWarriors, armed with all-new professionally printed signs designed to assault each and every Leftist pressure point. Go to our Protest Gallery to see the photos of us in action as we battle the Left at the front lines... Because they deal in conspiracy; We thought it would be a great opportunity to see the left in its unalloyed perversity. The left is very skillful when it comes to hiding their true beliefs. Because they seek vindictaion through conflict: Because they are prejudicial idiots; "That threat is Islamo-fascism" Becuase they are anti-free speech and seek to repress the opinions of the left. work to create a society where they have no power. we want to do everything we can to cordon them off from decent society They are typical of the watered down brand of modern fascism - not to say that it is nay less evil - just that it has less internal cogency and is more rectionary than 'classic' fascism. i.e its taken all the worst bits (which was most if it) and removed the intellectual aspect that made fascism a vaguly tenable posistion to some in the 1930's. Thats not to say i in any way endorse 'classic' fascism, just that the newer brand is a comparative embaressment. That you are endorsing you little propogande tool. id just like to point out that i have studied under the worlds leading expert on Hitker and the UK's leading expert on British Fascism. I know this ****, and these guys are classic neo-fascists. That is to say prejudicial bully boys who use the old tactics and language but dont have the brains for the ideology. Posted by impactor returns on 03-27-2003 at 07:22 PM:
Anyone see Question Time again tonight?
Posted by Computron on 03-27-2003 at 10:05 PM:
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether is it a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
-Hermann Göering, Reich-Marshall, at the Nuremberg Trials, 1945-46. Posted by Nightbeat on 03-27-2003 at 10:37 PM:
That would explain the war against international Communisim.
Posted by Computron on 03-28-2003 at 12:55 AM:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/891794.asp?0cv=CB30
Gee, wasn't there a notable pro-war argument made about how the Iraqis were just gonna welcome us with open arms as liberators? Well now look at the situation. We're attacking a country that no one wants us to be in. Vietnam Part Deux Except this time we'll win the war, but we may still lose the overall battle for their hearts and minds. Posted by Sheba on 03-28-2003 at 05:14 PM:
quote: Well would it be any better if it was a person of a different color on the picture? Pseudo-Aryan imagery? Puhleeeeeze. That's a stretch. They're not all white people. For crissakes one of those guys is JEWISH!!!!! A Jew would NEVER have F*** ALL to do with any sort of Fascism. Sort of blows your whole fascism theory out of the water. quote: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Mosley was a virulent anti-semite. Who are the anti-semites in THIS situation? Hmmmmmmmmm? They don't mean PHYSICAL assault. They mean challenging by ideas, not fists. quote: Hmph the LEFT deals in conspiracy all the time. Blood for oil, Bush wants this and that, they're really fighting against Islam...THAT'S conspiracy bullcrap. I don't know about you but over here in North America there are people who don't broadcast what they really believe. They hide behind other things. Such as, communists or other not-quite-as-left leftists hiding behind concern "for the Iraqi people." This is evident in the fact that you can barely get a coherent argument out of the average antiwar protester. The real reasons are buried in underneath, and they can't espouse them out loud to the average person because they will sound crazy because the reasons have no bearing on reality. But some people DO know the reasons (former leftists like David Horowitz), so it's NOT just a baseless conspiracy theory. It's documented. quote: Go back over your dictionary definition of Fascism and tell me that doesn't apply to Saddam Hussein as well as Al-qaeda. It isn't regular fascism, it's fascism with a religious overtone and basis. They're NOT saying all islam is fascist, nor that fascism is intrinsically islamist. Hitler started out as National Socialist. So it is with Saddam. That's what the Ba'ath party is basically. quote: HAHAHAHAHA! No, they aren't trying to SILENCE the Left. There's a difference between silencing someone and just making sure they have no power--by a specific mechanism where ALL the guys do is expose the ideas of these protesters to the public, and give them a taste of their own medicine (with the mockery signs). Besides, they're quite accurately mirroring the rhetoric of the average antiwar protest group--for a reason. Incidentally, what about you and your left wing crowd? Aren't you all about making sure the RIGHT doesn't have power? Hmmmmmm? Doesn't that make you kinda neo-fascist in some way? quote: You don't get what they're about. quote: dude. They aren't fascist. Jews would never be fascist. Fascists are anti-semitic. THESE GUYS AREN'T ANTISEMITIC. quote:Right back at ya, you big left wing propaganda tool. No I'm not endorsing fascism. I'm endorsing giving the protesters a taste of their own medicine. quote: Apparently all for naught, since you are so blatantly misapplying the definitions and terms as you described them. What bully tactics are you talking about. There have been no fisticuffs between these guys and protesters. Come on, put out in PAINFUL TECHNICAL DETAIL exactly what a fascist/neofascist is ALL ABOUT. Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 03-28-2003 at 05:25 PM:
Sheba, just in answer to your first point, Reinhard Heydrich the deputy leader of the SS and mastermind of the final solution (he chaired the Wahnsee conference and was asassinated before he could put the plan into operation) had a Jewish father, and by Nazi racial laws was a Jew.
Fascists, ironically, come in all shapes, sizes and colours. That image would be no better of the inidividual pictured were black, brown, yellow, green or blue. Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-28-2003 at 05:29 PM:
quote:any race from any country can be inducted into fascism (as a matter of fact) it is nothing particular to do with Germany or Japan. If the US, British or Israeli governments were to take total control of media (including the information brought down through the internet) subtly and slowly and then begin introducing doctrines which convinced the people they were a 'master race' at all levels as subtle psychological suggestion, within 10 years most people in the country would believe it, and those who didn't would be too scared to speak out. The Nazis were not another race, any more than the 1930-45 Japanese army/govt were- they were humans like you or I, and we all suffer from the same faults. And just so you know, the definition of 'fascism' is not a description of Saddam or Al-Queada, the definition of fascism (according to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary) is 'the Patriotic and Anti-Communist Movement'. I'll leave Besty to deal with the actual main thrust of your post (it was afterall directed at him) I was just cleaning up a couple of loose, floating points. Posted by Jim on 03-28-2003 at 07:02 PM:
quote:No thanks. Posted by Sheba on 03-28-2003 at 08:03 PM:
quote:The point is it's not going on in this country or the USA. But it IS going on to a certain extent in the Middle East. quote:And that has what to do with this, exactly? quote:Ummm dude Saddam IS anti-communist. And Patriotic. In some twisted way. quote:ok Posted by Sheba on 03-28-2003 at 08:07 PM:
quote:That's nice, but according to JEWISH law, a person's MOTHER must be Jewish in order for a person to be a Jew without converting first. Maybe the guy was self-hating. *EDIT* after consulting several biographies on the net of the man, it has come up that this business of his father being Jewish is a FALSE RUMOR. And Judaism is a religion every bit as much as it is a 'race'. quote:The picture itself does not prove fascism. Besty was hinting at white supremacy. A load of bollocks that would be, considering Jews aren't White Supremacists. Posted by Sheba on 03-28-2003 at 08:10 PM:
quote:No thanks what? Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 03-28-2003 at 08:48 PM:
If it is a FALSE rumour (not sure what the capitals mean), then it was still used against Heydrich by his enemies within the Nazi party. Even the Nazis seemed able to accept Jews within the ranks if it served their purposes.
In any case this truly impressive display of pedantry fails to answer the more substantial point that ones race/religion has little or nothing to do with ones political philosophy. As demonstrated by Saddam Hussein, who is apparently a fascist (or so you imply) and an arab. Incidently I seem to remember you describing Hussein as a communist on a previous occassion. Edit: Depending on where you look the 'rumour' of Heydrich's ancestry is either true or false. A lot depends on the source. Further research is clearly called for. Posted by Computron on 03-28-2003 at 08:49 PM:
quote:No thanks, we don't want any Neo-Facism. BTW I can't wait for BF to rip your post to shreds... I would do it, but I think BF should get first dibs... Posted by Sheba on 03-28-2003 at 09:38 PM:
quote: What it has to do with, dude, is that Fascism, being in recent history virulently antisemitic, would fail to appeal to Jews as a whole. What it has to do with isn't any random nor predetermined factors, but whether or not fascism would have any appeal to anybody that's Jewish. Hussein is militaristic, antisemitic (racist), dictatorial, anticommunist (though socialist) and nationalistic. He fits all the criteria for being a fascist. quote:He's SOCIALIST. Heh, these days I think the people that are making the definitions of some of the words these days have their head up their arse, considering how definitions work out... quote: this is where I got it off of: http://www.us-israel.org/ Posted by Sheba on 03-28-2003 at 09:41 PM:
quote: I haven't GOT ANY! quote:bwahahaha bring it on Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 03-29-2003 at 03:16 AM:
I wont start an argument about whether Hussein can be a socilaist and a fascist or not, as that would probably go on for days. Suffice it to say, myself and others might well claim that the two are mutually exclusive. But this is open to debate.
As for the more substansive point, the whole question of Jewish fascists was raised as a response to your earlier post claiming that the pro-war (or perhaps, anti-anti-war) protest group could not eb neo-fascist as they had a Jewish member, I think the thin that you have to grasp is that a Neo-fascist group does not necessarily display 'Fascist' on its membership cards (speaking metaphorically). Fascism is an ideology, albeit a vague one, which fits definitions Best First outlined. If an organistion fits those criteria it can be defined as such, just as you regularly define inidividuals and groups as communist or socialist, regardless of whether it claims to be or not. Your argument seems to be that Fascism would have no appeal to Jews because of historical associations. This is a reasonable (though not necessarily compelling) argument, but only applies to groups which sates their Fascist origins openly. Obviously the group you mentioned does not (or this argument would be redundant). As BF pointed out, this group fits the ideology (just as you would claim that Saddam Hussein does) but without openly declaring it. Consequently its appeal to Jews is likely to be the same as its appeal to anyone else Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-29-2003 at 04:55 AM:
^
Precisely my point- the Jewes are no less or more 'immune' to fascism than anyone else is, hence you can't use 'one of them is Jewish therefore they cannot be fascists' as an argument'. Posted by Papa Snarl on 03-29-2003 at 06:01 AM:
And I think that's the problem. Sheba simply has issues with her being a racist.
But no doubt she can't be racist, as she has a black friend or something. Posted by Computron on 03-29-2003 at 11:15 AM:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/892536.asp?0cv=CA01
Well then. Terrorism is on the rise, Syria and Iran were warned by Rumsfeld in a very aggressive way to stay outta the war. So tell me, are the anti-war fears starting to coalesce or are things still going peachy? Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-29-2003 at 11:34 AM:
the world is certainly not getting any safer...
lesse- Bloody street fighting A conflict which could take months People starving in Iraq Most people in Iraq indifferent to 'liberation' forces Greater than expected resistance to forces, including terrorist strikes and guerilla warfare. Incredible Anti-American protests across the Middle East. The UN absolutely snookered. The huge 'War Against Terror' coalition reduced to two countries- the USA and GB. no, can't think of many more predictions we made which haven't come to pass... who wants to move to Japan? Posted by Computron on 03-29-2003 at 11:41 AM:
quote:And come under the actual credible threat of Kim Jong Il? Maybe. Japan is cool after all... I think I'll go to Canada instead. They don't piss other countries off. I think they're incapable of it. Posted by Blacksword on 03-29-2003 at 11:52 AM:
Except the US right now.
Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-29-2003 at 12:35 PM:
yep. theyre on 'THE LIST'-
1. Iraq 2. North Korea 3. Iran and Siria 4. Palastine 5. France 6. Germany 7. Indonesia 8. Australia 9. South Carolina 10. The West Edmonton Mall 11. Egypt 12. Africa. 13. Most of South America (except for the Cities of Gold... mmm... gold...) 14. Canada 15. Britain 16. Ice Land 17. The Rest of Europe 18. Japan 19. China 20. India and Pakistan 21. The Mediterranean 22. Whatevers leftover. 23. The USA ...d'oh! Posted by Best First on 03-29-2003 at 01:15 PM:
Hmm, everyone has done such a good job of dissecting Sheba’s arguments whilst I was typing I probably don’t need to do this…
So: Well would it be any better if it was a person of a different colour on the picture? Pseudo-Aryan imagery? Puhleeeeeze. That's a stretch. They're not all white people. The point is actually the ‘warrior’ and ‘masculine’ characteristics of the image, rather than the colour. It reeks of ubermensh. However a belief in supremacy does not have to have anything to do with colour (although it may have something to do with ‘debating’ with you), it can just as easily be related to something such as nationalism. Still, good point that it’s a white male, which in isolation wouldn’t mean much, but… And anyone who disputes that it is reminiscent of fascist imagery is living in dreamland. Maybe Aryan was a poor choice of words, but the basic nature of the image remains and the point about protestwanker.com’s nature also stands. For crissakes one of those guys is JEWISH!!!!! A Jew would NEVER have F*** ALL to do with any sort of Fascism. Sort of blows your whole fascism theory out of the water. Bull. Racism is not a necessary aspect of fascism. It usually comes due to the combative and scapegaoting nature of fascist ideology but it is more often than not NOT the starting point of classical fascist ideologies. And to suggest that National Socialism is synonymous with all types of fascism is a nonsense. The racial element of nazism is vastly disproportionate compared to other brands of fascism. Its just the most well known, as demonstrated by your ill informed post. Furthermore to suggest that by being Jewish someone could in no way be involved in fascism is, perversely a racist comment – as Karl stated ‘any race from any country can be inducted into fascism’ , especially when it is not openly fascist, as virtually no organisations are these days. Tends to cut down on the gullible member quotient see? Mosley was a virulent anti-Semite. Firstly – that’s wrong. Mosley ‘graduated’ to anti-Semitism in the latter part of his career, with a notable coincidence with a decrease in the membership of the British Union of Fascists. Considering that anti-Semitism is pretty much entirely absent from the early aspect of his career, it seems far more likely that Mosley’s adoption of anti-Semitism was a cynical move to try and increase membership – whether or not he came to believe what he was speaking is a different matter. Personally I believe he did to some extent, but he was certainly never ‘virulent’. Furthermore the vast majority of Mosley’s fascist ideology was espoused in the early 30’s but his organisation only became overtly anti-Semitic in the mid 30’s – so it was hardly the core aspect of his ideology. Mosley actually dissuaded some of his lieutenants (who were virulent anti-Semites in some cases) from preaching anti-Semitism early in the organisation’s history. And some people who believed in everything else Mosley stood for left the organisation when it ‘became’ anti-Smitic. However, that’s just a point of fact. Lets get back to; Who are the anti-Semites in THIS situation? Hmmmmmmmmm? What does that have to do with anything? Here’s a clue – it doesn’t. The aspect of fascism that I was referencing is the belief in vindication through combat, a strong tenant in Mosley’s speeches. Which is clearly apparent in the passage I reference. They don't mean PHYSICAL assault. They mean challenging by ideas, not fists. Nope. They talk about cutting these people off from ‘decent society’ – they are in not talking about challenging ideas, they are talking about forcing ideas. Hmph the LEFT deals in conspiracy all the time. Blood for oil, Bush wants this and that, they're really fighting against Islam...THAT'S conspiracy bullcrap. excuse me – but what exactly is this ‘The Left’? It seems to me that the only person dealing in conspiracy bull rap in this topic is you. Maybe you should try engaging ideas on an individual basis because your huge simplifications are, frankly, irrelevant. Interesting tho that your attempt to counter criticism of your little right wing organisation (see how I’m addressing my critique on a specific set of ideas rather than wasting my time railing against crass generalisations that I have made up in my bedroom?), specifically the criticism that they deal in conspiracy is to start shouting “No! no! The left, the left!” Of course that could because you are not actually interested in the debate and just wish to state that you are right over and over again. I don't know about you but over here in North America there are people who don't broadcast what they really believe. They hide behind other things. Such as, communists or other not-quite-as-left leftists hiding behind concern "for the Iraqi people." This is evident in the fact that you can barely get a coherent argument out of the average antiwar protester. So you have spoken to all the anti-war protesters have you? And all these people who ‘don't broadcast what they really believe’. Somehow I doubt it. Not that, again, this has any bearing on my original comments… The real reasons are buried in underneath, and they can't espouse them out loud to the average person because they will sound crazy because the reasons have no bearing on reality. But some people DO know the reasons (former leftists like David Horowitz), so it's NOT just a baseless conspiracy theory. still going huh? Scuse me while I skip your continued attempt to refute that these people deal in conspiracy by espousing further conspiracies. Altho I am curious as to what these crazy people would say when in an anonymous forum where they could not be held accountable in a real way, maybe ‘I’m a giant winged dog’ or ‘ I have a sexual attraction to thundercracker’… Anyway - I’m gonna forge ahead a bit and see if I can find where you start addressing my comments again… It's documented. and therefore automatically true – yes yes dear, we know. There there Go back over your dictionary definition of Fascism and tell me that doesn't apply to Saddam Hussein as well as Al-qaeda. It isn't regular fascism, it's fascism with a religious overtone and basis. They're NOT saying all islam is fascist, nor that fascism is intrinsically islamist. Hitler started out as National Socialist. So it is with Saddam. That's what the Ba'ath party is basically. Ok – we found a bit, well half of a bit. And now I have a question. What the ****? Firstly you appear to be trying to engage my critique by talking about something else again. Secondly your comment ‘Hitler started out as National Socialist. So it is with Saddam. That's what the Ba'ath party is basically’ makes no actual sense. You do realise that National Socialism is a form of fascism don’t you? You haven’t been caught out by the fact it has ‘socialist’ in the title have you? You do also realise that it is probably the most nationally specific fascist ideology ever and therefore has nothing really to do with Saddam? Saddam could be classified as neo-fascist, But guess what? We aint talking about Saddam and Al-quida honey – we talking ‘bout yo jackbooted website. So kindly cut the diversionary tactics. As for your espousal that they are not implying this or not implying that, doesn’t seem to make that clear anywhere on the website I’m afraid. One of the tricks of propaganda is to leave ambiguities so as to be able to refute accusations as you are trying to do, and attract the waverers. But what cannot be refuted is that if you cared that you were not perceived in that fashion you wouldn’t leave ambiguities on such a sensitive subject sitting there in the first place. HAHAHAHAHA! Uh-huh. No, they aren't trying to SILENCE the Left. There's a difference between silencing someone and just making sure they have no power Not in any way that matters there isn’t. The anti-democracy element remains. --by a specific mechanism where ALL the guys do is expose the ideas of these protesters to the public, and give them a taste of their own medicine (with the mockery signs). Besides, they're quite accurately mirroring the rhetoric of the average antiwar protest group--for a reason. to paraphrase ‘all these guys do is put words in other peoples mouths so that they have something to rail against, cos boy did these people ask for it’. They seek to repress debate and cut off dialogue. Its there in black and white. Deal with it. Incidentally, what about you and your left wing crowd? I have a left wing crowd? Oh right, yeah, my left wing crowd, yeah. Sure. Right there in your mind, I see them. Next to the cat ****ing the robot. Aren't you all about making sure the RIGHT doesn't have power? Hmmmmmm? Doesn't that make you kinda neo-fascist in some way? How? I’m not seeking to repress any ones ideas, or cut them off from decent society. By disagreeing with someone you are not a fascist! Jesus. The point is their desire to cut the people they disagree with out of the debate. It’s a very simple and obvious distinction. Altho I notice that, once again we are trying to deflect the subject onto something else. Try harder. Start a comic vs cartoon debate – that’ll throw me off for sure. The following is, by the way, the most genius piece of debating I’ve ever seen. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Best First: They are typical of the watered down brand of modern fascism - not to say that it is nay less evil - just that it has less internal cogency and is more reactionary than 'classic' fascism. i.e. its taken all the worst bits (which was most if it) and removed the intellectual aspect that made fascism a vaguely tenable position to some in the 1930's. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and now, the ALL STAR REFUTE: You don't get what they're about. Oh my! Your right! I repent! Jesus. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Best First: That’s not to say i in any way endorse 'classic' fascism, just that the newer brand is a comparative embarrassment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dude. They aren't fascist. wrong – see entire post Jews would never be fascist. Fascists are anti-Semitic. THESE GUYS AREN'T ANTISEMITIC. wrong – see top of post. Right back at ya, you big left wing propaganda tool. Uh… and where am I endorsing an organisation that can be classified as left wing? Go on – show me the post. Where am I putting simplistic slogans that avoid the true nature of the debate in my sig? Go on, show me the post. If you took the time to look at my points across a length and breadth of topics you would see that im not classically left wing anyway. Never voted Labour in my life… No I'm not endorsing fascism. I'm endorsing giving the protesters a taste of their own medicine. By endorsing a neo-fascist organisation. Go you. And what medicine is this exactly? Where does this concept that all anti-war protesters have exactly the same ideas and act in exactly the same way come from? Apparently all for naught, since you are so blatantly misapplying the definitions and terms as you described them. According to… you. Yeah, I really feel the educational rug being pulled from beneath me. I notice you skip using actual examples. I notice, but I am not s-u-p-r-I-s-e-d. What bully tactics are you talking about. uh… ‘we seek to cut these people off from decent society’? maybe? There have been no fisticuffs between these guys and protesters. Well, firstly unless you were with them you can’t actually state that to be true with any conviction. Secondly bully tactics don’t have to be physical. Come on, put out in PAINFUL TECHNICAL DETAIL exactly what a fascist/neofascist is ALL ABOUT. Oh, ok. I get it. So now, having spent most of the debate trying to talk about other stuff, you final tactic is ‘unless you can write an essay of fascism I am right’. Sure, keep telling yourself that. I’m not going to write an essay, personally I’m not of the opinion that the best way to ‘win’ a debate is to keep posting more and more obscenely lengthy rambling unfocused posts until the person I am disagreeing with just cant be bothered to read them (please bear that in mind if you deem fit to respond to this post). However, simply, the key tenants of fascism tend to be(although there is an ongoing historic debate about the exact list – these are the more certain ones) ; Authoritarianism, that is a desire to see things done a certain way and for there to be no scope for resistance to that - i.e. ‘we seek to cut these people off from decent society’ A tendency to scapegoat – which often results in racism becoming an element – however racism, and certainly not anti-Semitism are not pre-requisites for something to be ‘fascist’. The suggestion that the main thrust of my post was that these guys are white supremacists is strawman bollocks. A tendency to indulge in conspiracy theory, relating to the scapegoating A harking back to a golden age or a mythic past and a sense of erosion of certain values, generally related to that past. A desire for vindication thru conflict, which relates to the tendency to scapegoat and the use of conspiracy – fascism needs an enemy to breath, and of course this enemy is held responsible for the erosion of values and are also the reason that authoritarianism is required A sense of superiority and a right to the mythic heritage Patriotism And usually a sense of militarism However once you hit three or four on that checklist (depending on which ones) you don’t have to hit all the others to be considered fascist. The key ones are the authoritarianism, patriotism and the need for a sense of threat IMO. Other historians may weight others with more importantance but would be very unlikely to dispute the list itself. ‘Classical’ fascism can generally be distinguished pretty much by the time in which it happened – the 1930’s and the fact that it didn’t hold the stigma it holds now, meaning some people that could be accused of a reasonable level of intellect, and also often ambition were involved and that the more detailed tenants of the ideology were often more evolved and developed. There are also strong casual links to the first world war in a lot of classical fascism. Neo-fascism tended to be defined by the fact it still gets a few hits on the list, but by and large is more thuggish and simplistic either in mentality or method or both. Groups like Britain’s National Front and later the BNP would fit these categories. However there is also the so called ‘new-right’ in Europe who whilst potentially falling under the neo-fascist banner are a more complex and intelligent threat, more skilled at feeding off popular frustration and playing within the ‘rules’. Which is why this distinction needs to be made. ProtestWanker.com would fall into the middle category – they are pretty simplistic and are clearly not political players, but they seek to define a vague enemy, use patriotism and wish to silence (or cut off – whatever) those who disagree with them, who they paint as such a threat, through some rather hashed scapegoating and conspiracy theory mongering that this brand of severe action must be taken. Look Sheba, I have very little time for your ideas, the way you approach debate or your opinion that starscream is a good character. But I would never have branded you a fascist and you clearly have a poor understanding of what fascism is as evidenced by your 'they are not anti-Semites, so they can't be fascist. ha!' line of refute. Please, stay away from these pricks. Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-29-2003 at 01:50 PM:
my respect and admiration for your mind cannot be expressed, Paul. I'll just buy you a pint if you turn up to Transforce '03.
I could not agree more with your last sentiment either. Feel free to think what you like, Sheba, naturally- don't let people tell you what to think (although a healthy respect for other people's views and the ability to view your own thoughts in context wouldn't go amiss); but if you are open to advice keep away from people like that: they are dangerous. Posted by Best First on 03-29-2003 at 01:52 PM:
quote:This slowly destroying said mind! Im on to you sonny! (thanks )Posted by Computron on 03-29-2003 at 02:04 PM:
Paul. That post was incredible.
I want to bear your children. Posted by Best First on 03-29-2003 at 02:09 PM:
quote:well, according to Karl's post in the gay righst topic it should be possible in about 10 years.... to be fair my post isnt 'incredible' it just happens to be a subject i know a lot about. Im sure people would be able to speak equally well on their degree subjects. Posted by Computron on 03-29-2003 at 02:12 PM:
quote:*Starts rambling on about Descartes* Posted by Sir Auros on 03-29-2003 at 02:30 PM:
Best First, you are truly the master!
Oh, and Sheba's little Protest Warrior site NOT being racist...think again.    Yeah, you can see the Jewish, non-racist influence in that last picture there [This message has been edited by Sir Auros (edited 03-29-2003).] edit - Sir Auros - i appreciate you agreeing with me, and i did contemplate using those images to make my point - but to be honest they are so offensive i would rather they were not here at all. I hope you understand my removal of them. If anyone wishes to see what i mean replace 'disk' in the images urls with 'idisk' - but id prefer if they were not used on site. thanks BF Posted by Cliffjumper on 03-29-2003 at 02:40 PM:
Maybe if I SCATTER my POSTINGS with random CAPITALS and LOTS of punctuation it'll cover up THE threadbare CONTENT!!!
*edit* You forgot 'Dood' -Snarl Posted by Sir Auros on 03-29-2003 at 03:34 PM:
Yes, I know they're offensive, and that's exactly why it's disgusting that she's supporting those people, she's just an ethnocentric racist. I understand your removing them though
Posted by Blacksword on 03-29-2003 at 03:34 PM:
You also for got Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm and frequent use of low level insults at the intellignece of those who hold other views and that tehy have been brainwashed by THE LEFT. Like I said elsewhere Sheba, debate liek a grown up and then I'll play ball.
Nice post Besty but she'll write it off as university brain washing. Guess random websites are a better and less biased education. Oh and I looked up those posters and your "they're not not facist" line pretty much dies on the vine there luv. Posted by Sir Auros on 03-29-2003 at 04:42 PM:
quote:Yeah, last time she did that at the Archive, it ended with a temp. ban...I guess a college education isn't nearly as thorough as listening to Rush Limbaugh... Posted by Best First on 03-29-2003 at 07:50 PM:
quote:thanks Posted by Redstreak on 03-30-2003 at 02:06 AM:
First, I can't believe I read the whole thing...
Second, Besty is now my new hero. That took some serious chops to post man, nice one. If she refutes it, I'd be surprised, though I suspect I know how she'd attempt to refute it if she did go at it... Posted by Sheba on 03-30-2003 at 03:28 PM:
quote: Dude I can't believe I'm reading this from you. Talk about overanalysis. You see a warrior-man, and automatically assume fascist?! OMG. Sounds like you have your own brand of McCarthyism/witch hunt theory going on. The point isn't whether it LOOKS anything like what you think it does, but whether it was the actual intent of the person. Go on besty, I triple dare you to go to that website, click on "contact" and accuse those guys of being neo fascist, point by point. They can answer better than anyone what their intentions are. For crissakes one of those guys is JEWISH!!!!! A Jew would NEVER have F*** ALL to do with any sort of Fascism. Sort of blows your whole fascism theory out of the water. quote: Well to a Jewish person it really doesn't make any difference. The point isn't what the elements are so much as what a Jewish person THINKS the elements are. They're kind of going to not like the whole idea just on principle. It's human nature. quote: Like I said, it's not likely to appeal to a Jewish person. Technically yes, anybody can be turned fascist, but I was talking about real life likelihood of such a thing occurring. Mosley was a virulent anti-Semite. quote:the point is he WAS antisemitic. I don't care when. However, that’s just a point of fact. Lets get back to; Who are the anti-Semites in THIS situation? Hmmmmmmmmm? quote: It has lots to do with it, considering there is a small but prevalent antisemitic group within the antiwar crowd itself. It was observed in Victoria by eyewitnesses. Not to say all antiwar protesters are antisemitic, but it's out there. And vindication through combat has nothing to do with protestwarrior.com. They don't mean PHYSICAL assault. They mean challenging by ideas, not fists. quote: *sighs* Challenging ideas is EXACTLY what they're talking about! Talk about taking quotes out of context. This is the FULL QUOTE: **Do you enjoy needling the Left? It depends. Some leftists may be genuine about wanting to help people, they just have bad data. With them, it is a pleasure to educate them and help them, it's like bringing someone out of darkness into the light of truth -- akin to saving souls. But the other kind, the hard-core emotional based leftists, the kind where you look into their eyes and see confusion, anger, hatred, we just feel sorry for them, and all you can do is work to create a society where they have no power. And the way to do that is to reduce the role of the State in human affairs as much as possible. Evil is impotent on its own, and we want to do everything we can to cordon them off from decent society. Where does it say they propose using force to silence people, or that they want to force things on people? (Never mind that the Left is CONSTANTLY forcing things on people. Does that make them fascist?) Reducing the role state plays in human affairs is easily accomplished by voting, not violence. Tell ya what, you ask these guys exactly how they propose to "cordon them (the EXTREMISTS) from decent society? Hmph the LEFT deals in conspiracy all the time. Blood for oil, Bush wants this and that, they're really fighting against Islam...THAT'S conspiracy bullcrap. quote:What are you, a "moderate"? Are you socialist? Then you are left wing. Are you for bigger and bigger government that's more and more involved in cradle-to-the-grave, womb-to-the-tomb meddling in citizen affairs? Then you are left wing. Left Wing entails a certain set of ideas common in its spectrum, and that's what I'm on about. I don't know about you but over here in North America there are people who don't broadcast what they really believe. They hide behind other things. Such as, communists or other not-quite-as-left leftists hiding behind concern "for the Iraqi people." This is evident in the fact that you can barely get a coherent argument out of the average antiwar protester. quote:All we need is a 'scientific' sample like they have in polls... The real reasons are buried in underneath, and they can't espouse them out loud to the average person because they will sound crazy because the reasons have no bearing on reality. But some people DO know the reasons (former leftists like David Horowitz), so it's NOT just a baseless conspiracy theory. quote: My point is, duuuuuude, is that Conspiracy Theories are not exclusive to one side of the political spectrum. Just because a person has conspiracy theories doesn't make them fascist. There are whacko nut bar conspiracy theories on both sides. So your point that the conspiratoriality alleged in the protestwarrior site = fascism is refuted. Anyway - I’m gonna forge ahead a bit and see if I can find where you start addressing my comments again… It's documented. and therefore automatically true – yes yes dear, we know. There there Go back over your dictionary definition of Fascism and tell me that doesn't apply to Saddam Hussein as well as Al-qaeda. It isn't regular fascism, it's fascism with a religious overtone and basis. They're NOT saying all islam is fascist, nor that fascism is intrinsically islamist. Hitler started out as National Socialist. So it is with Saddam. That's what the Ba'ath party is basically. quote: No, you're the one using diversionary tactics. The reason Saddam even got mentioned in the same breath as fascism is a direct result of YOU criticizing that site for using Islam and fascism in the same sentence. And as typical, you took their quote totally out of context. Query: Can an anti-fascist be fascist? **Why are you for going to war in Iraq? The primary reason of course is national security. September 11 was a clarion call that America faces a new threat, a threat perhaps even more dangerous than the Soviet Union. That threat is Islamo-fascism. Now due to a successful campaign in Afghanistan, the Taliban is no more, and Al-Qaeda was largely disrupted. However, it is not enough to simply go after the terrorists themselves, we must also change the conditions that breed them. The reality is that Muslims are no different than any other group of people, in that when a society is run by tyranny, when there is no economic, social or civil liberty, this breeds frustration, poverty, alienation, and fear. The people in these countries, rather than look to themselves as the cause of their problems, instead need a scapegoat, an enemy, which the dictator is always happy to provide. Take the issue of the Palestinians. The Arabs have six million square miles of land. They could give their Palestinian brothers a state tomorrow, and with one day's oil profits give every one of them a bar of gold. Instead, the Arab dictators prop up Arafat and his loathsome gang of oppressors, and brainwash their people to be pure monsters. When mothers happily send their children off to bomb buses and schools, this is not based on any rational grievance. No, this is endemic of a sick, utterly immoral, anti-life culture that serves only one purpose: to keep tyrants in power. For the last 50 years, Israel has been the shock absorbers for Western Civilization, taking the blows, fighting the fight. But Islamic fundamentalism has escalated this war into a global clash of civilizations. It's similar to the Cold War in that it is Freedom vs. Statism, but what makes it even more dangerous is that Islamic terrorists are so utterly irrational, so willing to kill just for the sake of killing. This menace must be stopped. So the best reason for going to war with Iraq is that it is time to start draining the swamp of Islamo-fascism. If we see this through, not just the toppling of Saddam, but the rebuilding of Iraq as a free republic, then it is our hope that it will become a paragon of hope for that benighted region. This is the only way we will ever achieve real national security. But it is more than just about our safety. It is about the moral duty of the greatest country in the history of this planet, the United States of America, to bring freedom to all corners of the globe. We are the only ones capable of doing it. So to all the Iraqi men, women and children who at this moment are being tortured in Saddam's prisons, we have one thing to say to you: The cavalry is on its way. jack-booted website?! Damn, you're worse than McCarthy. You're finding fascists where they don't exist. It's all in your head, maaaaaaaaan. quote:Well how about you MAKE IT CLEAR by freaking GOING TO THE SITE and FREAKING EMAILING THEM AND ASKING THEM ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!! Geez how hard would that be. HAHAHAHAHA! Uh-huh. No, they aren't trying to SILENCE the Left. There's a difference between silencing someone and just making sure they have no power quote: hah. how. where. What anti-democracy element? If anyone was trying to silence dissenting opinions, it was the antiwar crowd. Just check the protest gallery. --by a specific mechanism where ALL the guys do is expose the ideas of these protesters to the public, and give them a taste of their own medicine (with the mockery signs). Besides, they're quite accurately mirroring the rhetoric of the average antiwar protest group--for a reason. quote: No it's not. Go ahead and freaking ask them. ASK THEM! Incidentally, what about you and your left wing crowd? quote: Well are you a moderate, then? Aren't you all about making sure the RIGHT doesn't have power? Hmmmmmm? Doesn't that make you kinda neo-fascist in some way? quote: No, not the people they disagree with. You didn't read the quote properly. They're talking about the militant whacko extremists. And they're NOT talking about silencing them. They are talking about making sure they never have power. After all the extremists are in the minority. And tit's not by violent means to marginalize them, it's by the fact that the minority does not rule. By exposing the inanity rhetoric of the extremists to the public, the public itself will IGNORE the extremists. No force required. quote:whatever you say besty Posted by Jim on 03-30-2003 at 03:43 PM:
 EDIT: On another note... The ACLU has some disturbing news for the Americans on this board... http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12166&c=206 Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-30-2003 at 04:00 PM:
The cat is black.
No... its white. But duuude its black. It's white! No you just dont understand do you? Look again, its black! But for goodness' sake, I can see its white?? Look: I am looking at it now, its white! No. It's black. You just don't understand. Sheba you are utterly beyond redemption. Posted by Sir Auros on 03-30-2003 at 04:08 PM:
Ah yes, Sheba, the world's leading expert on Jews...
Karl Lynch, that was beautiful man. Posted by Sheba on 03-30-2003 at 04:14 PM:
quote:I don't need a f***ing essay, I just need the exact basis on what you judge to be fascist. Dictionary definitions of fascism are painfully vague. quote: ALL I want is a CLEAR UNAMBIGUOUS, non one-size-fits-all definition of fascism. quote: Go ahead and ask these guys about that. Why do you think they mean by violent government ways? quote:Well the insinuation of aryanism by you is what got that going. You have nobody but yourself to blame for that. Incidentally, who are these guys scapegoating, exactly? quote:what conspiracy? Tell me. quote:According to this individual definition, every moral/religious person would be a fascist Speaking of mythic past, some antiwar protesters seem to be part of the "September 10th Crowd" quote: What conflict?! What authoritarianism?! These guys aren't advocating dissolution of the Representative Republic system of governing! Oh you mean the Iraq war? Then why isn't everyone who starts a war fascist?! (Speaking of which, in some of those dictator-ridden countries, including the middle east we do get this kind of reasoning: A desire for vindication thru conflict, which relates to the tendency to scapegoat and the use of conspiracy – fascism needs an enemy to breath, and of course this enemy is held responsible for the erosion of values and are also the reason that authoritarianism is required "The Americans did it to you! The Jews did it to you! Never mind that I'm robbing YOU blind!"-Phil Hendry's best impersonation of a Middle East Dictator quote:Doesn't fit with these guys but fits real well in the Middle East. quote: So this means a non-fascist is....UN-patriotic???? quote: A sense of militarism...in WHAT context?! National Security? Conquest? Halibut? quote: The Protestwarrior guys do NOT believe in a fascist government. They believe in free elections just like everybody else. Throwing patriotism in there is...puzzling. Sense of threat...well dude how about a REAL THREAT?! WOMD! 9-11! Remember that?! Does a response to a REAL threat qualify towards definition of fascism?! quote: What thuggishness are you talking about (in regards to Protestwarrior)?! quote: VAGUE enemy?! Surely you jest. We have a real enemy, it's called terrorism. Nothing vague about that. Implementing the ideas of the radical extremist antiwar left would be a threat to national security. Now, nobody elected the antiwar crowd to anything, so it's not like they're gonna get thrown out of some sort of office. It's not that they won't be allowed to speak. They'll be allowed to speak all right but they should be ignored. There is a right to Free Speech. They aren't advocating anything different. There is NO "right to be heard." The antiwar extremists can be marginalized without violating their civil rights, without using violence, or your nebulous "extreme measures". Posted by Sheba on 03-30-2003 at 04:16 PM:
quote:oh really. what is it I need to be redeemed from? Posted by Sheba on 03-30-2003 at 04:24 PM:
quote:HORSE $#**. There is no f***ing way I'm an ethnocentric racist. I do NOT think a person is a bad person just because of their color of skin, religion, or what have you. And I can't see which pictures you're objecting to, but it doesn't matter because you guys fail to see that many of these protest signs are TONGUE IN CHEEK. They weren't MEANT to be taken seriously! Political satire is a valid form of humor. These signs are illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Posted by Computron on 03-30-2003 at 04:26 PM:
You triple posted again, despite us telling you not to do that. This is ridiculous and breaks up the flow of the entire discussion.
Posted by Sheba on 03-30-2003 at 04:27 PM:
quote:Germany in 1939 didn't have an equivalent of 9/11... Posted by Sheba on 03-30-2003 at 04:28 PM:
quote:Well what the hell else am I supposed to do? You do want me to address ALL the points don't you? Posted by Jim on 03-30-2003 at 04:28 PM:
quote:http://idisk.mac.com/kfiralfia/Public/protest_warrior/images/posters/sign_02.jpg http://idisk.mac.com/kfiralfia/Public/protest_warrior/images/posters/sign_09.jpg Posted by Computron on 03-30-2003 at 04:30 PM:
quote:Shows how much you know. They had something worse. After Versaille their country was in the crapper, their economy was dead and the german people had basically lost hope. Perfect conditions for Hitler to arise. quote:You just did it again! Another double post! Enough of this, this thread is probably only 7 pages, but thanks to you're triple posting nonsense it's double that. *Temp Ban until I can confer with Snarlos and BF* We warned you about it before just a week ago. Posted by wideload on 03-30-2003 at 04:34 PM:
Havent taken part in this conversation yet but I had to interject. Its kind of ridiculous to say a jewish person could never be fascist. Fascism is a political system built around a fanatical idelogy (that is not necesarily racism). Most facists dont even intentially become fascists. In fact, most orignally have good intentions.
Most people dont wake up in the morning and say I'm going to become a facist and do something incredibly evil. They just get caught up in idealism and they lose sight of the true results of their actions. This can happen to anyone including Jewish people. Posted by Sir Auros on 03-30-2003 at 04:38 PM:
Wow, that's funny that you can't see the images, yet are still defending them...besides, BF gave explicit directions for those who wanted to view the offending pictures.
Anyway, if they are simply political satire, then they're satirizing the very viewpoint of pro-war people...or else they're just mocking protesters and using ethnic/racial slurs to do so. Now, given the nature of that particular site, one would be inclined to believe that the pictures are doing the latter, no? Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-30-2003 at 04:56 PM:
quote:The prosecution rests, M'Lud. Posted by Best First on 03-30-2003 at 04:59 PM:
Sheba, i kicked your ass.
ignoring what i posted, using more divesionary bollocks and reiterating questions that i have already answered and that you ignored doesnt alter the fact that i kicked you ass, and doesnt alter the fact that everyone here saw it plain as day. im especially fond of the tactic of 'asking these guys' Hey guys! Are you neo-fascists? No! Oh sorry! And just for future reference when we say we are going to ban you if you don't stop doing it we tend to mean it. I suggest you use your week off to learn how to use the c-u-t a-n-d p-a-s-t-e functionality on your PC. Posted by Cliffjumper on 03-30-2003 at 05:56 PM:
With regards to Germany not having a "9/11"... like Strafe says, they had it worst than that... 15 years of being pissed on and used as a punchbag by the French and to a slightly lesser extent, the British... frankly, 9/11 was more of a short, sharp shock by comparison. The Germans had a decade and a half of being Europe's bitch, and even the efforts of one of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century, Gustav Stesseman [sp?] couldn't halt it. So what are you going to do, frankly? The German people in general would have listen to anyone who'd help them. There is basically no conceivable parallel between that situation, and the world's most prosperous and powerful country getting a horrible terrorist attack aimed at it.
Incidentally, any Word Processor is vital to posting at such length, editing quotes down for size reasons also [esecially when the original post is on the same page and can be easily referenced...], as is TURNING YOUR BLOODY SIG IMAGE OFF if you are forced to multiple-post. Posted by Computron on 03-30-2003 at 08:49 PM:
Posted by Nightbeat on 03-30-2003 at 08:49 PM:
As we're all voicing opinions here.....
Jim, you've made some good arguments, posts, etc, but bubba, that "End Facisim in America in 2004" image that you're using really bothers me. Smokey the Bear, I'm fine with, but the allusion that The Pledge of Allegiance is comperable to turning children into candidates for the Hitler Youth program gets my hackles up. What can I say? I used to be a Boy Scout. And as to a question that was asked earlier, I'll have to learn Japanese before I move to Japan. Or I could go to Canada, as long as I don't have to live in Quebec. Rather go to England, though. All right, I'll go back to watching now. Although since Sheba's gone for a week, I might talk more on this. My neural relays might not sieze up now that I won't have to skim her long posts. Posted by Cliffjumper on 03-31-2003 at 05:16 AM:
quote:Don't. We have mini-Bush. And Brend... Posted by MaximusFan on 03-31-2003 at 05:28 AM:
Germany did have an equivalent to 9/11, which was the Reichstag fire. A symbol of Germany's power went up in flames. A communist was accused of lighting it, setting off a campaign by Hitler to "silence" the left. Sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it?
Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-31-2003 at 05:34 AM:
{finishes programming 'Virtu-Sheba)
quote:Virtu-Sheba: duuuude- you just don't get it, do you? Those guys are not fascists because one of them is a Jew! How do you think the Jewes could be fascist? duuuuuuuuh Those guys are nothing like Hitler- Hitler like rose to power trying to kill people and stuff but they are trying to bring the left under control before it like destroys the world! You need to go back and read their site again! They're like so not fascists! You just dont understand! Also try www.killeveryonedifferenttome.org and http://www2.ihatethejapanesebutadmirehitler.co.au sheesh they are not racist fascists! they are making valid points, dude! You don't get it do you? hahahahahahaha {unplugs Virtu-Sheba} I've created a monster!!!! Posted by Best First on 03-31-2003 at 07:23 AM:
Karl
as much as i think thats quite amusing its probably fairer if we wait until sheba returns before rubbishing her arguements any further. As much as i disagree with her and pretty much everything she has eevrs aid ever, this is turning into a purely bash sheba topic rathar than bash sheba's ideas topic - which is something i would rather avoid. Im not saying that i have not playedmy part, just that its omething that we should probably put stop to cos i think we are kinda starying into 'bulling the speacial kid' territory. Cheers BF Posted by Cliffjumper on 03-31-2003 at 08:29 AM:
quote:Good point Maxfan, and my apologies for forgetting it... been a while since I did Weimar and all that But I still believe that few parallels can be drawn with the Rise of the Nazis myself... Posted by Karl Lynch on 03-31-2003 at 08:39 AM:
quote:quite right... ive just not forgotten those many many lines she wrote on 'why my religion is stupid and why im a moron' because I believe in a different God to her. If it were anyone else id go up and delete it... but I think I'll leave it be. Your point is taken and well seen though. I do agree that it should not be taken too a foolishly personal level. Posted by Redstreak on 03-31-2003 at 10:58 AM:
I'd just like to point out my prediction from earlier in the thread has now come true...3 bannings, Sheba beaten with sticks. Can I call 'em or what?
Posted by Best First on 03-31-2003 at 11:24 AM:
3? are you sure - we seem to be missing our quota.
Hmm, time for some arbitary bannings, lessee, who was the last person to post? Posted by spiderfrommars on 03-31-2003 at 12:22 PM:
Not me!
Posted by the uiltmate prime fan on 04-01-2003 at 01:31 AM:
bad link.
Posted by Blacksword on 04-01-2003 at 10:17 AM:
Of course they are going to say it wasn't their fault and lie to cover their asses. It's not like they haven't lied before about US caused attrocities. My Lai was only uncovered because one soldier who happened to have a conscience heard a bunch of disturbing stories and decided to investigate. I suppose that made him an idiot too LN? Shoulda kept his mouth shut?
No side is the "good guys", horrible stuff is done by both sides in any war, either through incompetance, or the itchy trigger fingers caused by the environment. Yes part of the blame goes to Saddam for starting the suicide bombings but it was those soldiers who made a bad decision that they'll have to live with. Denying responsibility for gory screw ups is something all militaries have done ever since the notion of fair play entered teh battle feild. US soldiers screw up just like anyone else, thiough history shows they have a pretty bad record. I just wish they'd have the courage to fess up. Posted by impactor returns on 04-01-2003 at 10:20 AM:
yeah and saddam lies as much as the colaition lies.
Its who u want to belive. A good point is being made about the fact that if that market was hit by a 2000 pound cruis missles it wouldnt even be there anymore. Personaly, it doesnt sway my thoughts either way. we will never know, nothing can ever be proven at the moment, i doubt it ever will. Just depends who u want to belive. Posted by Blacksword on 04-01-2003 at 10:54 AM:
I believe neither side explicitly. I generally put my greatest trust in the independent reporters. I don't quite trust the embeded ones. Especially since they keepturning off their cameras when things get messy. As a veteran war correspondent said, that's not how they did it backin the old days (referrign to the nineties with Chechnia and Kosovo). They kept the cameras rolling at all times. Sure we got guys up at the front, but think about it, what are we actually seeing? I don't recall seeing much combat or troubles. Mostly artillery firing, tanks rolling, some reporter talking with military equipment in the background. ANd when a reporter (a noted one at that) says something agaisnt the campaign he gets canned. You'd think they'd atleast keep some pretence of a free media. NBC and MSNBC prove once again that they are government lackies. A month or so it was altering the news after it had already been posted, now this. Seems some people have forgotten the ostensible cause for this war.... Thaty was freedom wasn't it, ooops!
Posted by Computron on 04-01-2003 at 11:05 AM:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/893755.asp?0cv=CB10
I blame this entirely on those idiots in the states who created freedom fries and started dumping french wine in rivers. Posted by impactor returns on 04-01-2003 at 11:08 AM:
The world has gone mad.
WHich is why i frankly dont care much anymore. Anyone for Transformers? Posted by Blacksword on 04-01-2003 at 11:17 AM:
*raises hand*
People Suck That's all I got right now. Posted by Cliffjumper on 04-01-2003 at 11:17 AM:
quote:Marlboros? Posted by Jim on 04-01-2003 at 12:47 PM:
quote:I didn't know the US still exported anything. =-o Posted by LeAtHeRnEcK on 04-01-2003 at 02:39 PM:
quote:In no way is it those soldiers fault. They ordered a car to stop. It didn't. They fired warning shots. Still didn't shop. Well, gee whiz, maybe they might be under attack? That's the same thing anyone with multiple brain functions would think. So they defended themselves. Turns out that they weren't under attack. Their actions were still justified. Hell, I commend these soldiers for having the balls to do what they needed to do. Dead civilians isn't the goal. Living Americans, however, is. Posted by Computron on 04-01-2003 at 02:42 PM:
I actually have to agree with Leatherneck about this latest incident. The van approached at high speed, didn't stop, even after warning shots. Given the recent spate of suicide bombings they had no choice in the matter, unforunate as it is.
On the other hand this is why this war blows chunks. http://www.msnbc.com/c/0/147/104/10x7/030401_war_06.jpg Grieving in Babylon Razzaq Kazem al-Khafaj grieves over the body of his mother in Hilla in the southern province of Babylon April 1. Khafaj lost 15 members, including six children, of his family as his car was bombed by coalition helicopters while fleeing al-Haidariyeh towards Babylon. Thirty-three civilians were killed and 310 wounded in a US-British coalition bombing of the residential area of Nader south of the city of Hilla, 50 miles south of Baghdad. Posted by impactor returns on 04-01-2003 at 03:05 PM:
Saddams no-show tonight was 'interesting'
And British troops rock. Posted by Blacksword on 04-01-2003 at 07:07 PM:
When it comes to the check point, the article Pops referred to makes me wonder over what actually happened. Liek I said teh US army's tried to white wash stuff before so it could be either way. If they did give the warning shots in time well they still gave that on their heads. Killing, is killing is killing. Just becuase the people in the car were stupid doesn't make the action right, only understandable. And liek I've said those people among several hundred others would propably still be alive if this war wasn't going on. Saddam needs to go, true but I still put those lives on the heads of the US government because this would not have been necessary if they hadn't helped intall saddam and entrench him in the first place. This is a war that is the fault of the US govenmnet plain and simple. There is a certain degree of neccessity but it is a neccessity that should never have existed.
Posted by Best First on 04-02-2003 at 01:55 AM:
Guys - we are concerned that this topic is getting unstable due to the size of it - so i am going to start a new 'one and only iraq topic' and close this one - please use the new one from now on.
Thanks BF |