Bush is so great! [Archive]

PsychoticDan

13-09-2006, 19:33

He's done such a great job for our country! :)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said leaders of Middle Eastern nations believe the Iraq war has "been a real disaster" for the region.

His comments to reporters on Wednesday came after a two-week trip through the Middle East and on a day when separate bomb attacks killed at least 22 people in Baghdad.

"Honestly, most of the leaders I spoke to felt the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath has been a real disaster for them," Annan said. "They believe it has destabilized the region."

Annan went on to describe "two schools" of thought -- those who believe the United States should stay, "having created the problem, they cannot walk away," and those, "particularly in Iran," who "believe the presence of the U.S." is a problem.

Annan said it is his opinion that "the U.S. has found itself in a position where it cannot stay and it cannot leave."

In Wednesday's violence, a roadside bomb exploded near traffic police headquarters in central Baghdad, killing at least 14 people and wounding 67, police said.

Later, a car bomb detonated near a police patrol in the Zayouna section of eastern Baghdad, killing eight people, including three police officers, and wounding 19, Baghdad emergency police said. (Watch aftermath of deadly car bomb -- :58)

In southern Baghdad's Dora neighborhood, police found four more bodies, adding to the 60 slain bodies found dumped across the sprawling capital on Tuesday.

The bodies are believed to be victims of Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence -- shot execution style and frequently showing signs of torture, which police say is the preferred method of sectarian slayings.

The year's second-highest monthly total of bodies arrived at Baghdad's morgue in August, Iraqi authorities said, but the figures do not include people killed by bombs or other mass attacks.

About 1,500 bodies were delivered to Baghdad's morgue last month, according to figures provided by an Iraqi Health Ministry official on condition of anonymity. The figure is second only to July's toll of 1,850 bodies.

Of the bodies taken to the morgue last month, 90 percent had been shot, the official said. The other 10 percent were killed by other means, including torture, beheading and stabbing, the official said.

The official noted that the morgue figures did not include most bombing victims, as that number was calculated separately.

On Monday, the U.S. Command acknowledged that its report of a dramatic drop in murders in Baghdad last month did not include people killed by bombs, mortars, rockets or other mass attacks, The Associated Press reported. The count only included victims of drive-by shootings and those killed by torture and execution. (Full story)

Two U.S. service members killed
Two U.S. service members were killed this week during operations around the capital, the U.S. military reported Wednesday.

Late Tuesday, a U.S. soldier was killed when his vehicle hit a roadside bomb while traveling south of Baghdad.

On Monday, a U.S. Marine died of injuries received in "enemy action" during an operation in Iraq's Anbar province, a Sunni stronghold west of Baghdad, the military said.

The Marine was serving in a battalion under I Marine Expeditionary Force.

The deaths brought to 2,666 the number of U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war. Seven U.S. civilian contractors of the military also have died in the conflict.

Other developments

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Tehran Wednesday. Khamenei praised the new Iraqi government and said Iran looks forward to the day when U.S. troops leave Iraq, according to an Iranian media report. (Full story)

The chief prosecutor in Saddam Hussein's genocide trial demanded Wednesday that the presiding judge step down, accusing him of bias toward the deposed leader and his co-defendants. (Full story)

Iran's president -- hosting a visit from Iraq's prime minister and expressing support for his country's beleaguered war-torn neighbor -- said the Islamic republic supports a united Iraq and will help the nation "establish full security," an Iranian news agency reported. (Full story)

The commander of the U.S. Marine force in Iraq denied on Tuesday that his troops had lost control of Anbar, Iraq's largest province, Reuters reported. In a statement, Maj. Gen Richard Zilmer, commander of the 2nd Marine Division, said media reports "fail to accurately capture the entirety and complexity" of the situation in Anbar. (Watch Gen. Zilmer react to the dire assessment -- 1:23)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/13/iraq.main/index.html

Of course, the reason why Iran wants us to leave is so they can get what they already know they are going to get sooner - control of Iraq. It's as though Bush woke up one day and said to himself, "Wouldn't it be a great world if the Islamic Fundamentalist country of Iran could control Iraq and have almost as much oil at their disposal to hurt us with as Saudi Arabia? Boy, that would be swell!"

Drunk commies deleted

13-09-2006, 19:45

http://i3.tinypic.com/2ljqf6x.jpg

The Black Forrest

13-09-2006, 21:58

If the shrub hadn't invaded Iraq, would the Iranian President ahmynameistoolong been elected?

Kryozerkia

13-09-2006, 22:02

If the shrub hadn't invaded Iraq, would the Iranian President ahmynameistoolong been elected?
No... but, it would be random conservative filled to the teeth with anti-western sentiments to boot.

[NS:]Begoner21

13-09-2006, 22:06

He's done such a great job for our country! :)

Of course, the reason why Iran wants us to leave is so they can get what they already know they are going to get sooner - control of Iraq. It's as though Bush woke up one day and said to himself, "Wouldn't it be a great world if the Islamic Fundamentalist country of Iran could control Iraq and have almost as much oil at their disposal to hurt us with as Saudi Arabia? Boy, that would be swell!"

Actually, I'm pretty sure that his reasoning was more along the lines of: "hey, wouldn't it be great to liberate tens of millions of people from an oppressive ruler who has committed greivous breaches of the Geneva Conventions? Wouldn't it be great to remove an evil dictator who wishes to acquire WMDs if he does not have them already? Wouldn't it be awesome to stop a despotic regime from supporting anti-US terrorism? I'm not going to wait around for New York to become a smoldering pile of rubble before taking action." One of the undesired consequences was indeed Iran gaining additional regional influence. You can't always get what you want, but...

Kryozerkia

13-09-2006, 22:08

Drunk commies deleted

13-09-2006, 22:09

Begoner21;11677545']Actually, I'm pretty sure that his reasoning was more along the lines of: "hey, wouldn't it be great to liberate tens of millions of people from an oppressive ruler who has committed greivous breaches of the Geneva Conventions? Wouldn't it be great to remove an evil dictator who wishes to acquire WMDs if he does not have them already? Wouldn't it be awesome to stop a despotic regime from supporting anti-US terrorism? I'm not going to wait around for New York to become a smoldering pile of rubble before taking action." One of the undesired consequences was indeed Iran gaining additional regional influence. You can't always get what you want, but...

But what? But you can fuck your long-term strategic and economic interests by destabilizing the world's biggest oil producing region and handing more control to the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism when you swat a fly like Hussein with a sledgehammer?

Hussein would have been a useful tool against Iran. Too bad Bush fucked it up.

Scarlet States

13-09-2006, 22:09

No... that was Colin Powell whispering this into Bush's ear...

I couldn't agree more.

Khadgar

13-09-2006, 22:09

Begoner21;11677545']Actually, I'm pretty sure that his reasoning was more along the lines of: "hey, wouldn't it be great to liberate tens of millions of people from an oppressive ruler who has committed greivous breaches of the Geneva Conventions? Wouldn't it be great to remove an evil dictator who wishes to acquire WMDs if he does not have them already? Wouldn't it be awesome to stop a despotic regime from supporting anti-US terrorism? I'm not going to wait around for New York to become a smoldering pile of rubble before taking action." One of the undesired consequences was indeed Iran gaining additional regional influence. You can't always get what you want, but...

Oh you can't seriously be gulliable enough to believe that tripe. Liberating Iraq wasn't an issue until they figured out there were no WMD. I still can't believe they weren't smart enough to smuggle some in. Proof they can't run a competent administration.

PsychoticDan

13-09-2006, 22:11

Begoner21;11677545']Actually, I'm pretty sure that his reasoning was more along the lines of: "hey, wouldn't it be great to liberate tens of millions of people from an oppressive ruler who has committed greivous breaches of the Geneva Conventions? Wouldn't it be great to remove an evil dictator who wishes to acquire WMDs if he does not have them already? Wouldn't it be awesome to stop a despotic regime from supporting anti-US terrorism? I'm not going to wait around for New York to become a smoldering pile of rubble before taking action." One of the undesired consequences was indeed Iran gaining additional regional influence. You can't always get what you want, but...

Really? Because if you didn't listen to anything he or anybody in the administration said you'd think he was trying to hand Iraq to Iran because, ultimately, that's exactly what he is doing. Trading one dictator for another, one oppresive government for another, one regime that may have been trying to get WMD for one who definately is and probably won't stop until they do. Seems like if he was doing what I say he was then he's doing a great job of it. If his aim was what you say, man he's really stupid.

[NS:]Begoner21

13-09-2006, 22:28

But what? But you can fuck your long-term strategic and economic interests by destabilizing the world's biggest oil producing region and handing more control to the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism when you swat a fly like Hussein with a sledgehammer?

Hussein would have been a useful tool against Iran. Too bad Bush fucked it up.

Sure, you can claim that stopping Saddam would "fuck" the long-term strategic and economic interests of the US, and you would probably be right from such a standpoint. From the same standpoint, it would be unwise to stop the genocide in Rwanda (Clinton did nothing quite nicely). But from a humanitarian standpoint and from a national defense standpoint, going into Iraq was the correct decision -- we stopped a horrible dictator and prevented 9/11 from happening again on US soil (at least with Saddam's support). Pitting Iraq against Iran, while it would help the US, reeks of immorality -- if anything, Bush is an honest and moral man. That may have been the objectively "best" course of action, the same way dropping the nuke on Japan was the objective "best" course of action. However, civilians would be the ones suffering. The last time there was an Iraq vs. Iran death match, it turned quite bloody.

[NS:]Begoner21

13-09-2006, 22:34

Oh you can't seriously be gulliable enough to believe that tripe. Liberating Iraq wasn't an issue until they figured out there were no WMD.

Actually, liberating the Iraqi people was an issue from the start. In Bush's speech on March 19, 2003, he stated: "my fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger...we have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

Scarlet States

13-09-2006, 22:37

Begoner21;11677729']Actually, liberating the Iraqi people was an issue from the start. In Bush's speech on March 19, 2003, he stated: "my fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger...we have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

I would love to tell you about how mislead you are, but alas it is late and I must be getting to bed. I leave you in the capable hands of the other users in this thread.

Yootopia

13-09-2006, 22:43

Begoner21;11677700']Sure, you can claim that stopping Saddam would "fuck" the long-term strategic and economic interests of the US, and you would probably be right from such a standpoint.
It stopped Iraqi oil being sold in Euros - this helped the US economy.
From the same standpoint, it would be unwise to stop the genocide in Rwanda (Clinton did nothing quite nicely).
Aye, that was rather a shame...
But from a humanitarian standpoint and from a national defense standpoint, going into Iraq was the correct decision
Humanitarian standpoint?

Fucking hell, it's a humanitarian crisis there!

National defence?

Ah yes... he'd clearly muster a force well armed and supplied enough to do any damage whatsoever to the US, and would have the resources to project it at a whim!
we stopped a horrible dictator
I'm sure the people of Iraq are pleased indeed with their civil war...
and prevented 9/11 from happening again on US soil (at least with Saddam's support)
Ah yes, because the support of Saddam makes these attacks more deadly...
Pitting Iraq against Iran, while it would help the US, reeks of immorality
No, he didn't do it because the resulting oil price rise combined with the market-ruining effects of September 11th would have lead to the US economy being fucked up in a huge way.
-- if anything, Bush is an honest and moral man.
*laughs uncontrollably*
That may have been the objectively "best" course of action, the same way dropping the nuke on Japan was the objective "best" course of action. However, civilians would be the ones suffering.
Wrong! See above.
The last time there was an Iraq vs. Iran death match, it turned quite bloody.
Yes, thanks to Rumsfeld!

I have a question for you - are you a puppet nation of UN Ambassadorship?

That would explain a lot.

Kyronea

13-09-2006, 22:44

Drunk commies deleted

13-09-2006, 22:46

Londim

13-09-2006, 22:47

Begoner21;11677700']Sure, you can claim that stopping Saddam would "fuck" the long-term strategic and economic interests of the US, and you would probably be right from such a standpoint. From the same standpoint, it would be unwise to stop the genocide in Rwanda (Clinton did nothing quite nicely). But from a humanitarian standpoint and from a national defense standpoint, going into Iraq was the correct decision -- we stopped a horrible dictator and prevented 9/11 from happening again on US soil (at least with Saddam's support). Pitting Iraq against Iran, while it would help the US, reeks of immorality -- if anything, Bush is an honest and moral man. That may have been the objectively "best" course of action, the same way dropping the nuke on Japan was the objective "best" course of action. However, civilians would be the ones suffering. The last time there was an Iraq vs. Iran death match, it turned quite bloody.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush didn't know what to do so he did something that he thought would get him support from the American people. He went to war...........though with the wrong nation. The Middle East may have been bad but once Bush interfered it became truly fucked up. Bush has on his hands a nation that is fast spiralling into civil war, another nation trying to get nucleur weapons and the blood of thousands of civilians and troops.

Minkonio

13-09-2006, 22:54

WMDs or the Civil "Rights" of Iraqis had nothing to do with the invasion.

The three main reasons would be:

1: Iran
2: Nuclear Technology
3: Oil

We moved in so we would have an easier time of invading/couping Iran when it came time to do so, due to their seeking of Nuke Tech, and their ability to stir up the Shiites in Iraq in order to sieze control of Iraq and very potentially Saudi Arabia. By controlling these two large sources of oil, Iran could devestate the American (and World) economy with a cutoff. Obviously, we could'nt allow them to hold us over a barrel so completely, so we had to invade.

Watch for something to happen to Iran sometime in 2007, or after the mid-term elections.

Vesperia Prime

13-09-2006, 22:55

PsychoticDan

13-09-2006, 23:14

NS General can get very repetitive.

Didn't you learn anything from Dave Chappelle? The real reason behind the war in Iraq is the personal vendetta Dubya has against Saddam for trying to kill his father.

"But if I can be real about it..."

"Be real."

"Real real?"

"Be real, man."

"He tried to kill my father, man. You don't play that shit. THAT MAN TRIED TO KILL MY FATHER!"
Ummmm...

On the afternoon of September 26, 2002, Bush was at a Houston fundraiser for Republican senatorial candidate John Cornyn. Surrounded by old friends from Texas, he made his most bellicose public comments about Saddam yet. There would be “no discussion, no debate, no negotiation” with the Iraqi dictator. He repeated the standard litany: Saddam had tortured his own citizens, gassed the Kurds, invaded his neighbors: "There’s no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us. There’s no doubt he can’t stand us.” But it was one particular line in this speech that would grab worldwide attention: “After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time.”

[NS:]Begoner21

13-09-2006, 23:28

It stopped Iraqi oil being sold in Euros - this helped the US economy.

And who said that no good things came out of Iraq? But how is Iraqi oil helping the US economy? I'd think that additional output of oil would drive down the price globally, not just in the US.

Humanitarian standpoint? Fucking hell, it's a humanitarian crisis there!

Unfortunately, we did not send in sufficient troops to secure the peace. However, we did set up a democratic government quite ably and we were able to remove Saddam from power.

National defence? Ah yes... he'd clearly muster a force well armed and supplied enough to do any damage whatsoever to the US, and would have the resources to project it at a whim!

No, but he would fund Islamic terror groups, such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. I consider 9/11 as having done "any damage whatsoever" to the US, and I don't want to wait around for history to repeat itself. What would be even worse is if he provided chemical or biological weapons to Al-Qaeda.

I'm sure the people of Iraq are pleased indeed with their civil war...

We didn't incite a civil war -- it is the fault of extremist terrorists and Islamo-fascists who would like nothing better than to take Iraq back to the Dark Ages. Unfortunate, but not the fault of the US.

*laughs uncontrollably*

I find no humour in that statement.

I have a question for you - are you a puppet nation of UN Ambassadorship?

I'm afraid that I am unacquainted with him, but I do hope that another poster shares my views.

[NS:]Begoner21

13-09-2006, 23:30

I love it whenever I see conservatives speaking of humanitarian issues when these same conservatives are completely for such horrorifying places as the secret CIA prisons and Guantanamo Bay. When these same conservatives vote down again and again any measures to actually help in humanitarian efforts. When, in essence, these conservatives prove once again that they are gigantic idiotic hypocrites.

Places like Guantanamo are horrifying? Well, they pale in comparison to what would happen if we didn't apprehend the terrorists. Think that torturing a guilty terrorist who would love to kill innocent civilians is bad? Well, I think letting those innocent civilians die because you don't want to torture him is worse. And I would never vote down a humanitarian effort unless it was extremely impractical -- grouping all conservatives together and calling them "gigantic, idiotic hypocrites" is just a trite stereotype without basis in fact.

Republica de Tropico

13-09-2006, 23:41

Begoner21;11677973']Places like Guantanamo are horrifying? Well, they pale in comparison to what would happen if we didn't apprehend the terrorists. Think that torturing a guilty terrorist who would love to kill innocent civilians is bad?

Oh, of course! Torturing (those you assume are guilty terrorists) protects America from terrorism!

That seems to justify just about anything, does it not? It's okay, it protects against terrorism. No matter what it is.

Gauthier

13-09-2006, 23:46

Saddam wasn't suicidal. He saw what happened to Afghanistan after 9/11. Believe me, he could be kept in line and used through threats and rewards. From a national defense standpoint we screwed the pooch. Jihadists from all over the middle east have gotten real world experience in making and planting bombs from Iraq, and when we leave they'll scatter and begin plotting to hit us at home.

Bush has done the spectacularly unthinkable feat of taking a brutal pet dictatorship like Iraq that kept the Islamist under wraps and turning it into World of Jihadcraft.

[NS:]Begoner21

13-09-2006, 23:55

Oh, of course! Torturing (those you assume are guilty terrorists) protects America from terrorism!

That seems to justify just about anything, does it not? It's okay, it protects against terrorism. No matter what it is.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that extracting pertinent information from terrorist does actually protect the US from terrorists. It's not like Bush is claiming: "if you think Pluto is a planet, you're helping the terrorists." However, if you are against the use of any means to gain information regarding terrorist plans, you are indeed helping the terrorists.

PsychoticDan

13-09-2006, 23:58

Begoner21;11678047']Actually, I'm pretty sure that extracting pertinent information from terrorist does actually protect the US from terrorists. It's not like Bush is claiming: "if you think Pluto is a planet, you're helping the terrorists." However, if you are against the use of any means to gain information regarding terrorist plans, you are indeed helping the terrorists.

Gauthier is right. The generation of terrorists that did 9/11 cut their teeth in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 80s. The next generation is cutting its teeth right now in Iraq against us and once the Iranians control Iraq they'll have funding from a nuclear armed state that may also have the largest oil reserves in the world.

Minkonio

14-09-2006, 00:09

Gauthier is right. The generation of terrorists that did 9/11 cut their teeth in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 80s. The next generation is cutting its teeth right now in Iraq against us and once the Iranians control Iraq they'll have funding from a nuclear armed state that may also have the largest oil reserves in the world.

That ain't gonna happen. Like I said, clearly the real reason we invaded Iraq was to get to Iran...You can bet your blooming onion that an America-backed Iranian Coup is slated for sometime before Bush leaves office...Once that's over, we won't need to worry about Irans' nuclear ambitions, and the flow of arms, training, and manpower to the Shiite rebels in Iraq coming from Iran will be cut off, creating more stability in Iraq.

Fadesaway

14-09-2006, 00:15

That ain't gonna happen. Like I said, clearly the real reason we invaded Iraq was to get to Iran...

Not to play devil's advocate here, but you do realize that by invading Iraq the US actually ended up strengthening Iran's hand, right?

New Domici

14-09-2006, 00:15

New Domici

14-09-2006, 00:17

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 00:17

Conservative thinking at its best. If you can't do something right, do something wrong... a lot.

What was Bush supposed to have done right that he instead did wrong (a lot)? Should he have taken the "right" course of action and rolled over and played dead in the face of Islamic extremism like most of Europe? Or should he stand up to the global menace and fight it at the source?

New Domici

14-09-2006, 00:20

Begoner21;11678047']Actually, I'm pretty sure that extracting pertinent information from terrorist does actually protect the US from terrorists. It's not like Bush is claiming: "if you think Pluto is a planet, you're helping the terrorists." However, if you are against the use of any means to gain information regarding terrorist plans, you are indeed helping the terrorists.

Yes. I believe that the last guy who was tortured revealed to us that his own wife, kids, and dog were all plotting to blow up the US and all had nuclear materials in their underwear. This was a complete surprise to the guys doing his background check, because their info turned up that he was unmarried. If we hadn't tortured him, we'd never have found out the rest of the stuff he talked about. It turned out that he even knew who killed JFK. It was Levi Harvey Davidson. Now we're sure that the next guy can tell us what that is.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 00:20

And staging coups in Iran... always a good idea.

The last coup we staged in Iran worked extremely well for a while, allowed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to continue raking in the Big Bucks, and saved Iran's economy.

Fadesaway

14-09-2006, 00:20

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 00:21

Yes. I believe that...

Yes, I believe that I can make up fictional information, too. Do you know that Hillary Clinton had an illegimate black child with JFK's gay, black, lover?

New Domici

14-09-2006, 00:22

Begoner21;11678111']What was Bush supposed to have done right that he instead did wrong (a lot)? Should he have taken the "right" course of action and rolled over and played dead in the face of Islamic extremism like most of Europe? Or should he stand up to the global menace and fight it at the source?

Um, you know that Iraq had a secular government right? What am I thinking? Of course you don't. You're a conservative You know that he was a fundamentalist muslim in league with Al-qaeda. And that we've already found the WMD's he was stockpiling. And you know for certain that he hadn't caved in to all of our demands before we invaded. Incidentally, what color is the sky in your world?

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 00:23

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any credible political analyst that would say Iraq was the source of Islamic extremism prior to the invasion.

Aghanistan was a certifiable breeding ground for terrorists -- they multiplied like rabbits under the rule of the Taliban. They received funding from Iraq and then sent that funding to more specific terror groups, such as Al-Qaeda. And look at the current civil war in Iraq -- do you deny that it is the consequence of Islamic extremism? I don't think you'll find any credible political analyst to back you up on that one if you do.

Sumamba Buwhan

14-09-2006, 00:25

New Domici

14-09-2006, 00:26

Begoner21;11678131']Yes, I believe that I can make up fictional information, too. Do you know that Hillary Clinton had an illegimate black child with JFK's gay, black, lover?

No. If Dubya's campaign people are to be believed, you're thinking of John McCain.

And while you may be capable of making stuff up (a skill you demonstrate in all your posts), you have yet to master the art of having a point.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 00:26

Begoner21;11677729']Actually, liberating the Iraqi people was an issue from the start.

It may supposedly have been an issue from the start, but not one which is recognised within international law.

New Domici

14-09-2006, 00:27

Begoner21;11678121']The last coup we staged in Iran worked extremely well for a while, allowed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to continue raking in the Big Bucks, and saved Iran's economy.

Yup, and there were no bad consequences that came from our overthrowing a democraticly elected government because it suited our imperialist aims. And it was exactly the right thing to do.

If you're going to champion that side of the argument, then you can get off your moral hobby horse about the "won't you think of the poor Iraqi children," angle. You're not fooling anyone except possibly yourself.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 00:29

Begoner21;11677964']We didn't incite a civil war -- it is the fault of extremist terrorists and Islamo-fascists who would like nothing better than to take Iraq back to the Dark Ages.

When was Iraq ever in the Dark Ages?

Sumamba Buwhan

14-09-2006, 00:30

What? Saddam funded the Taliban and AQ? Please provide a credible source for this information.

Fadesaway

14-09-2006, 00:30

Begoner21;11678138'] Aghanistan was a certifiable breeding ground for terrorists -- they multiplied like rabbits under the rule of the Taliban.
I agree that the occupation of Afghanistan was a just war. But this article wasn't about that. This was about the Iraq war.

Begoner21;11678138'] And look at the current civil war in Iraq -- do you deny that it is the consequence of Islamic extremism? I don't think you'll find any credible political analyst to back you up on that one if you do.

The current civil war in Iraq is due largely to the incompetence of the Bush administation by not even thinking about what would happen after Saddam was removed. And yes, I can find plenty of political analysts to back that up.

Neo-Erusea

14-09-2006, 00:31

Well, in my opinion, Bush had my vote cause Kerry wanted to ban guns and bring the nightmare in England to the US.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 00:34

Well, in my opinion, Bush had my vote cause Kerry wanted to ban guns and bring the nightmare in England to the US.

Which nightmare is that? The lower rate of killings involving firearms?

Minkonio

14-09-2006, 00:35

Because if the fall of the soviet union has taught us anything it's that when a country with nuclear material looses its government, you don't need to worry about nuclear weapons anymore. And staging coups in Iran... always a good idea.

I don't see how Iran's nuclear infrastructure could withstand bunker-busters and other high-explosives, do you? After we get done with those, it'll be decades before they can recreate their current level of R&D infrastructure.

Either that, or we'll guard the R&D sites with our military...That way we can let our new, friendly Iranian government have peaceful nuclear tech, while avoiding the whole "terrorists getting their hands on it" problem.

New Domici

14-09-2006, 00:36

Well, ce, Bush had my vote cause Kerry wanted to ban guns and bring the nightmare in England to the US.

You forgot about him wanting to force married Christian women to have abortions against their will.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 00:37

I don't see how Iran's nuclear infrastructure could withstand bunker-busters and other high-explosives, do you? After we get done with those, it'll be decades before they can recreate their current level of R&D infrastructure.

Either that, or we'll guard the R&D sites with our military...That way we can let our new, friendly Iranian government have peaceful nuclear tech, while avoiding the whole "terrorists getting their hands on it" problem.

What makes you think you would be able to put in place a peaceful government in Iran when you have spectacularly failed to manage to put one in place in the USA?

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 00:44

No. If Dubya's campaign people are to be believed, you're thinking of John McCain.

No, I simply used the "illegitimate black child" thing as an example -- I know that it was originally used to smear McCain in the primaries.

And while you may be capable of making stuff up (a skill you demonstrate in all your posts), you have yet to master the art of having a point.

Oh, snap! :)

The Black Forrest

14-09-2006, 00:45

When was Iraq ever in the Dark Ages?

Well?

One thing Sadaam didn't like was information readily available. Iraq didn't have a Cell phone network. Probably the only thing that has been done right for the Iraqis. It don't work great but they have one.

There was a corruption attempt over this by one of Rumsfeld's buddies. He lobbied and tried to get another friends cell company into Iraq and got pissed when the contracts went to non-us companies. It was valid because nobody in the ME uses the US standard.

Luckily a whistleblower brought that to end even though they ended up smearing him and firing him.

Not the dark ages but also not "modern"

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 00:46

When was Iraq ever in the Dark Ages?

I was referring to the Dark Ages as a point in time (namely, around 500-1000 AD). I was not referring to it as the state of the European continent at that time.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 00:48

The current civil war in Iraq is due largely to the incompetence of the Bush administation by not even thinking about what would happen after Saddam was removed. And yes, I can find plenty of political analysts to back that up.

Yes, I admitted as much. Slightly short-sighted policies did not take into account the irrationality of Iraqi behaviour, which ultimately led to a lack of troops and the civil tensions (if I ever call it a civil war, it's for lack of a better term to express the situation concisely, but it most assuredly is not a civil war). However, the ones perpetrating the violence are Islamic extremists -- not the Bush administration.

Neo-Erusea

14-09-2006, 00:49

Which nightmare is that? The lower rate of killings involving firearms?

Actually the responsible citizens finding themselves defenseless at the hands of a criminal with a gun from the black market. You can ban guns all you want but outlaws will always have them. Always. And when you take them away from responsible citizens you take away the only defense.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 00:51

Begoner21;11678262']I was referring to the Dark Ages as a point in time (namely, around 500-1000 AD). I was not referring to it as the state of the European continent at that time.

Ah, right so you mean the time when the Islamic world was responsible for some of the greatest strides being made in invention, mathematics, scholarship, medicine and engineering?

Yeah, it would be dreadful to see Iraq dragged back to that golden age.

Saying that Islamist extremists want to drag Iraq back to the Dark Ages makes as much sense as saying that Christian fundamentalists in the USA want to drag it back to time of the Ming dynasty.

Minkonio

14-09-2006, 00:52

What makes you think you would be able to put in place a peaceful government in Iran when you have spectacularly failed to manage to put one in place in the USA?

There are allot of majority Shiites being stirred up and supported by the Iranians, this is the main reason, and they're (the Shiites) also being opposed violently by minority Sunnis.

With the flow of support cut off, and the eventual destruction of the shiite militias, things will calm down, but only once Iran is out of the picture.

Iran has a huge population of disgruntled youngsters, many of them itching to take over the government from the Mullahs...And who makes up the majority of the military in most cases? Young people.

We'll start mutinees, unleash the insurgents we've been training and arming, and sweep in with ground and air support to help them overthrow the government and destroy any large & resistant loyalist elements who're willing to fight. Then we let them pacify any resistance with maybe a little help from us. We won't be occupying them (much), just assisting them.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 00:56

There are allot of majority Shiites being stirred up and supported by the Iranians, this is the main reason, and they're (the Shiites) also being opposed violently by minority Sunnis.

....

We won't be occupying them (much), just assisting them.

Yes, but you didn't answer my question did you?

What makes you think you would be able to put in place a peaceful government in Iran when you have spectacularly failed to manage to put one in place in the USA?

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 00:56

Saying that Islamist extremists want to drag Iraq back to the Dark Ages makes as much sense as saying that Christian fundamentalists in the USA want to drag it back to time of the Ming dynasty.

No, because the Ming Dynasty was a particular empire in modern-day China -- it had no connection with America. However, saying that you want to drag America back into the Ming Dynasty time period (namely 1368 to 1644) would make perfect sense. Similarly, dragging Iraq into the Dark Ages (500 to 1000) would make sense. Iraq was torn by war during the early part of that period, for example.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 00:59

Begoner21;11678302']No, because the Ming Dynasty was a particular empire in modern-day China -- it had no connection with America. However, saying that you want to drag America back into the Ming Dynasty time period (namely 1368 to 1644) would make perfect sense. Similarly, dragging Iraq into the Dark Ages (500 to 1000) would make sense. Iraq was torn by war during the early part of that period, for example.

The Dark Ages only existed in Europe (of which Iraq was never a part), so it is the same as dragging the US back to Ming dynasty (of which the US was never a part).

Neo-Erusea

14-09-2006, 00:59

Another thing. In this debate about Iraq and Iran and terrorists, etc, I must feel for the Muslim people. Can you imagine how it must be like to be Muslim whenever you here about a terrorist attack by groups who claim they do this in the name of Allah? The Koran does not teach the killing of any person. I've read verses in that book. The Islam Fundamentalists are twisting the writings of the book to use it as propaganda. Can you imagine if your religion was being used as an excuse to kill people?

Minkonio

14-09-2006, 00:59

Yes, but you didn't answer my question did you?

Because we have'nt dealt with Iran yet. I directly implied that in my previous post, yet you chose to ignore it.

Seeing as how the coup will hand the Democrats more ammunition to attack us with in the mid-terms, though, I can't see it happening until after November.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 01:01

Because we have'nt dealt with Iran yet. I directly implied that in my previous post, yet you chose to ignore it.

Did you actually read the question? If it is in the US's ability to put in place peaceful governments around the world, why has it not yet put in place a peaceful government in the US?

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 01:03

The Dark Ages only existed in Europe (of which Iraq was never a part), so it is the same as dragging the US back to Ming dynasty (of which the US was never a part).

That's as absurd as saying that the year 1982 only existed in Europe, or that the 19th century only existed in Europe. I am not referring to the Dark Ages as the period of European history in which there was feudalism and the like -- I am referring to the time period associated with the gloom in Europe (namely, 500 to 1000 AD).

Meath Street

14-09-2006, 01:04

Begoner21;11677545']Actually, I'm pretty sure that his reasoning was more along the lines of: "hey, wouldn't it be great to liberate tens of millions of people from an oppressive ruler who has committed greivous breaches of the Geneva Conventions? Wouldn't it be great to remove an evil dictator who wishes to acquire WMDs if he does not have them already? Wouldn't it be awesome to stop a despotic regime from supporting anti-US terrorism? I'm not going to wait around for New York to become a smoldering pile of rubble before taking action." One of the undesired consequences was indeed Iran gaining additional regional influence. You can't always get what you want, but...
The price was too high for any "benefits" - and I don't believe we're getting any - to the west.

Don't give me crap about the US feeling charitable towards the Iraqis. Every country looks out for only its own interests.

Especially considering that Iran is a much bigger sponsor of Islamist terrorism than Iraq ever was.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 01:05

Did you actually read the question? If it is in the US's ability to put in place peaceful governments around the world, why has it not yet put in place a peaceful government in the US?

The US does have a peaceful government for the most part. However, to remain peaceful in the face of wanton aggression would be, at best, misguided. We are not belligerent -- we are simply fighting a defensive war agaisnt Islamic extremism.

GreaterPacificNations

14-09-2006, 01:06

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 01:06

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 01:06

Don't give me crap about the US feeling charitable towards the Iraqis. Every country looks out for only its own interests.

Really? Because, as far as I can tell, Iraq has been a fiasco for the US and Afghanistan has not done anything to improve the US economy. A country looks out for the welfare of its citizens and the welfare of the world in general. Some, of course, do not. However, democracies tend to do so more than other forms of government.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 01:07

Begoner21;11678352']The US does have a peaceful government for the most part. However, to remain peaceful in the face of wanton aggression would be, at best, misguided. We are not belligerent -- we are simply fighting a defensive war agaisnt Islamic extremism.

So the invasion of Iraq was motivated by Islamic extremism?

Fadesaway

14-09-2006, 01:07

Begoner21;11678271']Yes, I admitted as much. Slightly short-sighted policies did not take into account the irrationality of Iraqi behaviour, which ultimately led to a lack of troops and the civil tensions (if I ever call it a civil war, it's for lack of a better term to express the situation concisely, but it most assuredly is not a civil war). However, the ones perpetrating the violence are Islamic extremists -- not the Bush administration.

Most of the violence going on right now is not being perpetrated by Islamic terrorists but is happening between sectarian lines- Shia vs Sunni. That's not to say extremists aren't active there now, but the vast majority of the fighting, and what has been pushing Iraq closer and closer to full fledged civil war, is the ongoing feud between Sunnis and Shiites. Their enimity has existed for centuries, and I'm surprised no one in the White House even thought that the two groups might not get along when Saddam was removed from power.

As for Iraqi behavior though, it is rational, if tragically so. The Kurds want independence, the Sunnis are in the minority now and fear retribution from the Shia and the loss of oil revenues, and the Shia want revenge for their supression by Sunnis, oil revenue to be kept in Shia areas, and to keep political leverage. As the current constitution couldn't ensure all of their interests and the US largely alienated the Sunni population during the beginning of the occupation and cannot present itself as a neutral arbitrator, violence was a natural result. And depressingly so.

GreaterPacificNations

14-09-2006, 01:07

Begoner21;11678352']The US does have a peaceful government for the most part. However, to remain peaceful in the face of wanton aggression would be, at best, misguided. We are not belligerent -- we are simply fighting a defensive war agaisnt Islamic extremism.
Just like Hitler was fighting a defensive war in WWII against belligerent Polish expansionism.

Meath Street

14-09-2006, 01:07

Begoner21;11677700']But from a humanitarian standpoint and from a national defense standpoint, going into Iraq was the correct decision
I agree that the Rwanda genocide should have been stopped in its tracks but it can't be compared to Iraq. Saddam's days of genocide were over. More Iraqis are getting killed and hurt now than in 2002.

Minkonio

14-09-2006, 01:08

Did you actually read the question? If it is in the US's ability to put in place peaceful governments around the world, why has it not yet put in place a peaceful government in the US?

Oh, Jesus...You had me thinking that you were actually asking a rational question, rather than making a misleading "question" which showcases your kooky beliefs.

We do have a peaceful government here in the U.S...I live here, I assure you.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 01:09

Would you describe the US between 1840 and 1900 or thereabouts as 'Victorian'?

Whatever, maybe I mis-applied the term, I really don't feel like arguing this. You, however, understood my point -- I made it quite clear that I was referring to the not-so-pretty past of Iraq -- yet you are arguing insignificant semantics nonetheless. Why?

Meath Street

14-09-2006, 01:09

Begoner21;11678358']Really? Because, as far as I can tell, Iraq has been a fiasco for the US and Afghanistan has not done anything to improve the US economy. A country looks out for the welfare of its citizens and the welfare of the world in general. Some, of course, do not. However, democracies tend to do so more than other forms of government.
Invading Afghanistan has been beneficial to the US security, but the invasion of Iraq has probably benefited some oil tycoons and other big business types, but not the west in general.

New Domici

14-09-2006, 01:10

What makes you think you would be able to put in place a peaceful government in Iran when you have spectacularly failed to manage to put one in place in the USA?

From the tone of his previous post I suspect he would get on board with the Limbaugh Doctrine of "bomb them all unless they do as we say."

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 01:11

You fuckstick. :)

Well, that smiley looks kinda out of place. When I say "irrational" I mean "doing something that is not in their best interest." I do not mean that it is rational to assume that the Iraqis will not act irrational. Killing each other is not in their best interests, yet they do it anyway. That is the definition of irrational, and it is to be expected given the reasons you outlined above.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 01:12

We do have a peaceful government here in the U.S...I live here, I assure you.

How many wars or armed conflicts has Iran been engaged in in the last twenty years?

How many wars or armed conflicts has the USA been engaged in in the last twenty years?

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 01:12

Just like Hitler was fighting a defensive war in WWII against belligerent Polish expansionism.

You need to learn to differentiate between propaganda and reality.

GreaterPacificNations

14-09-2006, 01:13

Begoner21;11678339']That's as absurd as saying that the year 1982 only existed in Europe, or that the 19th century only existed in Europe. I am not referring to the Dark Ages as the period of European history in which there was feudalism and the like -- I am referring to the time period associated with the gloom in Europe (namely, 500 to 1000 AD).
Except that numbered years is something of an international standard in the measurement of time, whereas the 'dark ages' refers to a socio-economic era of backwardness in Europe. It is a title founded not on time, but upon the events within a given context. Here's another to chew on: You are dragging this thread back to the 'wonder years' of my adolescence.

New Domici

14-09-2006, 01:13

Begoner21;11678358']Really? Because, as far as I can tell, Iraq has been a fiasco for the US and Afghanistan has not done anything to improve the US economy. A country looks out for the welfare of its citizens and the welfare of the world in general. Some, of course, do not. However, democracies tend to do so more than other forms of government.

You're admiting that Iraq has been a fiasco and then using that as evidence that we did it to benifit the rest of the world?

Conservative logic gets more and more bizare every day.

New Domici

14-09-2006, 01:14

Begoner21;11678393']You need to learn to differentiate between propaganda and reality.

That's what he's trying to show you.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 01:14

Saddam's days of genocide were over.

Yeah, he didn't have any more Kurds to kill due to the no-fly area in Northern Iraq. Thus, he turned his attention to brutally oppressing and killing political dissenters.

New Domici

14-09-2006, 01:16

Oh, Jesus...You had me thinking that you were actually asking a rational question, rather than making a misleading "question" which showcases your kooky beliefs.

We do have a peaceful government here in the U.S...I live here, I assure you.

A government that causes chaos and bloodshed outside it's own borders is not a peaceful government. It's a stable one, but not peaceful. Move to Iraq and tell me how peaceful the US government is.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 01:16

You're admiting that Iraq has been a fiasco and then using that as evidence that we did it to benifit the rest of the world?

Conservative logic gets more and more bizare every day.

No, I am saying that Iraq is (present tense) a fiasco. I am not saying that it will be a fiasco nor that the current situation was foreseen when war was declared. War was declared to provide security to the US and the world in general as well as to remove a repressive regime.

Vesperia Prime

14-09-2006, 01:16

Begoner21;11678403']Thus, he turned his attention to brutally oppressing and killing political dissenters.

Well then they shouldn't have begun dissenting :rolleyes:

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 01:17

That's what he's trying to show you.

I realized that, ergo the ironic reply. It was attempt to get him to scream at the screen "damn you retarded conservatives! *@#*(%&*$@#%^&!"

Grave_n_idle

14-09-2006, 01:17

Begoner21;11677700'] But from a humanitarian standpoint and from a national defense standpoint, going into Iraq was the correct decision -- we stopped a horrible dictator and prevented 9/11 from happening again on US soil (at least with Saddam's support).

If US foreign policy were REALLY about humanitarian works, we'd have troops in Chechnya, the Sudan, and China right now. The fact that there are genocides and humanitarian crises all over, and we are doing sod-all about them makes a pathetic liar of the 'humanitarian' excuse.

As for national defence - Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11 in any way, and was responsible for no attacks on US soil. It's propoganda. All we did was started a genocide of our own in the Middle East, so that any fighting that is caused by our anti-Islam policies, will happen to other civilians - where the clear and prsent danger is.

As for support... do we need to look up the identities of the 9/11 protagonists, and see where they were from? How many of them were Iraqi's, do you think?

You might want to examine the divisions within Islam, also... in many ways, it is as likely that Saddam would directly fuel bin Ladin's 'war', as it is that Baptists would set up an abortion clinic.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 01:18

Begoner21;11678377']Whatever, maybe I mis-applied the term, I really don't feel like arguing this. You, however, understood my point -- I made it quite clear that I was referring to the not-so-pretty past of Iraq -- yet you are arguing insignificant semantics nonetheless. Why?

Why? Because it seems deeply symptomatic of a failure of hermeneutics. You are trying to explain the history of the Middle East by overlaying it with terms which are inextricably linked to European history. 'The Dark Ages' contains inescapable connotations of feudalism and a decline in the arts and sciences. Mapping such a term onto Iraq carries with it baggage which obscures the actual history of the region and is at odds with the historical reality: during the European Dark Ages Iraq was enjoying the Islamic Golden Age. In short it is a sign of your beliefs that western values imposed from above onto non-western states and traditions can solve their problems without taking into account their history.

PsychoticDan

14-09-2006, 01:18

That ain't gonna happen. Like I said, clearly the real reason we invaded Iraq was to get to Iran...You can bet your blooming onion that an America-backed Iranian Coup is slated for sometime before Bush leaves office...Once that's over, we won't need to worry about Irans' nuclear ambitions, and the flow of arms, training, and manpower to the Shiite rebels in Iraq coming from Iran will be cut off, creating more stability in Iraq.

And where is the political will or the manpower to do that going to come from? The armed forces have raised their recruitment age ceiling, doubled their recruitment bonus, dropped the highschool graduate requirement, are now looking the other way at past drug use, are using National Guard troops to bolster our forces, are breaking their own rules against how long troops can stay in the field and how often they rotate in and out as well as how many times they rotate in and out and are begging NATO to send more troops to Afghanistan and you somehow think we're going to have the manpower necessary to take on Iran, a country that is many times over more powerful than Iraq and Afghanistan combined were? We have rapidly growing discontent with this administration and specifically the war, this country will not stand for a draft and you somehow see us as having the political will to take on another front that will, in all probability make the previous two invasions look like a picnic? You are dreaming.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 01:18

Well then they shouldn't have begun dissenting :rolleyes:

As George Bush himself has said, dissent (although at times misguided) is patriotic. Iraqi dissent was both well-aimed and patriotic.

Minkonio

14-09-2006, 01:19

How many wars or armed conflicts has Iran been engaged in in the last twenty years?

How many wars or armed conflicts has the USA been engaged in in the last twenty years?
That does'nt matter.

Oh, and how many heads and hands has the U.S cut off in the last 20 years?

And how many has Iran cut off in the last 20 years?

Also, how many stones have been hurled at innocent women who had the temerity to take off their ridiculous potato-sacks, drive a car, get an education, etc., etc. without Iranian intervention in the matter, and how many in the U.S?

I can go on...You see, the only reason I wish to do this, is that Iran is a threat to our economic and security interests...And that's all that matters. "You can't save the world. But maybe you can save your own chunk of it."

PsychoticDan

14-09-2006, 01:20

Grave_n_idle

14-09-2006, 01:20

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 01:20

...a failure of hermeneutics.

You don't need to use big words for the sake of using big words, especially ones that don't adequately fit your context.

PsychoticDan

14-09-2006, 01:21

Begoner21;11678131']Yes, I believe that I can make up fictional information, too. Do you know that Hillary Clinton had an illegimate black child with JFK's gay, black, lover?

Torture her long enough and I'll bet she'll admit it. ;)

GreaterPacificNations

14-09-2006, 01:21

Begoner21;11678387']Well, that smiley looks kinda out of place. When I say "irrational" I mean "doing something that is not in their best interest." I do not mean that it is rational to assume that the Iraqis will not act irrational. Killing each other is not in their best interests, yet they do it anyway. That is the definition of irrational, and it is to be expected given the reasons you outlined above.

I understand. When I call you a fuckstick and place a smilie next to it it means two things:
1) I am attempting to avoid a likely mod-slap.
2) You are a fuckstick.

I think even a casual observation of the state of affairs in Iraq would grant that almost any kind of behavior could be deemed as 'rational'. People don't just pick up their charred belongings and spontaneously generate a functioning economy. Especially not with the unfortunate combination of poor people with little to live for, and guns. Your statement was not only wildly unrealistic in expectations, but also a little racially condescending. All of the problems in Iraq are a result of 'Iraqi irrationality'? Give me a break.

New Domici

14-09-2006, 01:21

Begoner21;11678417']I realized that, ergo the ironic reply. It was attempt to get him to scream at the screen "damn you retarded conservatives! *@#*(%&*$@#%^&!"

Your literal meaning was claiming to be able to differentiate between truth and propaganda, but you meant the opposite of that and were hoping to emphasize the point?

No Bushite needs to emphasize their succeptiblity to propaganda. It's like putting neon lights on the Sun.

GreaterPacificNations

14-09-2006, 01:22

Begoner21;11678393']You need to learn to differentiate between propaganda and reality.
*swoosh*

PsychoticDan

14-09-2006, 01:22

Begoner21;11678138']Aghanistan was a certifiable breeding ground for terrorists -- they multiplied like rabbits under the rule of the Taliban. They received funding from Iraq and then sent that funding to more specific terror groups, such as Al-Qaeda. And look at the current civil war in Iraq -- do you deny that it is the consequence of Islamic extremism? I don't think you'll find any credible political analyst to back you up on that one if you do.

Source.

Fadesaway

14-09-2006, 01:23

I understand. When I call you a fuckstick and place a smilie next to it it means two things:
1) I am attempting to avoid a likely mod-slap.
2) You are a fuckstick.

I have to admit, that made me laugh. :D

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 01:24

Seeing as how the coup will hand the Democrats more ammunition to attack us with in the mid-terms, though, I can't see it happening until after November.

So, destabilising foreign sovereign powers by utilising irregular military forces is an entirely justified thing?

PsychoticDan

14-09-2006, 01:24

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 01:26

Begoner21;11678435']You don't need to use big words for the sake of using big words, especially ones that don't adequately fit your context.

You were the one that pulled out 'semantics', and so I thought you at least had a reasonable college level education. I use 'hermeneutics' not in the sense of Dilthey, but in the sense of Habermas and Gadamer, as such it is entirely fitting.

GreaterPacificNations

14-09-2006, 01:26

I have to admit, that made me laugh. :D

Yet another tactic to transform would be mod-slaps into mere mod-pokes, or perhaps even a mod-prod.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 01:26

Also, how many stones have been hurled at innocent women who had the temerity to take off their ridiculous potato-sacks, drive a car, get an education, etc., etc. without Iranian intervention in the matter, and how many in the U.S?

I can go on...You see, the only reason I wish to do this, is that Iran is a threat to our economic and security interests...And that's all that matters. "You can't save the world. But maybe you can save your own chunk of it."

So you're advocating foreign regime change unsanctioned by international law?

New Domici

14-09-2006, 01:28

Begoner21;11678413']No, I am saying that Iraq is (present tense) a fiasco. I am not saying that it will be a fiasco nor that the current situation was foreseen when war was declared. War was declared to provide security to the US and the world in general as well as to remove a repressive regime.

But that couldn't possibly be the case because Saddam had already caved to all of our demands before we invaded, and Saddam was powerless outside his own borders, and within a good sized chunk of them.

Bush invaded to accumulate what he calls "political capital." i.e. He wanted to be in a position to tell people "you have to support me because we're in a war." He saw it as an investment. He saw his father's presidency and believed that his fathers biggest failure was "squandering the political capital that he gained during the war." Because he is so unimaginative he had no plan to look for a legitimate opportunity to gain that capital, such as invading the Darfur Region. He wanted to duplicate, and correct, what he saw as his father's failure, because he didn't think of any other way to get what he wanted, and wasn't willing to confide his true intentions in anyone who had the imagination to provide him with viable alternatives.

Minkonio

14-09-2006, 01:31

And where is the political will or the manpower to do that going to come from? The armed forces have raised their recruitment age ceiling, doubled their recruitment bonus,
True, but just this year, they both met and exceeded recruiting quotas...Quite an accomplishment.

dropped the highschool graduate requirement,
Not true. I recently called a recruitment office to see if the media hype was true, but it was'nt. They told me this point-blank when I asked them.

are now looking the other way at past drug use, are using National Guard troops to bolster our forces, are breaking their own rules against how long troops can stay in the field and how often they rotate in and out as well as how many times they rotate in and out and are begging NATO to send more troops to Afghanistan
They're not breaking their own rules, they use the technique all the time, even in peacetime, when they need a specific type of soldier (like, say, Engineers) for example, and they need to train more, but they need one now.

You're swallowing the media distortions hook, line, and sink er'...

and you somehow think we're going to have the manpower necessary to take on Iran, a country that is many times over more powerful than Iraq and Afghanistan combined were?
Yes. Manpower does'nt even matter that much anymore. The main part of the coup will consist of Air Support, which we've got in spades, and we've already got plenty soldiers in Iraq to take Iran out with a little reinforcing. We've also got good seapower. You vastly underestimate us.

We have rapidly growing discontent with this administration and specifically the war, this country will not stand for a draft and you somehow see us as having the political will to take on another front that will, in all probability make the previous two invasions look like a picnic? You are dreaming.
It's not an invasion, it's a coup. And we don't need a fucking draft, we've got six million troops in the military altogether. And what are the little Peace-pukes going to do about it? Protest? Like that worked last time...

Minkonio

14-09-2006, 01:35

So you're advocating foreign regime change unsanctioned by international law?

Yes. It ain't like Iran has'nt violated it, and like others have done worldwide. It's just a matter of national survival.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 01:36

Yes. It ain't like Iran has'nt violated it, and like others have done worldwide. It's just a matter of national survival.

Are you suggesting that Iran could destroy the US?

Chellis

14-09-2006, 01:38

Begoner, Saddam saw the kurds as terrorist supporters. His tactics probably worked about as well at killing terrorists as ours did. both the US and Iraq killed lots of civilians to fairly low numbers of terrorists/insurgents. Why can the US torture and kill terrorists, but not saddam?

Furthermore, Saddam's Iraq did not support Al-queda. The US gov. doesn't even maintain this anymore. We didn't find any WMD's, and there were UN inspectors in Iraq, looking for them or attempts to make them. If they had gotten kicked out again, we might have had a good reason to go in. But he had already caved in to demands.

Finally, the death toll in Iraq annually has gone up by a lot since we came in. They are even worse of economically, and their govt. is just a US puppet govt.

So the WMD argument is out, the betterment of the iraqi people argument is out, and the terrorist argument is out. Do you have anything else?

New Zealandium

14-09-2006, 01:38

It's not an invasion, it's a coup. And we don't need a fucking draft, we've got six million troops in the military altogether. And what are the little Peace-pukes going to do about it? Protest? Like that worked last time...

Invasion, by wikipedia.
Invasion is a military action consisting of troops entering a foreign land (a nation or territory, or part of that), often resulting in the invading power occupying the area, whether briefly or for a long period. Euphemistically, an invasion is sometimes referred to as an intervention.

Coup, by wikipedia
A coup d'état (pronounced 'kū dā ta'), or simply a 'coup', is the sudden overthrow of a government, usually done by a small group that just replaces the top power figures. It is different from a revolution, which is staged by a larger group and radically changes the political system. The term is French for "a sudden stroke, or blow, of a state".

Tell me, which one seems more appropriate? The entrance of foreign troops, or a group of people replacing the leaders?

My friend, this is an Invasion.

Meath Street

14-09-2006, 01:40

It's not an invasion, it's a coup. And we don't need a fucking draft, we've got six million troops in the military altogether.
Where are all these troops? The US doesn't even have enough in IRaq or Afghanistan.

And what are the little Peace-pukes going to do about it? Protest? Like that worked last time...
What should they do, bomb the Pentagon?

Peace > war

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 01:45

Your literal meaning was claiming to be able to differentiate between truth and propaganda, but you meant the opposite of that and were hoping to emphasize the point?

No Bushite needs to emphasize their succeptiblity to propaganda. It's like putting neon lights on the Sun.

No, I knew he thought I couldn't differentiate between propaganda and reality, and, for a ironic twist, I claimed that he could not differentiate between propaganda and reality in the Poland/Germany example he gave.

Daminik

14-09-2006, 01:50

According To Wikipedia-

United States Armed Forces
Military Manpower
Military age: 17-45 years old
Availability males & females ages 17-49: 134,813,023 (2005 est.).
Citizenship Regular Army: No Citizenship Requirement For Enlisted Members / All Officers must be US Citizens. National Guard: Citizens Only.
Reaching military age annually males & females: 4,180,074 (2005 est.)
Total armed forces 1,421,950 (Ranked 2nd)
Active troops 1,421,950 (Ranked 2nd)
Total troops 2,361,289 (Ranked 7th)

PsychoticDan

14-09-2006, 01:51

True, but just this year, they both met and exceeded recruiting quotas...Quite an accomplishment. Source.

Not true. I recently called a recruitment office to see if the media hype was true, but it was'nt. They told me this point-blank when I asked them.Really?

Education: Non-High School Graduate
You are considered a non-high school graduate candidate if you are neither a high school graduate nor an alternative credential holder (high school equivalency). It is extremely rare to be accepted into the Navy if you have not met the high school graduate or high school equivalency requirements. To be admitted as a non-high school graduate, you must score markedly higher on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) than high school graduate and high school equivalency candidates. The ASVAB is taken by all Navy applicants and used to determine, among other things, which careers you’d qualify for based on aptitude to be trained for those careers. If you have questions, contact a recruiter.

They're not breaking their own rules, they use the technique all the time, even in peacetime, when they need a specific type of soldier (like, say, Engineers) for example, and they need to train more, but they need one now.Having some guy who's supposed to be on vacation come back to work on a ship in dry dock is a very different thing than holding an entire regiment in a war zone for months longer than they were supposed to and having them rotate back into the battlefield faster and more often than your own rules call for. It's also not so great for morale. In anycase, if we had the personel you seem to think we do we wouldn't need to do that at all.

You're swallowing the media distortions hook, line, and sink er'...No, you're listening to too much Hannity.

Yes. Manpower does'nt even matter that much anymore. The main part of the coup will consist of Air Support, which we've got in spades, and we've already got plenty soldiers in Iraq to take Iran out with a little reinforcing. We've also got good seapower. You vastly underestimate us.This comes right from Rummy's playbook. This is exactly teh reason we have bungled Iraq. This kind of arrogance that says that we don't need to boots on the ground to control the inevitable looting and rioting after an invasion. Worked swimmingly in Iraq.

It's not an invasion, it's a coup. And we don't need a fucking draft, we've got six million troops in the military altogether.Yeah, and once we start rotating all those nurses and janitors that comprise the vast majority of the numbers you just quoted I'm sure our victory will be swift. Source on those numbers, please, with a differentiation between combat troops and maintenance personal, cooks, nurses, etc... And what are the little Peace-pukes going to do about it? Protest? Like that worked last time...

The country will vote anyone proposing it out. It would be political suicide.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 01:51

It's not an invasion, it's a coup. And we don't need a fucking draft, we've got six million troops in the military altogether.

Six million, eh? How do you get that figure? Seems about four times too large.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 01:52

You were the one that pulled out 'semantics', and so I thought you at least had a reasonable college level education. I use 'hermeneutics' not in the sense of Dilthey, but in the sense of Habermas and Gadamer, as such it is entirely fitting.

Semantics = 9 letters. Hermeneutics = 12 letters, not to mention obscure when not relating to religious interpretation. And no, I don't have a college level education. Wikipedia's definition states: "in contemporary usage, hermeneutics often refers to study of the interpretation of Biblical texts."

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 01:56

Begoner21;11678604']Semantics = 9 letters. Hermeneutics = 12 letters, not to mention obscure when not relating to religious interpretation.

Interpretation = 14 letters.

However... to throw you a bone, hermeneutics refers not only to the understanding of texts, but also to the viewpoints and motivations of others, particularly with respect to those with which one comes into conflict, whether cultural, political or physical.

Fadesaway

14-09-2006, 01:57

Interpretation = 14 letters.

Touche = 6 letters.

PsychoticDan

14-09-2006, 01:59

Semantics = 9 letters

Hermeneutics = 12 letters

Interpretation = 14 letters

Touche = 6 letters

Catching a total Bushite in their bullshit = Priceless:)

Secret aj man

14-09-2006, 02:13

Congo--Kinshasa

14-09-2006, 02:16

Grave_n_idle

14-09-2006, 02:19

gotta give you a thunbs up on that..i really like the sledgehammer analogy also

I'm somewhat frustrated by the argument 'Yeah, but Saddam was kiling people!'

Do these people think our soldiers are over there LICKING people?

What do they think is happening in these 'inter-sect' conflicts?

Congo--Kinshasa

14-09-2006, 02:21

Congo--Kinshasa

14-09-2006, 02:24

Congo--Kinshasa

14-09-2006, 02:30

How many wars or armed conflicts has Iran been engaged in in the last twenty years?

How many wars or armed conflicts has the USA been engaged in in the last twenty years?

Iran = 1 (but it was in self-defense)

U.S.A. = Over 5

Daminik

14-09-2006, 02:35

Iran = 1 (but it was in self-defense)

U.S.A. = Over 5

I believe some of those armed conflicts the USA was involved in were "peacekeeping missions".

And Iran uses covert guerilla organizations to do its dirty work

Congo--Kinshasa

14-09-2006, 02:38

I believe some of those armed conflicts the USA was involved in were "peacekeeping missions".

And Iran uses covert guerilla organizations to do its dirty work

Peacekeeping or not, they were still armed conflicts.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 02:43

And Iran uses covert guerilla organizations to do its dirty work

You say this as if the US don't.

Daminik

14-09-2006, 02:49

You say this as if the US don't.

Yeah... thats true...

Peacekeeping or not, they were still armed conflicts.

America is in many alliances and world organizations, such as NATO, and as a result is more active in conflicts around the world, whereas Iran is too busy with instability at home to worry about poor african/central American countries that are killing themselves.

Congo--Kinshasa

14-09-2006, 14:08

Begoner21;11678423']As George Bush himself has said, dissent (although at times misguided) is patriotic.

If he considers dissent patriotic, explain the "Patriot Act" and his spying on U.S. citizens.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 14:32

If he considers dissent patriotic, explain the "Patriot Act" and his spying on U.S. citizens.

He wishes to protect law-abiding American citizens from terrorists. Right to life > right to have private conversations with your gf.

New Domici

14-09-2006, 15:43

A) It's not our job to police the world.

B) Saddam posed no threat to us - none whatsoever.

C) What of dictators Bush loves, like Karimov, Musharaff, the Saudis, etc.? Should we invade their countries, too?

If you use consistent logic then the terrorists win. You got to go with your gut. Your moods. The flip of a coin.

First you start with a position, "we're going to 'get' Saddam." Then you come up with your reasons. If you start with reasons first and then base your actions on your reasons then how do you know which facts to look at and which to ignore?

You were responding to Begoner21. He's a master of the technique I'm talking about. The other day he posted a graph that showed how unemployment numbers went down after the minimum wage was increased, and by only looking at the part of the graph that corresponded to the day the hike was instituted until unemployment began it's long and steady drop, ignoring it's long steady climb before the wage hike, he was able to argue that the unemployment rate rose because of the wage hike.

If he were going to use your rules, first analyze the information, then draw conclusions, then how would he have known what he wanted that graph to tell him? You see, that's why you have to do your thinking with your 'gut.' Because cocaine doesn't fry your gut's thinking capacity... What? You don't take cocaine? Well, maybe you can use your brain for thinking instead, but you still can't beat the gut for the ability to pass massive amounts of shit.

New Domici

14-09-2006, 15:54

Begoner21;11680029']He wishes to protect law-abiding American citizens from terrorists. Right to life > right to have private conversations with your gf.

This is what justifies liberals in believing conservatives cowards. That and the fact that everytime he tells you that there's a threat you like him more.

He does not wish to protect law-abiding citizens because the wire-tapping program started before 9/11, back when he had not so much as a single meeting about terrorism. After the Clinton administration had one a week and told him that it was going to be his biggest problem.

Rambhutan

14-09-2006, 16:03

If you use consistent logic then the terrorists win. You got to go with your gut. Your moods. The flip of a coin.

First you start with a position, "we're going to 'get' Saddam." Then you come up with your reasons. If you start with reasons first and then base your actions on your reasons then how do you know which facts to look at and which to ignore?

You were responding to Begoner21. He's a master of the technique I'm talking about. The other day he posted a graph that showed how unemployment numbers went down after the minimum wage was increased, and by only looking at the part of the graph that corresponded to the day the hike was instituted until unemployment began it's long and steady drop, ignoring it's long steady climb before the wage hike, he was able to argue that the unemployment rate rose because of the wage hike.

If he were going to use your rules, first analyze the information, then draw conclusions, then how would he have known what he wanted that graph to tell him? You see, that's why you have to do your thinking with your 'gut.' Because cocaine doesn't fry your gut's thinking capacity... What? You don't take cocaine? Well, maybe you can use your brain for thinking instead, but you still can't beat the gut for the ability to pass massive amounts of shit.

erm...this is just jibberish

PsychoticDan

14-09-2006, 16:04

erm...this is just jibberish

I thought it was reasonably well crafted sarcasm. :)

Rambhutan

14-09-2006, 16:09

I thought it was reasonably well crafted sarcasm. :)

Are you sure?

Bul-Katho

14-09-2006, 16:16

I think Bush should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq : /

Oh well, who cares, if people want to enlist and fight, they can go for it.

But islamic fascism is a very real thing ever since Jimmy Carter left our greatest ally of the middle east fall to the iranian revolutionaries. To the Munich olympics of 1972.

But it doesn't end there, almost all countries of the middle east have been consumed into their own ideals and not care about others. Where people of other religious beliefs are tortured, imprisoned, and even killed.

War should not be fought for the pursuit of personal gain, unless you're an imperial. But War is to fight for ones ideals. A freer world, or an imprisoned world. A safer world, or a chaotic world. A peaceful world, or a continuing conflicted world.

But the Iraq invasion, even if it wasn't for WMD's or Al-Qaeda ( even though they are there). But to actually let people breath freely, and learn tolerance and temperance. You can't expect a nation who have been living under tyranny for a lifetime expect to learn everything about why there must be freedom, because these people's culture of war has always been fought on the religious front. They've always been united under their religious beliefs and only theres. They will learn, and they will love to see how wonderful their country will be for their children and their children's children.

So just put down the complicated mind, and put on the more simpler one, is good coming out of it? Is the amount of blood given by those freely, to serve american ideals, and to bring justice to tyrannical leaders. Is it worth it? This is a question that is always asking us yet with ignorant answers given by both sides, when the real question does not lie for us to answer, but to those who we are serving! The iraqi people.

Scarlet States

14-09-2006, 16:26

PsychoticDan

14-09-2006, 16:45

Are you sure?

Based on his next post and others I have seen, I am reasonably sure. Unless he's sparking a dube.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 18:10

If you use consistent logic then the terrorists win. You got to go with your gut. Your moods. The flip of a coin. First you start with a position, "we're going to 'get' Saddam." Then you come up with your reasons. If you start with reasons first and then base your actions on your reasons then how do you know which facts to look at and which to ignore?

That was the not the way the logic flowed. Nonetheless, even if it was like that, it would not be necessarily inconsistent if the reasons we found were sufficient to back up our assertions. In science, do you create a theory and then look for observations to substantiate it? No, you base your theory on observations. Same thing we did. There were several things which we observed. First of all, Saddam was a horrible, repressive, genocidal maniac who ruled with an iron fist, killing those who dared disagree with him. Second of all, we observed that Saddam did use chemical weapons before, he was certainly not obliging to weapons inspectors, and he did not destroy all of his WMDs. Third of all, we assessed that he was giving aid to the Taliban and most likely Al-Qaeda. From these three observations we crafted a theory -- namely, that Saddam was a danger to the world and to his own people. Then we decided to act on our knowledge. We attempted to bring the UN about to our way of thinking, but we were not successful. Thus, we decided to take action by ourselves, since the UN was too pussy to help us.

Liuzzo

14-09-2006, 18:22

Begoner21;11677700']Sure, you can claim that stopping Saddam would "fuck" the long-term strategic and economic interests of the US, and you would probably be right from such a standpoint. From the same standpoint, it would be unwise to stop the genocide in Rwanda (Clinton did nothing quite nicely). But from a humanitarian standpoint and from a national defense standpoint, going into Iraq was the correct decision -- we stopped a horrible dictator and prevented 9/11 from happening again on US soil (at least with Saddam's support). Pitting Iraq against Iran, while it would help the US, reeks of immorality -- if anything, Bush is an honest and moral man. That may have been the objectively "best" course of action, the same way dropping the nuke on Japan was the objective "best" course of action. However, civilians would be the ones suffering. The last time there was an Iraq vs. Iran death match, it turned quite bloody.

SADDAM had nothing to do with Al Queada and even less to do with 9/11. Less than nothing you ask? Yes, less than nothing and I'm tired of you ill informed plebocytes mentioning this again and again. Saddam and his government never turned a blind eye to Al Quaeda in Iraq as the senate intelligence committee has stated. Every single one of your assumptions is wrong so how the hell could your final answer be right? Further, the last time there was an Iraq- Iran deathmatch we chose to play on Saddam's side. I have the pictures to prove it. The civilains are suffering now in the sectarian violence crated by Bush's ineptitude and horrible post war planning. Over 130,000 civilians have dies according to the state department so how can they suffer more? Your post has to be one of the most inane and illogical I have ever seen. Read something other than the talking points posted on their website. I hope this was satire on your part because otherwise I pray for your soul.

Liuzzo

14-09-2006, 18:36

:mp5: Begoner21;11678393']You need to learn to differentiate between propaganda and reality.

and you've come up with some conveluted bullshit

Yootopia

14-09-2006, 18:37

Begoner21;11677964']And who said that no good things came out of Iraq? But how is Iraqi oil helping the US economy? I'd think that additional output of oil would drive down the price globally, not just in the US.
Iraqi oil is helping the US economy by supplying its oversized demand for oil...

It does affect the global price, but since the US uses a vast amount of oil, it affects the US economy the most.
Unfortunately, we did not send in sufficient troops to secure the peace.
Troops per se were not needed.

Troops with a good knowledge of the culture and language of the region, and a good degree of kindness, would have been useful, and even then, troops alone cannot 'secure peace' as you so eloquently put it, what actually creates peace is contentment with the new situation.

You have to remember that the people living in Iraq at the moment are people that looked favourably upon Hussein - after all, he'd been executing political dissidents at a pretty speedy rate and hence if you were still alive, you had to be at least pretty loyal to him.

Actually just shooting him when you found him may have been a far, far better idea.

Now he's in court, the focus is on the US to try him. He's got the advantage here - after all, he created the laws, and can always claim diplomatic immunity on the issue, and since the trials are utter shite anyway, (rigged juries, witnesses that have been paid to make false statements, witnesses disagreeing on issues, people that were "dead" that are actually alive and well today, amongst other problems) he's on the winning side.

He'll also appeal absolutely every decision made against him, and will win every single case.

And if we're having Saddam on trial - maybe a look at the actions of Bush Sr. (Highway of Death incident) and Bush Jr. (Fallujah as the main case) is in order too.

Because getting Bush impeached would be a beautiful thing.
However, we did set up a democratic government quite ably
Which has yet to acheive a bloody thing.
and we were able to remove Saddam from power.
Fantasmic. This has really not helped the situation.
No, but he would fund Islamic terror groups, such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Good use of the conditional tense there to show that you don't have a bloody clue.

Saddam disliked Osama bin Laden and wanted as little to do as possible with him. He did not help the Taliban to any great extent, or indeed Al-Qaeda for that matter.
I consider 9/11 as having done "any damage whatsoever" to the US, and I don't want to wait around for history to repeat itself.
And at what point did the Iraqi government orchestrate this attack?

I'd also like you to answer my question "how does the support of Saddam actually make this attack increase the death toll involved?".
What would be even worse is if he provided chemical or biological weapons to Al-Qaeda.
Hypothetical situation alert!

That didn't happen at all!
We didn't incite a civil war -- it is the fault of extremist terrorists and Islamo-fascists who would like nothing better than to take Iraq back to the Dark Ages. Unfortunate, but not the fault of the US.
Ever heard of "divide and conquer"?

Because that's what the US is doing at the moment. They're having nothing to do with stemming the flow of sectarian violence, basically because every single carbomb that goes off in a crowded market, or a mosque etc. kills off a few more people that are a potential threat to US troops in the area, hence it's really in their own interest to let it go on.

The civil war is due to the power vacuum created when Saddam was deposed, and since the US deposed Saddam, this is really their fault.
I find no humour in that statement.
Bush is about as moral as Idi Amin. He did drugs in the past, he's a recovering alcoholic, he is prepared to sacrifice thousands of American lives for a personal vendetta and prepared to kill thousands of Arabs over a lie.

He's a warmonger and a liar, he's not honest in the slightest, and the fact that Cheney's conned you into thinking that he is shows that he's got a team of ruthless genii in his government, sadly.

Rumsfeld, for example. What a bastard he is.

You might remember him for criticising the "Axis of Evil".

Here's a picture from around twenty years before that statement :

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2003/02/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg
I'm afraid that I am unacquainted with him, but I do hope that another poster shares my views.
He's a faux-Bushevik.

He talks with the same rhetoric as you, but he's actually being ironic about the whole thing.

Since you seem to be "Leave no child behind" material, I'm sure you would have gotten on very well with him, had I not told you that.

*edits*

Sorry my response wasn't posted earlier, I had to get to sleep at the time, being back at college and hence not on holiday and with no real reason to sleep any more.

Yootopia

14-09-2006, 19:38

Begoner21;11680895']We attempted to bring the UN about to our way of thinking, but we were not successful. Thus, we decided to take action by ourselves, since the UN was too pussy to help us.
No, you're confusing "they knew that it would end in a humanitarian crisis, and that Bush was basically just fulfilling a vendetta" with "they were too frightened to help us".

Because the UN is an international body run by intellectuals and thinkers, who thinks about the forseeable consequences of its actions.

Since its members are not elected by the general public of the world, (well... indirectly they are, but anyway...) it can act in a sensible way about things, and not simply rush into a situation due to political pressure, and has time to think about the long-term consequences of various actions.

It correctly judged a couple of things -

1) Bush had ulterior motives than those stated (that Saddam had WMDs and was a risk to the world), and had his own interests at heart, rather than the interests of the general population of the US in his mind.

This is why the war was correctly declared illegal.

2) This war would create an absolutely untenable situation for the people inside Iraq, and would lead to a civil war.

This is why it was unsupported by the UN.

Bush, on the other hand, is the leader of a government run by career politicians. These are people who try to improve the quality of their own lives, even at the expense of the country, if they can convince the public that this is the "right" choice.

Bush is an elected leader, and for this reason he needs to appeal to some groups of his public - basically reactionary conservatives.

For this reason, he tries to be as populist as possible, so as to keep power, and the long-term effects are none of his problem, because the most time he could be in power is going to be eight years - after that, it's someone else's problem, in his view.

He also needs to act fairly rapidly, so as to appease his voter base, and take away some of the pressure on his government.

So the contrasts between the two are enormous. Hopefully you now see that the UN is not "too pussy" and was actually "pretty sensible" about the issue.

Maineiacs

14-09-2006, 19:51

I have a question for you - are you (Begoner21) a puppet nation of UN Ambassadorship?

That would explain a lot.

Nah, he couldn't be. Assbassador was funny.

Yootopia

14-09-2006, 19:56

Nah, he couldn't be. Assbassador was funny.
Indeed. Ambassador at least had a touch of class...

Gauthier

14-09-2006, 20:07

I think Bush should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq : /

Iraq is relatively open stretches of desert compared to Iran, which has a lot of mountainous terrain. Taking on an enemy in their home terrain is a bad idea unless you say "Fuck the Environment" and decide to slag it all. Vietnam mean anything to you?

Oh well, who cares, if people want to enlist and fight, they can go for it.

Problem is, even people who want to enlist and fight need a break. But then there's Back Door Recruiting which pretty much shuffles them back into the fray. And when National Guard units are diverted from the Continental United States- which they're supposed to protect as their primary duty- to fight in Iraqnam, you have problems.

But islamic fascism is a very real thing ever since Jimmy Carter left our greatest ally of the middle east fall to the iranian revolutionaries. To the Munich olympics of 1972.

Israel fell to the Iranian revolutionaries?

Oh you mean the Shah, who wasn't even royal blood to begin with, but some aspiring Emperor Jones wannabe who was allowed to continue torturing and suppressing political opponents and dissidents simply because he sucked US cock on a regular basis. And you wonder why the Iranians called the US "The Great Satan" for supporting such a spectacular asshat? Not that it's any different from America's habit of supporting asshat prison bitch dictators that can do whatever they want as long as they dance to Uncle Sam's beat on request (Ngo Dinh Diem, Pinochet, Noriega, Saddam Hussein...). At least until we find them no longer useful then we concoct some "Liberating the Oppressed People" bullshit as excuse to dispose of them.

Gauthier

14-09-2006, 20:09

Indeed. Ambassador at least had a touch of class...

He never did tell us how Cheney's nipples tasted though.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 20:35

But islamic fascism is a very real thing ever since Jimmy Carter left our greatest ally of the middle east fall to the iranian revolutionaries. To the Munich olympics of 1972.

And the link between the Black September and Iran is what, precisely?

Grave_n_idle

14-09-2006, 20:38

And the link between the Black September and Iran is what, precisely?

This is going to be something about aliens and mind-alteration-rays, isn't it...?

New Domici

14-09-2006, 20:41

erm...this is just jibberish

That's because I got it from the conservative playbook.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 20:43

Iraqi oil is helping the US economy by supplying its oversized demand for oil...

Yes, and what better way to satisfy the US demand for oil except by destroying Iraq's oil infrastructure for a matter of years? Due to the invasion of Iraq, the price of oil has risen -- it did not fall. Currently, Iraq's oil output is only slightly higher than it was before the war.

Troops per se were not needed.

Sure, we could send in a couple of super-soldiers. Or we could have sent in hundreds of thousands more regular troops. The lack of law and order contributed to the current sectarian crisis -- the insurgency stretched US troops to the limit which did not allow them to police regular Iraqi civilians, who then turned to armed warfare against each other.

You have to remember that the people living in Iraq at the moment are people that looked favourably upon Hussein - after all, he'd been executing political dissidents at a pretty speedy rate and hence if you were still alive, you had to be at least pretty loyal to him.

What kind of messed up logic is that? Do you think he had chips implanted into his subjects' bodies so that he could tell what they were feeling? Almost nobody "looked favourably" upon Saddam, they just did not protest openly. Do you think that everybody who lives under any dictatorship likes the dictator simply because they're still alive? If so, you are pretty far gone from the land of reality.

Which has yet to acheive a bloody thing.

Again, the government does not have an army to support it...yet. Nonetheless, no government is far better than Saddam's government at any rate.

Fantasmic. This has really not helped the situation.

We have achieved one of our goals. We have to achieve several more goals before we realize our foremost objective -- a free and stable Iraq. Eventually, when Iraq becomes a beacon of democracy in the region, the lack of Saddam will be a good thing, quite visibly.

Good use of the conditional tense there to show that you don't have a bloody clue. Saddam disliked Osama bin Laden and wanted as little to do as possible with him. He did not help the Taliban to any great extent, or indeed Al-Qaeda for that matter.

Yes, and Hitler really loved Stalin (he wrote all about his gay fantasies in Mein Kampf...oh, wait. He actually said he hated all the bolsheviks and wanted them dead). Nonetheless, Hitler overcame his dislike of Stalin to sign the Molotov-Ribentropp Pact and divide Eastern Europe between them. You must be quite naive if you think that a personal dislike translates into professional avoidance on the scale of global politics.

And at what point did the Iraqi government orchestrate this attack?I'd also like you to answer my question "how does the support of Saddam actually make this attack increase the death toll involved?".

The Iraqi government did not overtly orchestrate the attack. However, it did fund the Taliban and had connections with Al-Qaeda. After seeing the success of attack #1, I'm pretty sure they'd want a bigger and better encore. And your question is like asking "why does buying a product from a company make it more profitable?" Al-Qaeda + Saddam's funding > Al-Qaeda + 0.

Hypothetical situation alert! That didn't happen at all!

I don't like waiting around for hypotheticals to translate themselves into reality. We were so sure that Japan wouldn't dare attack us, either. Shit happens, but you should be prepared.

Ever heard of "divide and conquer"?

Right, because we're going to win the war by giving the American public more reason to pull out of Iraq. If our strategy was to let the insurgency burn itself out, we'd be out of Iraq by January, 2009.

He's a faux-Bushevik. He talks with the same rhetoric as you, but he's actually being ironic about the whole thing.

Ah, I see. I can assure there is nothing "faux" nor "Bushevik" about me, and I am certainly not being ironic about my political views.

Grave_n_idle

14-09-2006, 20:45

Begoner21;11681335']Yes, and what better way to satisfy the US demand for oil except by destroying Iraq's oil infrastructure for a matter of years? Due to the invasion of Iraq, the price of oil has risen -- it did not fall. Currently, Iraq's oil output is only slightly higher than it was before the war.

So - under an oil-baron, president.... the fuel has become more plentiful AND much more expensive?

And, you think that un-amiss?

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 20:47

So - under an oil-baron, president.... the fuel has become more plentiful AND much more expensive?

And, you think that un-amiss?

Am I missing something here? First of all, what leads you to classify Bush as an "oil baron" president and what leads you to believe that he is anything but completely honest? Secondly, why would expensive oil be GOOD? It's terrible for the economy.

Gauthier

14-09-2006, 20:53

Begoner21;11681350']Am I missing something here? First of all, what leads you to classify Bush as an "oil barrel" president and what leads you to believe that he is anything but completely honest? Secondly, why would expensive oil be GOOD? It's terrible for the economy.

That's Oil Baron, UN abassadorship wannabe.

And expensive oil is great for oil companies like Exxon and Hallburton. Sucks for everyone else.

Guess who's running the government?

New Domici

14-09-2006, 20:56

Begoner21;11680895']That was the not the way the logic flowed. Nonetheless, even if it was like that, it would not be necessarily inconsistent if the reasons we found were sufficient to back up our assertions. In science, do you create a theory and then look for observations to substantiate it? No, you base your theory on observations. Same thing we did. There were several things which we observed. First of all, Saddam was a horrible, repressive, genocidal maniac who ruled with an iron fist, killing those who dared disagree with him. Second of all, we observed that Saddam did use chemical weapons before, he was certainly not obliging to weapons inspectors, and he did not destroy all of his WMDs. Third of all, we assessed that he was giving aid to the Taliban and most likely Al-Qaeda. From these three observations we crafted a theory -- namely, that Saddam was a danger to the world and to his own people. Then we decided to act on our knowledge. We attempted to bring the UN about to our way of thinking, but we were not successful. Thus, we decided to take action by ourselves, since the UN was too pussy to help us.

The empistomology that I sarcasticly described is exactly what the Bush administration was using on the Saddam issue. Like any fraudulent scientist.

He started with what he wanted to be the case.

Richard Clark, a highly placed security official, not a left-wing hack, but a papa Bush appointee, said that when 9/11 happened Bush's first instruction was "get me anything that says Saddam might have been behind this.

He then made up fraudulent evidence to support his pet theory.

Rumsfield said "we know where the WMD's are. They're around Takrit, north, south, east, and west... Somewhat. Colon Powell with his paintings of trucks with labs in them etc.

He then blocked access to evidence that his theory was wrong.

When Saddam conceded to all our demands and allowed weapons inspectors unfettered access, Bush pulled them out. Even then the weapons inspectors said that they had seen enough that they were satisfied that Saddam had no weapons left and posed no threat.

Then we took a departure from ordinary fraudulent scientists who would simply have faded from public view, disgraced, and he entered the realm of the comicbook mad scientist by causing tremendous death and destruction by attempting to "prove" his theory to a more prudent and sensible population that told him his theories are at best bunk, and at worst deadly. He has professional speech-writers however, so instead of "They dare laugh at me?! I'll show you! I'LL SHOW YOU ALL!! MUAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!" he said I will leave it to history to judge the rightness of my actions.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 20:59

That's Oil Baron, UN abassadorship wannabe.

And expensive oil is great for oil companies like Exxon and Hallburton. Sucks for everyone else.

Guess who's running the government?

Sorry, the text on the screen was kinda screwed up. Also, the only thing I hate more than a retarded liberal is a retarded liberal pretending to be a conservative -- the only thing UN would have been good for was raising my blood pressure. Second of all, neither Exxon nor Halliburton are in charge of our government, nor anyone who is on their payroll.

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 21:00

empistomology

I think we have already ascertained that Begoner21 isn't entirely happy with the language of philosophy. Mistyping it too isn't likely to further endear yourself with him.

New Domici

14-09-2006, 21:04

Begoner21;11681350']Am I missing something here? First of all, what leads you to classify Bush as an "oil baron" president

He, and much of his administration's staff are former oil company executives.

and what leads you to believe that he is anything but completely honest?

His constant habit of saying things that aren't true.

Secondly, why would expensive oil be GOOD?

Who said anything about it being good? He said that because both supply and demand went up creating higher prices for a more plentiful product that something is going kind of screwy with the product.

New Domici

14-09-2006, 21:07

Begoner21;11681335']Ah, I see. I can assure there is nothing "faux" nor "Bushevik" about me, and I am certainly not being ironic about my political views.

Oh calm down. He wasn't saying that you're French or Russian. He was just saying that your attempts to defend Bush's policies are funny.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 21:12

He, and much of his administration's staff are former oil company executives.

Former being the operative word. They left the highly lucrative oil business so they could render a service to their country -- boo, hiss! They should be celebrated for their patriotic decision.

His constant habit of saying things that aren't true.

Name a couple, if you please. I find him thoroughly trustworthy, unlike some conniving weasels who went on to become president.

Who said anything about it being good? He said that because both supply and demand went up creating higher prices for a more plentiful product that something is going kind of screwy with the product.

Actually, supply went down. You know, total oil - Iraqi oil < total oil.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 21:14

Oh calm down. He wasn't saying that you're French or Russian. He was just saying that your attempts to defend Bush's policies are funny.

Bush's policies are easy to defend because they are straightforward and transparent. He means what he says and he acts upon his own moral judgments of a situation. He has not been wrong often.

Vetalia

14-09-2006, 21:14

So - under an oil-baron, president.... the fuel has become more plentiful AND much more expensive?

Demand has risen faster than supply, narrowing the supply cushion and making prices much more volatile. It makes perfect sense, actually. Supply has risen, but not enough to keep up with demand which means more and more surplus capacity is activated to balance it out; in 1998, following the Asian financial crisis and OPEC's miscalculations there was nearly 5 million bpd of spare capacity. Now, following 8 years of strong growth and supply disruptions there is less than 1 million.

If you remember supply and demand curves, if demand shifts to the right than prices will have to rise to keep the two balanced unless the supply curve also shifts to the right. In the intermediate term, supply will rise and push prices down (as it is starting to now), but in the short term prices have to rise to balance supply and demand, mainly because the increase in supply lags the increase in demand.

Gauthier

14-09-2006, 21:18

Begoner21;11681491']Former being the operative word. They left the highly lucrative oil business so they could render a service to their country -- boo, hiss! They should be celebrated for their patriotic decision.

They're still shareholders, Bushevik.

Name a couple, if you please. I find him thoroughly trustworthy, unlike some conniving weasels who went on to become president.

Funny, Clinton never said Iraq had WMDs only to later admit he couldn't find any at all.

Actually, supply went down. You know, total oil - Iraqi oil < total oil.

And when demand is greater than supply, prices rise. You're really an economics major aren't you?

PsychoticDan

14-09-2006, 21:18

Begoner21;11681503']Bush's policies are easy to defend because they are straightforward and transparent. He means what he says and he acts upon his own moral judgments of a situation. He has not been wrong often.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

*sucks in his breath*

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahhhhaaaaaaaaaaa

*Sucks in his breath*

AAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahHASHAHAHAHAHAHAHAahahahaaa....

Oh, my side hur..

AAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Oh, my God....

Hahahahaha

*wipes the tears from his eyes*

Hahaha..

Oh, man.

Whew...

Grave_n_idle

14-09-2006, 21:22

Begoner21;11681350']Am I missing something here? First of all, what leads you to classify Bush as an "oil baron" president and what leads you to believe that he is anything but completely honest? Secondly, why would expensive oil be GOOD? It's terrible for the economy.

"Reporters have been particularly intrigued by George W.'s adventure in the oil industry, and well they might be. There was something about it that smacked of a shell game run by a very fast hand."

]""Bush was still at Harken [Energy, company that acquired a failing Spectrum 7 where Bush was CEO] when his father won the 1988 presidential election, and in January of 1990, the company acquired exclusive offshore drilling rights from the government of Bahrain.

Harken acquired those rights even though, according to the Wall Street Journal, the company had 'never drilled a single well overseas or in water,' and had to seek out additional investors."

"In 1992 U.S. News and World Report reported on some questionable dealings including possible insider trading involving Harken Energy stock. Although the evidence was serious enough to warrant an SEC investigation they ultimately decided not to punish Bush. Yet there are lingering doubts about Bush's activities and even about his Dad's political influence having a hand in the outcome.

Bush is 'from' the oil business. He ran for governor on oil-business donations. He ran for president on oil-business donations.

He also has a history of buying cheap, and selling dear... as he has done in the worlds of oil and baseball. Private profit is the motivator.

So - what advantage is to be gained from expensive oil? How about record profits and a failure to see 'windfall' taxes applied? How about the fact that his friends and allies are heavily invested in oil industry? Two more years will see a new president... what do you think Bush will be earning AFTER he leves office... and who from?

Grave_n_idle

14-09-2006, 21:25

Demand has risen faster than supply, narrowing the supply cushion and making prices much more volatile. It makes perfect sense, actually. Supply has risen, but not enough to keep up with demand which means more and more surplus capacity is activated to balance it out; in 1998, following the Asian financial crisis and OPEC's miscalculations there was nearly 5 million bpd of spare capacity. Now, following 8 years of strong growth and supply disruptions there is less than 1 million.

If you remember supply and demand curves, if demand shifts to the right than prices will have to rise to keep the two balanced unless the supply curve also shifts to the right. In the intermediate term, supply will rise and push prices down (as it is starting to now), but in the short term prices have to rise to balance supply and demand, mainly because the increase in supply lags the increase in demand.

I understand supply and demand economics. I also understand that a man from an oil background, with friend in an oil background, who will likely be working in an oil background in another... say, 2 years... stands to gain indirectly, and directly, from boosted oil prices, record profit, and a subsequent lack of windfall taxes.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 21:30

Bush is 'from' the oil business.

Ah, so because Bush is good at business, he therefore invadinig Iraq to benefit the oil business and himself? Maybe we should only elect poor, stupid presidents to be sure that they have no vested interest in anything!

Vetalia

14-09-2006, 21:32

I understand supply and demand economics. I also understand that a man from an oil background, with friend in an oil background, who will likely be working in an oil background in another... say, 2 years... stands to gain indirectly, and directly, from boosted oil prices, record profit, and a subsequent lack of windfall taxes.

Boosted oil prices have little to do with the Iraq war; this is a problem that started back in 1999 and has continued to the present. The amount of Iraqi oil production lost from the war has now been recouped, and overall production is actually higher than its 2002 level. The real disruptions are coming from Venezuela and Nigeria; the amount of production lost in those two countries is almost as much as Iraq's total oil production.

Also, windfall taxes would actually lead to even more problems; the last time one was imposed, the government ultimately made less than $80 billion over 8 years and impacted domestic production negatively, making us even more dependent on the expensive imported oil that had motivated the tax in the first place. If you want to do something about oil prices, let the market work.

PsychoticDan

14-09-2006, 21:43

Begoner21;11681632']Ah, so because Bush is good at business, he therefore invadinig Iraq to benefit the oil business and himself? Maybe we should only elect poor, stupid presidents to be sure that they have no vested interest in anything!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAhaahahahahahahahah!!

hahahahah

*sucks in a breath*

AAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahaha...

George W. Bush was an abject failure in every business he ever tried to run. The prescription drug benefit plan should give you a clue as to why. He bankrupted or lost money in all three of his businesses. In th oil industry in particular, he bought an oil company but couldn't find any oil - in Texas. The Bin Ladens gave him some more money to buy a new company and he won a contract to do off-shore drilling for Bahrain - his company had never drilled a well and never been in the water so of course he failed to deliver his end of the contract and, eventually, went bankrupt again. Then he bought the Texas Rangers - traded Sammy Sosa and sold it at a loss a few years later.

Barbaric Tribes

14-09-2006, 22:01

The whole world at this point can be summed up in one phrase.

"Anal Penetration."

Emminger

14-09-2006, 22:31

Looks like the majority here is correct we Americans screwed up again I say you talk and deal with Iran and us Americans sit back and watch as you (rest of the Great World) talk with Iran until your blue in the faces all your governments are so much better than the dang Americans I say to America in the interest of the world to pull out of every nation in the world come back home Lets deal with out problems not only pull our troops from the rest of the wonderful world but our money too I think it's time America locks its doors and all the money we save from investing in the world lets build the best military ever and build special missle silos to destroy any attempts to harm our home land, feed and house the poor with our own money, fix our health care and social security and to deal with all of our own problems first for a change instead of attempting to help out the ungrateful world who would obviously (from reading these posts) would do much better than the shameful America. Now this sounds like a much better plan to me. Also, so you all know that the world is constantly insinuating that the American People are the American Government when in fact those are 2 completely different things Look at our Poll voter turn outs. I still would love to see America do all I mentioned above. It's time we put Americans first for a change instead of putting the world over our own.

Curtissm

14-09-2006, 22:42

Seeking New Weapons

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497134

Bodies Without Organs

14-09-2006, 23:02

Seeking New Weapons

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497134

Do you always have this trouble telling fantasy from reality? Take it the RP forums, and quit spamming threads with your irrelevant bruhaha.

Congo--Kinshasa

14-09-2006, 23:14

Begoner21;11680029']He wishes to protect law-abiding American citizens from terrorists. Right to life > right to have private conversations with your gf.

Some guy once said something along the lines of those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither. Also, doesn't a certain Amendment protect us from abuses like this?

PsychoticDan

14-09-2006, 23:16

Maineiacs

14-09-2006, 23:19

Some guy once said something along the lines of those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither. Also, doesn't a certain Amendment protect us from abuses like this?

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither, and lose both."

Something tells me Begoner21 considers freedom and the Bill of Rights to be bad things.

Congo--Kinshasa

14-09-2006, 23:21

10 of them do.

The one I had in mind was the 4th or 5th.

Congo--Kinshasa

14-09-2006, 23:22

Something tells me Begoner21 considers freedom and the Bill of Rights to be bad things.

Ah, Franklin, that's who it was. Thanks.

*gives Maineiacs a cookie*

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 23:25

Some guy once said something along the lines of those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither. Also, doesn't a certain Amendment protect us from abuses like this?

What freedom of yours is being taken away? How has Bush interfered with your own personal freedom in any way? He hasn't done so with mine -- in fact, he has made America safer. The right to life is more important than the "right" to privacy. Ben Franklin would probably be rolling in his grave if he knew how ubiquitous the usage of his quote was among liberals. Do you think there were phones or international terrorists in his day? No -- the only thing even remotely close to modern terrorism back then were pirates -- and they weren't exactly inconspicuous.

Arthais101

14-09-2006, 23:34

Begoner21;11682202']What freedom of yours is being taken away?

Someone once said...an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.

But I guess in these days of the neocons it's "an injustice in america is an injustice everywhere, but an injustice against those damned sand ni--ers is just fine"

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 23:37

Someone once said...an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.

Yeah, because if I punch you in the face, someone halfway around the world is going to start crying. Anywhere =/= everywhere. Furthermore, a warrant-less wiretap is not an "injustice." Nobody at the CIA or whatnot is going to start a chain email saying that you wet your bed just because you told it to your mom over the phone. Grow up.

Sumamba Buwhan

14-09-2006, 23:41

Arthais101

14-09-2006, 23:42

Begoner21;11682258']Yeah, because if I punch you in the face, someone halfway around the world is going to start crying. Anywhere =/= everywhere.

“First, they took the communists, and I did not protest, since I am not a communist. Then, they abducted the Jews, but I did not say anything, for I am not a Jew. Afterwards, they arrested the catholics, but why should I bother, I am not a catholic? And when they came to get hold of me, there was, strangely enough, nobody left to protest”.

Any violations of our freedom and rights should be vigorously and [unceaslessly combatted, for if I do not stand up to the removal of your rights, who shall stand up when they come for mine?

Furthermore, a warrant-less wiretap is not an "injustice."

Unless you want to get the constitution of the united states involved. If you do, things get a little more confusing.

Nobody at the CIA or whatnot is going to start a chain email saying that you wet your bed just because you told it to your mom over the phone. Grow up.

The content of my conversations on my phone are of less importance then the fact that they are on MY phone. And nobody has the right to listen to MY conversations, unless they first demonstrate to a court of law the need to do so.

Gauthier

14-09-2006, 23:43

Begoner21;11682258']Yeah, because if I punch you in the face, someone halfway around the world is going to start crying. Anywhere =/= everywhere. Furthermore, a warrant-less wiretap is not an "injustice." Nobody at the CIA or whatnot is going to start a chain email saying that you wet your bed just because you told it to your mom over the phone. Grow up.

Considering the Wiretap Court had pretty lenient policy on obtaining warrants the whole Warrantless Wiretapping deal is nothing but an attempt to revive Nixonian Imperial Presidency. And Nixon wasn't above using the FBI to spy on political opponents. Dear Leader with Karl Rove? Oh I'll be surprised if they didn't try to wiretap their opponents.

Emminger

14-09-2006, 23:44

New Domici

14-09-2006, 23:45

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 23:45

Any violations of our freedom and rights should be vigorously and [unceaslessly combatted, for if I do not stand up to the removal of your rights, who shall stand up when they come for mine?

Yes, because Bush is abducting one racial/ethnic group after another and throwing them in concentration camps...right. Maybe we shouldn't throw prisoners in jail, either. I mean, if they throw prisoners in jail, who else can they chuck in there? Who else?! Get real and don't use exaggerated examples that are irrelevant.

The content of my conversations on my phone are of less importance then the fact that they are on MY phone. And nobody has the right to listen to MY conversations, unless they first demonstrate to a court of law the need to do so.

I'm sure a terrorist living in the US and plotting an attack would say the same thing. True or false: if the government cannot wiretap a phone without enough evidence to get it past a court, it will be harder to foil terrorist plots.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 23:46

So someone half way around the world would be justified in arranging to have you punched in the face?

No, but nobody halfway around the world is going to care that I'll get punched in the face. I'll care, sure, the people who saw it happen might care. But somebody living in Bangladesh isn't going to give a shit.

New Domici

14-09-2006, 23:47

well i haven't lost any freedoms that i know of just yet. All of these Freedoms that us Americans have lost. Is it for real or just an attempt to undermine the current administration? Well, fact is if you are the president anything that happens negative is your fault. When I was a kid I dreamed of being the President of America but today it is more of a nightmare. Who ever so sits in the Oval Office and lives in the White House all negativity is his fault that he causes. just my 2 cents.

That's precisly how freedoms are taken away. If more people were aware of it then we'd take them back in a hurry. Read 1984, or watch the new Star Wars movies with Jar-Jar edited out.

As for the "in your day" bit, you were a kid, you didn't know any better. Even Shakespeare (I think, not much for the Shakespearian, except to know that no one honestly ever claims to have read "3 shakespeares) said "heavy is the head that wears the crown." President, same thing.

New Domici

14-09-2006, 23:49

Begoner21;11682318']No, but nobody halfway around the world is going to care that I'll get punched in the face. I'll care, sure, the people who saw it happen might care. But somebody living in Bangladesh isn't going to give a shit.

But we're punching faces all over the world and terrorism is one of the results. You're like the school bully walking down the halls lunging at people and then crying when one of them socks you in the nose.

PsychoticDan

14-09-2006, 23:51

Begoner21;11682310']Yes, because Bush is abducting one racial/ethnic group after another and throwing them in concentration camps...right. Maybe we shouldn't throw prisoners in jail, either. I mean, if they throw prisoners in jail, who else can they chuck in there? Who else?! Get real and don't use exaggerated examples that are irrelevant.

I'm sure a terrorist living in the US and plotting an attack would say the same thing. True or false: if the government cannot wiretap a phone without enough evidence to get it past a court, it will be harder to foil terrorist plots.

False. The government is allowed to tap your phone without a warrent if time is an issue as long as they apply for the warrent within 48 hours. So, basically, if they have reasonable suspicion they can tap your phone right that minute as long as they file the necessary papers to get a warrent within two days. The problem with the Bush program is that they never filed any paperwork on anyone they tapped.

Arthais101

14-09-2006, 23:51

Begoner21;11682310']Yes, because Bush is abducting one racial/ethnic group after another and throwing them in concentration camps...right.

Pray tell, what is guantanimo?

Maybe we shouldn't throw prisoners in jail, either. I mean, if they throw prisoners in jail, who else can they chuck in there? Who else?! Get real and don't use exaggerated examples that are irrelevant.

Prisoners who have been found guilty of a crime by a jury of their peers or by a judge should they wave their right to trial by jury should be imprisoned. And no one else. There must be a line in the sand, a clear, fair, and impartial line that should never be crossed.

True or false: if the government cannot wiretap a phone without enough evidence to get it past a court, it will be harder to foil terrorist plots.

Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and if it is not permissable under the constitution, then it is not permissable, period.

New Domici

14-09-2006, 23:52

Begoner21;11682310']Yes, because Bush is abducting one racial/ethnic group after another and throwing them in concentration camps...right. Maybe we shouldn't throw prisoners in jail, either. I mean, if they throw prisoners in jail, who else can they chuck in there? Who else?! Get real and don't use exaggerated examples that are irrelevant.

I'm sure a terrorist living in the US and plotting an attack would say the same thing. True or false: if the government cannot wiretap a phone without enough evidence to get it past a court, it will be harder to foil terrorist plots.

You sound like a cowardly fascist little bitch.

The government can get a wiretap and then get a warrant 3 days later. That's been the rule since the 70's.

Bush was wiretapping before 9/11 happened.

Bush is NOT trying to protect you. He's trying to spy on American citizens to discover his political enemies. His cabinet members were in Nixon's cabinet, and that's exactly what Nixon did.

You're both a coward and a fool to place so much faith in Dubya and his neocon cronies.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 23:52

That's precisly how freedoms are taken away. If more people were aware of it then we'd take them back in a hurry. Read 1984, or watch the new Star Wars movies with Jar-Jar edited out.

Lol, to see what I'm talking about, read a fictional book written by a retard who thought we'd have an extremely fucked-up, high-tech world back in 1984 and who also made books about talking animals. If that doesn't convince you, watch a fictional movie with plenty of aliens and light sabers to see what I'm talking about. What next? Smoke some pot if you still can't understand?

Arthais101

14-09-2006, 23:53

Begoner21;11682318']No, but nobody halfway around the world is going to care that I'll get punched in the face.

The members of Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union would disagree, and do, quite often.

Sumamba Buwhan

14-09-2006, 23:54

False. The government is allowed to tap your phone without a warrent if time is an issue as long as they apply for the warrent within 48 hours. So, basically, if they have reasonable suspicion they can tap your phone right that minute as long as they file the necessary papers to get a warrent within two days. The problem with the Bush program is that they never filed any paperwork on anyone they tapped.

Actually I believe it is 72 hours. If in that time they cannot come up with a valid reason for a wiretap then they should probably not be getting one.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 23:57

You sound like a cowardly fascist little bitch.

Aww, isn't that sweet of you? <3. :fluffle:

The government can get a wiretap and then get a warrant 3 days later. That's been the rule since the 70's.

Sufficient suspicion is hard to prove in many cases. I think phones should be tapped at the slightest chance of there being a terrorist. If it isn't a terrorist, OK, we haven't lost anything except a bit of wasted manpower. But if it is a terrorist, then we've probably saved some lives. You must be extremely arrogant and egoistic if you would rather have a private conversation than save someone's life.

Bush was wiretapping before 9/11 happened.

Can you please post a link to when Bush started wiretapping without a warrant?

Bush is NOT trying to protect you. He's trying to spy on American citizens to discover his political enemies. His cabinet members were in Nixon's cabinet, and that's exactly what Nixon did.

Yes, and Hillary Clinton is trying to turn the US into the next Soviet Union. Proof? None.

[NS:]Begoner21

14-09-2006, 23:58

The members of Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union would disagree, and do, quite often.

Ah, the ACLU. The organization which seeks to help terrorists and pedophiles by hampering the government's ability to fight terrorism and crime. Don't you just love them?

Sumamba Buwhan

14-09-2006, 23:59

Begoner21;11682398']Aww, isn't that sweet of you? <3. :fluffle:

Sufficient suspicion is hard to prove in many cases. I think phones should be tapped at the slightest chance of there being a terrorist. If it isn't a terrorist, OK, we haven't lost anything except a bit of wasted manpower. But if it is a terrorist, then we've probably saved some lives. You must be extremely arrogant and egoistic if you would rather have a private conversation than save someone's life.

Can you please post a link to when Bush started wiretapping without a warrant?

Yes, and Hillary Clinton is trying to turn the US into the next Soviet Union. Proof? None.

that all you got? He shows that you have three days to get a warrant and you say he just doesnt want phones getting tapped? Pathetic at best.

Gauthier

14-09-2006, 23:59

Begoner21;11682364']Lol, to see what I'm talking about, read a fictional book written by a retard who thought we'd have an extremely fucked-up, high-tech world back in 1984 and who also made books about talking animals. If that doesn't convince you, watch a fictional movie with plenty of aliens and light sabers to see what I'm talking about. What next? Smoke some pot if you still can't understand?

Orwell was quite the brilliant propagandist who wrote those two books as a parable of real world politics. The fact that you can't see the deeper meaning doesn't come as a surprise. You're the perfect Bushevik material. I'd say you were UN abassadorship but at least he went to the extreme, offering to give Bush a blowjob and all.

Sumamba Buwhan

15-09-2006, 00:00

Arthais101

15-09-2006, 00:00

Begoner21;11682398']Sufficient suspicion is hard to prove in many cases.

Here's the million dollar question. If you don't have enough evidence to form sufficient suspicion, how do you know you're wiretapping the right person?

And if you think that's ok, then hell, let's just tap EVERYBODY, after all, eventually we'll catch SOME terrorists.

And so what if we let the administration listen in on the conversation of opposition groups, political opponents, and other groups that he doesn't like. We're after terrorists here folks!

History has proven time and again that a leader given power will abuse power, thus that power must be limited, evaluated, and STRICTLY monitored, to allow not one slightest bit of abuse.

I don't care whether he is, or is not. The fact that he CAN is concerning enough for me.

US Marine

15-09-2006, 00:05

He's done such a great job for our country! :)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/13/iraq.main/index.html

Of course, the reason why Iran wants us to leave is so they can get what they already know they are going to get sooner - control of Iraq. It's as though Bush woke up one day and said to himself, "Wouldn't it be a great world if the Islamic Fundamentalist country of Iran could control Iraq and have almost as much oil at their disposal to hurt us with as Saudi Arabia? Boy, that would be swell!"
George W Bush Is far more than doing a "great" for our country. He is nothing more than a peice of crap. Was it nessasary to invade Iraq? No. This War cause the US economy to be the same as ten years ago. meaning our economy shrunk back to as it was ten years ago because of this war. If Bush got assasinated/killed/died. I can tell you there will be a national holiday to celebrate that special day because he died. I can gaurantee you that When Bush dies. I will be dancing over his grave doing the Carlton Dance. Bush is the worst president I have ever seen. Much worse than one billion nixons combined together. I have no support of Bush at all. It shall come to one day that when he steps off as president that I will be happier than a person who has everything he wanted. I hae this to say to George motherf@ckin bush :upyours: you stupid S.O.B. You should be shot dead, get danced over your body, beat your body up. burn you up and burn your ashes with gasoline, and scatter your ashes. Its because of him that is giving the U.S. a bad reputation.

Congo--Kinshasa

15-09-2006, 00:05

Ann Coulter is that you?

ROFLMFGDAO

Bodies Without Organs

15-09-2006, 00:06

Begoner21;11682364']Lol, to see what I'm talking about, read a fictional book written by a retard who thought we'd have an extremely fucked-up, high-tech world back in 1984 and who also made books about talking animals.

Way to miss the point of the novel: it wasn't about 1984, it was about 1948.

EDIT: I had said 1947 originally, because I had thought it was published in 1948, actually it was published in 1949, but written in 1948.

Arthais101

15-09-2006, 00:06

Begoner21;11682403']Ah, the ACLU. The organization which seeks to help terrorists and pedophiles by hampering the government's ability to fight terrorism and crime. Don't you just love them?

If you mean "hampering the government" to mean "forcing the government to follow the supreme law of the land" then yes, I do.

Been a member going on 10 years now.

New Domici

15-09-2006, 00:09

Begoner21;11682364']Lol, to see what I'm talking about, read a fictional book written by a retard who thought we'd have an extremely fucked-up, high-tech world back in 1984 and who also made books about talking animals. If that doesn't convince you, watch a fictional movie with plenty of aliens and light sabers to see what I'm talking about. What next? Smoke some pot if you still can't understand?

No. To convince you read the news from any source outside the US.

To understand it read a book written by a guy much smarter than you. If you don't understand it, watch a movie that's written so that even 7 year-olds can understand it.

PsychoticDan

15-09-2006, 00:11

George W Bush Is far more than doing a "great" for our country. He is nothing more than a peice of crap. Was it nessasary to invade Iraq? No. This War cause the US economy to be the same as ten years ago. meaning our economy shrunk back to as it was ten years ago because of this war. If Bush got assasinated/killed/died. I can tell you there will be a national holiday to celebrate that special day because he died. I can gaurantee you that When Bush dies. I will be dancing over his grave doing the Carlton Dance. Bush is the worst president I have ever seen. Much worse than one billion nixons combined together. I have no support of Bush at all. It shall come to one day that when he steps off as president that I will be happier than a person who has everything he wanted. I hae this to say to George motherf@ckin bush :upyours: you stupid S.O.B. You should be shot dead, get danced over your body, beat your body up. burn you up and burn your ashes with gasoline, and scatter your ashes. Its because of him that is giving the U.S. a bad reputation.

Not too quick on the uptake there, ha? I understand sarcasm is hard to read, but I thought mine was pretty obvious. Everyone else got it.

Congo--Kinshasa

15-09-2006, 00:12

History has proven time and again that a leader given power will abuse power, thus that power must be limited, evaluated, and STRICTLY monitored, to allow not one slightest bit of abuse.

I don't care whether he is, or is not. The fact that he CAN is concerning enough for me.

*gives Arthais101 a humongous cookie*

Gauthier

15-09-2006, 00:14

No. To convince you read the news from any source outside the US.

To understand it read a book written by a guy much smarter than you. If you don't understand it, watch a movie that's written so that even 7 year-olds can understand it.

He compared Orwell to Star Wars. You've pretty much gotten a peek at his mental faculties. He's probably a part of the freak minority who found Jar Jar adorable.

[NS:]Begoner21

15-09-2006, 00:18

Here's the million dollar question. If you don't have enough evidence to form sufficient suspicion, how do you know you're wiretapping the right person?

Of course you don't know that you're wiretapping the right person. Bush is quite intelligent, granted, but he can't read people's minds. You just have to make assumptions about what suspicious activity is and then track it, even if it proves to be a false lead.

And if you think that's ok, then hell, let's just tap EVERYBODY, after all, eventually we'll catch SOME terrorists.

I think amnesty should be granted for political leaders in any party. However, other than that and maybe a few other exceptions, I completely agree with you -- we can't lose anything by wiretapping everybody. And no one can accuse the programme of not being fair. However, it may be too much information to process -- I'm not sure how sophisticated the system is.

And so what if we let the administration listen in on the conversation of opposition groups, political opponents, and other groups that he doesn't like. We're after terrorists here folks!

And if they listen in on the opposition parties, so what? Are the opposition parties discussing something illegal? If not, they have nothing to be worried about. It would not be legal for the government to leak every single little legal scandal involving opposition parties -- in fact, the information would only be analyzed by a human if it sounded suspicious.

Emminger

15-09-2006, 00:18

I keep reading about how bad bush is this and that what he and America has done wrong but i never read anything about how do we properly and respectively and humanely go after terrorists, oops...I said the "t" word which the dang Americans made up as an excuse to occupy and conquer a
3rd world country. Oh we did that for the oil too. that's why it costs me $90 to fill up my Ford Bronco, dangit, not a another dang SVU, dang Americans really are gonna destroy the World. :headbang: :headbang: ;) :sniper: :D

[NS:]Begoner21

15-09-2006, 00:20

He compared Orwell to Star Wars. You've pretty much gotten a peek at his mental faculties. He's probably a part of the freak minority who found Jar Jar adorable.

You need to learn reading comprehension -- or, as some elitist liberals would call it -- hermeneutics. I was not comparing the two, but rather ridiculing him for trying to prove his point by citing a couple of fictional examples. And yes, Jar Jar is quite adorable.

Congo--Kinshasa

15-09-2006, 00:21

Begoner21;11682510']Bush is quite intelligent,

And yet, he can't pronounce nuclear. ;)

Arthais101

15-09-2006, 00:23

Begoner21;11682510']You just have to make assumptions about what suspicious activity is and then track it, even if it proves to be a false lead.

To which I, once again, point to the supreme law of the land, which would bar this.

we can't lose anything by wiretapping everybody.

Damned pesky constitution again.

And if they listen in on the opposition parties, so what? Are the opposition parties discussing something illegal? If not, they have nothing to be worried about.

The thought of one political party being allowed to access the private conversation of opposition groups and the only thing you can say is "so what?" That's a dictatorship just waiting to happen.

It would not be legal for the government to leak every single little legal scandal involving opposition parties

You are already advocating one violation of the constitution, are you so unbelievably foolish to think that if we allow that, it would stop there?

in fact, the information would only be analyzed by a human if it sounded suspicious.

Unless, you know, the person in charge of the wiretapping actually...ya know, told them to listen to it.

[NS:]Begoner21

15-09-2006, 00:24

And yet, he can't pronounce nuclear. ;)

He has trouble pronouncing one word (eh, maybe a couple). John Nash thought the Russians were out to get him yet he produced some of the most brilliant mathematical proofs in the 20th century.

New Domici

15-09-2006, 00:25

Begoner21;11682398']Can you please post a link to when Bush started wiretapping without a warrant?

Richard Clark on the subject. (http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/25/rove/view/index2.html)

AT&T phone record collection 7 months prior to 9/11. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=#) If he was trying to protect us from terrorism, what did he want them for?

Yes, and Hillary Clinton is trying to turn the US into the next Soviet Union. Proof? None.

When asked about where Osama Bin Laden is he said "to be honest with you, I really don't care. He's not that important."

If you need better proof that he doesn't care about protecting you from terrorism than the fact that he admitted it himself, then I can't help you. You're just too delusional.

PsychoticDan

15-09-2006, 00:26

Begoner21;11682548']He has trouble pronouncing one word (eh, maybe a couple). John Nash thought the Russians were out to get him yet he produced some of the most brilliant mathematical proofs in the 20th century.

And yet, Bush hasn't. Look, the guy's stupid. He sounds stupid, he does stupid things. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[NS:]Begoner21

15-09-2006, 00:27

Damned pesky constitution again.

I don't think the Constitution anticipated this eventuality. It needs to be updated to the present, where bloodthirsty, fundamentalist, Islamo-fascist terrorists are out to kill as many Americans as possible.

You are already advocating one violation of the constitution, are you so unbelievably foolish to think that if we allow that, it would stop there?

What part of the Constitution is being violated? There is no right to privacy, and nothing is being searched nor seized. And yes, it would stop there, seeing as how there is no reason to take further action.

Unless, you know, the person in charge of the wiretapping actually...ya know, told them to listen to it.

I'm sure watchdog organziations would be created to monitor such transgressions.

New Domici

15-09-2006, 00:27

Begoner21;11682548']He has trouble pronouncing one word (eh, maybe a couple). John Nash thought the Russians were out to get him yet he produced some of the most brilliant mathematical proofs in the 20th century.

So why don't we just elect a bunch of autistic people to high office? Bush is not a brilliant tactician who speaks poorly. He's a competative slickster who knows how to play politics, but hasn't got the slightest clue how to run either a country or a business.

[NS:]Begoner21

15-09-2006, 00:28

And yet, Bush hasn't. Look, the guy's stupid. He sounds stupid, he does stupid things. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Bush neither walks like a duck nor does he quack. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that he is not, in fact, a duck. He's not genius material, but I'd put his IQ at 130+.

Arthais101

15-09-2006, 00:31

New Domici

15-09-2006, 00:32

Begoner21;11682577']Bush neither walks like a duck nor does he quack. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that he is not, in fact, a duck. He's not genius material, but I'd put his IQ at 130+.

Oh. So you're not Anne Coulter, who's completly insane. You're Bill Frist who can perform complicated evaluations by looking at edited video tape.

Arthais101

15-09-2006, 00:33

Begoner21;11682568']I don't think the Constitution anticipated this eventuality. It needs to be updated to the present, where bloodthirsty, fundamentalist, Islamo-fascist terrorists are out to kill as many Americans as possible.

Then let 3/4 of the state legislators update it, as required by law.

What part of the Constitution is being violated? There is no right to privacy

The Supreme Court, the final arbitors of the Constitution, would, and have, disagreed. If they say it's there...it's there.

And yes, it would stop there, seeing as how there is no reason to take further action.

Unless, you know, he wants to.

I'm sure watchdog organziations would be created to monitor such transgressions.

You mean like...the ACLU? That organization that you hate so much? That kind of watchdog group?

Gauthier

15-09-2006, 00:33

Begoner21;11682577']Bush neither walks like a duck nor does he quack. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that he is not, in fact, a duck. He's not genius material, but I'd put his IQ at 130+.

Where were all 130 points when he bankrupted 3 businesses Daddy handed over to him? Where were those 130 points when he said Iraq was going to WMD us in 24 hours and 5 years later he called off the search?

Fess up. At least UN abassadorship was open about wanting to suck Bush's cock.

[NS:]Begoner21

15-09-2006, 00:33

AT&T phone record collection 7 months prior to 9/11. If he was trying to protect us from terrorism, what did he want them for?

Collecting phone records is a useful method to combat terror. By analyzing phone records, you can see the associates of known terrorists, unravel entire networks, etc.

When asked about where Osama Bin Laden is he said "to be honest with you, I really don't care. He's not that important."

No, he actually said: "deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all. So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did. And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means."

Please don't take quotes out of context.

Gauthier

15-09-2006, 00:34

Oh. So you're not Anne Coulter, who's completly insane. You're Bill Frist who can perform complicated evaluations by looking at edited video tape.

"SEE!? SEE!? SHE BLINKED HER EYES!! SHE'S CONSCIOUS I TELL YOU, CONSCIOUS!!"

[NS:]Begoner21

15-09-2006, 00:37

Well, you can hardly go around rideculing other people's mental faculties when you think I am part of the minority who liked Jar Jar after telling you to look for a version that had him edited out.

Again, you really need to take a course in reading comprehension -- or, as some liberals would call it -- hermeneutics. I never said you were part of the minority who liked Jar Jar. I claimed that I was part of that minority, and I do think he is adorable.

Hermeneutics is not 'reading comprehension.' Check a dictionary. I'm sorry, is that to elitist for you? One of 'dem learnin' books.

Actually, it's interpretation.

[NS:]Begoner21

15-09-2006, 00:39

Then let 3/4 of the state legislators update it, as required by law.

Unfortunately, liberal senators are loth to do anything useful because their constituents would get all fired up, saying "noooo...now Osama won't be able to slaughter us all!"

The Supreme Court, the final arbitors of the Constitution, would, and have, disagreed. If they say it's there...it's there.

Ah, yes, the good old liberal activist judges.

You mean like...the ACLU?

No, I mean a non-partisan organization.

Arthais101

15-09-2006, 00:41

Begoner21;11682638']Unfortunately, liberal senators are loth to do anything useful because their constituents would get all fired up, saying "noooo...now Osama won't be able to slaughter us all!"

And you betray your ignorance of american law by suggesting that the federal government need do anything to amend the constitution.

Regardless of whether you like it or not, the constitution is supreme law, and can not be modified simply because George W. Bush wants to be king.

And curse those damned liberal judges for...ya know, doing the job they were hired to do, namely interpret the constitution. To say that there is not an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution is to cover your eyes, plug your ears, and be willfully ignorant of the very spirit of the constitution.

And if you don't believe the ACLU is non partisan then your definition of "non partisan" is likely equivilant to your definition of "republican". The aclu doesn't care who you are, what you are, what you believe, what you do. It cares only that your rights are violated. That is the very DEFINITION of non partisan. It will protect and defend you regardless of what you believe, even if you don't believe in them.

Bodies Without Organs

15-09-2006, 00:41

Begoner21;11682628']Again, you really need to take a course in reading comprehension -- or, as some liberals would call it -- hermeneutics.

Am I to take it that you are implying that I am a liberal?

[NS:]Begoner21

15-09-2006, 00:45

Am I to take it that you are implying that I am a liberal?

If you think that my statement is false, then it logically follows that no liberals would refer to reading comprehension as hermeneutics. I do not think that is an accurate assessment, and I think you completely missed my implications -- I wasn't singling you out.

Congo--Kinshasa

15-09-2006, 00:46

Am I to take it that you are implying that I am a liberal?

Of course, to him, anyone who questions Bush = liberal.

Arthais101

15-09-2006, 00:48

Begoner21;11682667']If you think that my statement is false, then it logically follows that no liberals would refer to reading comprehension as hermeneutics.

You fail logic. Your statement, to be true, must logically mean that there are no liberals who do NOT refer to it as such.

To say "liberals refer to X as Y" is disproven the moment you find one liberal who does not.

Take a rudimentary course in logic, then come back.

[NS:]Begoner21

15-09-2006, 00:50

To say that there is not an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution is to cover your eyes, plug your ears, and be willfully ignorant of the very spirit of the constitution.

Ah, the "spirit" of the Constitution. Not the written letter. I don't think that actions should be taken because of imagined "spirits," especially in matters as important of the Constitution. The Constitution may be construed in many different and conflicting ways if its spirit is analyzed -- the only thing that need be analyzed is its content, which is not open to partiality or bias.

And if you don't believe the ACLU is non partisan then your definition of "non partisan" is likely equivilant to your definition of "republican".

The ACLU defends liberal ideas, even if there is only a tenuous connection to the law. They'll pounce on any chance they get to curb the power of government, whether they are right or wrong.[/QUOTE]

[NS:]Begoner21

15-09-2006, 00:52

You fail logic. Your statement, to be true, must logically mean that there are no liberals who do NOT refer to it as such.

To say "liberals refer to X as Y" is disproven the moment you find one liberal who does not.

Take a rudimentary course in logic, then come back.

Apparently, you didn't read my statement too closely. I said that "again, you really need to take a course in reading comprehension -- or, as some liberals would call it -- hermeneutics." I never stated that all liberals use big, pompous, pretentious, philosophical words. I simply said that some do. Again, I beseech you to take that course in hermeneutics. :)

Arthais101

15-09-2006, 00:52

Begoner21;11682686']Ah, the "spirit" of the Constitution. Not the written letter. I don't think that actions should be taken because of imagined "spirits," especially in matters as important of the Constitution. The Constitution may be construed in many different and conflicting ways if its spirit is analyzed -- the only thing that need be analyzed is its content, which is not open to partiality or bias.

Want written word? ok

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There you go, written language of the constitution, one that specifically creates the REQUIREMENT for interpretation.

Arthais101

15-09-2006, 00:53

Begoner21;11682694']Apparently, you didn't read my statement too closely. I said that "again, you really need to take a course in reading comprehension -- or, as some liberals would call it -- hermeneutics."

Meh, fair enough, missed the qualifier there. Will concede that point.

[NS:]Begoner21

15-09-2006, 00:57

There you go, written language of the constitution, one that specifically creates the REQUIREMENT for interpretation.

Basically, that's saying that the people have more than the number of rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights -- it does not say that the people have every single right, including the "right" to privacy. And thank you for graciously conceeding a point -- many people wouldn't.

Arthais101

15-09-2006, 01:03

Begoner21;11682724']Basically, that's saying that the people have more than the number of rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights -- it does not say that the people have every single right, including the "right" to privacy.

Correct, however it specifically states that not all rights are included within it, yet does not define what those rights are. Therefore it is up for...and I know you hate this word, interpretation. And to determine exactly what rights ARE there, and what rights are NOT there, you have to look at what rights WERE included, and determined if other rights are similar enough to be considered in that amorphous idea of "other rights". That's the point of the "spirit" of the constitution. We know there may be other rights not expressly mentioned, and to determine what those rights are, we need to look at what's already there, and see what's similar enough to what is already articulated.

Like it or not, that is a case of interpretation.

Congo--Kinshasa

15-09-2006, 01:05

Begoner21;11682686']They'll pounce on any chance they get to curb the power of government, whether they are right or wrong.

You act as if curbing power is a bad thing. Thomas Jefferson said, "That government is best which governs least."

[NS:]Begoner21

15-09-2006, 01:07

Like it or not, that is a case of interpretation.

Bah, humbug. I will return the favour by conceding that point.

[NS:]Begoner21

15-09-2006, 01:08

You act as if curbing power is a bad thing. Thomas Jefferson said, "That government is best which governs least."

Yes, and I do agree with that statement on the economic level. However, citizens must be entitled to at least a minimum of personal security -- that should be one of the only roles of government -- to protect its people. Welfare? I agree, that's too much government; forced redistribution of wealth is not good.

Inconvenient Truths

15-09-2006, 01:13

Begoner21;11682638']Unfortunately, liberal senators are loth to do anything useful because their constituents would get all fired up, saying "noooo...now Osama won't be able to slaughter us all!"

Ah yes, the 'evil' 'liberal' senators. Suggesting that the laws of your country and of civilisation actually have a value. :D

Anyway…

So, you would have no problem having your phone conversations tapped?
What about all electronic and written communications?
Every time you fill in am information form (e.g. buying a gun) it is recorded and placed in your file?
How about cameras on every street corner?
Cameras in your house?
Watching and reading everything you do, 24-7?

I imagine it would be pretty hard for terrorists then...as long as they were actually based in your country, of course.

Now, assuming that the government doesn't take this information and sell it to private businesses (who would be very happy to buy it and use it), and assuming that the incumbent government refuses to use all this information to benefit itself (a first in history) or that a few 'rotten eggs' don't try and profit from it personally (hardly realistic), don't you think the cost could be better spent elsewhere?
Without following Stalin's methods of observation, lack of privacy, total power resting with one man, no accountability (how many times has Bush broken the law?) illegal detention, show trials, torture (always a reliable source of information)?

On a different note, has it occurred to you that a class room of reasonably intelligent 16 year olds could get into the US and kill lots of people just using guns? Bombers could target areas that are easy to hit (subways, trains, buses)? A rogue millionaire could buy an oil-tanker, fill it with whatever he wanted and blow it up inside one of America's oil terminals? He could crash private planes into whatever he felt like? Hell, a decent sharp-shooter could just whack Bush as he goes about his external events.

Seriously, if you honestly think that there is a genuine threat to America from a substantial number of people, hell bent on causing destruction just take a minute and think about all the ways that you and a group of ten-twenty mates could commit terrorist acts. The list above, I came up whilst typing, I'm sure there are many more effective ways to kill and terrorise people and, in theory, the 'terrorists' are a trained, hardened and deadly `enemy.

Now, bearing that in mind, ask yourself how much of a good reason there really is for giving up your rights and the constitution of your country.
Then ask yourself just how much you would need to give up in order to actually protect yourself from someone who is willing to die to hurt you.

Finally, if none of this has reached you, think about the situation a few years ago.
A terrorist organisations, that had killed thousands (either through acts of terror or paramilitary action) was being funded by an overseas country. The IRA targeted Northern Ireland and the British mainland with ample help from the US.
Would you be happy for Britain to kidnap and torture all US citizens it suspected were involved in supporting the IRA (no proof required)? Held those citizens without trial, rights of any hope of release? Hold those citizens in a camp that could be viewed by the public so that their humiliation was evident to all? Put surveillance on every US citizen in the UK or its dominions?

[NS:]Begoner21

15-09-2006, 01:27

So, you would have no problem having your phone conversations tapped?

Of course. Since I am not a criminal and I do not discuss illegal acts over the telephone (or otherwise for that matter) I have nothing to fear. Law-abiding citizens should not be scared of the government.

What about all electronic and written communications?

Sure. What's the point of one without the other? It's not like terrorists haven't mastered the concept of sending emails (or sending internets, as some would call it).

Every time you fill in am information form (e.g. buying a gun) it is recorded and placed in your file?

I see nothing wrong with that. If somebody is killed by a particular gun, it would be useful in tracking down and prosecuting the criminal responsible for the murder.

How about cameras on every street corner?

Yes, people can see you, believe it or not, in public. Cameras are no different.

Cameras in your house?

That's different. Your house is your own private property, free from prying eyes -- nobody should see you naked in the shower. It is unlikely that a terrorist would allow a camera to be placed in his house, anyway.

Now, assuming that the government doesn't take this information and sell it to private businesses (who would be very happy to buy it and use it), and assuming that the incumbent government refuses to use all this information to benefit itself (a first in history) or that a few 'rotten eggs' don't try and profit from it personally (hardly realistic), don't you think the cost could be better spent elsewhere?

First of all, there would be a watchdog agency to prevent the abusive use of the information. The data would be recorded by machines and only viewed by a human when appropriate. The viewing of the data would be closely monitored to ensure the rights of American citizens. So yes, the power would not be abused. And I would have to see a price tag before questioning where else the money could be spent.

On a different note, has it occurred to you that a class room of reasonably intelligent 16 year olds could get into the US and kill lots of people just using guns?

Has it occured to you that you could trip, fall in front of a bus, and get squashed to death? That isn't an excuse for not washing your hands, however. Similarly, the fact that there are various methods by which terrorists could attack the US does not mean we should not protect ourselves against one particular method.

Hell, a decent sharp-shooter could just whack Bush as he goes about his external events.

You sound like a man with a mission, who's got it all planned out. Should I contact the government and inform them of the contents of your message? I am considering doing so.

Now, bearing that in mind, ask yourself how much of a good reason there really is for giving up your rights and the constitution of your country. Then ask yourself just how much you would need to give up in order to actually protect yourself from someone who is willing to die to hurt you.

Think of how little you have to give up to ensure that America will be safer -- not for you in particular -- but for all Americans. Will the new measures interfere with day to day life? No, not at all. Only criminals have anything to fear.

Would you be happy for Britain to kidnap and torture all US citizens it suspected were involved in supporting the IRA (no proof required)? Held those citizens without trial, rights of any hope of release? Hold those citizens in a camp that could be viewed by the public so that their humiliation was evident to all? Put surveillance on every US citizen in the UK or its dominions?

No, but the US does not do that either. We base our arrests on very good and concrete information. We also only take very few prisoners overall -- a couple of hundred at the very most. I am sure the US would agree to extradite a terrorist to Britain to be thrown in jail, and I am sure the British would have sufficient reason to want to chuck that particular person in jail. However, I do feel that the person should receive a trial before being incarcerated.

Shreckistan

15-09-2006, 02:22

I don't know why I reply to these types of threads, they are rife with the tripe of trolls and ignoramuses that wander the Internet, searching for souls to feed on. Perhaps its a weakness in my spirit, or a need to deny the true intolerance level of the netizens I'm surrounded by. Whatever it is, here I go again.

I agree, at a basic level, with Begoner21. Bush is not evil, in fact he is quite the opposite. I believe he is one of the last few high-level politicians who truly belives in what he is doing. That Bush is, in fact, what most people seem to clamor for, an honest politician. It seems strange to me that when presented with a man who stands up for what he believes is right, says what is on his mind without reservation, and is generally an open book the response from your average, voting citizen is: "That George Bush is a [explative] evil [explative] little lying, no good sack of [explative]. He is such stupid, [explative], selfish [explative] that he took us to war over oil! And he lied about WMD! There will be a [explative] parade where we all dance on his [explative] grave where died after we [explative] him to death with his own [body part]!" Except the grammar is worse and there are more explatives. Is this normal? Are these people rational? Shouldn't they be disagreeing with his stand or philosophy rather than going straight for the "raving lunatic evil criminal mastermind" card? When did open, honest debate get replaced with vile diatribes about the crimes of the oppsing party's candidate? It's to the point now where I can trust nothing the media says or that I read on a website because everyone has to be less tolerant and more extreme.

George Bush is not a genius. He may not even be all that smart. But he did what he thought was right, not what was popular or what was easy. The gross majority of presidents that go to war are not re-elected, and he knew that going in. He's done his best to keep this war from going out of control, and he's failed. Was there a lack of foresight? Sure, but there's always a huge uncertainty going into any war. Was it criminal? I don't believe so, thhe actual "war" part of the action went very smoothly, we sent an overwhelming force in order to minimize resistance and casualties, rather than get into a quagmire 5,000 troops at a time. It's the terrorists that saw crosshairs on Iraq that caused this thing to go south. Do any of you know ANYONE who predicted this? Hindsight is always 20/20, so I find it interesting when people talk about handing Iraq over to Iran when not a single soul mentioned that as a possibility before the war.

Am I advocating blind faith in our government? No. Open and host discussion must occur for democracy to work. Insulting my personal hygiene, of which you know nothing, seems irrelevant and petty to me, yet I count it among the top 10 responses to anything I say on any topic. And I am not just pointing my finger at liberals, there's at least a dozen times that Begoner21, a relatively reasonable sounding person, does the same thing: replying to a comment with an insult. Why? Is he just frustrated and giving up? I thought he was doing a good job at replying to insults with logic and keeping up a good conversation. I say, if you get that frustrated, walk away. No good will come of insults. At best, it will get you ignored and thought less of, at worst (and much more likely) it will cause an escalation into flame wars and "Your procreation reticule is so small it could be described as concave, while mine is so exceeding large that it often causes traffic jams on the Interstate." Again, grammar may not be representative of actual events.

Come on guys, lets get together and have a love fest. Seriously, what good is debating this if you're not willing to concede on any points? I'm willing to admit that a man I admire may have been shortsighted when it came to the war, may have mis-selected a few cabinet members, and may be over-committed to some of the idealistic goals that he had. Yet I see very little of the same from people on either side of the aisle when it comes to politics. Bush is either messiah or devil, and nothing anyone can say will sway them from that perspective.

Ugh, I'm tired already. Sorry for the rant all, I just can't help myself sometimes. Wake me when armageddon gets here.

Shreck

NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush is so great!