NationStates Jolt Archive

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?
yeah, hitler was protecting his people: the germans from the nasty evil jews :rolleyes: your view is that of a subjective neocon, not of any objective observer

Rule number one for any leader: Protect your own people first.

Except that the invasion of Iraq has encouraged and stimulated anti-western terrorism, and has made the world more dangerous for Americans and Europeans. The claim that the war was in America's best interests is just as fallacious as the claim that we did it to help the poor suffering Iraqi people, or that we invaded because of non-existent WMDs.

This was merely the first large-scale war for oil, an inevitable consequence of a) an oil-based ruling clique in America, b) the rapid dwindling of international oil stocks and c) decades of short-sighted, head-in-the-sand energy policies. Even this has been a failure, as it has destablilised the major oil-producing region of the world and has shown the various terror networks just how desperate we're becoming for the black stuff.

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.

Oh, ok... sorry about that...

yeah, hitler was protecting his people: the germans from the nasty evil jews :rolleyes: your view is that of a subjective neocon, not of any objective observer

Oh, and YOUR views aren't subjective? And what's up with that statement about the Jews? Trying to label me as anit-Semitic???

Oh, and YOUR views aren't subjective? And what's up with that statement about the Jews? Trying to label me as anit-Semitic???
your kind of dense for some 60 year old veteran guy

how much more objective does this get?

hitler's propaganda point was he was protecting the german people
bush's propaganda point is he is protecting the american people

both of those points apparently involved killing people and invading other countries

your kind of dense for some 60 year old veteran guy

I love you too!

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.

now let us consider the US in a simmilar light:

1 US has invaded Iraq, Hawai, Afgahnistan, etc etc. Nabour or not, the US has invaded them.

2 Used wmd against it's own people! Do you remember the 'tests' the US conduted on it's own people including 'small pox on negroes' lsd, etc etc

3 committed acts of mass genocide! Native american indians! Two nukes in the second world war!
5 starved their own people,millions refused medical attention, millions living under the poverty line!

6 murdered all who oppose US imperialism. bay of pigs, supporting dictatorships throughout the whole of South america. Invading anything of intrest.


7 supported terrorism throughout the world. Trained the mujhadeen, trained the taliban against the soviets, funded the nazi's until 1941, in support of saudi arabia!

8 supported un regulations that cripped the iraqi people including regulations on foods, medical supplies. monsters. Has millions of nukes but won't allow a country to protect it's own intrests.

9 10 proposed an illigal ultimatum, though sadam was allowing 'wepons inspectors' Now let us see what arsnal the pentagon holds shall we.
let's have wepons inspectors catalogue the US's arsnal and show it to the world shall we.

11. atleast Iraqi scientists were open about it, instead of keeping a monopoly and complete secrecy from it's own citizens

13 he bribed un countries? His own country was a member of the UN and the 'food for oil' program was proposed by the imperial nations and imposed upon iraq to cripple it. or prepare it for invasion, which ever way.

14 let us support the US as a rope supports a hanged man for 'crimes against humanity' South america, gutanamo bay, locking up jews and germans and japanese during ww2, inflicting total war in europe and japan. Let the US ruling class be a role model for us all! Let us support dumbhick!

your kind of dense for some 60 year old veteran guy

how much more objective does this get?

hitler's propaganda point was he was protecting the german people
bush's propaganda point is he is protecting the american people

both of those points apparently involved killing people and invading other countries

As much as I hate to admit that, but you're right...

Oh, ok... sorry about that...

No biggie. :)

[Gymoor #190]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
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.



.."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."..

When what the person said is opinion presented as fact, there is no hope of clarifying anything. The only interest in the interchange, the conversation, at that point is in finding out more about the further opinions of the person presenting those opinions as fact.

It would be lovely if everyone spoke only of facts, but the rampant replacement of fact with opinion, while calling it fact, is SO prevalent that it makes almost no sense to do anything BUT use conversational techniques to elicit what you CAN learn from these interactions, which boils down to only info about a person's opinions, presented personality and possibly a little bit about their thought processes.

Campaigns DO do it (strawman-ing anothers position) all the time. And how the opponent deals with it shows more about them than what the "attack" shows of the attacker.

It's simple political fencing. Politics, no matter how much one would like it to be about "issues", is MUCH MORE about the "personality and thinking" of the parties involved.

That's why "conversational" techniques are used, and debating rules are veritably irrelevent.


That's also why the reactions to the "story" that lead off this thread are more interesting than the story itself. It exposes the mindset and biases of the "interpreters" very well indeed.

And the venom presented by most of the "left" is quite potent..! :)

[Slaytanicca 191]
Quote: (Iakeokeo)
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

:D Heh he he he he he...

Yeah,.. terrorism is the last of resort of the cornered animal. The US certainly used terrorist tactics to break from Britain. Everyone it seems, at one time or another, uses it. What's the old line, "Treason (and terrorism) is always used in the 3rd person"..? :)

As far as the universality of "debating rules"... have you ever seen a debate between two bears with an issue over a particular piece of territory..?

Not much debating, though HUGE amounts of "conversation" (of a rather physical manner) going on there.

Even "debates" between human beings are rare, in my opinion. It's usually conversation, talking between, as opposed to debate, word battering.

Debate is combat, and when people get to the point of combat they generally make it physical before they resort to the niceties of "debating rules".

[Slaytanicca #192]
Quote:
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.

Really..!? :)

Your countries don't..!

I wold contend that countries NOT helping Iraq to rebuild are exhibiting quite the "don't fnook with us" attitude.

I wold contend that countries NOT helping Iraq to rebuild are exhibiting quite the "don't fnook with us" attitude.



I would contend that it is a lot easier to read your nonsense when it is black and in a standard face.

I would further contend that a lot of countries who didn't support the war are keen to help rebuild Iraq but as it is the US that is doling out the contracts, very few of them a getting a lookin.

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.
Ah! That's what it is. I've seen that used in the abortion debate --very annoying it is, especially when unintentional. Hard to imagine, it is, how people can formulate ideas and present them without thinking about how they do it, particularly for me, as I have trouble enough forming a coherent thought.

Hmm... Talking like Yoda, I am.

I wold contend that countries NOT helping Iraq to rebuild are exhibiting quite the "don't fnook with us" attitude.
Did I miss something? Countries other than the U.S. are now allowed to help with the rebuilding of Iraq? I guess I should follow the news more.

it's not about other natiosn being "allowed" to "help rebuild iraq", it's about the american president literally begging prety much every othe rnation in this world to give their money and resources into rebuilding iraq because it is now becoming clear that america herself is not in any way able to handle this themselves. if you so want, it is a i-destroyed-it-now-i-want-you-to-fix-it situation

[Nukevada #194]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[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

Here's all the link that I need as link between Saddam and Al-qaida: They both wish to see the US and all their enemies (mutual and otherwise) die and they both (had) significant resources to share with people of like mind to theirs to assist with doing the killing.

I realize that's not acceptable to you, but your childish insistance of hard links where soft ones will do is your own hallucinatory stricture.

Quote:
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.

I love the idea of an international forum, a meeting place for airing issues and viewpoints. I love the idea (and practice) of AID societies. That IS what the UN should be. The problem is when they actually try to institute legislation. My point is that there can be no legitimate "ruler" over ANY nation. Their can be "enforcers of will" over ANY nation (aka "cross national attackers" eg "the US in Iraq"), but no super-national authority over nations can or will exist which will not be fought from both the weak AND the strong nations, because it violates the sovereignty of both groups of nations.[/INDENT]

Quote:
[INDENT]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.

Heh he he he he he... :D

And away goes the cowardly one. As usual, presented with a bit of "rudeness", a slight verbal jab, the effete snob will disregard the issue at hand and trounce off in a huff. The perfumed powder poofed forth from your delightful wig at your abrupt spin and retreat does smell lovely, by the way..!

But that's fine. Cull the herd. :)

it's not about other natiosn being "allowed" to "help rebuild iraq", it's about the american president literally begging prety much every othe rnation in this world to give their money and resources into rebuilding iraq because it is now becoming clear that america herself is not in any way able to handle this themselves. if you so want, it is a i-destroyed-it-now-i-want-you-to-fix-it situation
Not exactly. He want you to give him the money to fix it himself.
This is extortion.

Was anyone else struck by the emotionally abusive nature of the conversation between that nine year-old boy and his father? As an educator, I found it completely offensive. One doesn't harangue one's CHILD regarding matters of national security. It's just plain abuse. "Objection, your honor, counsel is badgering the witness!"

I shall refrain from responding on any other points until I have had time to read more of the posts from this thread (17 pages... eek).

What do you think the arabic man says to his son when bombing planes fly over their city, destroying their houses and killing their neighbors?
....
I hate nationalism and patriotism in all forms. It leads to no good, only to racism. WHY is americans so proud of their country?? I've been to the US and I feel lucky I wasn't born there.
Peace between countrys, war betweet classes!

Nationalism is a shame... You should love your planet, your air, your animals, your trees, your fellow men. Not a stupid flag and borders.

Nationalism brings little more than hatred and intolerance, violence and destruction.


I AM PROUD TO BE ON PLANET EARTH! PROTECT IT FROM THE CORPORATE WARMONGERS!

it's not about other natiosn being "allowed" to "help rebuild iraq", it's about the american president literally begging prety much every othe rnation in this world to give their money and resources into rebuilding iraq because it is now becoming clear that america herself is not in any way able to handle this themselves. if you so want, it is a i-destroyed-it-now-i-want-you-to-fix-it situation
Ah, so he wants funding from others to pay U.S. contactors. I see.

Another aspect of the false analogy:

Why, exactly, didn't the father bother to explain to the son that their household has most of the weapons and money? Wouldn't the son's resources have made an impact on his decision? Maybe the father should've explained that the neighbor only had a few guns we gave him several years ago.

Then, he would've taken his badarse sisters and brother (oh, yeah, he's supposed to have a lot of gun-totin' warrior brothers and sisters in the house too), get the man to stay the heck away from his wife and family, and have him carted off to prison.... Of course, that would've caused the exact same situation. We'd then have to get into the neighbors on either side of the wifebeater trying to steal his house from the kids, the kids who weren't killed in our crossfire would have to start fighting the other neighbors with butterknives.

Pretty soon, the son and his badarse sisters and brothers has to kill off ALL the rest of the neighborhood to give Iraqneighbor's few remaining children back their house. Oh, and did I mention that the house won't have any running water or electricity for the next several months because we knocked out all the mains and took out an electrical pole in the fight? *shrugs*

I love the idea of an international forum, a meeting place for airing issues and viewpoints. I love the idea (and practice) of AID societies. That IS what the UN should be. The problem is when they actually try to institute legislation. My point is that there can be no legitimate "ruler" over ANY nation. Their can be "enforcers of will" over ANY nation (aka "cross national attackers" eg "the US in Iraq"), but no super-national authority over nations can or will exist which will not be fought from both the weak AND the strong nations, because it violates the sovereignty of both groups of nations.
Sorry, but "legislating" over others is not what the UN does; they are not a legislative body (http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch1/ch1.htm). What they do is serve as a tool for creating international agreements --conventions, treaties and standards --which, once they are ratified, individual member nations may then legislate into their systems through whatever processes. No one forces them to do anything. "Its decisions, though not legally binding on Member States, represent the moral authority of the community of nations."

Here's all the link that I need as link between Saddam and Al-qaida: They both wish to see the US and all their enemies (mutual and otherwise) die and they both (had) significant resources to share with people of like mind to theirs to assist with doing the killing.

So all the link you need is no link then?



I realize that's not acceptable to you, but your childish insistance of hard links where soft ones will do is your own hallucinatory stricture.


Whereas your solipsistic definition of "hard" and "soft" links and indeed redefinition of "soft" to mean "non-existent" isn't in any wise hallucinatory?

Oh, right. It's an analogy or the Iraq war.
I thought it was just an imaginative way to scar a young boy for life and make him cry. I can't be bothered going to such lengths and generally just trip them up when they run past me. Just as effective and a lot less effort.




BTW:
"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door..."WHAT DO YOU DO?"
I didn't realise Saddam was planning to invade America. I must have missed that when it was mentioned on TV. When was he going to do this?

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!

Mmmm, Terrorist proof saran wrap AND coffee....

Mmmm, Terrorist proof saran wrap AND coffee....
Don't drink the Starbucks...it's not free trade!!!!!

Don't drink the Starbucks...it's not free trade!!!!!

Yes, but my argument is... Mmmmm, Coffee? And pie... pie would be nice.

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.

Where'd I get that from? It's been on numerous news shows (CNN, Fox, CBS, etc) about Iraq, with statements made BY Iraqis. Zarqawi, for instance, and most of his followers, are Jordanians. Others have come from Syria and Saudi Arabia. Al Sadr is a local, though.

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:

Because while Halliburton is making money off of helping Iraq rebuild, Saddam and some of the UN clowns were making money off of a program that was supposed to be helping the Iraqi people, not lining their own pockets. Maybe that's why it doesn't get mentioned too much.

Because while Halliburton is making money off of helping Iraq rebuild, Saddam and some of the UN clowns were making money off of a program that was supposed to be helping the Iraqi people, not lining their own pockets. Maybe that's why it doesn't get mentioned too much.

Now maybe, five years ago, what was their justification?

Now maybe, five years ago, what was their justification?

Same thing, making money. My point is the money Halliburton is getting is/was FOR that. The money being siphoned away from the "Oil for Food" program was to FEED the Iraqi people, NOT get Saddam a new palace or make any of the UN people richer.

BTW, how many people recall even JFK (Kennedy) thought the UN was a bad idea?

Same thing, making money. My point is the money Halliburton is getting is/was FOR that. The money being siphoned away from the "Oil for Food" program was to FEED the Iraqi people, NOT get Saddam a new palace or make any of the UN people richer.


Alright you said it yourself. It's the same thing they did. Basically, they disregarded UN sanctions to make a profit. Why bash the French and German companies for doing this bad thing but not bast the US company for doing the EXACT same bad thing?

Since when breaking the law is good for the goose but not good for the gander?

BTW, how many people recall even JFK (Kennedy) thought the UN was a bad idea?

And look what he's got to show for it. :P

Why make up such an elaborate story?

[Bonnybridge #208]
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?

I'm a little groggy today, so I may be even more fuzzyheaded than usual. :)

Firstly, on your point 1: You're probably right on the "not invaded immediately" proposition, but any weakening of Israel would embolden every islamist in the area, and would destabilize all of Israels neighbors.

This would lead to eventual (within weeks) overthrow, and utter chaos in the region.

Not that might be interesting, but if the hope was to have Israel in a position to deal with anyone (of their enemies), there would be no one left to deal with that wasn't either a hardcore islamist or a now super-repressive version of what is presently there.

Point 2: Any percieved "weakness" of the US is a signal to "go for it" to the thugs of the world. I agree that that most military bases don't do much (especially in Europe) but not having bases for force projection would be a bad thing.

Point 3: The US should flatten every section of any town that gives us any trouble. The new Iraqi government should be given very little time to get themselves established and operating effectively, both in administration terms and in security terms. Then the "reins of power" should be handed off to them, with the warning that if they make a mess of it (our definition to be determined at our "whim") then we'll come back in and flatten them as well, and start over again with a new crew.

And, now that I will ahve been assasinated by some pissed off relative of an innocent-yet-unfortunately-killed-anyway Iraqi national, someone else will formulate some much more sensible and clever way to deal with the problem.

Reducing terrorism will only happen when it makes more sense to the terrorists to not be terrorists than be terrorists.

And, as long as there is any "advantage" in being an islamist, there will always be terrorists.

Yes, but my argument is... Mmmmm, Coffee? And pie... pie would be nice.
I like pie. Oh, pool boy, could I have a slice of Coconut Creme and a cup of Etheopian dark roast?

[Druthulhu #207]
corrections and questions for the righties:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Heh he he he... I prefer to allow you all the pleasure of inferring my age, education, sanity, etcetera from the words I commit to "digital recording and display" here in these forums. :)

I well pleased that you find my words of interest, and/or annoying enough, to respond to. That is really all I'm after,.. simply some source material from your mind to learn about you. I enjoy discussion that engenders emotional responses, as that tells me much more about a person than simple pat answers involving the weighing of "facts".

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?

About your points 1 through 7,... what is your point?

Firstly, on your point 1: You're probably right on the "not invaded immediately" proposition, but any weakening of Israel would embolden every islamist in the area, and would destabilize all of Israels neighbors.

This would lead to eventual (within weeks) overthrow, and utter chaos in the region.
I believe it's called "jubilation", not "chaos".

[Khardsia #221]
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...

Wow... entirely too bad is wasn't your town they were used on. Of course, perhaps it was..!?

May you never be called on to defend anyone, as it would be much too much a burden on your delicate psyche.

[Refused Party Program #222]
Another thread with ten pages of Iakeokeo ranting inanely about leftists. Why not just ingore them?

I must agree..! Those who find nothing of interest in my blithering, please just pop me onto your ignore lists.

That is the sensible thing to do, after all.

May your discussions be enlightening and "fact filled"..! :D

because s/he's so funny

Oh...! Thank you..! :D

I very much appreciate that.

Although you seem to be in the minority in your opinion as to my hilarity.

Most just think I'm quite the asshole, which would be accurate, without also considering the "humorous" aspects of my discourse.

I like to think of myself as "the asshole through which the man-paste of the left is shown to the world"... though that's really QUITE self-agrandising in the extreme.

Oh well,... on with the show (for those who aren't ignoring me).

:D

At first, yes. After a while the thread-hijacking just gets annoying.

I'm simply responding to others. As is everyone else.

Use the ignore switch or simply read the parts that interest you if responses bother you.

Other than that, have a fantasticly interesting day..! :)

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...?

The reason I was told is of importance because it is the reason that this country actually went to war. If the scenario described in this thread were anywhere near being an adequate metaphor, every other house on the block would've had a man killing his wife, and the kid would've had to choose just one to go and take care of, since that is what our country has done.

So, in our little scenario, when there are say, 6 men all beating and killing their wives, do you go after the scrawny little one who has been sick for years and has very little strength left trying to fight with a newspaper? Or do you maybe go after the one who is about to shoot her in the face?


.."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.

Yeah, so I should call the cops on the body builder across the street then? After all, he certainly has the capability to kill someone - therefore I should make the assumption that he will do it and call the cops on him. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

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

(a) Not a leftist to anyone but extreme right-wingers. In all fairness, I am a pragmatist.

(b) I was dealing with the fantasy provided to me, and showing why it doesn't relate to the present war in Iraq. You know when it would've applied? Under Bush, Sr. - when we should've marched into Baghdad.

Dempublicents, you should know better than to feed a troll.

[Independent Homesteads #226]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indianajones
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

A simple mind always confuses the policeman with the criminal.

If anyone does anything "bad" (or good for that metter) that isn't distributed equally amongst all the "deserving", then the distributor is itself "bad".

The left can justify any position they choose (much as the right can) by selectively choosing rationale to suit it.

The question is, who holds the reins of power, and why...?

(( To translate: Why is the left constantly subjugated by the right [and I count the Democrats in the US and the administrations of nearly every other country on the planet as being well to the right of "center"] in government..? ))

Why did we invade Iraq hunh?

Well using your stupid story as a backdrop.

We wanted to invade Iraq so we could steal the bad man's money and fuck his wife.

That about sums it up.

Jerkoff!

7) about these two mobile chemical weapons factories. Citation, please?

That was me, not Iakeokeo. Sorry, I was busy with a few things for a while, but I'm back.
And by the way, the source is a document from the National Security Archive. However, to be fair, there are some people that dispute this evaluation. Granted, they are Democrats and therefore likely to dispute anything that would add to Bush's credibility, but that is a moot point.
And here is the source.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/#5
Anyways, like I said before, if these two mobile facilities were correctly evaluated by the CIA AND DIA (not just the CIA), and were in fact bio weaps labs, then I would be reasonably sure that any other facilities could have been moved. Especially since Iraq could not have been able to afford many of them. Also, it is an undisputed facr that Phenol and Chlorine labs were found and photographed prior to attack. Incidentally, this same source actually has a pic of these labs. In all fairness, although we have found no actual wepaons to date, we have found that Hussein possessed everything needed to make said weapons.

Dempublicents, you should know better than to feed a troll.

True. I apologize. =)

Why did we invade Iraq hunh?

Well using your stupid story as a backdrop.

We wanted to invade Iraq so we could steal the bad man's money and fuck his wife.

That about sums it up.

Jerkoff!
A wonderful example of the cultured and open-minded Democrat, as opposed to the crass and unintelligent Republican.

[Chess Squares #227]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indianajones
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

America does what America wants, by it's own decision and "morality".

As does everyone else.

If you non-Americans decide to group up and be "whatever you are", then we agree that you have every right to your actions and decisions.

What we do in not always right,.. but everyone can act as they wish, and take the consequences for those actions.

..but you'd rather no one fought for anything because "fighting" is evil.

Interesting morality you've got there.

[QUOTE=Shaed #228]
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.

It's not actually "passive aggressiveness" as it's an active choice to be annoying on my part.

I do understand your point though. I get rather tired of seeing the mutual hate-fest that passes for "discussion" on these forums. But the constant claim by the "left" (here) that voicing opinion and being provocatively "rude" is not "debatesman like", while spouting such venom at the "right" in precisely that fashion is fuel for my stoking the fires of "emotional verbosity" between the sides.

Anyway,... I agree entirely,.. please don't feed the trolls.

It only encourages them.

[Stephistan #232]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneRule
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..

So....?

Who's job is it to go find out why Halliburton is "being evil" in these places..?

Convince me of their evilness..!

1. So, in our little scenario, when there are say, 6 men all beating and killing their wives, do you go after the scrawny little one who has been sick for years and has very little strength left trying to fight with a newspaper? Or do you maybe go after the one who is about to shoot her in the face?

2. Yeah, so I should call the cops on the body builder across the street then? After all, he certainly has the capability to kill someone - therefore I should make the assumption that he will do it and call the cops on him. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

3. You know when it would've applied? Under Bush, Sr. - when we should've marched into Baghdad.
1. I believe you are sorely misinformed about Hussein's capabilities to harass, murder and control his former citizens. He was not the scrawny lil guy in his country. He was a bully, who used superior force to oppress the people of his nation in a manner unequaled by many. And besides, since they had a weak military, as compared to that of the US, that would mean that we would suffer fewer casualties in a war against them as opposed to North Korea. Thus, attacking a weaker nation actually saves lives while still having the same beneficial effect. I would think a liberal such as yourself could appreciate this. Not to mention that Iraq has a much more strategic importance, since the Middle East is quite definitely the greatest threat to Americans in terms of hostile nations and terrorist activity. A weak nation with great strategic importance? Sounds like an excellent plan. Not to mention that the civilian losses are far lower than Hussein's proven responsibility for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

2. In case you didn't notice, the man across the street was witnessed beating his wife to death. Saddam was proven to have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, many at the hands of his subordinate, who was nicknamed "Chemical Ali", Ali Hassan al-Majid. Thus your analogy is worthless. You remind of that case where the woman was attacked by around 30 men in Central Park, and everyone who witnessed the crime actually did nothing. They didn't even bother to call the cops. Your attitude does not surprise me.

3. I agree here, we should have finished the job then. Especially since we had proven that Hussein possessed and had used chem/bio weaps against both civilians and military forces. Time does not erase the fact that he has been proven to be guilty of war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Iakeokeo, don't you just find it fascinating how the left arrogates to themselves the position of being "morally and actually right." I find it amazing that they truly believe that only they can be right, and that the right is full of liars. And if you make a valid point, they tell you that you are being an asshole.

[BastardSword #233]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indianajones
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.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a lovely ideal, but we still lock up and deny bail to suspects "just in case" they might pose a danger.

Once again, the one-size-fits-all application of any rule set is an idealistic fantasy.

..and spouting it simply verifies that your real motive is to justify whatever you want to justify. You hate America and/or the present US administration, therefore you must find a justification for that hatred.

And you are very simply dismissed as a crank. As am I. :)

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.

Super, I could not agree with you more! Wow! Talk about a landmark! LOL!

Seriously, you should read the other thread I just started about "Letter from an American soldier in Iraq." This guy just got back into the US a few days ago, although the letter was written just before he left Iraq. Lots and lots of good things these young men and women are doing for the Iraqis. Please read it.

If they really wanted to take out saddam and his family, if they really wanted to, you don't think they could have sent out the CIA, and special forces teams to assassinate him, and mold in a new government? To kill a man and his family, and his cabinet, you don't need to INVADE with an ARMY. If they really were there for those reasons in the original post, than I don't think we would have invaded. And even if that was so, why are we still there? We got Saddam. Not to mention, that North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, were responsible for more crimes against humanity than Iraq was. The war was waged for monetary reasons with the disguise of good nature, and morality.

[Daroth #241]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indianajones
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

Heh he he he... and that's (at least) my contention: That nations do what nations do for their own interests.

Morality is a nicety to justify actions, and will be used whenever possible to do so.

To commit to a war on "whatever terrorizes you" sounds like a worthy cause to me. Apparently self defense makes no sense to your kind.

What is your REAL point here..?

[Psylos #243]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eutrusca
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.

Why bother to make it seem like you care about the world..?

The world can take care of itself. If it's constituent parts need help with something, just let those who might be able to help know, and the parties will have something to do with their daylight hours.

Isn't that called international relations..?

[Chess Squares #246]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eutrusca
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

Hitler WAS a good leader,.. of a bunch of fellow sociopaths..!

What Eutrusca was trying to convey was the fact that a leader without anyone to lead is not a leader. And no one follows a leader that they don't feel "comfortable" with.

I like your facility for pulling nonsensical rules out of your ass, by the way. Isn't the very description of a (national) leader to promote this organization's (national) interests in the area of the peerage of his organization (inter-national affairs)..?

If they really wanted to take out saddam and his family, if they really wanted to, you don't think they could have sent out the CIA, and special forces teams to assassinate him, and mold in a new government? To kill a man and his family, and his cabinet, you don't need to INVADE with an ARMY. If they really were there for those reasons in the original post, than I don't think we would have invaded. And even if that was so, why are we still there? We got Saddam. Not to mention, that North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, were responsible for more crimes against humanity than Iraq was. The war was waged for monetary reasons with the disguise of good nature, and morality.
First off, I see no basis for your last sentence.

Second, we have attempted such actions before, and they did not work terribly well, especially in the Middle East. And if we did, the liberals would be up in arms about that too. And Saddam, in case you have forgotten, was quite well protected from anything other than a direct assault.

And I already pointed out that North Korea was a less important strategic zone, because we no longer have such a terrible relationship with China. The Middle East is the hotspot now. Also, they don't have the same danger of MAD. And Saudi Arabia has been cooperating with us quite well as of late, so it would not make sense to attack them, as that would most definitely be an unprovoked attack. Not like the Iraqi attacks against US forces in the no-fly zones. That in and of itself was justification for war.

hah thats great

north korea isnt, dangerous, its all the middle east. no there arnt any dangerous countries in teh middle east, just people we assume are there who want to blow us up. no, no, north korea is no threat, even though it has nuclear weapons and long range missiles

[Willamena #247]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephistan
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.

Interesting how the "strawman" defense is dropped when it's discovered that the parties agree with each other.

But in other matters... :)

Perception of imminence in an "immiment threat" is imminence, none the less.

And acting on that imminence is justified as self defense. The reason FOR the perception of imminence may be wrong, but the act itself is not.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it's not very useful in judging anything more than the correctness of a perception.

It's left to those observing the outcome of the acts based on this perception to decide if what happened was a good or bad thing.

1. I believe you are sorely misinformed about Hussein's capabilities to harass, murder and control his former citizens. He was not the scrawny lil guy in his country. He was a bully, who used superior force to oppress the people of his nation in a manner unequaled by many.

I never said that Hussein was the scrawny guy in his country. However, in the scheme of things and the number of dictators out there doing the same and worse, he was a small fry, of very little direct threat to our country.

And besides, since they had a weak military, as compared to that of the US, that would mean that we would suffer fewer casualties in a war against them as opposed to North Korea. Thus, attacking a weaker nation actually saves lives while still having the same beneficial effect.

Attacking a weaker nation with less ability to cause damage does not have the same beneficial effect. It may have a beneficial effect, but it is not the same. Either way, if we are going to use Saddam's atrocities as our reasoning for going to war, how do we justify not going to war in countless other countries?

I would think a liberal such as yourself could appreciate this.

Again, not really a liberal. Thanks for actually reading my post though.

Not to mention that Iraq has a much more strategic importance, since the Middle East is quite definitely the greatest threat to Americans in terms of hostile nations and terrorist activity. A weak nation with great strategic importance? Sounds like an excellent plan. Not to mention that the civilian losses are far lower than Hussein's proven responsibility for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

This is great defense - now, if Bush had said all of that and the country had wanted to go to war, everything would've been fine and dandy.

2. In case you didn't notice, the man across the street was witnessed beating his wife to death.

In case you didn't notice, the point I was arguing was that the real reason we went to war had nothing to do with what Saddam was doing to his people. It had to do with the fact that he *might* have the weapons to harm us. Thus, my analogy makes perfect sense, and Iak answered that he would definitely go kill the body builder across the street just because he might be a danger. I had a problem with that.

Your attitude does not surprise me.

The fact that you completely misunderstood my point does not surprise me. I have never argued that Saddam was not a bad man who needed to be removed from power - I have simply pointed out that our presidential administration either was not honest about their motives, or didn't really have that in mind in the first place.

[BastardSword #233]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indianajones
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.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a lovely ideal, but we still lock up and deny bail to suspects "just in case" they might pose a danger.

Once again, the one-size-fits-all application of any rule set is an idealistic fantasy.

..and spouting it simply verifies that your real motive is to justify whatever you want to justify. You hate America and/or the present US administration, therefore you must find a justification for that hatred.

And you are very simply dismissed as a crank. As am I. :)

Actualy its because I love America that I am against America acting badly. True patriotism is crying out against any administration in your govt. you feel is being run badly.
If Bush didn't do bad things I wouldn't have anything to talk against.
So our goverbnment was built upon "lovely ideals" but they are fantasies?

When did America fall so far from our original ideals that to return to them is a fantasy? What stole America's pureness?

What am I justifying ? I don't hate, I disagree but no hatred. You however, hate the left. You admited it before I'm sure. Me, I just disagree.

Because while Halliburton is making money off of helping Iraq rebuild, Saddam and some of the UN clowns were making money off of a program that was supposed to be helping the Iraqi people, not lining their own pockets. Maybe that's why it doesn't get mentioned too much.

Long prior to the current war, Halliburton was making money off of trade with sanctioned nations such as Iran and Iraq. This was not rebuilding, this was before the war. So there is no valid explaination as to why it is not talked about.

Long prior to the current war, Halliburton was making money off of trade with sanctioned nations such as Iran and Iraq. This was not rebuilding, this was before the war. So there is no valid explaination as to why it is not talked about.

Spare me the nonsense about Haliburton. They're just doing business as usual. How about picking on some of the French or German companies who were helping Saddam rebuild his military machine while sanctions were still in place? Or the UN, with their self-aggrandizing raids on the "Food for Oil Program?"

It all depends upon whose ox is being gored, and on who you choose to believe.

Spare me the nonsense about Haliburton. They're just doing business as usual. How about picking on some of the French or German companies who were helping Saddam rebuild his military machine while sanctions were still in place? Or the UN, with their self-aggrandizing raids on the "Food for Oil Program?"

It all depends upon whose ox is being gored, and on who you choose to believe.

Indeed... business as usual... France, Germany, Halliburton, and all.

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

*chokes up* *sheds a tear*

...that's very moving. I suddenly feel like eating McDonalds and mom's apple pie, humming the star spangled banner, and saluting old glory! Halelujah! [/sarcasm]

The above story is a lovely piece of propaganda. If it wasn't for the fact the the current (and recent) administrations have been bent on imperialism, self-advancement at the cost of other nations sovereignty and finanacial wellbeing, and constantly sticking their metaphorical "penis" into the affairs of every country they think they can get away with, I might even believe it...

Signed, a "lefty" ;)

*puts on flame proof underpants* :p

*chokes up* *sheds a tear*

...that's very moving. I suddenly feel like eating McDonalds and mom's apple pie, humming the star spangled banner, and saluting old glory! Halelujah! [/sarcasm]

The above story is a lovely piece of propaganda. If it wasn't for the fact the the current (and recent) administrations have been bent on imperialism, self-advancement at the cost of other nations sovereignty and finanacial wellbeing, and constantly sticking their metaphorical "penis" into the affairs of every country they think they can get away with, I might even believe it...

Signed, a "lefty" ;)

*puts on flame proof underpants* :p

Don't worry. That's the sort of statement I've come to expect on here. :)

Posting on this forum will either make you become rather thick-skinned, or make you lose your lunch! :)

I always find it fascinating the various ways that people manage to create for themselves to completely miss the point and come up with reasons why there way is still right, despite clear reasons and logic to the contrary.

The whole war question is a problem dealt with by people having hormonal problems, their brains filled with propaganda and old ideas. Personnally, I've been moved a bit by movies such as "The Patriot" (Mel Gibson's) or "The Patriot" (Steven Seagall... ROFL), but never as much as to draw my gun and fight for my country.

It's a shame some people get their brains washed with falses ideals and false ideas such as "we should make the war last the longest time possible so we can eventually claim to be the victors", simply because they can't resist their hormons.

Think logically. Rationnally. Those are hypothetical numbers (well, came out from a lost memory), though I suspect they're very close to reality: there are $ 200 000 000 000 injected in the U.S. military sector - a year. What if they were fully spent in less...stagnant sectors? Such as in research, and/or new technologies. We wouldn't need WMDs if we possessed the knowledge and power to relieve middle-east countries from their main problems, known as : hunger, poverty and illnesses.

Are you telling us war's the only option? The military remains only for the goodsake of the weaponry industry.

All I'm asking for is a bit of thinking. Don't get stuck in the vicious circle with false dilemmas. There "are" other paths to follow, ones that you can find by yourself.

I like pie. Oh, pool boy, could I have a slice of Coconut Creme and a cup of Etheopian dark roast?


And so, I came to realise that, there is no problem in the world so terrible that it can't be solved by good pie (key lime sounds good) and coffee....

The whole war question is a problem dealt with by people having hormonal problems, their brains filled with propaganda and old ideas. Personnally, I've been moved a bit by movies such as "The Patriot" (Mel Gibson's) or "The Patriot" (Steven Seagall... ROFL), but never as much as to draw my gun and fight for my country.

It's a shame some people get their brains washed with falses ideals and false ideas such as "we should make the war last the longest time possible so we can eventually claim to be the victors", simply because they can't resist their hormons.

Think logically. Rationnally. Those are hypothetical numbers (well, came out from a lost memory), though I suspect they're very close to reality: there are $ 200 000 000 000 injected in the U.S. military sector - a year. What if they were fully spent in less...stagnant sectors? Such as in research, and/or new technologies. We wouldn't need WMDs if we possessed the knowledge and power to relieve middle-east countries from their main problems, known as : hunger, poverty and illnesses.

Are you telling us war's the only option? The military remains only for the goodsake of the weaponry industry.

All I'm asking for is a bit of thinking. Don't get stuck in the vicious circle with false dilemmas. There "are" other paths to follow, ones that you can find by yourself.

I think it would be absolutely fantastic if we could do away with war tomorrow and spend what we saved by doing so on things like education, health care, and all the other needs in our society. But to say that the only reason the military exists is to support the weapons industry is either incredibly naieve or an indication that you live in a different world than the one inhabited by the rest of us.

The world is a dangerous place. There are those who would attack the USA tomorrow if we did away with our military today ( there are those who attack us now even with the military in place ). Most of the world does not live in your insular reality, and would love nothing better than to "reclaim their rightful place" in charge of all the rest of us. It amazes me how there always seem to be a few in every generation who are incapable of learning from history, incapable of stepping outside the bounds of their own cozy little wordl-view, and incapable of comprehending that you cannot dissuade despots and terrorists by blowing sunshine up their asses.

First off, I see no basis for your last sentence.

Second, we have attempted such actions before, and they did not work terribly well, especially in the Middle East. And if we did, the liberals would be up in arms about that too. And Saddam, in case you have forgotten, was quite well protected from anything other than a direct assault.

And I already pointed out that North Korea was a less important strategic zone, because we no longer have such a terrible relationship with China. The Middle East is the hotspot now. Also, they don't have the same danger of MAD. And Saudi Arabia has been cooperating with us quite well as of late, so it would not make sense to attack them, as that would most definitely be an unprovoked attack. Not like the Iraqi attacks against US forces in the no-fly zones. That in and of itself was justification for war.

More to the point than US-Sino relationships... North Korea is in China's backyard, and if the US army went blundering in there, China might be 'put out'. And North Korea actually has WMDs to fight back. And China already has WMDs to protect their region, if they so choose. And China has a sixth of the worlds population, so they US and all it's little buddies couldn't guarantee winning a land-war, if they managed to antagonise China enough.

And, of course, if US troops were in North Korea, and China found out that they had been holding Korean prisoners and tormenting humiliating them for being asian... well, let's just say that China might not be as willing to smile and nod as some of the middle-east countries have been...

Boston cream pie. :)

The world is a dangerous place.

And you dare calling me naive? Let me remind you one last time : this world is as dangerous as you make it dangerous yourself. It's not like if you stopped pressing everyone around you, they'd jump on you, kill you and rob you blind.

You're only believing what you're being told, that's all. Look, even the people living in farmlands thought they could be the victims of terrorist attacks, isn't that ridiculous enough for you?

I'm going to tell you more. American frontiersmen destroyed a whole lemon cargo ($125 000 worth), thus nearly annihilating a poor Brasilian fruit industry, based on an accusation which proved to be false in the end. Don't you even begin to understand what havoc this Patriot Act of yours begins to wreak? Your own government is threatening the people to keep an iron grasp on them.

Certainly those "wannabe dangers" (such as a yellow alert) can be stressful, but if they affect your abilities to ponder and make long-term decisions, then perhaps you should open your mind a little. Why would you think there are so many people against war? More and more people get to know the truth about it, every day.

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

What a bunch of drivel.

Where'd I get that from? It's been on numerous news shows (CNN, Fox, CBS, etc) about Iraq, with statements made BY Iraqis. Zarqawi, for instance, and most of his followers, are Jordanians. Others have come from Syria and Saudi Arabia. Al Sadr is a local, though.Thanks--you just made my point. Sadr City, from whence Al Sadr gets much--but not all--of his support, makes up approximately ten percent of Iraq's population, and they only make up a fraction of the daily violence against the US troops in Iraq. This is a home grown rebellion, and if you don't believe me, how about reading a report from a Wall Street Journal reporter (http://poynter.org/forum/default.asp?id=misc&DGPCrSrt=&DGPCrPg=1) who's on the ground right now. Remember--the Wall Street Journal is hardly a bastion of the liberal media.

And if you don't want to follow the link, don't worry. I'm going to post the letter in its own thread in a bit.

What a bunch of drivel.

Another closed mind speaks, when another closed mouth and open mind would be more appropriate.

Indeed... business as usual... France, Germany, Halliburton, and all.

Yep. Got a viable alternative?

Another closed mind speaks, when another closed mouth and open mind would be more appropriate.
Ooooooohhh....
It still sucks. War propaganda. Nothing more.

Another closed mind speaks, when another closed mouth and open mind would be more appropriate.

You have yet to speak to the fact that your husband said nothing to your son about the other, much stronger men who are currently beating their wives in your scenario - ones with much more power to harm your family and didn't ask if he would pick the weakest one to go kill first.

I always find it fascinating the various ways that people manage to create for themselves to completely miss the point and come up with reasons why there way is still right, despite clear reasons and logic to the contrary.

You know, I feel exactly the same way. Why is that?

You have yet to speak to the fact that your husband said nothing to your son about the other, much stronger men who are currently beating their wives in your scenario - ones with much more power to harm your family and didn't ask if he would pick the weakest one to go kill first.

I don't have a "husband" I have a "wife." And, if you had actually, you know ... like read the post, you would know I have no 9 year-old son, since I stated as much in the lead paragraph.

I don't have a "husband" I have a "wife." And, if you had actually, you know ... like read the post, you would know I have no 9 year-old son, since I stated as much in the lead paragraph.

Fine, so you made the story up, doesn't change the fact that you are avoiding the issue. Pardon me for focusing on the meat of the post, and not the fine details.

You know, I feel exactly the same way. Why is that?

Because you can't tell when people are calling you an idiot?

Let me play you a sad song on the worlds smallest violin *twiddles thumb and index finger together*

Nice pull at the heart strings, but you can't tear me into believing into a false war run by a monkey.

Perception of imminence in an "immiment threat" is imminence, none the less.

And acting on that imminence is justified as self defense. The reason FOR the perception of imminence may be wrong, but the act itself is not.
Acting on a perceived threat is not justifiably self-defense. Two men... walking towards each other down a corridor. There's nowhere to go but past each other. One is tall with dark skin, long hair and is smoking a reefer and listening to rap music. The other is a small man, squirrelly, clean-cut and inherently paranoid, who perceives the taller man as a potential threat because of racial fears and stereotyping. Is it okay for the smaller man to attack the taller one because he perceives a threat? No. And it's not self-defense of any sort.

Perception of imminence in an "immiment threat" is imminence, none the less.

And acting on that imminence is justified as self defense. The reason FOR the perception of imminence may be wrong, but the act itself is not.


please come to my house so i can rightly shoot you in the face.

Because you can't tell when people are calling you an idiot?

You mean kinda like you're unable to recognize sarcasm when you see it?

Yesterday I was driving down the street with my young boy and we saw a man being attacked. I immediately called in an airstrike and torched everyone on the block.

"Why did you do that, daddy?" he asked.

I explained how it was important to make sure we killed the bad guy and that evil has to be punished.

"But what about the other people who lived there?" he wanted to know.

I explained how they would be grateful that we had got rid of a criminal from their neighbourhood and that now they are much safer.

"But you killed all those innocent people too", he whined.

So I explained to him that they weren't real people, they were wogs. Wogs look like real people but have different colour skin and speak some weird monkey language. So it doesn't really matter if some of them die so long as it makes us safer.

"But how are we safer now? This neighbourhood is nowhere near us so that guy would probably never have attacked us. Besides, won't all the folks who knew those people, er... I mean wogs, be really angry and try to attack us now?"

I told him that wasn't true.

"Why not?"

It just isn't, son. You shouldn't ask questions like that, it's unpatriotic.

"Oh" he said "When I grow up can I kill some wogs and be a patriot, daddy."

Of course you can son. I have never been so proud.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

Yesterday I was driving down the street with my young boy and we saw a man being attacked. I immediately called in an airstrike and torched everyone on the block.

"Why did you do that, daddy?" he asked.

I explained how it was important to make sure we killed the bad guy and that evil has to be punished.

"But what about the other people who lived there?" he wanted to know.

I explained how they would be grateful that we had got rid of a criminal from their neighbourhood and that now they are much safer.

"But you killed all those innocent people too", he whined.

So I explained to him that they weren't real people, they were wogs. Wogs look like real people but have different colour skin and speak some weird monkey language. So it doesn't really matter if some of them die so long as it makes us safer.

"But how are we safer now? This neighbourhood is nowhere near us so that guy would probably never have attacked us. Besides, won't all the folks who knew those people, er... I mean wogs, be really angry and try to attack us now?"

I told him that wasn't true.

"Why not?"

It just isn't, son. You shouldn't ask questions like that, it's unpatriotic.

"Oh" he said "When I grow up can I kill some wogs and be a patriot, daddy."

Of course you can son. I have never been so proud.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

Interesting. Now, can you apply that same discussion to Afghanistan?

Interesting. Now, can you apply that same discussion to Afghanistan?

The story is the same, only the guy really was dangerous.

Plus, he got away.

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.

Don't kid yourself. In WWII there was plenty of popular dissent, especially toward the war in Europe. Germany never attacked the United States, and a significant portion of the US population came from German descent. There was plenty of protesting and angry rhetoric. The years and th emoral clarity of hindsight has silenced that opposition, but at the time, it was very relevant.

Very touching.

But Bush is really going about this all wrong. Sure, I can believe he sent the troops there to protect the people of that country and offer aid to it's victims. (After securing access to the oil fields anyway. *growl*)

But he's going about this the wrong way. He's using WMDs to find WMDs. Surely he knows the dangers of those weapons? Depleted uranium is deadly, and leaves radioactivity behind that lasts for aeons. That is just so wrong on every level and it makes our country appear as a haven for hypocrisy, and a big egotistical bully. Both of which I abhor.

If he had our troops using conventional weapons, I might be able to tolerate this war. But the fact still stands...we have doomed an entire region of the world to disease, terror, famine, and early death using the very WMDs that Bush 'knows' are hidden in that country.

I think the troops would find more WMDs in Bush' backyard.

Asylum Nova

Alright you said it yourself. It's the same thing they did. Basically, they disregarded UN sanctions to make a profit. Why bash the French and German companies for doing this bad thing but not bast the US company for doing the EXACT same bad thing?

Since when breaking the law is good for the goose but not good for the gander?

No, it's not the same thing. What UN sanction says Halliburton isn't supposed to get paid for its restoration efforts? The money Halliburton is getting was designated for that purpose. And what resolution made it ok for the UN to profit from a program that was intended to provide food for the Iraqi people? There would have been far fewer deaths due to starvation and illness if ALL that money had gone to its intended purpose. So no, its not the same thing that Halliburton gets money for doing what its supposed to be doing, and the UN was STEALING money for something it shouldn't.

And for the record, I did not mention the French or Germans, I said the UN.

You mean kinda like you're unable to recognize sarcasm when you see it?

I'm supposed to "see" sarcasm?

I guess your eyes are more advanced than mine. You can "see" sarcasm!!!oneone!11! LOLerZ!!!

[Willamena #341]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Perception of imminence in an "immiment threat" is imminence, none the less.

And acting on that imminence is justified as self defense. The reason FOR the perception of imminence may be wrong, but the act itself is not.

Acting on a perceived threat is not justifiably self-defense. Two men... walking towards each other down a corridor. There's nowhere to go but past each other. One is tall with dark skin, long hair and is smoking a reefer and listening to rap music. The other is a small man, squirrelly, clean-cut and inherently paranoid, who perceives the taller man as a potential threat because of racial fears and stereotyping. Is it okay for the smaller man to attack the taller one because he perceives a threat? No. And it's not self-defense of any sort.

It certainly is self-defense, in that the paranoid fellow's sense of self is in imminent danger of being destroyed by this other "evil" fellow, and therefore needs to be "defended" by him destroying the "evil" fellow.

Now, whether anyone else sees this as self-defense is highly questionable. :)

In other words, who judges the "self-defensedness" of a claimed act of self defense..?

And what are they going to do about it..?

Long prior to the current war, Halliburton was making money off of trade with sanctioned nations such as Iran and Iraq. This was not rebuilding, this was before the war. So there is no valid explaination as to why it is not talked about.

Yes, Halliburton has been in the area for some time, even getting fined for it at least once (that I could find). Energy (oil) service products is what Halliburton does. This, however, is an example of a sanction that didn't/doesn't make sense, as it not only affected the countries it was directed at, but the other countries who could or do get oil from the sanctioned countries. Basically cutting off the global nose to spite the face. I'm not saying it was a good thing for Halliburton to skirt the system. BTW, there has been effort to ease or lift the sanctions, especially affecting energy, since 1995.
But it is still not even close to tapping into money ear-marked to feed people!
Halliburton wasn't taking food out of anyone's mouth. Right or wrong, they were helping the economies of those countries. Stealing from the Oil for Food program only benefitted the thieves doing it. Period.

Plus, I never said anything about not talking about it, I merely stated what a possible reason for it not being discussed might be.

[Independent Homesteads #342]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Perception of imminence in an "immiment threat" is imminence, none the less.

And acting on that imminence is justified as self defense. The reason FOR the perception of imminence may be wrong, but the act itself is not.

please come to my house so i can rightly shoot you in the face.

I'd rather not. I'm sure you'll understand. :D

And how could you claim self defense when you invited me over..?

I'd call that "revenge for some wrong done", not self defense.

And what wrong have I done you..?

Ignorance and arrogance wrapped together in one convenient package. How efficient of you, Eutrusca. Why did you create this thread?

Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States, or at the most he was not as great a threat as Osama Bin Laden is. U.N. and U.S. sanctions had crippled his ability to produce WMDs. Rabid U.S. oversight kept him in compliance. We could have continued to contain Saddam Hussein while we went and eliminated the greater threats.

The problem with you righties is you think every problem can be solved with a gun. Crime's a problem? NO PROBLEM! Just give everyone concealed weapons! Problems abroad? Friends aren't complying with your wishes? Time to dish out a good ol'fashioned U.S. ass-stomping! Liberal neighbor looked at you wrong? A hand grenade will teach him good!

I am not by any means a pacifist. But I am also not an idiot. I won't advocate pulling the trigger unless there are no other options. And Iraq was, at best, a secondary target. Other nations like North Korea and Iran are a LOT more dangerous, and yet Bush does nothing. Open your eyes and consider the situation rationally for a moment, as hard as that might be for you.

And so, I came to realise that, there is no problem in the world so terrible that it can't be solved by good pie (key lime sounds good) and coffee....

I'll take a double espresso latte and a warm blueberry muffin, please. :D

Thanks--you just made my point. Sadr City, from whence Al Sadr gets much--but not all--of his support, makes up approximately ten percent of Iraq's population, and they only make up a fraction of the daily violence against the US troops in Iraq. This is a home grown rebellion, and if you don't believe me, how about reading a report from a Wall Street Journal reporter (http://poynter.org/forum/default.asp?id=misc&DGPCrSrt=&DGPCrPg=1) who's on the ground right now. Remember--the Wall Street Journal is hardly a bastion of the liberal media.

And if you don't want to follow the link, don't worry. I'm going to post the letter in its own thread in a bit.

I agree Al Sadr has a lot of Iraqi followers. Tho I got a kick out of his superior, the Ayatollah of Iraq, coming back from the hospital early to make him get his butt out of that shrine. I also agree that the insurgent activity was originally "home grown," as you say. But it is also being pumped up by outsiders, like Zarqawi.
I'll take the lazy road and look for your post of the article, easier to read over without having to follow a link. ;)

Saddam was at odds with al Qaeda, they disagreed deeply. If they had occasionally attempted contacts, we now know that they were futile and accomplished nothing.
Saddam would allow no terror bases in Iraq; they would be a threat to his own iron-fisted rule.
The terror bases have come in SINCE our invasion, since we destroyed the law of the land, failed to replace, and since out ongoing presence is an invitation to jihad to many conservative muslims.

The war was to fight terror, and instead, we have bred it.

Way to go.

Depleted uranium is deadly, and leaves radioactivity

Depleted uranium? No nukes have been used in Iraq. There has been some recent discussion about developing bunker busters with nukes, but none made yet. What weapon has been used that contains uranium?

This is shit. I am sorry to resort to such crudity, but your "story" really is just that damn bad. International politics cannot be simplified to such a basic level and still retain any shred of meaningness. I shall try a more accurate story:

There is a father and his 18-year-old son, who understand something of how the world works. The father poses a question about their mansion and the housing project many miles away:

"Now son, if one resident beat his family, threatened his neighbors, murdered people because he could, and took over neighboring appartments, what should we do?" he asks.

"Well, obviously that person should be stopped, because he is a threat to society," replies the son.

"All right. But what if this mansion and that project were in a country with no laws at all? What if this bad man's actions weren't technically illegal?"

"Well," the son said, thinking out loud, "because what he does is not illegal, technically the police can't just arrest him. However, if you could convince the police that he is dangerous and a threat to society, then they would almost certainly agree to take care of him and things would be better."

"Very good," congratulated the father. "But what if those police decide that he isn't really that much of a threat at all? What if they decide they don't believe your accounts or that they don't merit a reaction? What if all they agree to is to hang around his place and look half-heartedly for evidence that he's also smuggling drugs, because only then it's OK to get him?"

"I guess," said the son, "that in that case the best thing to do would be to wait a little while and collect all the evidence you can, work really hard to convince the police that you are right, maybe even go around them a little and see if your neighbors agree with you that this man is dangerous, so they help you out some on your quest, that sort of thing. And if they don't go with you, maybe you offer them some consessions, some stuff from your house which is bursting with good things, and probably you can get them to come around and help you."

The father nods. "OK. But what if you decided not to do all that? What if you decided to just fix the problem yourself and got all your brothers out and beat this man to death and took over his apartments and started trying to care for his family?"

The son sort of frowned. "Well, the situation would be better, sure. But isn't that just vigilantee justice? Wouldn't the police and your neighbors look at you as headstrong and belligerant, because they expected you to ask for their help longer and harder? And..."

At this point the father interrupted him. "Now assume that this apartment room has a magic jar which gives money to people who reach their hand in. Also imagine that just next door is a room with a man who is bad too, who hurts more people worse, and incites violence all over the slum. And across the hall is a man who pretends to be good, but behind his back his cousins plan thousands of drive-by shootings and drug deals to fund wholesale murder. And in the next hall over is an insane man who covers in his shoddy apartment with his starving, desperate family, but he has a bomb that could kill everyone in the entire project. What then?"

The son gives his father a hackneyed look. "Then the police and our friends might assume we just wanted the magic jar, and maybe even the family would, too, and they'd wonder why the hell we didn't go after those other people. In fact, because we didn't, it would make them think even more that we just hated that one bad man for some reason, or really just wanted the magic jar, even if we didn't."

And the father smiles. "Now you understand why the hell the world hates America's actions."

Why did we go to war?

Bush had a grudge.
There was oil there.
We could.

Every other reason is an excuse. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism; it was a secular state hated by radical Islamic terrorists. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not even close to developing them, as indicated by the overwhelming majority of evidence we have accumulated. And our invasion had nothing to do with alleviating the suffering of the Iraqis, because otherwise we would not have accidentially killed thousands or refused to protect them in the riots and looting (while guarding the Oil Ministry palace). Bush only cites Saddam's inhumanity, which is not a patch on several other world leader's, now that all of his other inane claims have been disproven. Spreading democracy in the Middle East? Isn't that the type of idealistic crap Republican commonly roast Democrats about? Or has the Administration not noticed that Israel's presense hasn't exactly fostered a flowering of democracy, or that in most of these countries there isn't even a democratic resistance movement because the people of fundamentalist nations do not want democracy at this point in time.

I did not always hold this view; it is a recent decision for me. But seeing this president and this Administration bring out one reason after another, one line after another, has convinced me it was war for the most selfish and despicable reason, and that our elected president was 100% responsible for it, and all the deaths suffered and terrorists created since.

Make an America where no man or woman or innocent child need die for one man's stupid selfishness and vindication.

Depleted uranium? No nukes have been used in Iraq. There has been some recent discussion about developing bunker busters with nukes, but none made yet. What weapon has been used that contains uranium?

We left it there. We use depleted uranium in tank armor and sabot shells, and the fact that it can emit radioactivity under high pressure has caused some to consider getting rid of it.

[INDENTIt certainly is self-defense, in that the paranoid fellow's sense of self is in imminent danger of being destroyed by this other "evil" fellow, and therefore needs to be "defended" by him destroying the "evil" fellow.

Now, whether anyone else sees this as self-defense is highly questionable. :)

In other words, who judges the "self-defensedness" of a claimed act of self defense..?

And what are they going to do about it..?

Whether anyone sees this scenario as "self-defense" is highly doubtful. In said scenario, if the little guy is that paranoid, he's probably under supervised care, or should be. His state of mind would be a greater threat than that of some guy smoking reefer. Plus, marijuana typically acts more as a relaxant, so the smoker is less likely to be aggressive than normal. He'd be more inclined to invite the little guy for pie and coffee. :D (Sorry, couldn't stop myself!)

We left it there. We use depleted uranium in tank armor and sabot shells, and the fact that it can emit radioactivity under high pressure has caused some to consider getting rid of it.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up (and not assuming I was just trying to be difficult by asking :) ).

Boston cream pie. :)
Dixie pie--it's like pecan but with chocolate chips and walnuts instead of pecans--warm with whipped heavy cream--a taste to be savored (don't forget the insulin!

[Willamena #341]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Perception of imminence in an "immiment threat" is imminence, none the less.

And acting on that imminence is justified as self defense. The reason FOR the perception of imminence may be wrong, but the act itself is not.

Acting on a perceived threat is not justifiably self-defense. Two men... walking towards each other down a corridor. There's nowhere to go but past each other. One is tall with dark skin, long hair and is smoking a reefer and listening to rap music. The other is a small man, squirrelly, clean-cut and inherently paranoid, who perceives the taller man as a potential threat because of racial fears and stereotyping. Is it okay for the smaller man to attack the taller one because he perceives a threat? No. And it's not self-defense of any sort.

It certainly is self-defense, in that the paranoid fellow's sense of self is in imminent danger of being destroyed by this other "evil" fellow, and therefore needs to be "defended" by him destroying the "evil" fellow.

Now, whether anyone else sees this as self-defense is highly questionable. :)

In other words, who judges the "self-defensedness" of a claimed act of self defense..?

And what are they going to do about it..?
The only thing he is "defending" himself against, then, is his own fears --his self. No, that's not self-defense.

"Very good," congratulated the father. "But what if those police decide that he isn't really that much of a threat at all? What if they decide they don't believe your accounts or that they don't merit a reaction? What if all they agree to is to hang around his place and look half-heartedly for evidence that he's also smuggling drugs, because only then it's OK to get him?"
Again, this is not an accurate representation of the actions of the United Nations. They are not police. They are not an authority who decides for others what is or is not a threat. If you want to fit them into your scenario, they are a "neighbourhood watch". When it's detected that something is wrong, they let everyone know, meet about it, discuss and decide together what should be done. If action is the decided-upon course, then members execute it together.

Yes, Halliburton has been in the area for some time, even getting fined for it at least once (that I could find). Energy (oil) service products is what Halliburton does. This, however, is an example of a sanction that didn't/doesn't make sense, as it not only affected the countries it was directed at, but the other countries who could or do get oil from the sanctioned countries. Basically cutting off the global nose to spite the face. I'm not saying it was a good thing for Halliburton to skirt the system. BTW, there has been effort to ease or lift the sanctions, especially affecting energy, since 1995.
But it is still not even close to tapping into money ear-marked to feed people!
Halliburton wasn't taking food out of anyone's mouth. Right or wrong, they were helping the economies of those countries. Stealing from the Oil for Food program only benefitted the thieves doing it. Period.

Plus, I never said anything about not talking about it, I merely stated what a possible reason for it not being discussed might be.

So are you saying that Europeans used the oil for food program to allow Saddam to line his pockets, while the money Halliburton gave him went to feed his people? How very naive of you. :)

So are you saying that Europeans used the oil for food program to allow Saddam to line his pockets, while the money Halliburton gave him went to feed his people? How very naive of you. :)

Geez, I thought I was pretty clear. :rolleyes: I did not say the Europeans used the oil for food program to allow Saddam to line his pockets. I said, more than once, that both the UN and Saddam were taking money from the program. It was never meant for them, it was meant for food, hence the "Oil for FOOD". Halliburton is/was getting money by doing what its business is, providing equipment/services for the production of oil, and was not tapping into funds MEANT to feed the Iraqi people.
How can I make this any clearer? The money Halliburton gets was meant for what Halliburton does, the money from the Oil for Food program was not meant for Saddam or the UN thieves.

We left it there. We use depleted uranium in tank armor and sabot shells, and the fact that it can emit radioactivity under high pressure has caused some to consider getting rid of it.

In support of Skepticism's point:

Depleted Uranium sabots are used as anti-armour projectiles. There was some fuss caused in England during the first Gulf War, when blue-on-blue fire riddled scorpion tanks with DU sabots.