NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: I did not write this, nor do I have a nine-year-old son!


The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation.
My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He told him: "Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"
"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.
"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush."
Our son giggled and said "OK."
"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said.
"OK Dad, I'm pretending."
"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and see that man come out of his house with his wife and he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and afraid of their father. You see all of this son..... what do you do?"
"Dad?"
"What do you do son?"
"I call the police, Dad."
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?"
"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.
"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.
"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.
"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."
"Daddy...he kills them?"
"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"
"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says.
"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.
"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"
"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.
"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?" "What Daddy?"
"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in he window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"
"Daddy..."
"WHAT DO YOU DO?"
Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I close the blinds, Daddy."
My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him... "Why?"
"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help...people who needs it....and they won't help....You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself ...Daddy......I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds....so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."
I start to cry.
My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husbands questions and he tells him...."Son"
"Yes, Daddy."
"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door..."WHAT DO YOU DO?"
My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"
I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs my son to his chest and hugs him tight, and cries..."It's too late to fight him, he's too strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before......it's too late." my husband whispers.
THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen is the greatest EVIL of all. Our President is doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must understand that this war is a war of humanity. WE must remove evil men from power so that we can continue to live in a free world where we are not afraid to look out our window. So that my nine year old son won't grow up in a world where he feels that if he just "closes" that blinds the atrocities in the world won't affect him. "YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!"
BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!
BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!!
BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT
SUPPORT THEM!!!
SUPPORT AMERICA!!
SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."
"One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes...and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility."
-Eleanor Roosevelt

Since when does a tinpot dictator in the Gulf pose a threat to the US?

...except that people in a neighbourhood all agree to live under one set of social standards and laws, while people in different countries are not obliged to live their lives to our concepts of right and wrong. That analogy fell apart pretty quick.

what if your son asks you the following

"why are we trying to call the police on one house, where a man beats his wife, but not that other house, where another man is also beating his wife?
Is it cos he uses gas and not OIL, to heat his home ?"

and he may go on to find out...

"Dad, didnt we help that wife beater to get so powerful in the first place, why did we do that ?, why did we give him money for wife beating equipment and stuff?"

Ugh, the nationalism and false analogies just keep coming...

Since when do children talk like that? And since when are parents stupid enough to talk in such a biased way to impressionable children?

And since when is America (OR Australia OR England OR et al) defending themselves?

Since when did the UN 'refuse' to help (if I recall it was more a matter of checking facts and making sure they had a RIGHT to interfer... much like you'd expect the police to check before barging in, guns blazing).

Other than that... and the other problems others will bring up...

I'm still against the war 100%.

*standing ovation*

Brilliant. If I supported the war, I would not do a better job.

IF...

Now don't take this as criticism, but I would not have told my kid that, for the simple reason that I do NOT support the war.

That is just so sad. You insult our intelligence. You know we are not nine year old little brats here.

what if your son asks you the following

"why are we trying to call the police on one house, where a man beats his wife, but not that other house, where another man is also beating his wife?
Is it cos he uses gas and not OIL, to heat his home ?"

and he may go on to find out...

"Dad, didnt we help that wife beater to get so powerful in the first place, why did we do that ?, why did we give him money for wife beating equipment and stuff?"
Well said.

"Perhaps even the lefties can understand this"

Nope, sorry, still not getting it. I guess one of us just sees the world in too stupid and simplistic a way.

Every time when I see an analogy like this, I ask myself "What if Iraq was an ally of Russia or China?". In that case the USA would have tried to solve things on a more diplomatic way, or most likely ignored it.

"Perhaps even the lefties can understand this"

Nope, sorry, still not getting it. I guess one of us just sees the world in too stupid and simplistic a way.
the kid is 9 for Christs Sake

The reason we went to war was because Bush was given faulty information, which we now know is faulty information that Hussein had WMD's. Now lets review Husseins crimes:

1) Saddam invaded his neighbors

2) used WMD's on his own people

3) committed acts of mass genocide

4) thousands if not millions of women were raped by Hussein, his sons, and his royal guard

5) starved his people

6) murdered all who opposed him

7) supported terrorism by working with major terrorists like Zarqawi and Abu Nedal and allowing terrorists training camps to operate in iraq.

8) since the gulf war he ignored and disregarded SEVENTEEN UN regulations.

9) kicked out weapons inspectators

10) ignored the ultimatum

11) The scientist in charge of Husseins WMD research over the past two decades handed over all research documents to the US, showing blue prints and everything needed to make WMD, he even had the material compoenents, all he needed was the time.

12) the scientist told us that the only thing Hussein was waiting for before he started the secret program was for the world to look away.

13) He bribed major UN nations like France, Russia, and Germany with blood money from the Oil for Food program.

14) He broke one of the biggest laws in the UN, crimes against humanity.

I think we had more then enough reason to invade Iraq EVEN if he didnt have WMD's, more then enough reason to take him down.

Lets not forget WWII was a war for our very freedom. We didn't start it. The war on Al Qaeda is a just war, again they started it. The war on Iraq was just stupid and not needed. It WAS a war of choice based on ideology, not on need! Any one who supports there own people being killed to save other people who don't want your help need to have their heads checked! Seriously! Saddam has NEVER posed a threat to the United States or the west period, end of story!

Did that actually happen? It sounds like a movie script.

If this war so so noble and right why is there such opposition to it? People know when a war is right or wrong. Everyone knew the necessity of fighting Hitler in WW2. Everyone rallied behind the leaders to fight fascism. People lied about their age to get into the Army to fight him back then. Back in Vietnam, an unjust war, and Iraq now, people lie about their age to get out of fighting. People know.

Is this supposed to suggest that the US is some kind of upholder of justice? Pardon me, while I laugh.

the kid is 9 for Christs Sake

I don't like to break it to you, Legless, but the kid may or may not exist. Either way he is part of an analogy being presented by someone who ought to know better than to treat the adults here like they were nine years old simply because they don't share his view of the world.

Great way to forever scar a 9 year old boy.

the kid is 9 for Christs Sake

I don't think the kid was real. You'd need to be quite a crap father to make your kid cry by telling him the bad wife-beating, kid-killing Saddam man was beating down your door.

No, it's directed at people who are old and wise enough to understand international politics, but patronisingly pretends that they don't understand international politics and boils down to "if you don't think the same things as me, you're obviously really stupid".

I have nothing against people explaining why they're for the war, but I don't like being addressed as a child.

Umm, hmmm, that's exactly analogous to the Iraq situation. More realistic would be this:

Now son, we have approximately 150 neighbors. A good number of them are beating and murdering thier families. There's also this one homeless guy who killed your little sister. Now, we went after the homeless camp and got a bunch of that guy's friends, but we can't find the guy who killed your sister, so we're going down the street to kill this guy who ten years ago killed his family and who had no connection to the homelss guy who killed your little sister. Unfortunately, after we attack the guy down the street, the rest of his family is going to fight each other, and the rest of the neighborhood is going to blame us for it, well the rest of the neighborhood except for one old family friend and a bunch of people who signed a petrition but really aren't helping in any other way. Oh, and after we attack the guy down the street, your cousin is going to have to live in that house for a few years while the family in that house fights each other and tries to kill your cousin. We're going to have to send a lot of money to your cousin too, because we're also trying to rebuild the house he's going to be in.

Yes, I know our house is getting a little worn, and we could use some paint and some electrical work, but we can't afford it because we're fixing up the other guy's house. Hey, we have the biggest house on the block, so it's okay, right.

Oh, why aren't we attacking the guys in the dozen or so other houses where the father is killing his wife and children? Ummm, well we can only afford to attack one guy, so we chose the guy who has gold buried under his house.

How come we're not attacking our buddy down the street who also has gold buried under his house who is also killing his wife and family and who has been seen slipping the homeless guy who killed your little sister cash from time to time? Well, that guy is our friend, and he gives us gold all the time, so no matter how bad he is, we can't attack him or even call the cops on him.

Hope this clears things up for you, son.

The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war....

...except your "nine-year-old son" didn't say anything of the sort, unless your name is Irma S Chambers. This is just cut-and-paste claptrap. Here's one site it's on:
http://www.lilesnet.com/patriotic/thoughts/LessonToMySon.htm
and here's another:
http://twirler.ws/reads/lesson-to-my-son.htm
and yet another (which classes it as "poetry", bizarrely):
http://www.iwvpa.net/chambersis/a_lesson.htm

I can't be bothered to cut-and-paste a response, but you can find one here:
http://www.publicdomainprogress.info/articles/2003-04-14%20Regarding%20A%20Lesson%20To%20My%20Son.htm

"Perhaps even the lefties can understand this"

You criticise lefties for calling conservatives stupid, then you do the exact same thing! How hypocritical are you?

...except your "nine-year-old son" didn't say anything of the sort, unless your name is Irma S Chambers. This is just cut-and-paste claptrap. Here's one site it's on:
http://www.lilesnet.com/patriotic/thoughts/LessonToMySon.htm
and here's another:
http://twirler.ws/reads/lesson-to-my-son.htm
and yet another (which classes it as "poetry", bizarrely):
http://www.iwvpa.net/chambersis/a_lesson.htm

I can't be bothered to cut-and-paste a response, but you can find one here:
http://www.publicdomainprogress.info/articles/2003-04-14%20Regarding%20A%20Lesson%20To%20My%20Son.htm
Unless he is female.

My eight year old son asked me the other day, "Oi fatso, why are we having a war in Iraq?"

I said "You see son," (because even if my son is quite normal, I'm a cheesy bastard), "You see, dubya wants re-elected and enough americans are stupid enough to vote for any moron who says 'patriotism' a lot and has wars for no good reason, that he probably will get re-elected by having a war."

"Oh." said my son. "I thought it was because america can't count on a secure supply of oil from either the arab nations or any country in the former soviet union, so it is getting its own little arab country now before US mainland oil runs out completely."

I had to admit that the little smartarse had a point.

The reason we went to war was because Bush was given faulty information

Everything else is irrelevent here.

The reason we 'went to war' is because Bush had already decided he was going to even before he became president.

I remember Conaleeza Rice saying on radio (about a year ago now) that Bush had said he was 'going to have to do something about Saddam' even before 9/11.

The reason the current US regime went to war is the preponderence of PNAC members in high office... who had already drafted the "Pax Americana" even before the last election... detailing regime changes in Iraq and Iran, among others... and now look, attention turns to Iran. (Diversion from the horrible mess they made in Iraq?)

The reason Bush went to war is because Saddam was mean to his daddy.

You can't use all that humanitarian stuff... you can't use the aggressive expansion of Husseins regime...

Saddam has been slaughtering the Kurds since he came to power... this much later is too late to start using the 'genocide' excuse.

Saddam was supplied BY THE US, with weapons and technology SPECIFICALLY so they would be a destabilising effect (on Iran).

What a touching story of child psychological torture. :) Please tell us what school your kid goes to so we can make sure that our kids are in different schools when his day arrives.

Oh here's a good one:

"'Suppose that guy across the street is a guy you sold a lot of guns and ammunition to so that he could kill the people next door to him on his left, who we wanted to kill but couldn't; but he couldn't either so he's using them to kill the people next door to him on his right? What do you do, son?'"

The reason we went to war was because Bush was given faulty information, which we now know is faulty information that Hussein had WMD's. Now lets review Husseins crimes:

Many dictators have committed many crimes. The issue is not what crimes have been committed, but WHO decides what crime has been committed - its got to be in court - the International Criminal Court, for example.

Which every major nation has signed up for... except the US.

So, we can't use the court.

So we decide that Saddam committed some crimes, and that we should invade his country to depose him.

By logical extension, any country can now decide that it is okay to invade another country if the invader decides that the invaded country has committed crimes.

Bringing to an end the inviolability of borders which has been central to international practice and law for centuries.

Who is in the firing line?

China (human rights abuses)
Russia (human rights abuses)
Saudi Arabia (human rights abuses)
Israel (human rights abuses, illegal occupation)
Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea etc. etc.

Should the US invade them all? Even a 9 year old knows the answer to that one.

Now what if another country notices that there are human rights abuses in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, together with the invasion of sovereign countries (Iraq, Afghanistan)? Would it be okay for them to invade the US to depose Bush?

Obviously not.

No one is sorry to see the back of Saddam, but the damage to international law and the precedent set is extremely dangerous for the future.

Even a "righty" can understand that.

My eight year old son asked me the other day, "Oi fatso, why are we having a war in Iraq?"

I said "You see son," (because even if my son is quite normal, I'm a cheesy bastard), "You see, dubya wants re-elected and enough americans are stupid enough to vote for any moron who says 'patriotism' a lot and has wars for no good reason, that he probably will get re-elected by having a war."

"Oh." said my son. "I thought it was because america can't count on a secure supply of oil from either the arab nations or any country in the former soviet union, so it is getting its own little arab country now before US mainland oil runs out completely."

I had to admit that the little smartarse had a point.

Even if we don't agree on other things, you just earned my everlasting respect.

Iraq supported terrorism, it was a terrorist haven, terrorists training camps were present, several top terrorists resided in baghdad, it was a terrorist haven. The Iraqi appreciates us being there, they do, the media doesnt show it because its not a good story, a better story is showing the violence.

My brother came back from Iraq, he told me the average Iraqi wants our help, if you havent gone to iraq, you dont know crap, you cannot stereotype or generalize the Iraqi people when you dont even know a damn thing about them. Only the suni's Sadr City and Fallujah are resisting, those are the only iraqi people. All the other violence are terrorists acts, the suni's are not liked by shaiites and Kurds which are the majority of Iraq.

Violence is bad in Iraq, but its not terrible like liberals are saying. More people die of murder and gang fights here in america a day then Iraqi's die of terrosim in two. The casualties bad, but not overly damaging to the cause. Gurilla warfare's purpose is not to inflict huge amounts of damage, or cause massive amounts of casualties, its to strike fear into the heart of your opponent. Thousands of Iraqi's are rushing to join the national guard and police forces, striking fear into iraqi's is not working. The more the terrorists kill, the more the Iraqi's turn against the terrorists, the more war conditioned the iraqi's become, the more their courage begins to solidify. The terrorists plans are backfiring, that is why they are becoming more desperate and attacking national guards and recruitment centers. The Iraqi's are starting to learn that if they ever want peace, they will have to fight for it, and as anyone who isnt blinded by liberal beliefs can see, the iraqi's are getting prepared to fight back. Iraqi muslims are just as fanatical as any other muslim and when you threaten a muslim mans family, the terrorists better be prepared to feel that muslims wrath.

The terrorism is bad, but it will not bring us down and once we solidify Iraq, it will be a solid anti-terrorist country in a terrorist infested region, this can be a major stronghold for the fight against terrorism.

The reason the current US regime went to war is the preponderence of PNAC members in high office... who had already drafted the "Pax Americana" even before the last election... detailing regime changes in Iraq and Iran, among others... and now look, attention turns to Iran. (Diversion from the horrible mess they made in Iraq?)

Exactly. I don't mean to plug my own thread, but I think a lot of people don't know about PNAC, so I'm plugging my
"Global Domination" thread. There.

Everything else is irrelevent here.

The reason we 'went to war' is because Bush had already decided he was going to even before he became president.

I remember Conaleeza Rice saying on radio (about a year ago now) that Bush had said he was 'going to have to do something about Saddam' even before 9/11.

The reason the current US regime went to war is the preponderence of PNAC members in high office... who had already drafted the "Pax Americana" even before the last election... detailing regime changes in Iraq and Iran, among others... and now look, attention turns to Iran. (Diversion from the horrible mess they made in Iraq?)

The reason Bush went to war is because Saddam was mean to his daddy.

You can't use all that humanitarian stuff... you can't use the aggressive expansion of Husseins regime...

Saddam has been slaughtering the Kurds since he came to power... this much later is too late to start using the 'genocide' excuse.

Saddam was supplied BY THE US, with weapons and technology SPECIFICALLY so they would be a destabilising effect (on Iran).


Werd. Bush's burning desire to get back at Saddam is so well known it needs no introduction. Don't forget that Iraq is also in a prime oilfield location, so Bush's vendetta is hardly against the wishes of his administration (who have most real control).

"For the US to be dependent on Russia for piping oil out of the Caspian region was anathema. Iran was "evil". The only other route was through Afghanistan. In 1998 the oil company Unocol appealed to a Congressional sub-committee for "the development of appropriate investment climates in the region". "The construction of a pipeline proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognised government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company". Dick Cheney was oil-pipeline consultant to several Central Asian republics as well as one of the three deal-makers for Unocol. He is now Vice President of the US.

In July 2001 Pakistan's foreign minister was told by the US that military action would go ahead against Afghanistan by mid October. By February 2002, following the Afghan war, the US had established permanent military bases in all Central Asian republics. Secretary of State Colin Powell said "America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before [11 September]". Cheney indicated that the US was planning action against "40 to 50 countries", even the take-over of Saudi Arabia's oilfields is being discussed. The Bush administration calculates that political upheaval will enable the US to establish direct military control over global oil resources."
(stolen outright from James Bruges)

The terrorism is bad, but it will not bring us down and once we solidify Iraq, it will be a solid anti-terrorist country in a terrorist infested region, this can be a major stronghold for the fight against terrorism.

Ah, so it won't actually have the autonomy to decide for itself whether it wants to be an "anti-terrorist" country or not? So the whole passing over of sovereignty was a complete and utter sham then?

Iraq supported terrorism, it was a terrorist haven, terrorists training camps were present, several top terrorists resided in baghdad, it was a terrorist haven.

There is NO evidence for any of this. If so, please name your source.

The Iraqi appreciates us being there, they do, the media doesnt show it because its not a good story, a better story is showing the violence.

Source?

My brother came back from Iraq, he told me the average Iraqi wants our help, if you havent gone to iraq, you dont know crap, you cannot stereotype or generalize the Iraqi people when you dont even know a damn thing about them.

Have you been? Then, by your rationale, you shouldn't be generalising about the Iraqi people.



Only the suni's Sadr City and Fallujah are resisting, those are the only iraqi people. All the other violence are terrorists acts, the suni's are not liked by shaiites and Kurds which are the majority of Iraq.

The Shiites revolting in Najaf is just a figment of my imagination then?

Violence is bad in Iraq, but its not terrible like liberals are saying. More people die of murder and gang fights here in america a day then Iraqi's die of terrosim in two.

I'd like to see the source for that - but even if it were true, comparing Iraqs murder rate favourably with the US is hardly a good advert for either country.

The casualties bad, but not overly damaging to the cause.

Over 1000 americans dead, several thousand injured.

The US doesn't keep estimates of the numbers of dead Iraqis.


Gurilla warfare's purpose is not to inflict huge amounts of damage, or cause massive amounts of casualties, its to strike fear into the heart of your opponent. Thousands of Iraqi's are rushing to join the national guard and police forces, striking fear into iraqi's is not working. The more the terrorists kill, the more the Iraqi's turn against the terrorists, the more war conditioned the iraqi's become, the more their courage begins to solidify. The terrorists plans are backfiring, that is why they are becoming more desperate and attacking national guards and recruitment centers. The Iraqi's are starting to learn that if they ever want peace, they will have to fight for it, and as anyone who isnt blinded by liberal beliefs can see, the iraqi's are getting prepared to fight back. Iraqi muslims are just as fanatical as any other muslim and when you threaten a muslim mans family, the terrorists better be prepared to feel that muslims wrath.

Are those glasses rose tinted?

The terrorism is bad, but it will not bring us down and once we solidify Iraq, it will be a solid anti-terrorist country in a terrorist infested region, this can be a major stronghold for the fight against terrorism.

It was terrorist-free two years ago. Change will not be imposed from outside, certainly not by an invading force which has killed more civilians in Iraq than the insurgents.

Perhaps not. Perhaps not.

I understand that, a lot of people dont like the war in iraq, but you cannot deny that Saddam was a war criminal and stated in UN regulations, its right, its a World LAW, that anyone who commits crimes against humanity must pay for their crimes. Saddam committed crimes against humanity for three decades. Bush took us to two wars, Clinton took us to five. FIVE WARS.

He took us to Somolia because of mass genocide taking place there. In the end we ran like COWARDS as we watched brave american soldiers dead bodies being dragged through the streets of mogadishu, the bodies being glorified and mutilated.

Clinton took us to Kosovo for the Civil War that ALSO was resulted in mass genocide. Almost 1000 american soldiers died in the crossfire between both factions and again we ran like cowards.

Clinton took us to Bosnia where mass graves and genocide was taking place (though the massive graves werent as big as the ones found in iraq) where many american soldiers were captured by the enemy and because Clinton wanted to be a diplomat instead of a commander they were executed by the enemy.

Clinton took us to Iraq as a empty threat to Saddam Hussein. He sent us there and bombarded Iraq, then turned tail and went home after wasting billions of dollars in cruise missiles and other weapon stockpiles.

Clinton took us to Uzbekistan (sp) after warlords tore the country apart, we lost hundreds of soldiers then we turned tail and went home.

Now whats the difference in all this. Bush refuses to quit, Winners never quit, quitters never win. All of Clintons wars, we lost, we lost five wars in a row, all the soldiers who died, died in vain, we got nothing accomplished in ANY of those countries, Kosovo is still in shambles, Civil war in Somolia, Bosnia, Uzbekistan, we got nothing accomplished, wasting of billions of dollars in useless war efforts, and thousands of americans died in vain. Bush took us to two wars, they are rough, but we are standing strong, YOU DONT WIN BY RUNNING. All of Clintons wars were authorized by the UN, we got UN support, and in those wars, when the going got tough, the world ran and left our flank open to disaster, im glad the UN isnt with us in Iraq, if they were our soldiers would have to watch their backs, not only whats in front of them.

Werd. Bush's burning desire to get back at Saddam is so well known it needs no introduction. Don't forget that Iraq is also in a prime oilfield location, so Bush's vendetta is hardly against the wishes of his administration (who have most real control).

"For the US to be dependent on Russia for piping oil out of the Caspian region was anathema. Iran was "evil". The only other route was through Afghanistan. In 1998 the oil company Unocol appealed to a Congressional sub-committee for "the development of appropriate investment climates in the region". "The construction of a pipeline proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognised government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company". Dick Cheney was oil-pipeline consultant to several Central Asian republics as well as one of the three deal-makers for Unocol. He is now Vice President of the US.

In July 2001 Pakistan's foreign minister was told by the US that military action would go ahead against Afghanistan by mid October. By February 2002, following the Afghan war, the US had established permanent military bases in all Central Asian republics. Secretary of State Colin Powell said "America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before [11 September]". Cheney indicated that the US was planning action against "40 to 50 countries", even the take-over of Saudi Arabia's oilfields is being discussed. The Bush administration calculates that political upheaval will enable the US to establish direct military control over global oil resources."
(stolen outright from James Bruges)

You forgot to mention that Hamid Karzai (the US appointed "interim president") used to be an executive for Unocal. Afgan elections were supposed to have been held recently. Anyone hear the outcome?

Exactly. I don't mean to plug my own thread, but I think a lot of people don't know about PNAC, so I'm plugging my
"Global Domination" thread. There.

Most welcome... unfortunately, the people here who really SHOULD know about PNAC seem to be utterly ignorant of it's very existence.

the story totally sounded like a chick tract

All of Clintons wars were authorized by the UN

Not actually true, but at least you recognise the distinction between a legal war (authorised by UN and with international consensus) and an illegal war (not authorised by UN and with no international consensus).

The illegal invasion of sovereign nations is a war crime.

You forgot to mention that Hamid Karzai (the US appointed "interim president") used to be an executive for Unocal. Afgan elections were supposed to have been held recently. Anyone hear the outcome?

Funnily enough, no.

As an unrelated sidenote, why do we never hear anything about Slobodan Milosevic anymore either?

Clinton took us to Kosovo for the Civil War that ALSO was resulted in mass genocide. Almost 1000 american soldiers died in the crossfire between both factions and again we ran like cowards.

That's a double lie. Almost no American soldiers died in Kosovo. Please post your source. Also, peacekeeping forces are in Kosovo to this day, and it is relatively stabilized.

Dude, stop posting outright lies. It makes you look seriously stupid.

im sorry eutrusca but you have made a mistake

that is the reason we went into bosnia.... ongoing genocide, no oil, no one else willing to do it, remember?

we went into iraq for some reason known to mr bush and his neocon friends. they had hoped to find an excuse before 9/11 ever happened and they used 9/11 to whip up fear of another attack even to the extent of pretending iraq had drone planes that could come to the US and drop weaponized small pox.

our excursion into iraq had nothing to do with humanitarianism and every ameircan knows it. we all lived through it didnt we? that it happened to remove a vile man and his even more vile sons from power was just a nice side benefit.

I understand that, a lot of people dont like the war in iraq, but you cannot deny that Saddam was a war criminal and stated in UN regulations, its right, its a World LAW, that anyone who commits crimes against humanity must pay for their crimes. Saddam committed crimes against humanity for three decades. Bush took us to two wars, Clinton took us to five. FIVE WARS.



Alright, so should we put Bush on trial for violations of the Geneva Convention because of the Abu Ghraib "incidents"? It would certainly make sense judging by your above statement.

im sorry eutrusca but you have made a mistake

that is the reason we went into bosnia.... ongoing genocide, no oil, no one else willing to do it, remember?


Well if Bosnia was not near Europe would we have gone?

Remember Rawanda?

There were terrorist training camps, three of them were named on the news just last night, i cant spell them out because all muslim grammar is kind of rough for me. Furthermore, Zarqawi was injured in Afghanistan, went to iraq and got medical attention from a hospital run by Uddae Hussein. Terrorists like Abu Nedal were present, training camps were present in the desserts of iraq, once i can figure out the name of one of them and know how to spell it, i'll put it up, it was on the news last night.

The news says so itself, furthermore, my Uncle and my brother have just finished tours of duty in iraq, my Uncle is his second tour, first hand accounts, they know what its like over after spending many many months there, thats more then a source, thats a first hand account.

Najaf has lost a lot of its strength and support. Fallujah and Sadr City are the major rebels, Najah is more terrorist oriented.

Just listen to the news, 7 iraqi's die in a car bombing, several are injured. Come on man, i was born and raised in downtown LA, the crips could do more damage then that and the crips is only one gang in a huge nation, and this is only gang oriented im talking about, im not talking about random incidents. Random violence in America causes more casualties in iraq. Common sense, a country, four times the size of Iraq, gang's all over the country, mobs, and just random sick people.

Over 1000 american soldiers dead, tragic, i feel for every one of them. it took 3000 american civilians 3 hours to die on 9/11, it took 1 1/2 hours for 1000 american soldiers to die on D-Day, one battle. 1000 american soldiers have died, dont even try to bring up that death count WITHOUT bringing up the terrorist death count. 5000 terrorists rounded off are dead. You pull up that ratio, i say we are doing pretty damn good. No war is without casualties, and overall, this war has the least amount of casualties in history compared any successful war.

Iraq supported terrorism, it was a terrorist haven, terrorists training camps were present, several top terrorists resided in baghdad, it was a terrorist haven. The Iraqi appreciates us being there, they do, the media doesnt show it because its not a good story, a better story is showing the violence.

My brother came back from Iraq, he told me the average Iraqi wants our help, if you havent gone to iraq, you dont know crap, you cannot stereotype or generalize the Iraqi people when you dont even know a damn thing about them. Only the suni's Sadr City and Fallujah are resisting, those are the only iraqi people. All the other violence are terrorists acts, the suni's are not liked by shaiites and Kurds which are the majority of Iraq.


First of all, I love this: "...if you havent gone to iraq, you dont know crap..."... since, by merely removing the negatives that cancel each other, gives us the following : "If you HAVE gone to iraq, you DO know crap"... which isn't my opinion, but I do find it funny.

How was Iraq a terrorist haven? Surely Saudi Arabia is MUCH MORE of a terrorist haven? Osama's family LIVES there? But then - they are GW BUSH's close friends and business allies... so I guess we can't invade SA.

The fact is - that's irrelevent, as I've already pointed out in one post. Bush had already decided he was going to Iraq long before terrorists became the big issue.

And, before you go on about how terrible terrorism is, and how those who harbour terrorists are evil, and those who supply terrorists are evil:

The US harboured and supported the IRA against the British Army for decades. They allowed IRA members to reside in the US, they allowed them to trade weapons, they gave money to both the IRA and Sinn Fein (spelling?), which is the IRA's political wing.

So - by your argument, the US should launch a full-scale assault on Washington DC, and remove those evil terrorist-sponsoring, terrorist-harbouring politicians. Right?

Kosovo stabilized? Yea right, comon man, you gotta be kidding me, Kosovo was just on the news two months ago about insurgencies and attacks, stable my ass, many americans died in Kosovo. Of course, im not putting down those wars, i believe it was right for us to go to ALL those wars, i believe it was the right thing to do, i agree with Clinton to that extent, but he turned tail and ran, THAT is poor leadership.

Onward Lord America, lead the world, your petty flock, to safey as they cannot stand on their own.

Who needs reason and caution when one is ethnocentric enough to refer to the people of the middle east as frightened children.

The problem with this analogy is that it's merely the justification for a war initiated under false pretenses and with unrealistic expectations and with poor execution.

If a blind eye hadn't been turned to the Taliban in the 80s and particularly early in this Bush presidency, when they were oppressing women and killing people for not wearing beards, blowing up wondrous ancient cliff-carvings of the Buddha, and otherwise being nightmarish, ... if we hadn't turned a blind eye to the Rwandan genocide, East Timor, Burma, Angola, Nigeria, ...name a place, where similar things were happenning... then that 'analogy' might in some way apply to the Bush administration's handling of the war.

In fact, an appeal wasn't made on a moral basis: no, there were lies about Al-Qaeda and 9/11 connections, threats of 'The next thing we'll see is a mushroom cloud if we dont' do this *now* before the world is satisfied that all other measures have been exhausted,'

Even if it *made* Iraq a haven for terrorists.

Every Islamic terrorist and radical in the region had an interest in destabilizing Iraq. One thing about Saddam is that he had the whole area under some kind of *control,* ...and his brand of Islam and Al'Qaeda's were in no way compatible from that dictator's standpoint.

It didn't make Iraq safer, and this *liberation* was poorly-conceived and ill-executed if the intent was *really* to liberate the Iraqi people.

Cause that wasn't really the prime objective. It was a family vendetta and a big prize for Bush's corporate cronies.

He's a Born-Again Christian.

This was all about Babylon, make no mistake.

Over 1000 american soldiers dead, tragic, i feel for every one of them. it took 3000 american civilians 3 hours to die on 9/11, it took 1 1/2 hours for 1000 american soldiers to die on D-Day, one battle. 1000 american soldiers have died, dont even try to bring up that death count WITHOUT bringing up the terrorist death count. 5000 terrorists rounded off are dead. You pull up that ratio, i say we are doing pretty damn good. No war is without casualties, and overall, this war has the least amount of casualties in history compared any successful war.

Oh. So its a score now is it? We just gotta kill more of them, huh?
I agree, in the scale of warfare, 1000 lives is almost nothing. But in the same notion, as citizens of a supposedly modern and industrialized nation, we have to recognize the intrinsic worth of every human being. Thats why, even though only 1000 are dead, we care one hell of a lot. Just 'killing more' doesn't do a damn thing except mean that more people are dead.

Kosovo stabilized? Yea right, comon man, you gotta be kidding me, Kosovo was just on the news two months ago about insurgencies and attacks, stable my ass, many americans died in Kosovo. Of course, im not putting down those wars, i believe it was right for us to go to ALL those wars, i believe it was the right thing to do, i agree with Clinton to that extent, but he turned tail and ran, THAT is poor leadership.

Okay... dude. Kosovo has stablized to an extent. And we /still/ have troops in Yugoslavia as peacekeepers. We didn't run there comrade.

Over 1000 american soldiers dead, tragic, i feel for every one of them. it took 3000 american civilians 3 hours to die on 9/11, it took 1 1/2 hours for 1000 american soldiers to die on D-Day, one battle. 1000 american soldiers have died, dont even try to bring up that death count WITHOUT bringing up the terrorist death count. 5000 terrorists rounded off are dead. You pull up that ratio, i say we are doing pretty damn good. No war is without casualties, and overall, this war has the least amount of casualties in history compared any successful war.

First, just because it was the WTC in New York, doesn't mean they were all americans... or civillians for that matter.

Second: In one of the other threads, I posted a whole sheaf of evidence that the Bush regime KNEW 9/11 was coming, and let it happen to START a war. Normally, maybe I wouldn't buy that, but this isn't even the first time that a US government has done this... they did the same thing in Pearl Harbour - even going so far as to tell Hawaii the wrong locations for the Japanese fleet, to maximise casualties when the attack came.

Third: I believe I heard on a news program recently that 10,000 Iraqis have died, at least, in this 'occupation'. So, the average Iraqi is either happy, or dead.

Fourth: Your 5,000 terrorist figure is unlikely. State the source, if you have one. Which you almost certainly don't.

Fifth: You said the terrorists were Suni... then you said that Najaf was the centre of terrorist action, but Najaf is primarily Shi'ite... how does that work?

There were terrorist training camps, three of them were named on the news just last night, i cant spell them out because all muslim grammar is kind of rough for me. Furthermore, Zarqawi was injured in Afghanistan, went to iraq and got medical attention from a hospital run by Uddae Hussein. Terrorists like Abu Nedal were present, training camps were present in the desserts of iraq, once i can figure out the name of one of them and know how to spell it, i'll put it up, it was on the news last night.


Ok, so you have no source. Allow me:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/zarqawi_030224.html

ABC News clearly states that Zarqawi's camps were in the Kurdish zone, outside Saddam's control.



Najaf has lost a lot of its strength and support. Fallujah and Sadr City are the major rebels, Najah is more terrorist oriented.

and your earlier post:

Only the suni's Sadr City and Fallujah are resisting, those are the only iraqi people. All the other violence are terrorists acts, the suni's are not liked by shaiites and Kurds which are the majority of Iraq.


"Over the past 30 days, more than 2,300 attacks by insurgents have been directed against civilians and military targets in Iraq, in a pattern that sprawls over nearly every major population center outside the Kurdish north,"
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040929/ZNYT/409290335/1002/BUSINESS

Also, "President Bush’s top intelligence advisors told him in July that Iraq’s near term future is shaky and could descend into civil war. "

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/topstories_story_270202823.html


Just listen to the news, 7 iraqi's die in a car bombing, several are injured. Come on man, i was born and raised in downtown LA, the crips could do more damage then that and the crips is only one gang in a huge nation, and this is only gang oriented im talking about, im not talking about random incidents. Random violence in America causes more casualties in iraq. Common sense, a country, four times the size of Iraq, gang's all over the country, mobs, and just random sick people.

Assuming you are correct (which i doubt you can prove), if your governement can't control its own civilian population, what chance have they with the civilian population of a country they're occupying?

I very much doubt, however, that the likely tens of thousand fatalities in Iraq are outnumbered by gang murders in the US

Grave in idle, i understand the threat of Saudi Arabia, without a doubt. Just imagine for a second if we charged into Saudi Arabia, if you thought the terrorism in iraq is bad, we would really be in for it in Saudi Arabia, i admit that terrorist oriented, iraq wasnt as big of a threat when it came to terrorist orientation, compared to say Saudi Arabia. HOWEVER, Iraq had Al Qaeda terrorist camps, they housed many terrorist leaders, like Abu Nedal and later Zarqawi, which is now executing americans, british, even the french with beheadings. Furthermore, we have solid evidence that Saddam Hussein had the material compoenents, the technology, blue prints, material, research labs, all needed to make WMD's and was only waiting for the world body to ONCE AGAIN turn its head away and ignore him. The man in charge of the research program for the past two decades even wrote a book after he turned this information over to inspectators. I think the book is called "plans hidden in my garden" something like that. He was a oncoming threat and definately not as secretive and sly as Iran or Saudi Arabia, Hussein was crazy enough to launch WMD's at anybody at anytime, he's not known for being tactically brilliant just insane, Iran and Saudi Arabia are more strategic then that, Iraq was an immediate threat, Saudi Arabia is a ominent threat, if the UN would grow some balls, we might be able to deal with more of these threats.

2 words: over simplification

"...if you havent gone to iraq, you dont know crap..."

So, prior to Thanksgiving 2003, George W. Bush didn't know crap?

My brother came back from Iraq, he told me the average Iraqi wants our help, if you havent gone to iraq, you dont know crap...

So Hickdumb don't know crap neither?

There were terrorist training camps, three of them were named on the news just last night, i cant spell them out because all muslim grammar is kind of rough for me. Furthermore, Zarqawi was injured in Afghanistan, went to iraq and got medical attention from a hospital run by Uddae Hussein. Terrorists like Abu Nedal were present, training camps were present in the desserts of iraq, once i can figure out the name of one of them and know how to spell it, i'll put it up, it was on the news last night.


Hahahahaha! You said Abu Nidal.

President Bush might say it was a slip of the tongue when he confused the names of two terrorists in a campaign speech yesterday in New Hampshire. Still, he's made the same misstatement at least 10 times before.

During remarks in Derry, N.H., Bush said the late terrorist Abu Nidal killed Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Jewish American who was tossed, along with his wheelchair, off the hijacked cruise liner Achille Lauro in 1985.

"Do you remember Abu Nidal?" Bush asked the crowd. "He's the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. Leon Klinghoffer was murdered because of his religion. Abu Nidal was in Baghdad, as was his organization."

He repeated the mistake last evening at a campaign event in New York City: "Abu Nidal was a cold-blooded terrorist killer who killed Leon Klinghoffer."

Actually, it was Abul Abbas, the leader of a violent Palestinian group, who killed Klinghoffer. The White House had no comment on the mix-up.

Yeah, that whole Abu Nidal proof is very strong. This isn't the only time the Whitehouse has used name confusion to promote their Al Qaeda/Iraq case.

Oh, and just so you know, Abu Nidal was found dead of an apparent "suicide" in Baghdad...a suicide consisting of several bullets. Saddam apparently had him killed because Nidal was involved in a plot to overthrow Saddam. Yeah, Saddam and Nidal were buddies :rolleyes:

The problem with this analogy is that it's merely the justification for a war initiated under false pretenses and with unrealistic expectations and with poor execution.

If a blind eye hadn't been turned to the Taliban in the 80s and particularly early in this Bush presidency, when they were oppressing women and killing people for not wearing beards, blowing up wondrous ancient cliff-carvings of the Buddha, and otherwise being nightmarish, ... if we hadn't turned a blind eye to the Rwandan genocide, East Timor, Burma, Angola, Nigeria, ...name a place, where similar things were happenning... then that 'analogy' might in some way apply to the Bush administration's handling of the war.

In fact, an appeal wasn't made on a moral basis: no, there were lies about Al-Qaeda and 9/11 connections, threats of 'The next thing we'll see is a mushroom cloud if we dont' do this *now* before the world is satisfied that all other measures have been exhausted,'

Even if it *made* Iraq a haven for terrorists.

Every Islamic terrorist and radical in the region had an interest in destabilizing Iraq. One thing about Saddam is that he had the whole area under some kind of *control,* ...and his brand of Islam and Al'Qaeda's were in no way compatible from that dictator's standpoint.

It didn't make Iraq safer, and this *liberation* was poorly-conceived and ill-executed if the intent was *really* to liberate the Iraqi people.

Cause that wasn't really the prime objective. It was a family vendetta and a big prize for Bush's corporate cronies.

He's a Born-Again Christian.

This was all about Babylon, make no mistake.

I have to agree about the Babylon thing... you see how the US Army built runways over Babylonian temples? Turned archeological sites into sand-bags?

About the poorly conceived: Reinforced this week in the release of NIE documents... one of which Bush ignored completely (the one about DO NOT invade Iraq, it will destabilise the country), and the other one of which he wrote of a few days ago as being 'guesses' (The one about the fact that Iraq is going to be in turmoil as a best-case-scenario... and going to be in civil war as a worst-case-scenario)

Of course, the whole Taliban thing is so much more ironic, because it is another US artifact: The US armed, equipped and gave support to Saddam to oppose Iran, who were seen as the 'spearhead' of Islam in the Middle East.
The US armed, equipped and gave support to the Taliban to oppose the Soviet Union, who were the 'spearhead' of Communism in Europe.

So, America MADE Saddam and Osama... and, once their usefulness ran out... too bad...

Hussein was crazy enough to launch WMD's at anybody at anytime, he's not known for being tactically brilliant just insane...

Thus he is not culpable for his acts, and will not be punished for the things he has done if/when he goes to trial?

As an unrelated sidenote, why do we never hear anything about Slobodan Milosevic anymore either?

I actually heard a story about him a few weeks ago. He's in very poor health so will probably die before he stands trial. It was reported that Milosevic said he didn't do anything wrong. And that the CIA backed the KLA and from their Muslim ranks recruited the guys who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.

That Slobodan, what a crazy hoot!

Then again, given the track record of the current administration ...
I shudder to think.

Yea well im done, unfortunately i have to go to work, i cant listen to propaganda anymore, as for citing my sources, i dont go to websites that have no credibility, i dig up information straight from my college and information from my iraqi veteran family, and Bush which the american majority agree's as seen from the polls that they trust Bush more then Kerry on handling the war in iraq.

Iraq is in the center of terrorist territory, dead center, what did you expect? Did you really expect the terrorists to give up such valuable territory, i trust that our soldiers, the best trained, and the best equipped in the world can handle these rag tag suicidal maniacs, and i trust a commander in chief, who will be relentless and strong against the criticism, to hold his ground, that is how we will win the day. Our soldiers resolve is strengthened by their commanders resolve THAT IS UNDENIABLE FACT, and with a man like Bush who has the guts and the resolve to stand up for what he believes in, we will win. The thousand american soldiers dead, died willingly for their country, they joined the military to fight, that is their duty, there isnt a draft in america so they joined the military of their own free will, and gave the ultimate sacrifice to protect the lives of fellow soldiers as well as the Iraqi's who suffer as bad as our soldiers do. Terrorists arent targeting us as much anymore, they are going after the iraqi's because they see the iraqi's gaining their own strength. No matter what, as long as our president has the resolve to stay until the job is done, we will win.

mm propaganda, and lies. lies seasoned propaganda, tastes like chicken

Best trained for these circumstances? I think not.

i cant listen to propaganda anymore

ABC News is left wing propoganda?
CBS is left wing propoganda?

as for citing my sources, i dont go to websites that have no credibility, i dig up information straight from my college and information from my iraqi veteran family, and Bush which the american majority agree's as seen from the polls that they trust Bush more then Kerry on handling the war in iraq.

So your sources are George W Bush (who, lets be honest has vested interests, though I'm sure unless you get a personal audience with him, you will be able to find a source) and... your brother.

Leaves your argument pretty flat, doesn't it?

Grave in idle, i understand the threat of Saudi Arabia, without a doubt. Just imagine for a second if we charged into Saudi Arabia, if you thought the terrorism in iraq is bad, we would really be in for it in Saudi Arabia, i admit that terrorist oriented, iraq wasnt as big of a threat when it came to terrorist orientation, compared to say Saudi Arabia. HOWEVER, Iraq had Al Qaeda terrorist camps, they housed many terrorist leaders, like Abu Nedal and later Zarqawi, which is now executing americans, british, even the french with beheadings. Furthermore, we have solid evidence that Saddam Hussein had the material compoenents, the technology, blue prints, material, research labs, all needed to make WMD's and was only waiting for the world body to ONCE AGAIN turn its head away and ignore him. The man in charge of the research program for the past two decades even wrote a book after he turned this information over to inspectators. I think the book is called "plans hidden in my garden" something like that. He was a oncoming threat and definately not as secretive and sly as Iran or Saudi Arabia, Hussein was crazy enough to launch WMD's at anybody at anytime, he's not known for being tactically brilliant just insane, Iran and Saudi Arabia are more strategic then that, Iraq was an immediate threat, Saudi Arabia is a ominent threat, if the UN would grow some balls, we might be able to deal with more of these threats.

So - who do you think is doing the kidnappings and beheadings? Because Al-qaida haven't been shy, but they aren't claiming responsibility for these actions... these are all being carried out by small 'resistence' organisations.

You know that the US won't invade Saudi Arabia. After they have finished their war on the islamic world, maybe they'll install the house of Saud as puppets in an American regime, but they will never invade Saudi Arabia... it's where Bush's friends are, and he owes them a lot. (Look back at the start of his career, when he was bailed out of big financial troubles by a family called bin Laden).

What you are missing here is the little detail in the big picture. Why does Iraq want Nuclear technology? Why does Iran want Nuclear technology? The answer is: Israel. Go back a hundred years, and there is a area in turmoil, but largely at piece... a predominantly peaceful, predominantly Islamic area.

Now, move forward nearly 50 years... and what changes? The US and a few of it's allies forcefully run a whole load of people off of their land, and create an armed Non-Islamic state. Further to this, the US spends the next 60 years arming that state, giving huge amounts of money to that state, helping that state to expand it's borders (look at the difference between the size of Israel as it WAS 60 years ago, and how it is today), and condoning acts which SHOULD be considered "Crimes Against Humanity" (e.g. Nearly 2 years ago now, Israel puts tanks, artillery and troops in the government buildings of a sovereign nation).

The reason Iraq wanted, and Iran wants Nuclear technology, is because there is already a US puppet state in the region, with a fundamentalist government, that HAS nuclear technology. Furthermore, that state has launched missile strikes against military locations in other middle-east countries before, and yesterday threatened to do the same to Iran.

Not only did the US make Saddam and Osama, they also made the whole political/religious model that is causing people like Saddam and Osama to come to prominence.

Manifest Destiny 2.

Yeah, this is why I fear for our country.

I bring up what Bush *himself* said, and I'm lying and spreading propaganda, cause I didn't believe his rewriting and recontextualizing of the war, since they never found WMDs, the people of Iraq didn't rise up to miraculously welcome us and set things right immediately, since the terrorist connections to 9/11 that were alleged were found to be spurious, and, quite simply,

Bush inflamed the Islamic world, and lost America's respect in the world community, ...all because he *wouldn't wait for the world community to be behind us,* ...and he *wouldn't wait* because he told us and our Congress that there were immediate threats that he knew were untrue or wildly speculative, or, in fact, where he was *just wrong.*

We waited over twenty years to depose Saddam.

We could have at least picked a good moment, and a good plan, and done it without pissing as many of our allies off.

Cause the *hurry* was political, and personal, and probably pre-emptive of Saddam's *capitulation* to the pressure of the world community.

Which he did, if you recall. Yes, he plays that game a lot, but frankly, there was no need to make this big a mess. The world could have handled another round of what Saddam called 'brinksmanship.'

This isn't about whether or not Saddam was a bad guy, this was about the complexities of *international politics and nation-building.*

Bush lied, was wrong, he misled, he didn't listen to those who knew, and he screwed it up, big time.

We're all paying the price, already, but wait till the bill for this misadventure really arrives.

All this talk about terrorism makes me want to go duct-tape saranwrap around my windows..

Yea well im done, unfortunately i have to go to work, i cant listen to propaganda anymore, as for citing my sources, i dont go to websites that have no credibility, i dig up information straight from my college and information from my iraqi veteran family, and Bush which the american majority agree's as seen from the polls that they trust Bush more then Kerry on handling the war in iraq.

Iraq is in the center of terrorist territory, dead center, what did you expect? Did you really expect the terrorists to give up such valuable territory, i trust that our soldiers, the best trained, and the best equipped in the world can handle these rag tag suicidal maniacs, and i trust a commander in chief, who will be relentless and strong against the criticism, to hold his ground, that is how we will win the day. Our soldiers resolve is strengthened by their commanders resolve THAT IS UNDENIABLE FACT, and with a man like Bush who has the guts and the resolve to stand up for what he believes in, we will win. The thousand american soldiers dead, died willingly for their country, they joined the military to fight, that is their duty, there isnt a draft in america so they joined the military of their own free will, and gave the ultimate sacrifice to protect the lives of fellow soldiers as well as the Iraqi's who suffer as bad as our soldiers do. Terrorists arent targeting us as much anymore, they are going after the iraqi's because they see the iraqi's gaining their own strength. No matter what, as long as our president has the resolve to stay until the job is done, we will win.

So, in other words, you have no evidence. Because your brother could be wrong (being subjective, and all)... and your college isn't in Iraq (and so, therefore, knows crap).

Geographically, if Afghanistan is the 'home' of the Taliban, and Saudi Arabia is the 'home' of Osama bin Laden... how is Iraq the 'centre' of terrorist activity?

Surely more terrorist activity takes place in Pakistan, what with them sharing all those miles of Taliban infested mountains with the Afghans?

Aha... you 'trust' the commander-in-chief. Doesn't matter what the evidence says, doesn't matter when he lies, or how many times he's wrong. Doesn't matter that he underestimated the problem. Doesn't matter that he ordered a war when all the nations military advisors (except PNAC) warned against it... doesn't matter that he has made a big mistake, and is compounding that mistake every day by not correcting it. Doesn't matter that he is fast bankrupting the country for a war that wasn't needed. Doesn't matter that he uses psychological blackmail (come on, hosting your conference basically ON ground zero? That's just sick. I can't believe the american public would be naive enough to fall for that stuff).

Doesn't matter that America was utterly untouched by the attacks of Iraqi terror, UNTIL Bush sent an army to knock out their leader and set up a puppet government.

You've made up your mind, and you're not going to be letting it be swayed by 'facts' and 'truth'.

And you know, the real irony is, this bozo had the audacity (or maybe lack of comprehension) to call Kerry a 'flip-flopper' for daring to look at the reality and details of these various war bills, and vote according to what he deemed was sufficient, acceptable, or what was not. And according to the information available at the time.

Voters may label every law by soundbytes and spin, but one would *hope* a Senator would be a bit more professional about it.

Much more so, a President.

Wow...!

The leftists are truly a demented lot.

Such an amazing and downright evil bunch of people, rationalizing allowing evil to prosper because "it's not my problem".

Truly astounding, and wonderful ammunition to use against the leftist community when describing them to "normal people".

Keep up the great work, gang. You're exposing yourselves for what you truly represent, and it's a great story of the evil of our times.

Excellent. Simply excellent. :D

(( ..and great initial story, Eutrusca, by the way! :) ))

and what part of your ass did you pull that inane conclusion out of iakaeko?

Wow...!

The leftists are truly a demented lot.

Such an amazing and downright evil bunch of people, rationalizing allowing evil to prosper because "it's not my problem".

I can only assume you are referring to 'leftists' failing to have contempt for international law.

So human rights abuses in other countries are your problem are they, President Iakeokeo?

And where will you start, sir?

China?
Russia?
Israel?
Saudi Arabia?
North Korea?
United States?

Which country shall we invade first?

No, sir, it *is* your problem. Let me know which country to invade, sir, and we're there. Whats that sir, consequences? Consequences Shmonsequences, sir, we have the bomb too!

What do you mean, we're on the list?

All this talk about terrorism makes me want to go duct-tape saranwrap around my windows..

Does that stop terrorists, then?

Or do you just mean, because windows look cool with saran-wrap duct-taped all over them?

Wow...!

The leftists are truly a demented lot.

Such an amazing and downright evil bunch of people, rationalizing allowing evil to prosper because "it's not my problem".

Truly astounding, and wonderful ammunition to use against the leftist community when describing them to "normal people".

Keep up the great work, gang. You're exposing yourselves for what you truly represent, and it's a great story of the evil of our times.

Excellent. Simply excellent. :D

(( ..and great initial story, Eutrusca, by the way! :) ))

Comic Sans, DarkRed, size=4. The ultimate sign of a diseased mind.

Wow...!

The leftists are truly a demented lot.

Such an amazing and downright evil bunch of people, rationalizing allowing evil to prosper because "it's not my problem".

Truly astounding, and wonderful ammunition to use against the leftist community when describing them to "normal people".

Keep up the great work, gang. You're exposing yourselves for what you truly represent, and it's a great story of the evil of our times.

Excellent. Simply excellent. :D

(( ..and great initial story, Eutrusca, by the way! :) ))

Much better, of course, to allow evil to prosper because it's temporarily convenient, as the West collectively did with regard to Saddam throughout the 1980s, when he was Our Pal. You don't get to claim to be a good guy when you only combat evil when it's financially and politically expedient -- and worse, when you dress up financial and political expediency as some great moral crusade. You wouldn't recognise "evil" if you found it in your soup.

Comic Sans, DarkRed, size=4. The ultimate sign of a diseased mind.

Mmmmm, Comic Sans, DarkRed, Size=4.... tastes like chicken...

Conservatives on the Net: When presented with uncomfortable rationality, troll. Those uncomfortable facts will scroll off, safely out of sight.

I must say that was a amazing piece of fiction... i want to know one thing why is it always america alone? :confused: I've noticed this i mean we british as well others got dragged into it (it was a 50/50 split on wether we wanted to go to this ilegal war). Why are we ignored?

Didn't David Kay find a bunch of weapons programs?

The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation.
My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He told him: "Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"
"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.
"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush."
Our son giggled and said "OK."
"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said.
"OK Dad, I'm pretending."
"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and see that man come out of his house with his wife and he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and afraid of their father. You see all of this son..... what do you do?"
"Dad?"
"What do you do son?"
"I call the police, Dad."
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?"
"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.
"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.
"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.
"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."
"Daddy...he kills them?"
"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"
"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says.
"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.
"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"
"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.
"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?" "What Daddy?"
"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in he window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"
"Daddy..."
"WHAT DO YOU DO?"
Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I close the blinds, Daddy."
My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him... "Why?"
"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help...people who needs it....and they won't help....You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself ...Daddy......I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds....so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."
I start to cry.
My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husbands questions and he tells him...."Son"
"Yes, Daddy."
"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door..."WHAT DO YOU DO?"
My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"
I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs my son to his chest and hugs him tight, and cries..."It's too late to fight him, he's too strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before......it's too late." my husband whispers.
THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen is the greatest EVIL of all. Our President is doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must understand that this war is a war of humanity. WE must remove evil men from power so that we can continue to live in a free world where we are not afraid to look out our window. So that my nine year old son won't grow up in a world where he feels that if he just "closes" that blinds the atrocities in the world won't affect him. "YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!"
BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!
BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!!
BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT
SUPPORT THEM!!!
SUPPORT AMERICA!!
SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."
"One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes...and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility."
-Eleanor Roosevelt

The number one best post I have ever read. I give it 100%.

I want the minutes I wasted reading that tripe back, please. Also, recompense me for all the vomitting.

Didn't David Kay find a bunch of weapons programs?

Yes. And then he discovered a new breed of pigs which have the ability to float in mid-air.

Yes. And then he discovered a new breed of pigs which have the ability to float in mid-air.
They going to the new ski resort, hell?

They going to the new ski resort, hell?

I'll ask them next time.

No one is sorry to see the back of Saddam, but the damage to international law and the precedent set is extremely dangerous for the future.

Even a "righty" can understand that.
Actually, there are people who are sorry to see the back of Saddam. France, Russia, the UN... and Stephistan. She did say that Iraq was better off under Saddam.

Wow...!

The leftists are truly a demented lot.

Such an amazing and downright evil bunch of people, rationalizing allowing evil to prosper because "it's not my problem".

Truly astounding, and wonderful ammunition to use against the leftist community when describing them to "normal people".

Keep up the great work, gang. You're exposing yourselves for what you truly represent, and it's a great story of the evil of our times.

Excellent. Simply excellent. :D

(( ..and great initial story, Eutrusca, by the way! :) ))

I always suspected that some Republicans were frightened and confused dy intelligent discourse and facts, but this just proved it to me. After all the highly rational arguments here, the only thing you can glean from our criticism of the original story is that we don't think evil is our problem?

Okay, let's see if I can condense our conclusion down to an easy to swallow soundbite.

As sad as it may be, sometimes evil must be tolerated for a time if it's overly hasty removal creates even more evil.

How is that? Simple enough? Unassailable enough? It really oversimplifies our conclusion and fails to really back up them up with facts, but it should be easy enough for your apparently underdeveloped mind to grasp.

Really, I don't think you actually read a single word of our myriad criticisms. Are you from another planet? Do fully evolved people really think this way? I am frankly almost in a state of shock at the utter lack of intelligent comprehension just displayed by Iakeokeo.

Disagreements about priorities or rational differences about how the government is run is one thing, but the utter failure to comprehend at all an opponent's point of view is honestly disturbing.

My summary of the Democracy And Good the average conservative activist seems to want for the world:



"Oh, no! Someone's questioning the ostensibly-democratic government with facts and reason, about when and how it goes about prosecuting a war!

It must be *commies!*

Scream EVIL a lot!

This is America, we don't question the government, here!

It must be EVIL like Rush kept telling us liberals are when he was on all those *pills!*

Rush Pills Help us see the EVIL LIBERALS SUPPORTING TERROR by NOT FEARING TERRORISTS. TAPE YOUR WINDOWS! SHOP TILL THE ECONOMY DROPS! LOVE THE CORPORATIONS! GO TO CHURCH AND PRAY FOR TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY, OR JEEZUS WILL SMITE US!

Don't dare question the President, you EVIL liberals! This is America! You unamerican commie! He told us we're doing Very Good against Very Bad In The Best Way Possible, and pointing out his scrweups only Helps the Terrorists!

Ignore the News! Facts are Left Wing Propaganda Given to us by dirt-worshipping Commies like rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump, and General Electric!

After all, that's what they told us, isn't it?

Wouldn't want to look stupid or anything.
"

Actually, there are people who are sorry to see the back of Saddam. France, Russia, the UN... and Stephistan. She did say that Iraq was better off under Saddam.

AT the present moment, whether Iraq is better off now or before is worthy of debate.

I very much doubt that France, Russia or the UN (i.e. the world) will miss Saddam being in power.

Actually, there are people who are sorry to see the back of Saddam. France, Russia, the UN... and Stephistan. She did say that Iraq was better off under Saddam.

Well Iraq was better off under Saddam than they are right now, since there is practically no order to speak of. Once the US gets things under control, then things will be better.

[Jeldred #74]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Wow...!

The leftists are truly a demented lot.

Such an amazing and downright evil bunch of people, rationalizing allowing evil to prosper because "it's not my problem".

Truly astounding, and wonderful ammunition to use against the leftist community when describing them to "normal people".

Keep up the great work, gang. You're exposing yourselves for what you truly represent, and it's a great story of the evil of our times.

Excellent. Simply excellent.

(( ..and great initial story, Eutrusca, by the way! ))

Much better, of course, to allow evil to prosper because it's temporarily convenient, as the West collectively did with regard to Saddam throughout the 1980s, when he was Our Pal. You don't get to claim to be a good guy when you only combat evil when it's financially and politically expedient -- and worse, when you dress up financial and political expediency as some great moral crusade. You wouldn't recognise "evil" if you found it in your soup.

Heh he he he..! :D

How does not dealing with evil in the past preclude one from dealing with evil in the present..?

Even if we created the most nasty evil horrendous force for evil of some despot in some other country (or in Wichita KS, for that matter), why should we not "see our error" and stomp it out..?

We DO get to claim to be the good guy. If not us, who..?

Your universal "homogeneity of morals through time and space" is your, and the left's, most disturbing characteristic.

No one has any right to DO ANYTHING without absolute certainty of "fact" and absolute superiority of "moral force", under your perverse mindset.

That is the leftist way though,.. make no move and judge nothing lest it make you look "bad". You certainly don't want to offend anyone. That would be rude.

Amazing.

Keep up the excellent work. :D

No one has any right to DO ANYTHING without absolute certainty of "fact" and absolute superiority of "moral force", under your perverse mindset.


So, if you don't use facts, and you don't use your moral conscience, what do conservatives use to make decisions?

AT the present moment, whether Iraq is better off now or before is worthy of debate.

I very much doubt that France, Russia or the UN (i.e. the world) will miss Saddam being in power.
Concidering they were making billions of dollars off him I would say they would miss him.

Concidering they were making billions of dollars off him I would say they would miss him.

Your source for this?

Well Iraq was better off under Saddam than they are right now, since there is practically no order to speak of. Once the US gets things under control, then things will be better.
There is quite a bit of order in that country. There are "hot spots" and other insurgencies but that does not mean total anarchy. Terrorists are doing their best to destabilize the country, but they are not in control of everywhere.
Also, the Iraqi civilians are signing up in record numbers to join the police force, to help stabilize what the terrorists are trying to destabilize.

Heh he he he..! :D

How does not dealing with evil in the past preclude one from dealing with evil in the present..?

Good point, though it would save everyone a lot of time, money, and for christ's sake human lives if you would deal with it when you see it (Sudan comes to mind).

Even if we created the most nasty evil horrendous force for evil of some despot in some other country (or in Wichita KS, for that matter), why should we not "see our error" and stomp it out..?

Considering the list of "evil forces" we have supported, I'm gonna go with mostly becuase our errors doesn't cost us a few million dollars, it costs human lives.

We DO get to claim to be the good guy. If not us, who..?

So you win by default?

No one has any right to DO ANYTHING without absolute certainty of "fact" and absolute superiority of "moral force", under your perverse mindset.

Umm..... we're not asking for absolute certainty, but you could do a bit better, so far every argument for the war has fell apart.

That is the leftist way though,.. make no move and judge nothing lest it make you look "bad". You certainly don't want to offend anyone. That would be rude.

When you're fighting a global war, it's usually a good idea to get the globe on your side.

[INDENT][Jeldred #74]
[INDENT]Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Wow...!

The leftists are truly a demented lot.

No one has any right to DO ANYTHING without absolute certainty of "fact" and absolute superiority of "moral force", under your perverse mindset.


[/FONT]

Yeah, we wouldn't want any kind of facts or morals getting in the way when *killing lots of people and installing their government.*

Call me a pervert, then.

Your source for this?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/2/144225.shtml
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20040927/ap_on_go_co/oil_for_food_investigation_1&printer=1
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1108771.htm

Need more?

You know, do you ever get the feeling that the Right only has one weapon when it argues: The Straw Man Technique.

It's almost omnipresent and it makes me want to shake people.

Here's an example (I'm going to indulge in the Straw Man Technique here too)

Liberal: Saddam's removal destabilized the region in a way dangerous to American security. We moved to war too quickly without a stabilization plan, proper equipment and without sufficient international support.

Conservative: I can't believe how evil the lefties are! They want to leave those responsible for 9/11 in power just because we haven't turned over our sovereignty to the UN!

Liberal: (stunned silence)

We DO get to claim to be the good guy. If not us, who..?

Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, Brazil, Madagascar. Pick your pick.

[Gymoor #85]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Wow...!

The leftists are truly a demented lot.

Such an amazing and downright evil bunch of people, rationalizing allowing evil to prosper because "it's not my problem".

Truly astounding, and wonderful ammunition to use against the leftist community when describing them to "normal people".

Keep up the great work, gang. You're exposing yourselves for what you truly represent, and it's a great story of the evil of our times.

Excellent. Simply excellent.

(( ..and great initial story, Eutrusca, by the way! ))

I always suspected that some Republicans were frightened and confused dy intelligent discourse and facts, but this just proved it to me. After all the highly rational arguments here, the only thing you can glean from our criticism of the original story is that we don't think evil is our problem?

Okay, let's see if I can condense our conclusion down to an easy to swallow soundbite.

As sad as it may be, sometimes evil must be tolerated for a time if it's overly hasty removal creates even more evil.

How is that? Simple enough? Unassailable enough? It really oversimplifies our conclusion and fails to really back up them up with facts, but it should be easy enough for your apparently underdeveloped mind to grasp.

Really, I don't think you actually read a single word of our myriad criticisms. Are you from another planet? Do fully evolved people really think this way? I am frankly almost in a state of shock at the utter lack of intelligent comprehension just displayed by Iakeokeo.

Disagreements about priorities or rational differences about how the government is run is one thing, but the utter failure to comprehend at all an opponent's point of view is honestly disturbing.



.."As sad as it may be, sometimes evil must be tolerated for a time if it's overly hasty removal creates even more evil."..

I absolutely agree with you on this. :D

.."Really, I don't think you actually read a single word of our myriad criticisms. Are you from another planet? Do fully evolved people really think this way? I am frankly almost in a state of shock at the utter lack of intelligent comprehension just displayed by Iakeokeo."..

I'm quite gratified that I've managed to "shock" you, though I imagine your so-called shock is more affectation at the "primitive savage at the parlour-room party".

You think, as do all your kind, that the use of words and the realm of the intellect is your rightfully sole territory, your parlour-room, and any dissent in this realm is an afront to propriety and good manners.

That's fine. :) Complain and whine as you like. You more and more show yourselves as the effete snobs you are.

Keep on pluggin' there Bunky..! You're doing a great job.

.."Disagreements about priorities or rational differences about how the government is run is one thing, but the utter failure to comprehend at all an opponent's point of view is honestly disturbing."..

I comprehend your point of view. I simply disagree that your "priorities" and "differences" as to how the government should be run display anything but an allowance of evil to prosper when it needs to be diminished.

I agree that better methods of converting "bad" situations into "not-so-bad" situations exist in every and any case of the "confrontation with evil", but the "we want power back because it is rightfully ours as we are the chosen people and we KNOW BETTER" arguments that the left proffers as justification of their inaction will, in short order, make hash of the left with the majority of Americans.

And the world, otherwise, is free to think what they like. And do, or not do, what they like.

The proof will be in the pudding. Keep up your excellent display. We will all benefit from it. :)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/2/144225.shtml
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20040927/ap_on_go_co/oil_for_food_investigation_1&printer=1
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1108771.htm

Need more?

Thanks.

The billions for France & Russian companies were through legal trading though? I mean if its oil for food - someone has to sell the food.

Some alleged kickbacks for politicians & companies, sure.

I still doubt that Chirac or Putin will lament Saddam

[Kinsella Islands #86]
My summary of the Democracy And Good the average conservative activist seems to want for the world:



"Oh, no! Someone's questioning the ostensibly-democratic government with facts and reason, about when and how it goes about prosecuting a war!

It must be *commies!*

Scream EVIL a lot!

This is America, we don't question the government, here!

It must be EVIL like Rush kept telling us liberals are when he was on all those *pills!*

Rush Pills Help us see the EVIL LIBERALS SUPPORTING TERROR by NOT FEARING TERRORISTS. TAPE YOUR WINDOWS! SHOP TILL THE ECONOMY DROPS! LOVE THE CORPORATIONS! GO TO CHURCH AND PRAY FOR TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY, OR JEEZUS WILL SMITE US!

Don't dare question the President, you EVIL liberals! This is America! You unamerican commie! He told us we're doing Very Good against Very Bad In The Best Way Possible, and pointing out his scrweups only Helps the Terrorists!

Ignore the News! Facts are Left Wing Propaganda Given to us by dirt-worshipping Commies like rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump, and General Electric!

After all, that's what they told us, isn't it?

Wouldn't want to look stupid or anything.

Heh he he he he... :D

Go liberals..! You guys can make up stories too..! Wow... Who'd a' thunk it..!?

Though I prefer the coherent tale by the threadstarter than this clever rant.

I want more leftist screaming. You folks are jus SO darn accommodating..!

Thanks oh boisterous ones..! Keep the train a' rollin'...! :D

Thanks.

The billions for France & Russian companies were through legal trading though? I mean if its oil for food - someone has to sell the food.

Some alleged kickbacks for politicians & companies, sure.

I still doubt that Chirac or Putin will lament Saddam
It wasn't for food though.. it was for Saddam to pad his wallet or pay off terrorists and hardly legal.

It wasn't for food though.. it was for Saddam to pad his wallet or pay off terrorists and hardly legal.

Saddam being Saddam no dubt made sure he was well off from it.

Saddam had very few links to terrorism, though, and there is little evidence that any were in his employ - particularly not of the AL-Quaeda type.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

No one has any right to DO ANYTHING without absolute certainty of "fact" and absolute superiority of "moral force", under your perverse mindset.

[B]So, if you don't use facts, and you don't use your moral conscience, what do conservatives use to make decisions?

Uh,... they use best-presently-known facts (as opposed to the unobtainable "absolute certainty") and moral conscience (as opposed to "collectivist consensus feelings").

In other words, the right actually makes decisions, while the left vacillates interminably.

Comic Sans, DarkRed, size=4. The ultimate sign of a diseased mind.
You forgot to mention the itals!
*shudder*

Since when does a tinpot dictator in the Gulf pose a threat to the US?
Since we Americans decided to create the first WMDs. It's our mess, about time we started to clean it up. We put the bastard in power, and no oen complained. I'd say we have the right to take him out. Especially since I haven't talked to a returning member of the armed forces yet, (and our local branch of the National Guard recently returned, many people who were relatives or people I went to school with) who didn't unanimously state that the majority of the people they encountered were glad they were there.

Now, I can already anticipate the rejoinder; No WMDs were found. However, chemical weapons were used against coalition forces in Desert Storm. Not only that, but Iraq was given more than sufficient time to conceal or relocate facilities before the first attacks. Also, even with this added difficulty, although no weapons were found, we did find chlorine and phenol plants, as well as two mobile facilities that have since been designated as chem. weaps. labs. If all of the Iraqi facilities were mobile, as these two were, then it is quite likely that they have been moved out of Iraq. Thus, we will not find them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

No one has any right to DO ANYTHING without absolute certainty of "fact" and absolute superiority of "moral force", under your perverse mindset.

[B]So, if you don't use facts, and you don't use your moral conscience, what do conservatives use to make decisions?

Uh,... they use best-presently-known facts (as opposed to the unobtainable "absolute certainty") and moral conscience (as opposed to "collectivist consensus feelings").

In other words, the right actually makes decisions, while the left vacillates interminably.

So why do Republicans blame Clinton for things? After all he never made a
"decision" because he is a "democrats" according to you.
And isn't that rather bias to say left never makes decisions?

Hey Eutrusca, your story does move me.

While I do have my own convictions about the Iraq war I do hope that now that we're here we might as well just help the people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

No one has any right to DO ANYTHING without absolute certainty of "fact" and absolute superiority of "moral force", under your perverse mindset.

[B]So, if you don't use facts, and you don't use your moral conscience, what do conservatives use to make decisions?

Uh,... they use best-presently-known facts (as opposed to the unobtainable "absolute certainty") and moral conscience (as opposed to "collectivist consensus feelings").

In other words, the right actually makes decisions, while the left vacillates interminably.


Well the right certainly makes decisions.. based on purported fact, and a lack of morality.

The left, on the subject of Iraq, would have chosen the UN route, which involved utilising the UN inspectors who were busy finding that there was no need for a pre-emptive strike, because Saddam did not have weapons.

...nevermind the motive and opportunity to attack the US.


So from the right's decision, based on lies about WMD, we've had a war which has seriously damaged the standing of the United Nations, and international law. We've had a war which has led to tens of thousands of deaths (civilian & military), and turned Iraq into a nation likely to suffer a long running civil war. Its damaged long term alliances (US & Britain with France & Germany), together with new alliances (Russia). It has increased terrorism, and the likelihood of terrorism.

The left's decision, based on actual facts, and actual morality, would have led to a peaceful resolution. No dead, no damage to the international community or law.

[The Sword and Sheild #94]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Heh he he he..!

How does not dealing with evil in the past preclude one from dealing with evil in the present..?

Good point, though it would save everyone a lot of time, money, and for christ's sake human lives if you would deal with it when you see it (Sudan comes to mind).

No doubt. I would hope that when evil shows itself, it would be stomped on, but, in an incredible aggreement with the left on this point, I realize that contingencies can make "working with evil" can sometimes make sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Even if we created the most nasty evil horrendous force for evil of some despot in some other country (or in Wichita KS, for that matter), why should we not "see our error" and stomp it out..?

Considering the list of "evil forces" we have supported, I'm gonna go with mostly becuase our errors doesn't cost us a few million dollars, it costs human lives.

It's a shame that money and lives have to pay for freedom and "progress", but that's the way the world works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
We DO get to claim to be the good guy. If not us, who..?

So you win by default?

Yes. There is no "winning" involved. We simply claim to be a force for good, and let others decide on their opinion of that claim.

Whether anyone else agrees or disagrees is irrelevent to our opinion of ourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
No one has any right to DO ANYTHING without absolute certainty of "fact" and absolute superiority of "moral force", under your perverse mindset.

Umm..... we're not asking for absolute certainty, but you could do a bit better, so far every argument for the war has fell apart.

The only "argument" that matters, in my and others opinion, is that Saddam's Iraq was an asset of terrorists, and that it needed to be changed quickly, as a signal to the "terorist community" and because it was such a weak target to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
That is the leftist way though,.. make no move and judge nothing lest it make you look "bad". You certainly don't want to offend anyone. That would be rude.

When you're fighting a global war, it's usually a good idea to get the globe on your side.

You would think so. So why did the world not step up...?

They had their reasons for not doing so,.. We had our reasons for doing so.

A matter of opinion.

Such an amazing and downright evil bunch of people, rationalizing allowing evil to prosper because "it's not my problem".
Are you by chance on the "religious" branch of the far-right family tree? Because if you equate evil=Satan=people who don't believe in Jesus the Messiah, there's just no arguing with you.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but honestly, when will you pro-war people get it through your heads that the "Saddam-was-a-bad-guy-and-we-had-to-get-rid-of-him" arguement is completely irrational?!
There are many more evil people doing many more evil things in the world (The Sudan comes to mind) Evil people who are a much greater threat to American than Saddam could have ever dream of being (North Korea comes to mind). So WHY AREN'T WE INVADING THEM? WHY?

[Kinsella Islands #95]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Jeldred #74]Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Wow...!

The leftists are truly a demented lot.

No one has any right to DO ANYTHING without absolute certainty of "fact" and absolute superiority of "moral force", under your perverse mindset.

Yeah, we wouldn't want any kind of facts or morals getting in the way when *killing lots of people and installing their government.*

Call me a pervert, then.

Then you believe that any killing is always illegitimate? That's fine.

You also believe that potentially improving a nations government is an evil? That's fine.

I won't call you a pervert,.. more a juvenile idealist. Your mindset, though, is perverse.

The reason we went to war was because Bush was given faulty information, which we now know is faulty information that Hussein had WMD's. Now lets review Husseins crimes:

1) Saddam invaded his neighbors

2) used WMD's on his own people

3) committed acts of mass genocide

4) thousands if not millions of women were raped by Hussein, his sons, and his royal guard

5) starved his people

6) murdered all who opposed him

7) supported terrorism by working with major terrorists like Zarqawi and Abu Nedal and allowing terrorists training camps to operate in iraq.

8) since the gulf war he ignored and disregarded SEVENTEEN UN regulations.

9) kicked out weapons inspectators

10) ignored the ultimatum

11) The scientist in charge of Husseins WMD research over the past two decades handed over all research documents to the US, showing blue prints and everything needed to make WMD, he even had the material compoenents, all he needed was the time.

12) the scientist told us that the only thing Hussein was waiting for before he started the secret program was for the world to look away.

13) He bribed major UN nations like France, Russia, and Germany with blood money from the Oil for Food program.

14) He broke one of the biggest laws in the UN, crimes against humanity.

I think we had more then enough reason to invade Iraq EVEN if he didnt have WMD's, more then enough reason to take him down.

Are you insenuating that Bush lied to the American public to get us to go to war? No one is saying that Saddam deserved to be dictator of Iraq, but Bush never really used that as a reason until he was already in Iraq.

Well the right certainly makes decisions.. based on purported fact, and a lack of morality.

The left, on the subject of Iraq, would have chosen the UN route, which involved utilising the UN inspectors who were busy finding that there was no need for a pre-emptive strike, because Saddam did not have weapons.

seriously damaged the standing of the United Nations, and international law. We've had a war which has led to tens of thousands of deaths (civilian & military)

The left's decision, based on actual facts, and actual morality, would have led to a peaceful resolution. No dead, no damage to the international community or law.

No dead? You claim that the UN inspectors, who were unable to get Iraq to cooperate 10 years ago, which led to their removal from said nation, are somehow now going to be able to get anything done? In case you have forgotten, Bush gave Iraq 3 months to allow UN inspectors to return. Iraq refused, and we attacked.

So much for the left using *actual* facts and *actual* morality. You apparently can actually convinve yourself the BS you spout is true.

Damaged the standing of the UN? Buddy, the UN's standing has been damaged for years. Even half the member nations regard it as being worthless. Whether you think it is or isn't doesn't matter, what matters is that the way most people regard it. And most people think it is weak and powerless.

Tens of thousands of deaths? You seem to have not studied your history. 50,000 dead in Korea. 50,000 in Vietnam. Literally tens of millions dead in the worlds wars. Now, with around 13,000 civilian deaths, almost exclusively ones caused by insurgent actions, and far less military casualties, you see this as a tremendous loss? We have done so much, and lost so little. You, however, cannot comprehend this. Instead, you would take all purpose and meaning from those who lost their lives. Don't quote casualty statistics at me, and don't bother talking about how many have died. You don't care about those who have fallen for us, and you damn well know it.

And how would your precious UN have solved the problem? The UN inspectors have been kept out of Iraq for over a decade. You think all of a sudden Hussein would have relented? You are a fool to believe this. The only way would have been through bloodshed, or by simply doing nothing. And that is, of course, the liberal way. After all, how can Kerry lead a "sensitive war*? They will still die, but we spare their feelings? It is ridiculous. A liberal president would have invited more attacks through inaction. Instead, terrorist cells now can plan attacks all they want, but none have been implemented on US soil yet, now have they? So for all your talk of *increased terrorist activity*, we haven't seen any such violence.

You think, as do all your kind, that the use of words and the realm of the intellect is your rightfully sole territory, your parlour-room, and any dissent in this realm is an afront to propriety and good manners.

Not true, it's just that it's rare to read an intelligent, well-versed missive from one as eloquent and erudite as yourself. It's actually most welcome. I happen to eschew politics mostly. I believe the country is made up of those who use good syntax and grammar and those who use poor syntax and grammar. :)

Terrorists actions never have been frequent on US soil, and that's not credit to Bush.

Are you by chance on the "religious" branch of the far-right family tree? Because if you equate evil=Satan=people who don't believe in Jesus the Messiah, there's just no arguing with you.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but honestly, when will you pro-war people get it through your heads that the "Saddam-was-a-bad-guy-and-we-had-to-get-rid-of-him" arguement is completely irrational?!
There are many more evil people doing many more evil things in the world (The Sudan comes to mind) Evil people who are a much greater threat to American than Saddam could have ever dream of being (North Korea comes to mind). So WHY AREN'T WE INVADING THEM? WHY?

So what you are saying is, since there are so many bad rulers in the world, we shouldn't stop any of them. And you don't really want us to expand the current war now to another country. So basically, I'm saying that this liberal argument is pathetic. *But there are too many bad people! Why don't we invade them? Why Iraq?* How about, we need to start somewhere. And on the contrary, I believe that Saddam was just about as bad as they come. So why not start with one of the worst, in a nation that will have a far less capable military and thus will ensure fewer military and civilian losses?

[Gymoor #97]
You know, do you ever get the feeling that the Right only has one weapon when it argues: The Straw Man Technique.

It's almost omnipresent and it makes me want to shake people.

Here's an example (I'm going to indulge in the Straw Man Technique here too)

Liberal: Saddam's removal destabilized the region in a way dangerous to American security. We moved to war too quickly without a stabilization plan, proper equipment and without sufficient international support.

Conservative: I can't believe how evil the lefties are! They want to leave those responsible for 9/11 in power just because we haven't turned over our sovereignty to the UN!

Liberal: (stunned silence)

Heh he he he he...

How about this:

Conservative comment on the Liberal position: To allow Saddam to remain in power would allow American and international security to be undermined. We tried to get as many nations to help us in our cause as we could and dealt with the situation in the best way possible for the conditions at the time.

Liberal comment on the Conservative position: STRAWMAN...!!! We win and you lose under rule #12.b.sect.IV.0004 of the debaters code of non-rude conduct..!

:D

[East Canuck #98]
Quote:
We DO get to claim to be the good guy. If not us, who..?

Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, Brazil, Madagascar. Pick your pick.

I'll agree with everyone but Canadia on that list.

:D

Liberal comment on the Conservative position: STRAWMAN...!!! We win and you lose under rule #12.b.sect.IV.0004 of the debaters code of non-rude conduct..!

:D[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
ROFL
:sniper:

The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war........
"One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes...and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility."
-Eleanor Roosevelt
First of all, this would be a justification for WWII (though why are they saying they're going to go it alone? We where the last one to the party.)

So, to continue the analogy (some has been covered)-

"That's great dad, but that guy is still in a broken wheelchair from the last time you went over there. How's he gonna get all the way over here?"

"I don't know. I've heard stories. Don't question your dad-do you hate your mother? Are you a mother hater?"

"But dad, one of the houses we did this with in the 50's thats now a duplex, they look like their ready to ram a car right in our living room, and thier being twice as mean."

"Well son, they can actually fight back. So we're going to use diplomacy. Besides, we aren't going to get anything off selling their stuff when we're done, so..."

"This all seems a little slipshod. Don't we have cops in this town? Didn't we outlaw vigilantism a long ass time ago because of accountability?"

"Not now son, you have to go tell your brother that the stuff we where paying him an allowance for is going to be done by the kids down the street for half the price."

"The ones that look all beat up?"

"Why do you want to make your mother cry? You have to go tell your brother that it's his fault he's out of a job and if he doesn't do something about it we're not feeding him anymore. And your friend Juan can't come over unless he sneaks in the back, cleans the kitchen, living room, bathroom, makes dinner and leaves immediately afterwards. And if I catch him even smelling a cookie.....And while we're on the subject, I know your Uncle has been exploiting and abusing you, but I'm tired of hearing about it so you can't complain to me anymore. But if you start to compete against him I'll listen to every needling minutia he can come up with to stop you. If for some reason you become a statistical anomaly and rise up to your uncles level despite all of that, we're going to use you as an example to justify not feeding your brother. Now off to bed, I want you nice and rested in case I want to send you to die to get that neighbors sweet rims."

So what you are saying is, since there are so many bad rulers in the world, we shouldn't stop any of them. And you don't really want us to expand the current war now to another country. So basically, I'm saying that this liberal argument is pathetic. *But there are too many bad people! Why don't we invade them? Why Iraq?* How about, we need to start somewhere. And on the contrary, I believe that Saddam was just about as bad as they come. So why not start with one of the worst, in a nation that will have a far less capable military and thus will ensure fewer military and civilian losses?

Saddam may be bad, but bin Laden was the more direct threat. Why redirect your military and your energy into taking out an evil dictator who is relatively contained, when another evil man is breaking into your figurative window?

[BastardSword #107]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Bonnybridge #90]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

No one has any right to DO ANYTHING without absolute certainty of "fact" and absolute superiority of "moral force", under your perverse mindset.

So, if you don't use facts, and you don't use your moral conscience, what do conservatives use to make decisions?

Uh,... they use best-presently-known facts (as opposed to the unobtainable "absolute certainty") and moral conscience (as opposed to "collectivist consensus feelings").

In other words, the right actually makes decisions, while the left vacillates interminably.

So why do Republicans blame Clinton for things? After all he never made a
"decision" because he is a "democrats" according to you.
And isn't that rather bias to say left never makes decisions?

I'm not talking about Dems-vs-Reps,.. I'm talking about leftists-vs-rightists.

(( Dems are just slightly less right-winged rightists than Reps are. ))

The "tendency" is for the left to delay making decisions as far as possible into the future because more infomation can always be collected the longer the data-aquisition phase is.

This has it's good and bad effects.

The "tendency" is for the right to act as quickly and forcefully on the presently available data because the data-aquisition phase SHOULD BE an ongoing everpresent process that can present the best info immediately for action on.

This also has it's good and bad effects.

And yes, I am biased to the right, and gladly accept the label "rightist", even though that label would be the functional equivalent of "Hitler" to those more accustomed to leftist communities, such as the vast majority of the population on these forums. :)

The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation.
My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He told him: "Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"
"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.
"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush."
Our son giggled and said "OK."
"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said.
"OK Dad, I'm pretending."
"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and see that man come out of his house with his wife and he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and afraid of their father. You see all of this son..... what do you do?"
"Dad?"
"What do you do son?"
"I call the police, Dad."
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?"
"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.
"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.
"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.
"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."
"Daddy...he kills them?"
"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"
"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says.
"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.
"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"
"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.
"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?" "What Daddy?"
"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in he window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"
"Daddy..."
"WHAT DO YOU DO?"
Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I close the blinds, Daddy."
My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him... "Why?"
"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help...people who needs it....and they won't help....You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself ...Daddy......I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds....so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."
I start to cry.
My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husbands questions and he tells him...."Son"
"Yes, Daddy."
"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door..."WHAT DO YOU DO?"
My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"
I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs my son to his chest and hugs him tight, and cries..."It's too late to fight him, he's too strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before......it's too late." my husband whispers.
THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen is the greatest EVIL of all. Our President is doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must understand that this war is a war of humanity. WE must remove evil men from power so that we can continue to live in a free world where we are not afraid to look out our window. So that my nine year old son won't grow up in a world where he feels that if he just "closes" that blinds the atrocities in the world won't affect him. "YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!"
BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!
BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!!
BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT
SUPPORT THEM!!!
SUPPORT AMERICA!!
SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."
"One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes...and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility."
-Eleanor Roosevelt
Wow. Your child should be taken into custody.

No dead? You claim that the UN inspectors, who were unable to get Iraq to cooperate 10 years ago, which led to their removal from said nation, are somehow now going to be able to get anything done?

The inspectors did not comply fully with inspectors and were removed to allow airstrikes. Some inspectors felt strongly that the work of UNSCOM had been manipulated to force Iraq into non-compliance, and allow airstrikes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/235900.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/241158.stm

In case you have forgotten, Bush gave Iraq 3 months to allow UN inspectors to return. Iraq refused, and we attacked.

Hans Blix was reporting to the UN Security Council about his inspections of Iraq. He reckoned they were complying. He was critical of American impatience to go to war

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2829359.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2867913.stm

So much for the left using *actual* facts and *actual* morality. You apparently can actually convinve yourself the BS you spout is true.

I have sources, what about you?


Damaged the standing of the UN? Buddy, the UN's standing has been damaged for years. Even half the member nations regard it as being worthless. Whether you think it is or isn't doesn't matter, what matters is that the way most people regard it. And most people think it is weak and powerless.

The UN has successfully kept world peace for over 50 years - there have been no global conflicts since its inception. It is only since GWB decided that Iraq should be invaded that Americans have felt it weak and powerless.

Tens of thousands of deaths? You seem to have not studied your history. 50,000 dead in Korea. 50,000 in Vietnam. Literally tens of millions dead in the worlds wars. Now, with around 13,000 civilian deaths, almost exclusively ones caused by insurgent actions, and far less military casualties, you see this as a tremendous loss? We have done so much, and lost so little. You, however, cannot comprehend this. Instead, you would take all purpose and meaning from those who lost their lives. Don't quote casualty statistics at me, and don't bother talking about how many have died. You don't care about those who have fallen for us, and you damn well know it.

So you quote casualty statistics, but I have not to.

More Iraqi civilians have been killed by US troops and bombers, than US troops have been killed. Every loss of life is unnecessary and to be regretted in this unnecessary war.

And what exactly has been done? Iraq is close to civil war, terrorism is increased globally, and even more people hate American foreign policy.

And how would your precious UN have solved the problem? The UN inspectors have been kept out of Iraq for over a decade. You think all of a sudden Hussein would have relented? You are a fool to believe this.

See above. Inspectors were manipulated into forcing non-compliance, and were withdrawn in December 1998 to allow airstrikes.

They returned 4 years later following guarantees, and the new resolution, from the UN, and were making progress.

Instead, terrorist cells now can plan attacks all they want, but none have been implemented on US soil yet, now have they? So for all your talk of *increased terrorist activity*, we haven't seen any such violence.

The real weakness of a 'liberal' is that an increase in terrorist activity can be an increase anywhere in the world, and not just in the USA.

Or is it that the weakness of the 'conservative' is that all lives of non-Americans ("we have done so much, and lost so little") means nothing.

Bali, Madrid, Turkey, Iraq, Moscow, Beslan have all been the subject of major terrorist attacks since the "War on Terror" began.

*stands up and starts slow clapping*

really, that was great. I like a good conservative post every once in a while.

Saddam may be bad, but bin Laden was the more direct threat. Why redirect your military and your energy into taking out an evil dictator who is relatively contained, when another evil man is breaking into your figurative window?
What in the hell are you talking about? Bin Laden is on the run, and likely will not live much longer. Al Qaeda has lost much of its organization. We have captured most of its highest ranking members. Bin Laden can only do so much by himself, because he has less to work with.

Saddam, on the other hand, ran a nation. Thus, he is a bigger threat than a measely little guy like Bin Laden, who no longer has the support of the Taliban in Afghanistan. We wrapped up that place, we are keeping it fairly well under control, and now its on to something new. We are not so far from finishing our work in Iraq, and I for one am convinced that it is money and lives well spent. We have made real gains, and that is more than most presidents could say. We are cleaning up our own messes.

(from Hickdumb) "we will win"

Win what?

[INDENT]
Heh he he he he...

How about this:

Conservative comment on the Liberal position: To allow Saddam to remain in power would allow American and international security to be undermined. We tried to get as many nations to help us in our cause as we could and dealt with the situation in the best way possible for the conditions at the time.

Liberal comment on the Conservative position: STRAWMAN...!!! We win and you lose under rule #12.b.sect.IV.0004 of the debaters code of non-rude conduct..!

:D

Errrr. Do you know what a straw man is? Ah well

actualy analytical response to your conservative statement:

To allow Saddam to remain in power could, and most likely would, undermine American domestic and international security. To remove him as we did with undue haste while, at least at the time, he was effectively contained, is also clearly a threat to our domestic and international security. The removal of Saddam is not an either/or proposition. It's not as if deciding to not remove Saddam at that time would have made it impossible to get Saddam at a later, and most likely better, time.
If we had waited, it would have given us more time to secure international support, but that is not to say that if we failed to get the international support we needed even after a longer period of negotiation, we would not have been able to act alone (or, rather, almost alone,) at that later date as well.

See what I did above? I pretty closely approximated your stance without using hyperbole, then added my own refinements to show where your stance and mine differed. That, my friend, is proper argument.

[Bonnybridge #109]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Bonnybridge #90]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

No one has any right to DO ANYTHING without absolute certainty of "fact" and absolute superiority of "moral force", under your perverse mindset.

So, if you don't use facts, and you don't use your moral conscience, what do conservatives use to make decisions?

Uh,... they use best-presently-known facts (as opposed to the unobtainable "absolute certainty") and moral conscience (as opposed to "collectivist consensus feelings").

In other words, the right actually makes decisions, while the left vacillates interminably.

Well the right certainly makes decisions.. based on purported fact, and a lack of morality.

The left, on the subject of Iraq, would have chosen the UN route, which involved utilising the UN inspectors who were busy finding that there was no need for a pre-emptive strike, because Saddam did not have weapons.

...nevermind the motive and opportunity to attack the US.

So from the right's decision, based on lies about WMD, we've had a war which has seriously damaged the standing of the United Nations, and international law. We've had a war which has led to tens of thousands of deaths (civilian & military), and turned Iraq into a nation likely to suffer a long running civil war. Its damaged long term alliances (US & Britain with France & Germany), together with new alliances (Russia). It has increased terrorism, and the likelihood of terrorism.

The left's decision, based on actual facts, and actual morality, would have led to a peaceful resolution. No dead, no damage to the international community or law.

Your opinion is yours. :)

Iraq has had (one of it's) cancers removed, and is on it's way to healing as best it can, through the efforts, lives and money of a people on the other side of the planet, who have an interest in Iraq and it's resources being as productive and responsible as possible in the world.

The UN is a joke that hasn't realized it is a joke.

Allies are only allies as long as they act as allies, and it's better for everyone involved to act like our ally.

Terrorism is self pertetuating, and will continue regardless of attempts to destroy it,.. and conversely will increase with attempts to appease it.

There would never have been a "peaceful resolution" to Saddam's ouster from Iraq. That is pure psychosis on the part of the holder of that opinion.

I do love the fantastic statements of the left. A great illustration of the fantasy world they inhabit.

What in the hell are you talking about? Bin Laden is on the run, and likely will not live much longer. Al Qaeda has lost much of its organization. We have captured most of its highest ranking members. Bin Laden can only do so much by himself, because he has less to work with.

Saddam, on the other hand, ran a nation. Thus, he is a bigger threat than a measely little guy like Bin Laden, who no longer has the support of the Taliban in Afghanistan. We wrapped up that place, we are keeping it fairly well under control, and now its on to something new. We are not so far from finishing our work in Iraq, and I for one am convinced that it is money and lives well spent. We have made real gains, and that is more than most presidents could say. We are cleaning up our own messes.
rofl, osama needs the support of the taliban? he is on the run? lost its organization?

osama more than likely FUNDED the taliban. and he is on the run like bush is. and the ONLY organization required for al-qaeda is the assumption of osama's being alive. the people who hate americans, for killing THEIR FAMILIES and friends and ivnading and occupying their homelands, rally behind osama, even if they didnt before we decided to go cowboy and pretend we know what we are doing.

if by cleaning up our own messes you mean rebuilding buildings we BLEW UP, yeah we are doing that
however
if you mean cleaning up our own messes by fixing what we fucked up by invading, we are NOT doing that very well

Perhaps instead of fighting the threat of terrorists we could all sink our differences and fight against the things that drive people to kill, murder and destroy others.

Fighting the terrorist actions will have little effect on them in the future, only by removing the inequality and suffering around the world will we be able to remove terrorism by removing the need for it.

This is the responsiblility of all nations.

First of all, this would be a justification for WWII (though why are they saying they're going to go it alone? We where the last one to the party.)

So, to continue the analogy (some has been covered)-

"That's great dad, but that guy is still in a broken wheelchair from the last time you went over there. How's he gonna get all the way over here?"

"I don't know. I've heard stories. Don't question your dad-do you hate your mother? Are you a mother hater?"

"But dad, one of the houses we did this with in the 50's thats now a duplex, they look like their ready to ram a car right in our living room, and thier being twice as mean."

"Well son, they can actually fight back. So we're going to use diplomacy. Besides, we aren't going to get anything off selling their stuff when we're done, so..."

"This all seems a little slipshod. Don't we have cops in this town? Didn't we outlaw vigilantism a long ass time ago because of accountability?"

"Not now son, you have to go tell your brother that the stuff we where paying him an allowance for is going to be done by the kids down the street for half the price."

"The ones that look all beat up?"

"Why do you want to make your mother cry? You have to go tell your brother that it's his fault he's out of a job and if he doesn't do something about it we're not feeding him anymore. And your friend Juan can't come over unless he sneaks in the back, cleans the kitchen, living room, bathroom, makes dinner and leaves immediately afterwards. And if I catch him even smelling a cookie.....And while we're on the subject, I know your Uncle has been exploiting and abusing you, but I'm tired of hearing about it so you can't complain to me anymore. But if you start to compete against him I'll listen to every needling minutia he can come up with to stop you. If for some reason you become a statistical anomaly and rise up to your uncles level despite all of that, we're going to use you as an example to justify not feeding your brother. Now off to bed, I want you nice and rested in case I want to send you to die to get that neighbors sweet rims."
*wild applause from the peanut gallery*

good job!

[La Roue de Fortune #111]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Such an amazing and downright evil bunch of people, rationalizing allowing evil to prosper because "it's not my problem".

Are you by chance on the "religious" branch of the far-right family tree? Because if you equate evil=Satan=people who don't believe in Jesus the Messiah, there's just no arguing with you.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but honestly, when will you pro-war people get it through your heads that the "Saddam-was-a-bad-guy-and-we-had-to-get-rid-of-him" arguement is completely irrational?!
There are many more evil people doing many more evil things in the world (The Sudan comes to mind) Evil people who are a much greater threat to American than Saddam could have ever dream of being (North Korea comes to mind). So WHY AREN'T WE INVADING THEM? WHY?

Heh he he he..! :D

Excellent..!

No,... actually I'm a non-deist functio-deist singulary-absolutist, meaning one who uses his/her gods to assist in "listening to" the great singular "IT IS" absolute thingy for comfort and direction. ( Wacky enough definition for you!? :) )

And there is no arguing with me, as I don't argue. I simply voice my opinion. I answer the "points" of others with my opinions. You can't "convert" me or "win the debate" over me, as I don't debate. I state my opinion in conversation.

When will you anti-war people get it through your heads that taking out a weak evil government does not require that you take out other stronger evil governments first..?

We will deal with the other evil governments in time, and in the appropriate ways.

Would you REALLY be happier if we'd invaded (or simply nuked) North Korea..!?

Your opinion is yours. :)

Iraq has had (one of it's) cancers removed, and is on it's way to healing as best it can, through the efforts, lives and money of a people on the other side of the planet, who have an interest in Iraq and it's resources being as productive and responsible as possible in the world.

You actually believe this sh*t don't you?

It is good for the world that Saddam is not in power. The method of removal has, however, done irreparable damage to international stability.

I am of the firm belief, personally, that GWB & Co firmly believed that by driving their tanks into Iraq, they would be met with flowers, and that one by one, the middle east would convert to Democracy.

But WAKE UP! That's not going to happen. You cannot successfully take two cultures as diverse as the USA and the muslim arabs and impose one on the other. It is not working, and it will not work.

The UN is a joke that hasn't realized it is a joke.

Allies are only allies as long as they act as allies, and it's better for everyone involved to act like our ally.

A good friend will tell you when you're messing up. The USA was under no threat from Iraq - there was no need for any allies to run to assistance if the US wants to go on an adventure.

Terrorism is self pertetuating, and will continue regardless of attempts to destroy it,..

We agree on something!

and conversely will increase with attempts to appease it.

Oh! No we don't. I present to you 'terrorists' we (the US & UK) have successfully negotiated with - both sides of the Northern Ireland conflict & Gadaffi. In both cases negotiation has improved the situation.

There would never have been a "peaceful resolution" to Saddam's ouster from Iraq. That is pure psychosis on the part of the holder of that opinion.

Oh! We agree again! Saddam could not lose power peacefully (except by natural causes). The problem with the manner of his departure is that there is now a power vaccum and a lack of people running the country (civil servants). The immediate move from nationalisation to privatisation won't have helped. And the depressing thing is that civil war now beckons....

the kid is 9 for Christs Sake
why do people always underestimate the intelligence of children? at 9 i was fully able to understand the Gulf War, and my parents had explained the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall to me when i was 7.

[La Roue de Fortune #115]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You think, as do all your kind, that the use of words and the realm of the intellect is your rightfully sole territory, your parlour-room, and any dissent in this realm is an afront to propriety and good manners.

Not true, it's just that it's rare to read an intelligent, well-versed missive from one as eloquent and erudite as yourself. It's actually most welcome. I happen to eschew politics mostly. I believe the country is made up of those who use good syntax and grammar and those who use poor syntax and grammar.

Why,... thank you..! :D

Politics is more than a little infuriating. But it's probably healthier than caffeine, and has roughly the same effect.

Heh he he he...

The thing that most people seem to (either consciously or unconsciously) overlook in these forums is that the discourse in these forums is not "debate" but "conversation".

And while most people RAPIDLY realize that I truly AM an asshole in the voicing of my opinions, they fail to realize that most cultures "familiar sub-populations" use "insult" as a conversational energizer! As the Viagra to discourse.

Everyone is perfectly free to ignore me entirely, but I'd be curious to know how many actually do so..?


:D

Look out that window son. Now see that gas station down the street son. Now let's make up some crap about the guy accross the street who is hitting his wife, who has been hitting his wife for years, and who you actually are responsible for moving him into the house. We need to get some gas and don't want to pay for it. So let's go outside, and make some vague and illogical connection between the two. Let's liberate the guys wife in the name of oil!

(I'm not an American, and this thread gave me the biggest laugh ever. Your poor kid.)

why do people always underestimate the intelligence of children? at 9 i was fully able to understand the Gulf War, and my parents had explained the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall to me when i was 7.

t3h agr33dz0r3dz

especially since I'm 13, and that was only 4 years ago...

Don't give him the satisfaction, people. This was never anything except a lefty-baiting thread to begin with.
:mp5:

[Cannot think of a name #121]
"That's great dad, but that guy is still in a broken wheelchair from the last time you went over there. How's he gonna get all the way over here?"

"I don't know. I've heard stories. Don't question your dad-do you hate your mother? Are you a mother hater?"

"But dad, one of the houses we did this with in the 50's thats now a duplex, they look like their ready to ram a car right in our living room, and thier being twice as mean."

"Well son, they can actually fight back. So we're going to use diplomacy. Besides, we aren't going to get anything off selling their stuff when we're done, so..."

"This all seems a little slipshod. Don't we have cops in this town? Didn't we outlaw vigilantism a long ass time ago because of accountability?"

"Not now son, you have to go tell your brother that the stuff we where paying him an allowance for is going to be done by the kids down the street for half the price."

"The ones that look all beat up?"

"Why do you want to make your mother cry? You have to go tell your brother that it's his fault he's out of a job and if he doesn't do something about it we're not feeding him anymore. And your friend Juan can't come over unless he sneaks in the back, cleans the kitchen, living room, bathroom, makes dinner and leaves immediately afterwards. And if I catch him even smelling a cookie.....And while we're on the subject, I know your Uncle has been exploiting and abusing you, but I'm tired of hearing about it so you can't complain to me anymore. But if you start to compete against him I'll listen to every needling minutia he can come up with to stop you. If for some reason you become a statistical anomaly and rise up to your uncles level despite all of that, we're going to use you as an example to justify not feeding your brother. Now off to bed, I want you nice and rested in case I want to send you to die to get that neighbors sweet rims."

An amusing tale. Though utterly lacking in emotional content.

As well as being a lovely example self loathing (if you're an American) and/or massively psychotic perception (if you're an American or not).

Who gets the most pleasure out of your tale..?

Hmmmmm,... seems like terrorists might be the most gleeful to have their opinions echoed back to them, don't you think..?

If you really tell your son that kind of stories you might want to seek a phsycologist. But then again if you are trying to mess up your childrens head, you actually remind me of the government. :D

[Prosimiana #122]
Quote:
Originally Posted by HadesRulesMuch
So what you are saying is, since there are so many bad rulers in the world, we shouldn't stop any of them. And you don't really want us to expand the current war now to another country. So basically, I'm saying that this liberal argument is pathetic. *But there are too many bad people! Why don't we invade them? Why Iraq?* How about, we need to start somewhere. And on the contrary, I believe that Saddam was just about as bad as they come. So why not start with one of the worst, in a nation that will have a far less capable military and thus will ensure fewer military and civilian losses?

Saddam may be bad, but bin Laden was the more direct threat. Why redirect your military and your energy into taking out an evil dictator who is relatively contained, when another evil man is breaking into your figurative window?

Because we disagree with the "relatively contained" part of your question.

And Bin Laden was and is on the run, and largely ineffective.

[Jamesbondmcm #124]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eutrusca
The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation.
My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He told him: "Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"
"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.
"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush."
Our son giggled and said "OK."
"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said.
"OK Dad, I'm pretending."
"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and see that man come out of his house with his wife and he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and afraid of their father. You see all of this son..... what do you do?"
"Dad?"
"What do you do son?"
"I call the police, Dad."
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?"
"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.
"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.
"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.
"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."
"Daddy...he kills them?"
"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"
"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says.
"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.
"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"
"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.
"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?" "What Daddy?"
"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in he window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"
"Daddy..."
"WHAT DO YOU DO?"
Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I close the blinds, Daddy."
My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him... "Why?"
"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help...people who needs it....and they won't help....You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself ...Daddy......I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds....so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."
I start to cry.
My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husbands questions and he tells him...."Son"
"Yes, Daddy."
"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door..."WHAT DO YOU DO?"
My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"
I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs my son to his chest and hugs him tight, and cries..."It's too late to fight him, he's too strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before......it's too late." my husband whispers.
THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen is the greatest EVIL of all. Our President is doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must understand that this war is a war of humanity. WE must remove evil men from power so that we can continue to live in a free world where we are not afraid to look out our window. So that my nine year old son won't grow up in a world where he feels that if he just "closes" that blinds the atrocities in the world won't affect him. "YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!"
BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!
BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!!
BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT
SUPPORT THEM!!!
SUPPORT AMERICA!!
SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."
"One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes...and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility."
-Eleanor Roosevelt

Wow. Your child should be taken into custody.

And you'd have your little one turn up the phonograph and shut the drapes on November 9, 1938,...

Remember Kristallnacht.

And you'd have your little one turn up the phonograph and shut the drapes on November 9, 1938,...

Remember Kristallnacht.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Yes. Look out for warmongering right wing governments acting against scapegoats. Who put the scapegoats into interrogation, sorry concentration camps.

Government leaders who talk of good vs evil.
Who invade sovereign countries.
Who snub their nose at the international community.
Who's citizens are taught that patriotism is more important than anything else.
Who pledge allegiance in classrooms, sing the national anthem at sports event and wear the national flag at every opportunity.

Remember Kristallnacht

Guess most Americans dont remember kristallnacht. Most Europeans havent been in the civil wars eighter. But you've got a point =D

[Gymoor #129]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[INDENT]
Heh he he he he...

How about this:

Conservative comment on the Liberal position: To allow Saddam to remain in power would allow American and international security to be undermined. We tried to get as many nations to help us in our cause as we could and dealt with the situation in the best way possible for the conditions at the time.

Liberal comment on the Conservative position: STRAWMAN...!!! We win and you lose under rule #12.b.sect.IV.0004 of the debaters code of non-rude conduct..!

Errrr. Do you know what a straw man is? Ah well

actualy analytical response to your conservative statement:

To allow Saddam to remain in power could, and most likely would, undermine American domestic and international security. To remove him as we did with undue haste while, at least at the time, he was effectively contained, is also clearly a threat to our domestic and international security. The removal of Saddam is not an either/or proposition. It's not as if deciding to not remove Saddam at that time would have made it impossible to get Saddam at a later, and most likely better, time.
If we had waited, it would have given us more time to secure international support, but that is not to say that if we failed to get the international support we needed even after a longer period of negotiation, we would not have been able to act alone (or, rather, almost alone,) at that later date as well.

See what I did above? I pretty closely approximated your stance without using hyperbole, then added my own refinements to show where your stance and mine differed. That, my friend, is proper argument.

Thank you for your illustration of proper argumentative technique.

The problem is that I have no interest in proper argumentative technique.

I'm here to voice my opinions. :) I'm here for the conversation, and amusement (and possible edification) of the audience.

I've have no hope of "converting" you to my way of thinking, nor making forensic debating points.

You are merely your opinions, and the grist for conversation. :D

[QUOTE=Eutrusca]
"What do you do son?"
"I call the police, Dad."
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?"
"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.
"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.

This rather obscene scenario does not accurately reflect an analogy of the war. The United Nations was not standing by and doing nothing while someone got hurt and/or killed, and does not have a policy nor a history of staying out of things. They were quite involved in Iraq's affairs. In fact, some complain that they interfere too much!

"One’s philosophy is not best expressed in words, it is expressed in the choices one makes…In the long run, we shape our lives and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility."
-Eleanor Roosevelt
How ironic you should use her to support your statements; Eleanor Roosevelt helped draft the Charter of the United Nations. She believed in the ideal of a world community, and served as Chairman of the UN Human Rights Commission. Her elegant quote serves as a testament to the United Nations philosophy: to responsibly choose peaceful means of resolving conflicts, and reserve violence as a last resort.

So... you have no reason to be in a debate and disscussion board, right? Because that's what a debate and disscussion board is: a place to debate and discuss.

If not, then would you kindly move to a board that's actually relevant to you?

[Chess Squares #131]
Quote:
Originally Posted by HadesRulesMuch
What in the hell are you talking about? Bin Laden is on the run, and likely will not live much longer. Al Qaeda has lost much of its organization. We have captured most of its highest ranking members. Bin Laden can only do so much by himself, because he has less to work with.

Saddam, on the other hand, ran a nation. Thus, he is a bigger threat than a measely little guy like Bin Laden, who no longer has the support of the Taliban in Afghanistan. We wrapped up that place, we are keeping it fairly well under control, and now its on to something new. We are not so far from finishing our work in Iraq, and I for one am convinced that it is money and lives well spent. We have made real gains, and that is more than most presidents could say. We are cleaning up our own messes.


rofl, osama needs the support of the taliban? he is on the run? lost its organization?

osama more than likely FUNDED the taliban. and he is on the run like bush is. and the ONLY organization required for al-qaeda is the assumption of osama's being alive. the people who hate americans, for killing THEIR FAMILIES and friends and ivnading and occupying their homelands, rally behind osama, even if they didnt before we decided to go cowboy and pretend we know what we are doing.

if by cleaning up our own messes you mean rebuilding buildings we BLEW UP, yeah we are doing that
however
if you mean cleaning up our own messes by fixing what we fucked up by invading, we are NOT doing that very well

So the terrorists will come after Americans regardless of what we do from this point forward, because we've been so mean to them..?

Then why should we not try to destroy them utterly, and their sponsors, like the Taliban and Saddam's Iraq, and Iran, and Hamas, and "the others"... and attempt to make the populations of these former terrorist sponsoring states into productive and responsible members of humanity..?

Fear of a little blood would be as bad for a great nation as it would for a great surgeon.

[New Bremton #132]
Perhaps instead of fighting the threat of terrorists we could all sink our differences and fight against the things that drive people to kill, murder and destroy others.

Fighting the terrorist actions will have little effect on them in the future, only by removing the inequality and suffering around the world will we be able to remove terrorism by removing the need for it.

This is the responsiblility of all nations.

Hear hear..! :)

If you were in charge, what would you do tomorrow..?

How ironic you should use her to support your statements; Eleanor Roosevelt helped draft the Charter of the United Nations. She believed in the ideal of a world community, and served as Chairman of the UN Human Rights Commission. Her elegant quote serves as a testament to the United Nations philosophy: to responsibly choose peaceful means of resolving conflicts, and reserve violence as a last resort.
That's gotta burn....

Nice use of relevancy. I wish this was on page one.

An amusing tale. Though utterly lacking in emotional content.

As well as being a lovely example self loathing (if you're an American) and/or massively psychotic perception (if you're an American or not).

Who gets the most pleasure out of your tale..?

Hmmmmm,... seems like terrorists might be the most gleeful to have their opinions echoed back to them, don't you think..?

Are you calling me a mother hater? Are you asking me why I want to make my mother cry?

[New Bremton #132]
Perhaps instead of fighting the threat of terrorists we could all sink our differences and fight against the things that drive people to kill, murder and destroy others.

Fighting the terrorist actions will have little effect on them in the future, only by removing the inequality and suffering around the world will we be able to remove terrorism by removing the need for it.

This is the responsiblility of all nations.

Hear hear..! :)

If you were in charge, what would you do tomorrow..?

If I were in charge of the US I would:
1) Declare the end of financial and moral support for Israel.
2) Remove the military bases posted in scores of countries across the world.#
3) Hand Iraq & Afpghanistan over to a mulit-national arab & muslim force ASAP

That would stop terrorists in their tracks and cost the US nothing.

Globalisation would be next in line for some thorough scrutiny.

These measures would increase the standing of the US around the world.

I would probably also be assassinated for my troubles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your opinion is yours.

Iraq has had (one of it's) cancers removed, and is on it's way to healing as best it can, through the efforts, lives and money of a people on the other side of the planet, who have an interest in Iraq and it's resources being as productive and responsible as possible in the world.

You actually believe this sh*t don't you?

It is good for the world that Saddam is not in power. The method of removal has, however, done irreparable damage to international stability.

I am of the firm belief, personally, that GWB & Co firmly believed that by driving their tanks into Iraq, they would be met with flowers, and that one by one, the middle east would convert to Democracy.

But WAKE UP! That's not going to happen. You cannot successfully take two cultures as diverse as the USA and the muslim arabs and impose one on the other. It is not working, and it will not work.

Your "faith" in international stability is interesting. Do you really think that nations would allow any of their interests to be "supported" by this so-called "international stability"..?

Show me where it's now more instable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The UN is a joke that hasn't realized it is a joke.

Allies are only allies as long as they act as allies, and it's better for everyone involved to act like our ally.

A good friend will tell you when you're messing up. The USA was under no threat from Iraq - there was no need for any allies to run to assistance if the US wants to go on an adventure.

And we thank this good friend, and remain his friend, and do what we think is the right thing to do, regardless of the opinions of others.

And the good friend can sit back and NOT jump off the cliff with us. :)

What must be done, must be done. [B]IF we think it must be done.

But when our adventure had the effect of putting a country (Iraq) into a state of distress, as any "cancer removal" would do,.. what kind of friend would sit back and allow the "innocent" patient to suffer simply to "teach his friend a lesson"..?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Terrorism is self pertetuating, and will continue regardless of attempts to destroy it,..

We agree on something!

Yes we do.. :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
and conversely will increase with attempts to appease it.

Oh! No we don't. I present to you 'terrorists' we (the US & UK) have successfully negotiated with - both sides of the Northern Ireland conflict & Gadaffi. In both cases negotiation has improved the situation.

Heh he he he... we disagree on the term "negotiate" here.

The Qad-man gave up because it was in his interest to do so. It was a "negotiation" only on the terms of his surrender.

The IRA found that it was also in it's interest to align itself with "it's enemies" because not doing so was not in it's best interest. The negotiation here was one of "we would rather be a part of the system as opposed to not being so, so please let us join!"

The islamists can not be either used or negotiated with, as there can be no negotiating with Satan. A one sided negotiation is not a negotiation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
There would never have been a "peaceful resolution" to Saddam's ouster from Iraq. That is pure psychosis on the part of the holder of that opinion.

Oh! We agree again! Saddam could not lose power peacefully (except by natural causes). The problem with the manner of his departure is that there is now a power vaccum and a lack of people running the country (civil servants). The immediate move from nationalisation to privatisation won't have helped. And the depressing thing is that civil war now beckons....

And my contention is that no other method of removal would have been possible. Period. The "power vaccuum" should DEFINATELY have been handled better (absolutely no argument from me on that one) but the vagueries of war simply make 20-20 hindsight nothing more than a "gotcha" game for political players.

If a civil war happens, it's too bad, but a natural effect of the situation. If it can be averted, I'll applaud wildly. If it can't, then we, and hopefully the "friends of the people of Iraq" will DO something constructive about it.

But the prospect of uncertain outcomes, and imperfect methods does not prevent a person or a nation from doing what's right.

Unless that person or nation is a coward.

Look out that window son. Now see that gas station down the street son. Now let's make up some crap about the guy accross the street who is hitting his wife, who has been hitting his wife for years, and who you actually are responsible for moving him into the house. We need to get some gas and don't want to pay for it. So let's go outside, and make some vague and illogical connection between the two. Let's liberate the guys wife in the name of oil!

(I'm not an American, and this thread gave me the biggest laugh ever. Your poor kid.)

Your name is quite appropriate.

Been "rump bumped" by any islamists lately? Well,.... yes, obviously.

Silly me. :D

Don't give him the satisfaction, people. This was never anything except a lefty-baiting thread to begin with.
:mp5:

Ya' THINK..!?

Heh he he he... :D

Though I thought the story illustrated a point of view VERY well.

[Molniania #142]
If you really tell your son that kind of stories you might want to seek a phsycologist. But then again if you are trying to mess up your childrens head, you actually remind me of the government. :D

Molny is obviously one of those that believes that the Grimm's tales are a potentially traumatic influence on youth and should NEVER have been published in the first place.

The point is, Molny, that this is a story ABOUT a talk between a father and child, not TO a child by his father.

It's a story to adults. And interpreted otherwise by idiots, such as yourself.

Buy a clue, buckeroo...

[Bonnybridge #145]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And you'd have your little one turn up the phonograph and shut the drapes on November 9, 1938,...

Remember Kristallnacht.

Yes. Look out for warmongering right wing governments acting against scapegoats. Who put the scapegoats into interrogation, sorry concentration camps.

Government leaders who talk of good vs evil.
Who invade sovereign countries.
Who snub their nose at the international community.
Who's citizens are taught that patriotism is more important than anything else.
Who pledge allegiance in classrooms, sing the national anthem at sports event and wear the national flag at every opportunity.

Remember Kristallnacht

Who is this "evil nation"..?

Who saves whole continents from fascism. Who doesn't bow to corrupt organizations like the UN. Who's population is proud of their country and their countries accomplishments.

Yes,.. remember Kristallnacht,.. and don't eat the leftist poison which states that any nationalism, any patriotism, and morality, any use of force, even for good,.. is not only wrong, but evil and unjustifiable.

What does it take for evil to flourish,... for the good to do nothing..!?

The left does nothing.

The Iraqi's are starting to learn that if they ever want peace, they will have to fight for it, and as anyone who isnt blinded by liberal beliefs can see, the iraqi's are getting prepared to fight back. Iraqi muslims are just as fanatical as any other muslim and when you threaten a muslim mans family, the terrorists better be prepared to feel that muslims wrath.

Wow, can you say racist, "Let's not generalize iraqis, but muslims are all extremistists" you're a hypocrit and an idiot. You are making up information too, you're a hick, and dumb, just as your name implies. And I can only name 2 terrorists in iraq, and they did not support most religious extremists because it was not a theocracy, our "ally", Saudi Arabia supports religious extremists, pays terrorists, has millions, and yet we call it our friend.

[Willamena #148]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eutrusca
[QUOTE=Eutrusca]
"What do you do son?"
"I call the police, Dad."
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?"
"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.
"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.

This rather obscene scenario does not accurately reflect an analogy of the war. The United Nations was not standing by and doing nothing while someone got hurt and/or killed, and does not have a policy nor a history of staying out of things. They were quite involved in Iraq's affairs. In fact, some complain that they interfere too much!

:) Hi, Wills..! Yes,... I'm being annoying again...!

Yes they were involved in Iraq. But not in a way that relieved the suffering of anyone, other than soothing the money worries of Saddam and various "biz associates".

Quote:
"One’s philosophy is not best expressed in words, it is expressed in the choices one makes…In the long run, we shape our lives and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility."
-Eleanor Roosevelt

How ironic you should use her to support your statements; Eleanor Roosevelt helped draft the Charter of the United Nations. She believed in the ideal of a world community, and served as Chairman of the UN Human Rights Commission. Her elegant quote serves as a testament to the United Nations philosophy: to responsibly choose peaceful means of resolving conflicts, and reserve violence as a last resort.

Yeah,.. it is ironic how a truly magnificent concept can be hijacked and corrupted in such a short time by the very parties that created and populate it.

But such is the consequence of applying ideals into areas where they don't belong.

(( Meaning, my usual annoying contention, that trying to legislate nations behaviors via a "world body" is doomed to failure because nations of power will never accept it, and without nations of power the legislation produced is utterly impotent. ))

[Zode #149]
So... you have no reason to be in a debate and disscussion board, right? Because that's what a debate and disscussion board is: a place to debate and discuss.

If not, then would you kindly move to a board that's actually relevant to you?

I'll take it that you were directing that my way. :)

Show me the "debate and discussion" rules.

I am discussing. I'm just not debating. :)

What do you take "discussion" to be..?

And am I hurting your widdle feewings..!? I'm soooo sowwy. Boo hoo...

Meanwhile,.. back to "discussing" with the grownups...

[Cannot think of a name #153]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
An amusing tale. Though utterly lacking in emotional content.

As well as being a lovely example self loathing (if you're an American) and/or massively psychotic perception (if you're an American or not).

Who gets the most pleasure out of your tale..?

Hmmmmm,... seems like terrorists might be the most gleeful to have their opinions echoed back to them, don't you think..?

Are you calling me a mother hater? Are you asking me why I want to make my mother cry?

Do you hate your mother? Do you have REASON to hate your mother..?

Do you want to make your mother cry..!? Why..!

Sounds like you may have a good tale to tell, yourself.

Let's hear it..! :D

[Cannot think of a name #153]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
An amusing tale. Though utterly lacking in emotional content.

As well as being a lovely example self loathing (if you're an American) and/or massively psychotic perception (if you're an American or not).

Who gets the most pleasure out of your tale..?

Hmmmmm,... seems like terrorists might be the most gleeful to have their opinions echoed back to them, don't you think..?

Are you calling me a mother hater? Are you asking me why I want to make my mother cry?

Do you hate your mother? Do you have REASON to hate your mother..?

Do you want to make your mother cry..!? Why..!

Sounds like you may have a good tale to tell, yourself.

Let's hear it..! :D
I should have guessed that you wouldn't get that....pearls before swine....

[Bonnybridge #154]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[New Bremton #132]
Perhaps instead of fighting the threat of terrorists we could all sink our differences and fight against the things that drive people to kill, murder and destroy others.

Fighting the terrorist actions will have little effect on them in the future, only by removing the inequality and suffering around the world will we be able to remove terrorism by removing the need for it.

This is the responsiblility of all nations.

Hear hear..!

If you were in charge, what would you do tomorrow..?

If I were in charge of the US I would:
1) Declare the end of financial and moral support for Israel.
2) Remove the military bases posted in scores of countries across the world.#
3) Hand Iraq & Afpghanistan over to a mulit-national arab & muslim force ASAP

That would stop terrorists in their tracks and cost the US nothing.

Globalisation would be next in line for some thorough scrutiny.

These measures would increase the standing of the US around the world.

I would probably also be assassinated for my troubles.

Heh he he he he..

That would prompt an immediate crushing war on Israel, which would also destroy every arab city within "bomb-shot" of Israel.

The removal of US miltary bases would be unecessary, because nuclear war betwixt anyone possessing them whould have started.

Every Islamist, anarchist, and any other opportunistic thug on the planet would be making moves against whichever government is handy.

There would be no pan-muslim force to hand anything to, because of the previously described conditions.

And the leftists would be peeing their pants with excitement at the opportunities to rebuild the world in their image.

Of course, the Islamists would probably "get there first" and all the former leftists would be headless and/or never having an individualistic thought ever again.

And the Taliban would rejoice.

Good job for your (possibly unbeknownst) bosses. Excellent work. Excellent plan.

And yes,... you'd be assassinated. :)

YOu forgot about the part where you hang around in their house long after those who were abused tell you to leave, and then another neighbor comes in and kills you.

[Cannot think of a name #164]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Cannot think of a name #153]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
An amusing tale. Though utterly lacking in emotional content.

As well as being a lovely example self loathing (if you're an American) and/or massively psychotic perception (if you're an American or not).

Who gets the most pleasure out of your tale..?

Hmmmmm,... seems like terrorists might be the most gleeful to have their opinions echoed back to them, don't you think..?

Are you calling me a mother hater? Are you asking me why I want to make my mother cry?

Do you hate your mother? Do you have REASON to hate your mother..?

Do you want to make your mother cry..!? Why..!

Sounds like you may have a good tale to tell, yourself.

Let's hear it..!

I should have guessed that you wouldn't get that....pearls before swine....

OK,.. I admit it. I am a swine. Oink. Oinkity oink.

But DO you make your mother cry..!? :D

The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation.
My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He told him: "Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"
"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.
"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush."
Our son giggled and said "OK."
"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said.
"OK Dad, I'm pretending."
"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and see that man come out of his house with his wife and he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and afraid of their father. You see all of this son..... what do you do?"
"Dad?"
"What do you do son?"
"I call the police, Dad."
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?"
"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.
"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.
"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.
"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."
"Daddy...he kills them?"
"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"
"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says.
"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.
"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"
"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.
"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?" "What Daddy?"
"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in he window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"
"Daddy..."
"WHAT DO YOU DO?"
Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I close the blinds, Daddy."
My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him... "Why?"
"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help...people who needs it....and they won't help....You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself ...Daddy......I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds....so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."
I start to cry.
My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husbands questions and he tells him...."Son"
"Yes, Daddy."
"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door..."WHAT DO YOU DO?"
My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"
I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs my son to his chest and hugs him tight, and cries..."It's too late to fight him, he's too strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before......it's too late." my husband whispers.
THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen is the greatest EVIL of all. Our President is doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must understand that this war is a war of humanity. WE must remove evil men from power so that we can continue to live in a free world where we are not afraid to look out our window. So that my nine year old son won't grow up in a world where he feels that if he just "closes" that blinds the atrocities in the world won't affect him. "YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!"
BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!
BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!!
BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT
SUPPORT THEM!!!
SUPPORT AMERICA!!
SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."
"One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes...and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility."
-Eleanor Roosevelt


That was beautiful. And it would work, if that was the reason we were told we were going to Iraq. However, the reasoning our president presented wasn't anything like that. His reasoning was "The neighboor might have the power to go and [/i]maybe[/i] kill our neighboors, so we should go get him first." Would you advocate your son going and killing the man across the street because you think he might maybe possibly one day go across the street and kill someone?

The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation.
My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He told him: "Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"
"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.
"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush."
Our son giggled and said "OK."
"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said.
"OK Dad, I'm pretending."
"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and see that man come out of his house with his wife and he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and afraid of their father. You see all of this son..... what do you do?"
"Dad?"
"What do you do son?"
"I call the police, Dad."
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?"
"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.
"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.
"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.
"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."
"Daddy...he kills them?"
"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"
"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says.
"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.
"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"
"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.
"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?" "What Daddy?"
"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in he window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"
"Daddy..."
"WHAT DO YOU DO?"
Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I close the blinds, Daddy."
My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him... "Why?"
"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help...people who needs it....and they won't help....You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself ...Daddy......I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds....so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."
I start to cry.
My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husbands questions and he tells him...."Son"
"Yes, Daddy."
"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door..."WHAT DO YOU DO?"
My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"
I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs my son to his chest and hugs him tight, and cries..."It's too late to fight him, he's too strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before......it's too late." my husband whispers.
THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen is the greatest EVIL of all. Our President is doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must understand that this war is a war of humanity. WE must remove evil men from power so that we can continue to live in a free world where we are not afraid to look out our window. So that my nine year old son won't grow up in a world where he feels that if he just "closes" that blinds the atrocities in the world won't affect him. "YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!"
BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!
BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!!
BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT
SUPPORT THEM!!!
SUPPORT AMERICA!!
SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."
"One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes...and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility."
-Eleanor Roosevelt


That was beautiful. And it would work, if that was the reason we were told we were going to Iraq. However, the reasoning our president presented wasn't anything like that. His reasoning was "The neighboor might have the power to go and [/i]maybe[/i] kill our neighboors, so we should go get him first." Would you advocate your son going and killing the man across the street because you think he might be strong enough to go across the street and kill someone?

[Dempublicents #169]
That was beautiful. And it would work, if that was the reason we were told we were going to Iraq. However, the reasoning our president presented wasn't anything like that. His reasoning was "The neighboor might have the power to go and [/i]maybe[/i] kill our neighboors, so we should go get him first." Would you advocate your son going and killing the man across the street because you think he might be strong enough to go across the street and kill someone?

Why is "the reason you were told" of such importance.

Imagine that you were on vacation for "a long time" between before this reason was given and now.

Would that make it "work" for you if you simply found out after getting back from your vacation..?

And if not,.. why not...?

.."Would you advocate your son going and killing the man across the street because you think he might be strong enough to go across the street and kill someone?"..

Yes, I would. I would in this "metaphor world".

This metaphor, like all metaphors, has it's "limits of applicability".

In real life, there IS a civil authority. In this metaphor, the civil authority is impotent.

You once again, like all good leftists, confuse the real world with your fantasies.

Iraq has had (one of it's) cancers removed
Hope you never become a brainsurgeon then: your treatment of a tumour would no doubt involve a pickaxe.
"What do you mean, what scans? Fuck 'em, we don't have that information yet!"

The "tendency" is for the right to act as quickly and forcefully on the presently available data because the data-aquisition phase SHOULD BE an ongoing everpresent process that can present the best info immediately for action on.
Hmm.. sounds like a recipie for chaotic oscillation.

The UN is a joke that hasn't realized it is a joke.
Yeah, it did become a joke when the strongest member spat in it's face, then knocked it down and urinated on it really didn't it?

Allies are only allies as long as they act as allies, and it's better for everyone involved to act like our ally.
Sounds like fighting talk to me!

Liberal comment on the Conservative position: STRAWMAN...!!! We win and you lose under rule #12.b.sect.IV.0004 of the debaters code of non-rude conduct..!
"Polite" is not a euphemism of "rational" as far as I'm aware.

If I were in charge of the US I would:
1) Declare the end of financial and moral support for Israel.
2) Remove the military bases posted in scores of countries across the world.#
3) Hand Iraq & Afpghanistan over to a mulit-national arab & muslim force ASAP

That would stop terrorists in their tracks and cost the US nothing.

Globalisation would be next in line for some thorough scrutiny.

These measures would increase the standing of the US around the world.

I would probably also be assassinated for my troubles.

And result in the deaths of millions of people as well. You cannot get fanatics to "reform" by blowing sunshine up their collective ass.

The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation.
My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He told him: "Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"
"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.
"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush."
Our son giggled and said "OK."
"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said.
"OK Dad, I'm pretending."
"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and see that man come out of his house with his wife and he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and afraid of their father. You see all of this son..... what do you do?"
"Dad?"
"What do you do son?"
"I call the police, Dad."
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?"
"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.
"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.
"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.
"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."
"Daddy...he kills them?"
"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"
"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says.
"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.
"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"
"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.
"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?" "What Daddy?"
"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in he window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"
"Daddy..."
"WHAT DO YOU DO?"
Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I close the blinds, Daddy."
My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him... "Why?"
"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help...people who needs it....and they won't help....You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself ...Daddy......I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds....so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."
I start to cry.
My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husbands questions and he tells him...."Son"
"Yes, Daddy."
"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door..."WHAT DO YOU DO?"
My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"
I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs my son to his chest and hugs him tight, and cries..."It's too late to fight him, he's too strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before......it's too late." my husband whispers.
THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen is the greatest EVIL of all. Our President is doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must understand that this war is a war of humanity. WE must remove evil men from power so that we can continue to live in a free world where we are not afraid to look out our window. So that my nine year old son won't grow up in a world where he feels that if he just "closes" that blinds the atrocities in the world won't affect him. "YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!"
BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!
BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!!
BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT
SUPPORT THEM!!!
SUPPORT AMERICA!!
SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."
"One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes...and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility."
-Eleanor Roosevelt

Did your kid ever ask why Lynndie England and her friends then raped the guys kids?

No dead? You claim that the UN inspectors, who were unable to get Iraq to cooperate 10 years ago, which led to their removal from said nation, are somehow now going to be able to get anything done? In case you have forgotten, Bush gave Iraq 3 months to allow UN inspectors to return. Iraq refused, and we attacked.

Actually Iraq let the inspectors back in. The cheif inspector (who's name escape me right now) said the Iraqi's were cooperating, although not wholeheartedly and unconditionally. And isn't the fact that we haven't found any WMDs in Iraq proof the inspectors might have accomplished their job?

Damaged the standing of the UN? Buddy, the UN's standing has been damaged for years. Even half the member nations regard it as being worthless. Whether you think it is or isn't doesn't matter, what matters is that the way most people regard it. And most people think it is weak and powerless.

The UN is only as strong as the memberstates allows it to be. If the UN is weak is only because members undermine it's authority and disregard it's rulings. When the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth publicly and repeatedly say the organization is irrelevant and powerless, well why should nations like Iraq respect it? The veto power enjoyed by the permanent members of the Security Council doesn't help either. Every time the UN try to address issues that step too close to these nations "vital interests", oops gotta play my veto card. Should we talk about the Republican Congress refusing to pay the American debt to the UN back in the 90's? Or is this example of outright blackmail too embarassing?

Tens of thousands of deaths? You seem to have not studied your history. 50,000 dead in Korea. 50,000 in Vietnam. Literally tens of millions dead in the worlds wars. Now, with around 13,000 civilian deaths, almost exclusively ones caused by insurgent actions, and far less military casualties, you see this as a tremendous loss?

Actually, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Health the Coalition is responsible for twice as many civilian casualties as the terrorists/insurgents (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9753603.htm). This is not exactly increasing the popularity of the Coalition, and by extention the Iraqi interim government.

I'll take it that you were directing that my way.

Show me the "debate and discussion" rules.

I am discussing. I'm just not debating.

What do you take "discussion" to be..?

And am I hurting your widdle feewings..!? I'm soooo sowwy. Boo hoo...

Meanwhile,.. back to "discussing" with the grownups...

No you're not. You're just spouting off shit that can't even be described as "discussion". And besides, a discussion ios a debate: if you discuss something, you state your side on an issue, and actually make an attempt at sounding like an adult, rather than a stupid 8-yr old who noone should take seriously.

And no, you didn't hurt my feelings. And if you use language like that, then it shows that you're just a child as you have to use preschool language to spout out your "opinions".

Did your kid ever ask why Lynndie England and her friends then raped the guys kids?
Ouch.

Does that stop terrorists, then?

Or do you just mean, because windows look cool with saran-wrap duct-taped all over them?

Not only does it allow you to stop terrorism in your own back yard, it's the coolest new fashion for all the new trendy people! Get your own ultra mega anti-terrorist saranwrap, and with each order we'll throw in a gallon of Starbucks coffee!

Tens of thousands of deaths? You seem to have not studied your history. 50,000 dead in Korea. 50,000 in Vietnam. Literally tens of millions dead in the worlds wars. Now, with around 13,000 civilian deaths, almost exclusively ones caused by insurgent actions, and far less military casualties, you see this as a tremendous loss?
Was the murder of those schoolchildren recently a tremendous loss? What if you lost a close friend or relative in a car crash tomorrow? "Well, it could have been worse..." really doesn't seem to hold much water does it?

Lets not forget WWII was a war for our very freedom. We didn't start it. The war on Al Qaeda is a just war, again they started it. The war on Iraq was just stupid and not needed. It WAS a war of choice based on ideology, not on need! Any one who supports there own people being killed to save other people who don't want your help need to have their heads checked! Seriously! Saddam has NEVER posed a threat to the United States or the west period, end of story!

well i agree with you. but i have conficting feelings about the war..on one hand, it is kind of foolish to WAIT for someone to attack us, like we did with Al Qaeda and Germany. Eventually, with enough time, i GUARANTEE that saddam would have posed a threat to us.

I guess my opinion is that the war was justified, but it just wasn't done right.

"I call the police, Dad."
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?"

The UN doesn't have military forces of it's own, it's entirely dependent on units provided by memberstates (voluntarily, if no memberstate accepts, well though luck UN). The UN compensate the memberstates all expenses for these units, and the last couple of decades the UN have had ever increasing problems finding the encessary funds, because members are behind on paying their memberfees.

So you have created a police who doesn't have any permanently employed officers and have no budget for hiring said officers.

The kid responds: What? That's stupid, who made those rules?

The police answers: Your grandfather did. He and the rest of the neighbourhood, but he was the driving force.

They can however authorize you to take action on your own (with the 15 assault rifles you have in your weapons locker in the basement ;) ) provided you can present proof of his violence (and how hard would that be?). And they do have a court of law ready to prosecute the neighbour.

To which the kid responds: Proof? I'm telling you what's going on, isn't that proof enough? Screw you, you're worthless. Oh and I don't recognise you court! If I do you might someday prosecute my cousin.

There, much better analogy.

[Slaytanicca #171]
Quote:
Iraq has had (one of it's) cancers removed

Hope you never become a brainsurgeon then: your treatment of a tumour would no doubt involve a pickaxe.
"What do you mean, what scans? Fuck 'em, we don't have that information yet!"

No need to fear. I've no interest in medicine. :)

And why do you think our actions in Iraq are "pickaxe" like..?

Quote:
The "tendency" is for the right to act as quickly and forcefully on the presently available data because the data-aquisition phase SHOULD BE an ongoing everpresent process that can present the best info immediately for action on.

Hmm.. sounds like a recipie for chaotic oscillation.

Could well be. Of course it MIGHT be well tempered by the "horrifically inertial buffalo" bureaucracy that is the US government.

Both tendencies are needed. But the left, who see themselves as the sole legitimate "rulers" of society, would unbalance us into impotence.

Quote:
The UN is a joke that hasn't realized it is a joke.

Yeah, it did become a joke when the strongest member spat in it's face, then knocked it down and urinated on it really didn't it?

Yes..! Basically. And it did so WHY..!?

Quote:
Allies are only allies as long as they act as allies, and it's better for everyone involved to act like our ally.

Sounds like fighting talk to me!

That's not a threat. Simply a description of reality. If they decide that it's not in their interests to act like our ally, then what should they act like..?

In fact, how are they NOT acting like allies now..?

Quote:
Liberal comment on the Conservative position: STRAWMAN...!!! We win and you lose under rule #12.b.sect.IV.0004 of the debaters code of non-rude conduct..!

"Polite" is not a euphemism of "rational" as far as I'm aware.

I would hope not. :)

My point is that the claim that rightists (conservatives) always and only use the "strawman" tactic in debate is a way to disqualify anything that they say as illegitimate according to the "rules".

And my comment on that observation is that, in my case, I don't debate. I converse. "Rules of Debate" (in the context of these forums) mean nothing to me.

The question to me is: "Why is 'winning' so very important to you, in a place of discussion and interchange..?"

Did your kid ever ask why Lynndie England and her friends then raped the guys kids?

For the third and last time: that wasn't my kid, and I didn't write this. I just thought it was interesting.

For the third and last time: that wasn't my kid, and I didn't write this. I just thought it was interesting.

I know, I know... Just thought I'd go along with your pathetic little story...
:rolleyes:

[Nukevada #174]
Quote:
Originally Posted by HadesRulesMuch
No dead? You claim that the UN inspectors, who were unable to get Iraq to cooperate 10 years ago, which led to their removal from said nation, are somehow now going to be able to get anything done? In case you have forgotten, Bush gave Iraq 3 months to allow UN inspectors to return. Iraq refused, and we attacked.

Actually Iraq let the inspectors back in. The cheif inspector (who's name escape me right now) said the Iraqi's were cooperating, although not wholeheartedly and unconditionally. And isn't the fact that we haven't found any WMDs in Iraq proof the inspectors might have accomplished their job?

And how would "not finding WMD's" affect Saddam's pre-ouster abilities to assist terrorists..?

Quote:
Damaged the standing of the UN? Buddy, the UN's standing has been damaged for years. Even half the member nations regard it as being worthless. Whether you think it is or isn't doesn't matter, what matters is that the way most people regard it. And most people think it is weak and powerless.

The UN is only as strong as the memberstates allows it to be. If the UN is weak is only because members undermine it's authority and disregard it's rulings. When the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth publicly and repeatedly say the organization is irrelevant and powerless, well why should nations like Iraq respect it? The veto power enjoyed by the permanent members of the Security Council doesn't help either. Every time the UN try to address issues that step too close to these nations "vital interests", oops gotta play my veto card. Should we talk about the Republican Congress refusing to pay the American debt to the UN back in the 90's? Or is this example of outright blackmail too embarassing?

And the members states are now deciding it is best for the UN to be impotent. The powerful ones because it limits their power "unjustly", and the weaker ones because they don't want to "be oppressed" by the more powerful ones.

Nations do what is in their best interest. The UN as "world government" is inherently a wonderful yet idealistically impossible dream.

Quote:
Tens of thousands of deaths? You seem to have not studied your history. 50,000 dead in Korea. 50,000 in Vietnam. Literally tens of millions dead in the worlds wars. Now, with around 13,000 civilian deaths, almost exclusively ones caused by insurgent actions, and far less military casualties, you see this as a tremendous loss?

Actually, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Health the Coalition is responsible for twice as many civilian casualties as the terrorists/insurgents. This is not exactly increasing the popularity of the Coalition, and by extention the Iraqi interim government.

And this disturbs you how..?

The terrorists are shooting at isolated groups of non-terrorists (us) and lines of police recruits.

We are shooting at people who can barely be distinguished from the general population, which they are imbedded within,... purposefully.

Of course civilians are being killed. And until either the civilian population throws the thugs out of their midst, or we (the non-terrorists) kill them in sufficient number that they can't hide in the populus anymore, more civilians will die.

Only a terrorist himself would hide behind the "civilian casualty shield" and claim that police actions to control crime and lawlessness are a bad thing.

How do these civilian deaths bother you again..?

My point is that the claim that rightists (conservatives) always and only use the "strawman" tactic in debate is a way to disqualify anything that they say as illegitimate according to the "rules".
Hee-hee! But that would be a strawman argument! Oh noes the hypocrisy! ;)

[Zode #175]
Quote:
I'll take it that you were directing that my way.

Show me the "debate and discussion" rules.

I am discussing. I'm just not debating.

What do you take "discussion" to be..?

And am I hurting your widdle feewings..!? I'm soooo sowwy. Boo hoo...

Meanwhile,.. back to "discussing" with the grownups...

No you're not. You're just spouting off shit that can't even be described as "discussion". And besides, a discussion ios a debate: if you discuss something, you state your side on an issue, and actually make an attempt at sounding like an adult, rather than a stupid 8-yr old who noone should take seriously.

And no, you didn't hurt my feelings. And if you use language like that, then it shows that you're just a child as you have to use preschool language to spout out your "opinions".

You may have discussions in your way. And I shall have them in mine.

If I have issues with what you say, I'll respond.

If you have issues with what I say, you may respond. Or you may not want to, as I'm a stupid insulting asshole 8-yr old, in your opinion.

Either is fine with me. :D

May you be edified and disturbed by the discourse you encounter. It does a body GOOD..!

[Incertonia #176]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumaniia
Did your kid ever ask why Lynndie England and her friends then raped the guys kids?


Ouch.

BAD FIDO...!!

No biscuit for you FIDO..!!!

..stupid dog.

[Nukevada #180]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eutrusca
"I call the police, Dad."
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?"

The UN doesn't have military forces of it's own, it's entirely dependent on units provided by memberstates (voluntarily, if no memberstate accepts, well though luck UN). The UN compensate the memberstates all expenses for these units, and the last couple of decades the UN have had ever increasing problems finding the encessary funds, because members are behind on paying their memberfees.

So you have created a police who doesn't have any permanently employed officers and have no budget for hiring said officers.

The kid responds: What? That's stupid, who made those rules?

The police answers: Your grandfather did. He and the rest of the neighbourhood, but he was the driving force.

They can however authorize you to take action on your own (with the 15 assault rifles you have in your weapons locker in the basement ) provided you can present proof of his violence (and how hard would that be?). And they do have a court of law ready to prosecute the neighbour.

To which the kid responds: Proof? I'm telling you what's going on, isn't that proof enough? Screw you, you're worthless. Oh and I don't recognise you court! If I do you might someday prosecute my cousin.

There, much better analogy.

Yes. That's a very good analogy.

Why would a powerful nation subjugate itself to an imaginary "nation" (the UN)..?

Why would a weak nation support an imaginary "nation" that could subjugate it..?

Why..?

Gymoor....nice brain pan :)

My point is that the claim that rightists (conservatives) always and only use the "strawman" tactic in debate is a way to disqualify anything that they say as illegitimate according to the "rules".

And my comment on that observation is that, in my case, I don't debate. I converse. "Rules of Debate" (in the context of these forums) mean nothing to me.

The question to me is: "Why is 'winning' so very important to you, in a place of discussion and interchange..?"

Winning isn't what's important. Accuracy is. Truth is. Clear thinking is. When you use the straw man, you're twisting your opponent's words and then critiquing that skewed argument, rather than what the person really said. It doesn't belong in a place of discussion and interchange.

Campaign ads do it all the time. They'll often show a few seconds of a speech and attack that, even though the unedited speech ends up saying something quite at odds with what was implied by the sound bite.

It's sad how many people fall for it too.

Only a terrorist himself would hide behind the "civilian casualty shield" and claim that police actions to control crime and lawlessness are a bad thing.
Surely a "terrorist sympathiser" or even "one who wishes to understand the terrorists". And may I ask why you refer to them as "the" terrorists? Many organisations in the world use terrorism as a tactic when there is no alternative, such as when face insurmountable force (such as, as a completely random example, the United States of America.)
You claim to be voicing your opinions without using what you call the "rules of debating", which, far from being an arbitary etiquette are actually pretty fundamental to the workings of the universe. Fair enough, just bear in mind that some consider this trolling. No offence, I enjoyed reading yr posts. But then I am a total saddoe :P

Why would a powerful nation subjugate itself to an imaginary "nation" (the UN)..?

Why would a weak nation support an imaginary "nation" that could subjugate it..?

Why..?
Because most of us feel we are above this flag-waving, "don't fuck with us" attitude now.

[Slaytanicca #185]
Quote:
My point is that the claim that rightists (conservatives) always and only use the "strawman" tactic in debate is a way to disqualify anything that they say as illegitimate according to the "rules".


Hee-hee! But that would be a strawman argument! Oh noes the hypocrisy!

Under "debating" rules, that is indeed a strawman..! :)

Under "conversational" rules, that is a provocative statement of opinion, created to generate annoyance in the "opponent" in hopes of getting them to respond and provide insight into the opponent's thought processes (or more properly, into their "personality").

And this is the difference between conversation and debate. Debate is centered on making points and clarifying information regarding differing positions. Conversation is centered on finding out about the person giving their opinion.

In my view, the debate "points" of nearly any issue could be debated forever with each side quoting biased information supporting their side, while resolving nothing (approaching NO further clarity) due to the nature of the people in these forums (utterly biased), and the nature of their supporting information (hopelessly biased).

But having fun with and learning about the people behind the "debating" in these forums is a great joy.

:D

[Nukevada #174]
Quote:
Originally Posted by HadesRulesMuch
No dead? You claim that the UN inspectors, who were unable to get Iraq to cooperate 10 years ago, which led to their removal from said nation, are somehow now going to be able to get anything done? In case you have forgotten, Bush gave Iraq 3 months to allow UN inspectors to return. Iraq refused, and we attacked.

Actually Iraq let the inspectors back in. The cheif inspector (who's name escape me right now) said the Iraqi's were cooperating, although not wholeheartedly and unconditionally. And isn't the fact that we haven't found any WMDs in Iraq proof the inspectors might have accomplished their job?

And how would "not finding WMD's" affect Saddam's pre-ouster abilities to assist terrorists..?

Unless you can establish a link between Hussein and Al Queda, I fail to see the relevence of this question.

And no I wont accpet Dick Cheney as source. :P

Quote:
Damaged the standing of the UN? Buddy, the UN's standing has been damaged for years. Even half the member nations regard it as being worthless. Whether you think it is or isn't doesn't matter, what matters is that the way most people regard it. And most people think it is weak and powerless.

The UN is only as strong as the memberstates allows it to be. If the UN is weak is only because members undermine it's authority and disregard it's rulings. When the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth publicly and repeatedly say the organization is irrelevant and powerless, well why should nations like Iraq respect it? The veto power enjoyed by the permanent members of the Security Council doesn't help either. Every time the UN try to address issues that step too close to these nations "vital interests", oops gotta play my veto card. Should we talk about the Republican Congress refusing to pay the American debt to the UN back in the 90's? Or is this example of outright blackmail too embarassing?

And the members states are now deciding it is best for the UN to be impotent. The powerful ones because it limits there power "unjustly", and the weaker ones because they don't want to "be oppressed" by the more powerful ones.

Nations do what is in their best interest. The UN as "world government" is inherently a wonderful yet idealistically impossible dream.

Because international cooperation is just so darn evil? The UN was never intended to be a world government (stp beliving right-wing conspiracies ;) ), it's a forum for international cooperation and diplomacy. While the main organisation is crippled by shortsighted, nationalistic agendas it's sub- and associated organizations, like FAO, WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF, etc, are remarkable succesfull in this regard.

Quote:
Tens of thousands of deaths? You seem to have not studied your history. 50,000 dead in Korea. 50,000 in Vietnam. Literally tens of millions dead in the worlds wars. Now, with around 13,000 civilian deaths, almost exclusively ones caused by insurgent actions, and far less military casualties, you see this as a tremendous loss?

Actually, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Health the Coalition is responsible for twice as many civilian casualties as the terrorists/insurgents. This is not exactly increasing the popularity of the Coalition, and by extention the Iraqi interim government.

And this disturbs you how..?

The terrorists are shooting at isolated groups of non-terrorists (us) and lines of police recruits.

We are shooting at people who can barely be distinguished from the general population, which they are imbedded within,... purposefully.

Of course civilians are being killed. And until either the civilian population throws the thugs out of their midst, or we (the non-terrorists) kill them in sufficient number that they can't hide in the populus anymore, more civilians will die.

Only a terrorist himself would hide behind the "civilian casualty shield" and claim that police actions to control crime and lawlessness are a bad thing.

How do these civilian deaths bother you again..?

Considering you just called me a terrorist (or at the very least employeed the tiresome and ageold tactic of "if you're not with us, you're against us") I fail to see what good further debate with you will do. Goodbye, Dave.

Gymoor....nice brain pan :)

thanks!

Under "conversational" rules, that is a provocative statement of opinion, created to generate annoyance in the "opponent" in hopes of getting them to respond and provide insight into the opponent's thought processes (or more properly, into their "personality").

And this is the difference between conversation and debate. Debate is centered on making points and clarifying information regarding differing positions. Conversation is centered on finding out about the person giving their opinion.

In my view, the debate "points" of nearly any issue could be debated forever with each side quoting biased information supporting their side, while resolving nothing (approaching NO further clarity) due to the nature of the people in these forums (utterly biased), and the nature of their supporting information (hopelessly biased).

But having fun with and learning about the people behind the "debating" in these forums is a great joy.

When you converse and state an opinion, you are in fact making an argument. Your opinion is your argument, it became one once you shared it. If you kept it to yourself, it would just be your opinion. Since it is an argument it is subject to logical phalicies. These aren't laws like 'offsides' in soccer (football, you euros), they are laws of logic. If your argument contains one of these phalicies, then it is inherently flawed as the logic of the statement does not hold up.

Now you can dodge this by claiming that you are just conversing and plead ignorance or try to imply that those who have pointed to the failing of the logic are 'debate nazis,' but the logic still doesn't work. In your conversation you stated an opinion (an argument) which was based on faulty logic. You can say 'uh uh' and 'I don't care,' but that doesn't change the fact that you have based your conclusion on faulty logic. Anything after that is just being the brat who's splashing in the pool.

Under "debating" rules, that is indeed a strawman..! :)

Under "conversational" rules, that is a provocative statement of opinion, created to generate annoyance in the "opponent" in hopes of getting them to respond and provide insight into the opponent's thought processes (or more properly, into their "personality").

And this is the difference between conversation and debate. Debate is centered on making points and clarifying information regarding differing positions. Conversation is centered on finding out about the person giving their opinion.

In my view, the debate "points" of nearly any issue could be debated forever with each side quoting biased information supporting their side, while resolving nothing (approaching NO further clarity) due to the nature of the people in these forums (utterly biased), and the nature of their supporting information (hopelessly biased).

But having fun with and learning about the people behind the "debating" in these forums is a great joy.

:D

Ah, so basically, you like to bait people and then watch the monkeys dance to satify your twisted little needs rather than promoting a valid point?

(Tongue-in-cheek...sorta. Turnabout is fair play!)

*comes in, put a sign up then leaves*

Stop feeding the troll

Do I believe Saddam and his government was evil? Yes, wholeheartedly. Do I beliveve something needed to be done? Definantly. But does using the moral highground as justification to preemptivley strike another nation, kill thousands of people, and topple a government, that even though it was harsh was the legal and rightful government of the country leave you with any moral highground? I think not. Especially when this government we just toppled is in power thanks in a large part to the US. We did this in an unethical way. THe ends do not justify the means, and the frequent attempts to fabricate justifaible reasons for this invasion are wearing on me, and indeed a great number of the American people. There are no WMD's they admited that and called of the search two weeks ago tomorrow. This is not part of the war on terror, Iraq was a secular nation in the Islam holy land and one of the top targets of Al-quada (I know i spelled it wrong lay off), and the ends do not justify the means. This said, I wholeheartedly believe that America is the greatest nation on the face of this planet, I can support the troops without supporting the war or agreeing with it, I don't have to like or even agree with our president, I don't have to conform with everyone (or anyone elses views, I am free to decide what I like, and who and how should be running this country for myself. In short I am free, I am not bound to like the policies or decisions, I am not bound to do anything but reside by the law. I am not bound to hold any opinions other than my own. That is what makes this country great. Let us stop bashing on those of different opinions than oursleves. It does not make them un-American or un-patriotic. Quite the oppisite. This ability to hae your own view and to make desicions (within the law) according to that view is the primary thing that makes this country great.

Look at the Sudan. there is ethnic cleansing going on there now at a rate unheard of during even the most bloody days of Saddams reign. The US blocked efforts to declare it genocide, because had they called it genocie they would have been forced to do something about it.

"Daddy, why arent we helping the people in Sudan?"
"Because they dont have any oil."

Bush is a disgrace.

Actually, a good way to put this story is:

No son, you don't help the lady yourself. You send some of your biggest, best friends (soldiers) and send them to his house. But the wife beater kills them, right when they come in he whacks them over thier head with a baseball bat and kills him. So what do you do then?

"I..I don't know daddy... Help them or not send anymore
friends over to his house?" The son replies.

NO! You keep sending over all your friends. And when you run out of friends, get more friends at the playground (recruit soldiers) and send them to his house.

CBS is left wing propoganda?


HELL YEAH!!!

Does anyone remember the whole thing with Dan Rather bringing in those fake memos claiming Bush didn't show up for service? No. Why? Because the media is liberal. Face it: if a conservative did something like that, there would be absolute outrage among the American people because it would be the only story the media would cover.

HELL YEAH!!!

Does anyone remember the whole thing with Dan Rather bringing in those fake memos claiming Bush didn't show up for service? No. Why? Because the media is liberal. Face it: if a conservative did something like that, there would be absolute outrage among the American people because it would be the only story the media would cover.
What rock have you been living under? What strange universe do you inhabit where that subject hasn't been covered by everyone? :rolleyes:

HELL YEAH!!!

Does anyone remember the whole thing with Dan Rather bringing in those fake memos claiming Bush didn't show up for service? No. Why? Because the media is liberal. Face it: if a conservative did something like that, there would be absolute outrage among the American people because it would be the only story the media would cover.


Conservatives do it all the time. Its just when they get caught they lie about it, if that doesn't work they lie about it again, then if that doesn't work they blame the liberal media. If you want an example of our conservative media just check out the statistics for the 2000 election. There were more negative adds against Gore and more positive ones for Bush. That doesn't sound very liberal. Gore was the liberal right?

Look at the Sudan. there is ethnic cleansing going on there now at a rate unheard of during even the most bloody days of Saddams reign. The US blocked efforts to declare it genocide, because had they called it genocie they would have been forced to do something about it.

"Daddy, why arent we helping the people in Sudan?"
"Because they dont have any oil."

Bush is a disgrace.

Ahem! Actually, referring to the facts, Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was the first to refer to the killings in Suda as "genocide."

Ahem! Actually, referring to the facts, Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was the first to refer to the killings in Suda as "genocide."
The first in this administration, you mean. Other nations and media organizations were calling it a genocide long before it even got onto the US radar screen.

First of all, to Iakeokeo:

You show up grinning and exuberently exclaim how wonderful it is that liberals are here expressing their (reasoned albiet pre-biased) views and conclusions, this showing how evil they are for not swollowing your own views or wollowing in remorseful realization at the original story of child abuse. Subsequent to requests for reasoned arguments you have stated that you are expressing reasoned arguments and that your opponents are not. From what I have seen (which is up to page 3 now) you have made no attempts at reason at all and your opponents, although you could well argue that their conclusions are biased, have used reason repeatedly, only to be met by your mockery. My question to you is this:

How old are you? And what level of school are you in?
For the sake of fairness, I am 40 and a BS in Physics.

OK now in general, or because I am not about to strain all of these false beliefs from all of those posts:

1) Saddam has never ejected inspectors from Iraq. In december of 1998 Richard Butler ordered his UNSCOM inspection team out in response to imminent military attack. To be fair, Butler did state that Saddam was not cooperating with inspectors.

2) Saddam did not resist allowing inspections into Iraq prior to the current war, at least not successfully. UN inspectors were in Iraq and had to leave when Bush declared war.

3) although our forces' bio/chemical weapons detection alarms did go off frequently during the first gulf war they turned out to be so unreliable that many of our troopseventually ignored them. Considering the poor quality and insufficient numbers of our anti-bio/chemical equipment why did we not see bio/chemicl weapons casualties during that war? What chemical afflictions we did suffer were long term effects from oil well fires and from detonation of his (yes, real) WMD stockpiles. In fairness, can you produce evidence (a nonpartison reference would be good) that contradicts this?

4) Saddam did not have the material components or facilities to manufacture WMDs at the beginning of the current war, at least not according to any evidence provided by any inspectors or US military personel who have been there. We may have blueprints provided by Achmed Halevey's friends, as credible as that clique has proven to be. But the fact is that, as we (the USA) provided Saddam with his original WMD start-up kit, this only proves that he didn't burn his copies of the instructions after the first war. The latest conclusion of inspectors is that Saddam did not have any physical requisites for the development of WMDs, although he did have the intention of starting them back up when/if the sanctions were lifted. So what we went to war over could have been prevented simply by keeping UN embargos in place.

But some say that he had WMDs and shipped them away, presumably into or through Syria, since everyone else that borders Iraq, except perhaps for Jordan, hated his guts. No evidence of this has been supplied of course, and no inspectors support this conclusion (to be fair, openly), but it is the knee-jerk reply of those who always refute the inspectors' conclusions when they do not show that war was justified by WMDs (ie: Bush).

Of course maybe they were shipped out (proof, ANYone?) and have by now found their way to the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

6) (these next two are questions) About these Al Quieda training camps in Iraq. Evidence please?

7) about these two mobile chemical weapons factories. Citation, please?

[Bonnybridge #154]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[New Bremton #132]
Perhaps instead of fighting the threat of terrorists we could all sink our differences and fight against the things that drive people to kill, murder and destroy others.

Fighting the terrorist actions will have little effect on them in the future, only by removing the inequality and suffering around the world will we be able to remove terrorism by removing the need for it.

This is the responsiblility of all nations.

Hear hear..!

If you were in charge, what would you do tomorrow..?

If I were in charge of the US I would:
1) Declare the end of financial and moral support for Israel.
2) Remove the military bases posted in scores of countries across the world.#
3) Hand Iraq & Afpghanistan over to a mulit-national arab & muslim force ASAP

That would stop terrorists in their tracks and cost the US nothing.

Globalisation would be next in line for some thorough scrutiny.

These measures would increase the standing of the US around the world.

I would probably also be assassinated for my troubles.

Heh he he he he..

That would prompt an immediate crushing war on Israel, which would also destroy every arab city within "bomb-shot" of Israel.

The removal of US miltary bases would be unecessary, because nuclear war betwixt anyone possessing them whould have started.

Every Islamist, anarchist, and any other opportunistic thug on the planet would be making moves against whichever government is handy.

There would be no pan-muslim force to hand anything to, because of the previously described conditions.

And the leftists would be peeing their pants with excitement at the opportunities to rebuild the world in their image.

Of course, the Islamists would probably "get there first" and all the former leftists would be headless and/or never having an individualistic thought ever again.

And the Taliban would rejoice.

Good job for your (possibly unbeknownst) bosses. Excellent work. Excellent plan.

And yes,... you'd be assassinated. :)



1. Israel has the nuclear deterrent, so its unlikely to bring about immediate invasion by countries who don't. It would however weaken their bargaining position closer to those of its rivals, and it would reduce the hatred of the west by arabs & muslims.
2. A number of the US military bases add little of value to the US military options but are extremely contentious with the local populace (the most obvious ones are in Saudi Arabia). What would be lost by their removal?
3. While the US are in Iraq there will be no peace.

So, I've now been assassinated. What is your plan for reducing terrorism?

HELL YEAH!!!

Does anyone remember the whole thing with Dan Rather bringing in those fake memos claiming Bush didn't show up for service? No. Why? Because the media is liberal. Face it: if a conservative did something like that, there would be absolute outrage among the American people because it would be the only story the media would cover.

So Bush did show up for service continuously?

7) supported terrorism by working with major terrorists like Zarqawi and Abu Nedal and allowing terrorists training camps to operate in iraq.

Zarqawi popped up after Saddam was deposed, and Saddam wouldn't allow training camps. Didn't want the competition.


13) He bribed major UN nations like France, Russia, and Germany with blood money from the Oil for Food program.

The real reason the UN didn't want to invade Iraq. Some of their own members were profiting nicely off this program, including Kofi Anon's own son.

14) He broke one of the biggest laws in the UN, crimes against humanity.

I think we had more then enough reason to invade Iraq EVEN if he didnt have WMD's, more then enough reason to take him down.

I still say they found the WMD when they pulled Saddam out of that hole he was (appropriately) hiding in. It floors me that so many people are so offended that no WMD's were found, that they seem to overlook what Saddam was doing or having done to his people.

As to the narrative at the beginning of this thread, assuming it really happened, what an aweful mind job to pull on a child. The war on Iraq aside (which I agree with btw), no one should put a child through crap like that. It's pure emotional abuse. :mad:

Umm, hmmm, that's exactly analogous to the Iraq situation. More realistic would be this:

Now son, we have approximately 150 neighbors. A good number of them are beating and murdering thier families. There's also this one homeless guy who killed your little sister. Now, we went after the homeless camp and got a bunch of that guy's friends, but we can't find the guy who killed your sister, so we're going down the street to kill this guy who ten years ago killed his family and who had no connection to the homelss guy who killed your little sister. Unfortunately, after we attack the guy down the street, the rest of his family is going to fight each other, and the rest of the neighborhood is going to blame us for it, well the rest of the neighborhood except for one old family friend and a bunch of people who signed a petrition but really aren't helping in any other way. Oh, and after we attack the guy down the street, your cousin is going to have to live in that house for a few years while the family in that house fights each other and tries to kill your cousin. We're going to have to send a lot of money to your cousin too, because we're also trying to rebuild the house he's going to be in.

Yes, I know our house is getting a little worn, and we could use some paint and some electrical work, but we can't afford it because we're fixing up the other guy's house. Hey, we have the biggest house on the block, so it's okay, right.

Oh, why aren't we attacking the guys in the dozen or so other houses where the father is killing his wife and children? Ummm, well we can only afford to attack one guy, so we chose the guy who has gold buried under his house.

How come we're not attacking our buddy down the street who also has gold buried under his house who is also killing his wife and family and who has been seen slipping the homeless guy who killed your little sister cash from time to time? Well, that guy is our friend, and he gives us gold all the time, so no matter how bad he is, we can't attack him or even call the cops on him.

Hope this clears things up for you, son.

See, now, at least this analogy would only confuse the kid, rather than emotionally scarring him for life. ;) Again, assuming the original analogy had any basis in fact.

You forgot to mention that Hamid Karzai (the US appointed "interim president") used to be an executive for Unocal. Afgan elections were supposed to have been held recently. Anyone hear the outcome?

No, I think those are still a few weeks off. Realistically, we could put whoever we want to in charge, but once they get into power, if they so chose, it wouldn't matter one wink what we wanted them to do. They're in their home turf, and they're going to do what their own people want.

No, I think those are still a few weeks off. Realistically, we could put whoever we want to in charge, but once they get into power, if they so chose, it wouldn't matter one wink what we wanted them to do. They're in their home turf, and they're going to do what their own people want.Assuming they can stay in power without US military assistance. That's what happened in Vietnam, after all, and that's likely what will happen in both Iraq with Allawi and in Afghanistan with Karzai.

The reason we went to war was because Bush was given faulty information, which we now know is faulty information that Hussein had WMD's. Now lets review Husseins crimes:

1) Saddam invaded his neighbors

2) used WMD's on his own people

3) committed acts of mass genocide

4) thousands if not millions of women were raped by Hussein, his sons, and his royal guard

5) starved his people

6) murdered all who opposed him

7) supported terrorism by working with major terrorists like Zarqawi and Abu Nedal and allowing terrorists training camps to operate in iraq.

8) since the gulf war he ignored and disregarded SEVENTEEN UN regulations.

9) kicked out weapons inspectators

10) ignored the ultimatum

11) The scientist in charge of Husseins WMD research over the past two decades handed over all research documents to the US, showing blue prints and everything needed to make WMD, he even had the material compoenents, all he needed was the time.

12) the scientist told us that the only thing Hussein was waiting for before he started the secret program was for the world to look away.

13) He bribed major UN nations like France, Russia, and Germany with blood money from the Oil for Food program.

14) He broke one of the biggest laws in the UN, crimes against humanity.

I think we had more then enough reason to invade Iraq EVEN if he didnt have WMD's, more then enough reason to take him down.

Duh, I didn't read all the posts, but didn't Uncle Stalin do the same, just in a far larger Scale? I mean, why didn't THEY invade the UdSSR back then?

Assuming they can stay in power without US military assistance.

True.

That's what happened in Vietnam, after all, and that's likely what will happen in both Iraq with Allawi and in Afghanistan with Karzai.

Maybe. Maybe not. So far both guys seem pretty on the ball, and they also seem to have the support of the people of their respective countries who wanted Saddam and the Taliban out. Most of the thugs (called "insurgents") currently fighting in Iraq aren't even from there.

...except your "nine-year-old son" didn't say anything of the sort, unless your name is Irma S Chambers. This is just cut-and-paste claptrap. Here's one site it's on:
http://www.lilesnet.com/patriotic/thoughts/LessonToMySon.htm
and here's another:
http://twirler.ws/reads/lesson-to-my-son.htm
and yet another (which classes it as "poetry", bizarrely):
http://www.iwvpa.net/chambersis/a_lesson.htm

I can't be bothered to cut-and-paste a response, but you can find one here:
http://www.publicdomainprogress.info/articles/2003-04-14%20Regarding%20A%20Lesson%20To%20My%20Son.htm

Dude, You reallly didn't read the post, did'cha? He really said, He didn't write this, and he does not have a 9 year old son...

Maybe. Maybe not. So far both guys seem pretty on the ball, and they also seem to have the support of the people of their respective countries who wanted Saddam and the Taliban out. Most of the thugs (called "insurgents") currently fighting in Iraq aren't even from there.I don't know where you got that last statement from, but there's no way that the depth of the resistance that exists in Iraq is mostly from outside. No possible way. These are people who are resisting a country they see as an occupier. There's another parallel to Vietnam, as a matter of fact--most of the insurgents are fighting a war of independence. That comes out again and again in interviews with Iraqis. They don't get much play here in the US because they don't fit the general storyline we've become accustomed to, but they're available if you look for them.

Afghanistan is a different matter because the power players have shaken out a bit more, and it's the same people who held their little fiefdoms before the Taliban took over. Local warlords with private armies. Karzai and the coalition forces hold Kabul and little else, and if the coalition leaves, I guarantee you Karzai's not long after them.

What I want to know is, when the kid kills the guy, does he take ownership of his car, house, etc?

Maybe his house is built on an oilwell!!!

:D

LMAO @ the opening post. :p

I couldn't be bothered to read these 15 pages rehashing the endless arguments we've already had on Iraq.

Anyhow, I just love the way it's so dramatic. :p

I'm not goint to bother to read the 15 pages either.
Just commenting on the 1st post, this is really sad how Bush and his cronies think the americans are dumb enough to buy this like 9 year old children. I doubt even a 9 year old child would buy it.
I say this because quite frankly when Bush talks, the axis of evil stuff and the bad bad Saddam, everything, it is just the same argument as in this post, perhaps even an even more dumbed down version of it.
Err... wait they're not buying it, are they?

[The Sword and Sheild #94]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Heh he he he..!

How does not dealing with evil in the past preclude one from dealing with evil in the present..?

Good point, though it would save everyone a lot of time, money, and for christ's sake human lives if you would deal with it when you see it (Sudan comes to mind).

No doubt. I would hope that when evil shows itself, it would be stomped on, but, in an incredible aggreement with the left on this point, I realize that contingencies can make "working with evil" can sometimes make sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Even if we created the most nasty evil horrendous force for evil of some despot in some other country (or in Wichita KS, for that matter), why should we not "see our error" and stomp it out..?

Considering the list of "evil forces" we have supported, I'm gonna go with mostly becuase our errors doesn't cost us a few million dollars, it costs human lives.

It's a shame that money and lives have to pay for freedom and "progress", but that's the way the world works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
We DO get to claim to be the good guy. If not us, who..?

So you win by default?

Yes. There is no "winning" involved. We simply claim to be a force for good, and let others decide on their opinion of that claim.

Whether anyone else agrees or disagrees is irrelevent to our opinion of ourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
No one has any right to DO ANYTHING without absolute certainty of "fact" and absolute superiority of "moral force", under your perverse mindset.

Umm..... we're not asking for absolute certainty, but you could do a bit better, so far every argument for the war has fell apart.

The only "argument" that matters, in my and others opinion, is that Saddam's Iraq was an asset of terrorists, and that it needed to be changed quickly, as a signal to the "terorist community" and because it was such a weak target to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
That is the leftist way though,.. make no move and judge nothing lest it make you look "bad". You certainly don't want to offend anyone. That would be rude.

When you're fighting a global war, it's usually a good idea to get the globe on your side.

You would think so. So why did the world not step up...?

They had their reasons for not doing so,.. We had our reasons for doing so.

A matter of opinion.

The world did not step up because the USA has proven itself capable of using nukes against civilian Targets. And because most of us non-USA-citizens think that Mr. Bush is insane enough to do it again...

Another thread with ten pages of Iakeokeo ranting inanely about leftists. Why not just ingore them?

Another thread with ten pages of Iakeokeo ranting inanely about leftists. Why not just ingore them?

because s/he's so funny

At first, yes. After a while the thread-hijacking just gets annoying.

...except that people in a neighbourhood all agree to live under one set of social standards and laws, while people in different countries are not obliged to live their lives to our concepts of right and wrong. That analogy fell apart pretty quick.

Absolutely idiotic response!! Perhaps the U.S. should have said, "Hey, Hitler doesn't have to live by our ideas of right and wrong." Look, there's a difference between Democracy and Communism and the like. I'll agree with you that those types of decisions should be left to the people of each country. But when tyrants are murdering thousands, even millions just because they can, something needs to be done. Hussein needed to be stopped. His sons needed to be stopped. Do you think the world should have continued to turn its back on a nation whose athletes were tortured and even killed by the government because they lost a game or gave up a goal?

Absolutely idiotic response!! Perhaps the U.S. should have said, "Hey, Hitler doesn't have to live by our ideas of right and wrong." Look, there's a difference between Democracy and Communism and the like. I'll agree with you that those types of decisions should be left to the people of each country. But when tyrants are murdering thousands, even millions just because they can, something needs to be done. Hussein needed to be stopped. His sons needed to be stopped. Do you think the world should have continued to turn its back on a nation whose athletes were tortured and even killed by the government because they lost a game or gave up a goal?


well you haven't invaded sudan, israel, or china yet. And you never invaded cambodia or uganda. Or north korea. You did force a regime change in the Congo in 1960, only that was when you chased out and murdered Patrice Lumumba who was about to be democratically elected President and replaced him with a military dictator of US choosing. And when I say "you" I don't mean you personally, I mean the corrupt global policeman of the US, and all its supporters

Absolutely idiotic response!! Perhaps the U.S. should have said, "Hey, Hitler doesn't have to live by our ideas of right and wrong." Look, there's a difference between Democracy and Communism and the like. I'll agree with you that those types of decisions should be left to the people of each country. But when tyrants are murdering thousands, even millions just because they can, something needs to be done. Hussein needed to be stopped. His sons needed to be stopped. Do you think the world should have continued to turn its back on a nation whose athletes were tortured and even killed by the government because they lost a game or gave up a goal?
and when do you propose the US gained the monopoly on morality? when it decided to boot out the last ruler of iraq to install the baath party as pro-US puppets? maybe when we sold weapons to osama's former anti-soviet party to fund a group in nicaragua to boot out THAT country's government? ooh ooh maybe it was when we ignored all other evidence for a terrorist link and invaded iraq and killed thousands of innocent iraqis with the nearly ilelgal cluster bombs when we carpet bombed cities

Your name is quite appropriate.

Been "rump bumped" by any islamists lately? Well,.... yes, obviously.

Silly me. :D

I'll take it that you were directing that my way.

Show me the "debate and discussion" rules.

I am discussing. I'm just not debating.

What do you take "discussion" to be..?

And am I hurting your widdle feewings..!? I'm soooo sowwy. Boo hoo...

Meanwhile,.. back to "discussing" with the grownups...

Again, Iakeokeo, you're confusing 'passive agressiveness' with 'discussion'. The latter would be acceptable, the former is just you taking joy in frustrating people.

I'd ask you to stop for the sake of acting like a good person (and not annoying people intentionally), but I know your response will just be more of the same.

So I second an earlier posters motion: Don't feed the troll.

And how would your precious UN have solved the problem? The UN inspectors have been kept out of Iraq for over a decade. You think all of a sudden Hussein would have relented? You are a fool to believe this. The only way would have been through bloodshed, or by simply doing nothing. And that is, of course, the liberal way. After all, how can Kerry lead a "sensitive war*? They will still die, but we spare their feelings? It is ridiculous. A liberal president would have invited more attacks through inaction. Instead, terrorist cells now can plan attacks all they want, but none have been implemented on US soil yet, now have they? So for all your talk of *increased terrorist activity*, we haven't seen any such violence.

Uh, well actually the UN Inspectors all said, "We're getting along fine, No one is preventing us from doing our job, we can go everywhere we want..." and so on, and so forth. Then the US governemnt all of a sudden told everyone that the Iraqi government prevented them from doing their job and proposed an ultimatum to the Iraq... The Inspectors once again returned to Iraq. Again they went along fine and could do their job better than ever before. Again they didn't found anything and the US government for some reason told everyone the Iraqi government had ignored their ultimatum and attacked.

Don't ask me why, on that day they lost the last little bit of respect and dignity they had.

"so dad, maybe you should go over there when you see the bad man beating his wife?"
"yes son that the right attitude!!" looks proudly at his son with a tear rolling down his cheek.
So my son asks " daddy tell me! tell me! what would you do???" while looking at my husband with adoring eyes!"
My husband puffs out his chest and says " well son, i try and get a few friends to help. I need support as it will probably look better in the community."
"but daddy your the biggest and strongest!"
smiling my husband replies "yes that's true, but it will look better to the community and my friends are used to fighting. Anyway i'd walk right up to him, grab his wife from him, throw to the side and start hitting him!"
"what then daddy"
"well the poor kids will try and help their mummy who is unconscious on the floor while i hit the bad man. He'll start throwing things and so will I. the kids and the mum might get hit a few times, but i'm trying to help them. The bad man will probably run into the house and lock the door. So..... i'll set fire to the house and grab him when he runs out!!
"what then daddy?" with a look of worship
"i'll give the bad man to the mummy and children so they can do what they want. i'll also give them the keys to the lovely house and we'll all become the bestest friends, you'll be able to play with them of course."
"but daddy, what about the house? did you not burn it? and what about the mummy, was she not really hurt? what would we do when we stoped the bad man?
with a look of confusion, my husband answers"..... we'll their free they can do what they want! err.... my friends and i will stay around, and hit anyone we don't like. err..... i've got some friends looking for some work, i'm sure they can fix up the place. Of course the nice lady will have to pay."
"how will she pay daddy? she's hurt and what about my new friends don't they need to eat?"
"I guess the community will have to help!"
"but daddy why should they when they wanted to talk first and said you were doing a bad thing?"
"GO TO YOUR ROOM!!!!" he screams
My child went crying up to his room and all i can remember his must husband looking around for his beer, which was next to his trustful shotgun and mutturing "you had to let him onto those bloody NS forums"

Dude, You reallly didn't read the post, did'cha? He really said, He didn't write this, and he does not have a 9 year old son...

When I put up the links to various sites carrying this cut-and-paste schlock, he hadn't edited his original post and added the disclaimer. Dude.

Concidering they were making billions of dollars off him I would say they would miss him.

Why do people always leave out Halliburton when they bring up who was making billions off of Iraq during sanctions? Cause they were too. Halliburton was/is also doing it in Iran too. But we don't like to mention that do we.. :rolleyes:

Absolutely idiotic response!! Perhaps the U.S. should have said, "Hey, Hitler doesn't have to live by our ideas of right and wrong." Look, there's a difference between Democracy and Communism and the like. I'll agree with you that those types of decisions should be left to the people of each country. But when tyrants are murdering thousands, even millions just because they can, something needs to be done. Hussein needed to be stopped. His sons needed to be stopped. Do you think the world should have continued to turn its back on a nation whose athletes were tortured and even killed by the government because they lost a game or gave up a goal?
We caught Hitler in the act; we didn't catch Saddam in the act.
So that is a falacy. If we had waited till next gassing we wouldn't be havin this discussion we are because he is supposed to be innocent till proven guilty. Limit of crimes in past is so many years anyway.

"so dad, maybe you should go over there when you see the bad man beating his wife?"
"yes son that the right attitude!!" looks proudly at his son with a tear rolling down his cheek.
So my son asks " daddy tell me! tell me! what would you do???" while looking at my husband with adoring eyes!"
My husband puffs out his chest and says " well son, i try and get a few friends to help. I need support as it will probably look better in the community."
"but daddy your the biggest and strongest!"
smiling my husband replies "yes that's true, but it will look better to the community and my friends are used to fighting. Anyway i'd walk right up to him, grab his wife from him, throw to the side and start hitting him!"
"what then daddy"
"well the poor kids will try and help their mummy who is unconscious on the floor while i hit the bad man. He'll start throwing things and so will I. the kids and the mum might get hit a few times, but i'm trying to help them. The bad man will probably run into the house and lock the door. So..... i'll set fire to the house and grab him when he runs out!!
"what then daddy?" with a look of worship
"i'll give the bad man to the mummy and children so they can do what they want. i'll also give them the keys to the lovely house and we'll all become the bestest friends, you'll be able to play with them of course."
"but daddy, what about the house? did you not burn it? and what about the mummy, was she not really hurt? what would we do when we stoped the bad man?
with a look of confusion, my husband answers"..... we'll their free they can do what they want! err.... my friends and i will stay around, and hit anyone we don't like. err..... i've got some friends looking for some work, i'm sure they can fix up the place. Of course the nice lady will have to pay."
"how will she pay daddy? she's hurt and what about my new friends don't they need to eat?"
"I guess the community will have to help!"
"but daddy why should they when they wanted to talk first and said you were doing a bad thing?"
"GO TO YOUR ROOM!!!!" he screams
My child went crying up to his room and all i can remember his must husband looking around for his beer, which was next to his trustful shotgun and mutturing "you had to let him onto those bloody NS forums"lol

We caught Hitler in the act; we didn't catch Saddam in the act.
So that is a falacy. If we had waited till next gassing we wouldn't be havin this discussion we are because he is supposed to be innocent till proven guilty. Limit of crimes in past is so many years anyway.

I think the question is, "caught in the act" of what? He was caught in the act of using WMD multiple times. He was caught in the act of torturing and killing thosands of people multiple times. He was caught in the act of bribery. He was caught in innumerable other dispicable, horrendous and illegal acts. And spare me the comment that "lots of other leaders have done the same things," since Saddam's removal certainly eliminates at least one from the long and disreputable list.

We caught Hitler in the act; we didn't catch Saddam in the act.
So that is a falacy. If we had waited till next gassing we wouldn't be havin this discussion we are because he is supposed to be innocent till proven guilty. Limit of crimes in past is so many years anyway.
the gazing happened 13 years ago. The context then was not the context now. It was after the gulf war, when they rebeled against Saddam, after being pushed to rebel by the CIA. The same CIA which pushed Saddam to attack Iran. Saddam Gazed them for keeping the power. Not like Hitler who gazed the jews because they were jews. I don't think it was a genocide at all.
Anyway, it was very unlikey that it would have happened again.

I think the question is, "caught in the act" of what? He was caught in the act of using WMD multiple times. He was caught in the act of torturing and killing thosands of people multiple times. He was caught in the act of bribery. He was caught in innumerable other dispicable, horrendous and illegal acts. And spare me the comment that "lots of other leaders have done the same things," since Saddam's removal certainly eliminates at least one from the long and disreputable list.
13 years ago, during a time of war.
BTW, the US uses WMD as well in wars.
And other nasty weapons as well. Does the land mine treaty ring a bell? Children are still getting blown up 10 years after war on those fucking land mines.

I think the question is, "caught in the act" of what? He was caught in the act of using WMD multiple times. He was caught in the act of torturing and killing thosands of people multiple times. He was caught in the act of bribery. He was caught in innumerable other dispicable, horrendous and illegal acts. And spare me the comment that "lots of other leaders have done the same things," since Saddam's removal certainly eliminates at least one from the long and disreputable list.
"Caught in the act" is not the real issue. The issue is trying, convicting and attempting to execute someone (to use analogy) for something they haven't done.

"Caught in the act" is not the real issue. The issue is trying, convicting and attempting to execute someone (to use analogy) for something they haven't done.

How do you know they haven't done it? Further, are you suggesting that in the USA they have never found guilty and excuted an innocent person? straw man argument.

... nearly ilelgal ...

What the hell does that mean?

Absolutely idiotic response!! Perhaps the U.S. should have said, "Hey, Hitler doesn't have to live by our ideas of right and wrong." Look, there's a difference between Democracy and Communism and the like. I'll agree with you that those types of decisions should be left to the people of each country. But when tyrants are murdering thousands, even millions just because they can, something needs to be done. Hussein needed to be stopped. His sons needed to be stopped. Do you think the world should have continued to turn its back on a nation whose athletes were tortured and even killed by the government because they lost a game or gave up a goal?

ok lets see, where to start. I don't remember the Us going to war with germany or japan during world war 2 for moral reasons. I beleive you guys waited till you were attacked.
I think someone has already mentioned how the US did fuck'all when china, russia were doing this to people.
When was the last time the US sent its army into Congo and Rwanda to stop the genocides there? or how about does lovely central asian countries that are the US's new friends, yet seem to be doing the same thing as saddam to their own people?
The war on terror is little more than a war on what terrifies the US. It has no other aim than to help the US, nothing more or less

ok lets see, where to start. I don't remember the Us going to war with germany or japan during world war 2 for moral reasons. I beleive you guys waited till you were attacked.
I think someone has already mentioned how the US did fuck'all when china, russia were doing this to people.
When was the last time the US sent its army into Congo and Rwanda to stop the genocides there? or how about does lovely central asian countries that are the US's new friends, yet seem to be doing the same thing as saddam to their own people?
The war on terror is little more than a war on what terrifies the US. It has no other aim than to help the US, nothing more or less

Rule number one for any leader: Protect your own people first.

Rule number one for any leader: Protect your own people first.
Rule #2 make it seems like you care about the world.

Not a very good job here.

Rule number one for any leader: Protect your own people first.

oh true. but at least be honest about it. we don't like what your doing! we're bigger and stronger than you, so listen to us or else.

oh true. but at least be honest about it. we don't like what your doing! we're bigger and stronger than you, so listen to us or else.

( shrug ) And your point is???

Rule number one for any leader: Protect your own people first.
Rule number 2: a good leader doesnt go around sticking their nose in other nations businesses

and by your definition, Hitler was a good leader

How do you know they haven't done it? Further, are you suggesting that in the USA they have never found guilty and excuted an innocent person? straw man argument.
I don't know what "straw man argument" means.

I said, the real issue is not what Iraq may have done in the past, as that's not what they were "tried and convicted" for; potential imminent threat was given as the reason that initiated the war, an "imminent" threat that was only apparent to a few frightened nations who reacted out of a need for self-preservation. Innocent or guilt is tangental to my point; whatever Iraq may have done, or may have been prepared to do, it is what the Coalition did that was wrong. They hadn't, and still have not, demonstrated that the "imminent" threat was real.

I don't know what "straw man argument" means.

I said, the real issue is not what Iraq may have done in the past, as that's not what they were "tried and convicted" for; potential imminent threat was given as the reason that initiated the war, an "imminent" threat that was only apparent to a few frightened nations who reacted out of a need for self-preservation. Innocent or guilt is tangental to my point; whatever Iraq may have done, or may have been prepared to do, it is what the Coalition did that was wrong. They hadn't, and still have not, demonstrated that the "imminent" threat was real.

Ah, okay, sorry I misunderstood you. Yes, I agree they have still to this day not provided the masses with any evidence to back up the assertion that Iraq needed to be invaded.

Rule number 2: a good leader doesnt go around sticking their nose in other nations businesses

and by your definition, Hitler was a good leader

Yeah, that Hitler person really did a good job of protecting his people. What a shame the US and Russia had to go and prompt him to commit suicide, huh?

( shrug ) And your point is???

just the argument of going into iraq on moral grounds. rings a bit hollow.
all PR really. had they had all the humanitarian aid ready afterwards, etc... I'm sure fewer people would have had a problem with.
Personally I was pro war. But the handling of the whole situation has been atrocious. Through the war in Iraq, it looks like the US has been fighting a war of terror, not a war on terror