NationStates Jolt Archive

All moot since none were found. ANYWHERE, and we'd have seen the "masses of weapons" you claim leaving via satellite. Keep tryin', tin man.

oh you meant in reality? MTAE/FAG isn't into that. He's also a brave patriot because his support of the war is far greater than those who fight it. He's already made himself irrelevant and I think we need to stop feeding the troll.

That was not one of our concerns when making the decision to invade.

How do you know?

Also, relevant pic:
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/1185226427812.jpg

One of the most infuriating messages which I have seen ubiquitously splashed about on bumper stickers is the following: "dissent IS patriotic," or some other variant thereof. Under the current circumstances with which we are faced (namely, the terrible specter of Islamo-fascism, silently hovering above us and patiently awaiting a chance to strike), the statement should read: "dissent IS traitorous."

Bullshit. If your nation claims to hold freedom-- including freedom of speech-- to be sacred, then speaking your mind in the hopes of swaying your government when you think it is erring is essential. It's a direct exercise of the freedoms that are supposedly being fought for abroad. Further, this protofacist idiocy about "our heroic troops going off to war for our freedom and way of life" is crap. Are the 'evil aliens' actually trying to invade your country? No. They're trying to get us to butt the hell out of their part of the world, so that they can live the way they choose. We might not understand or approve of their beliefs and values-- we might think they're backwards and ignorant and unhumane, or whatever-- but here's the truth: the "global Islamic empire" is a marginal delusion of a tiny minority of the most hardcore fanatics. Most of the 'scary' Muslims just want the freedom to live their lives according to their beliefs, in their own home lands, just like the rest of us do. They, however, have been mostly on the receiving end of history's beating stick for so long-- being invaded and milked for natural resources (with corruption being reinforced by those same outsiders in order to better facilitate their own extraction interests)-- that a lot of 'em are pissed off and so some of them get lured in by the worst of the extremists and convinced to lash out violently. But if left alone, the "Muslim world" could *only* moderate itself internally, because the average human being-- Muslim or Christian or whatever-- is not some inhuman marauder eager to go on a bloodthirsty rampage. And once their own 'civilisation' was allowed to sort itself out instead of being constantly interefered with and exploited by those who had the sheer dumb luck of gaining the upper hand militarily, they would be unfriendly neighbours at worst, but more likely leave us alone or, one could hope, be good neighbours.

Perhaps you recall the elementary school rhyme: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Unfortunately, when applied to the modern conditions, this is patently false. Not only can words hurt, but they can kill. Speeches decrying the war in Iraq are deadly, fatal to our just cause and injurious to the American people.

Further bullshit. Words and speeches don't "kill" soldiers. If they did, the system would have to be cranking out some pretty pitiful soldiers. The words that you find *so* awful and treasonous are meant to influence the political leaders to change course. You say people can exercise their democratic rights to influence policy during elections. Oh, that's fantastic, so once every four years people can have an opinion, and it can't change-- or if it does, they can't say anything about it-- in between. If, heaven forbid, they should disagree or come to disagree, they have to STFU if we're "at war" because it would be "bad for morale." Well, smart-guy, suppose the government decides to suspend elections because we're "at war?" What if it's indefinite? What if the government lies, and is known to lie, about its reasons for going to war? What if there's a looming threat that the leadership-- overrun with lying cleptomaniacs and/or ideological fanatics-- will declare so many wars that it becomes ruinous to the nation? What then? You still expect everyone to keep quiet because "dissent is treason?"

[...]The constant barrage of slanted media commentary imbues our troops with the notion that they are fighting in vain: that the cause is lost and their mission is meaningless. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many are neglecting to endeavor in performing their duties to their utmost capacity; as a result, the enemy is strengthened and more American troops die. The security of the mainland US cannot be guaranteed if the only thing standing between us and another 9/11 is a line composed of disgruntled and disillusioned soldiers, continuously tormented and harried by the barbaric media.

Now you just swing towards the assanine. I don't suppose it's occurred to you that there are more casualties because the enemy is building bigger and deadlier IEDs, and because troops are being kept in action months longer than they were expecting to be-- making them exhausted and disgruntled with the dishonest politicians who stuck them there-- and because more troops are being thrown fodder-like at the problem, offering more targets than were previously available, and that the loss of popular support for the war is because of the mounting casualties? Noooo, it must be that evil, treasonous words are magically imbuing the enemy with superhuman power from across the ocean. Oh, and the media, they're using their satellites to amplify the magical power-words and strengthen the power-emparting thoughtwaves.

Here's a radical proposition. If you support the troops so much, bring them home (for advocate publicly to said effect) to be with their families and defend the nation's borders from attack, instead of tossing them into harm's way for oil and empire. Shipping them off to some alien part of the world to fight an enemy that-- however fanatical-- does not posess the resources to invade your home soil, and will never have the means or the manpower to do so, is foolhardy. And that's the scary spectre that fuels your blind, paranoid nationalistic militarism, isn't it? Aircraft carriers full of spooky arabs invading your shores. Well get over it, it's never going to happen. A small-but-fanatical religionist group is never going to pull it off, the most they can hope to accomplish is terrorist attacks, and terrorism can be fought without waging foreign wars. You do so by tending your own garden, keeping your forces at home and alert, cultivating good intelligence networks, setting a good example that others won't want to attack, even if they don't care to follow, and by not antagonising others. And if you seriously think that by doing those things-- by us minding our own business and stop meddling in other peoples' affairs, by trying to be good and humble, by concentrating on fortifying ourselves from within against attack instead of going looking for more and/or bigger fights than are legitimately justified in the name of self-defense-- we'll still be targets for invasion, then you're just hopelessly divorced from reality. In reality, people who are not invaded and meddled with and abused by outsiders don't lash out at others in the way that you so fearfully envision.

If you insult the way the war is being handled, you might as well be taking up arms against the American forces yourself. Now, I'm not saying that the war has been handled well -- that's not the point. The fact of the matter is that whether or not the war has been smoothly and properly executed, saying that the war is a failure, that American troops should withdraw, or that the commanders are misjudging the situation imperils troop morale and the lives of American soldiers. As the disaffection of the American people mounted, so too did the death toll of the US forces in Iraq -- that tells us something.

Yeah, again, it says that those awful foreigners are building bigger bombs to blow our asses out of their back yards, and that in turn we have become more and more disaffected with our young people coming home in boxes for politicians' screwed-up priorities. They aren't dying for our "freedom," because our "freedom" is not in actuality threatened with invasion or annihilation. The only kinds of attacks that we do have to worry about from the fanatical fringe that hates us don't go away with foreign wars, they're as likely to happen if we go to war overseas as if we don't-- if anything, being invaded only radicalises more of them and increases the likelihood of terrorism, because that's the only kind of assault they have the power to launch. So yeah, if you really 'support the troops' you should oppose their being shipped off to fight and die in wars for ambiguous or specious causes. You should want them at home, with their loved ones, where they can actually protect the nation from being overthrown, and where they're less likely to be shot at or blown up than they are kicking down other peoples' doors on the other side of the world.

Like I said, though, you're pretty obviously divorced from reality, obsessed with your doomsday fantasies, so this whole response was undoubtedly a waste of time akin to bludgeoning my face against a brick wall. And you'll obviously respond-- if you do at all-- with some more nonsense and empty rhetoric that won't be worth reading, let alone replying to any further. So you'll excuse me if I don't waste any more time trying to reason with someone who doesn't have the capacity to be reasoned with.

If you insult the way the war is being handled, you might as well be taking up arms against the American forces yourself.

If no one insulted the way the war was being handled, or took a critical look at the terrible mismanagment of the entire affair there would be no chance to rectify our mistakes and errors. Dissent is patriotic because without dissent there would be no voices trying to redirect our efforts in this war.

As the disaffection of the American people mounted, so too did the death toll of the US forces in Iraq -- that tells us something.

I'm afraid you've got it backwards: it is not the dissent that causes the deaths rather the increasing death toll and continued lack of success have decreased support for the war.

I find it despicable that the very men and women who are so busily engaged in bedeviling US forces claim to be patriots. Those who are contributing to the deaths of our soldiers say that they love their country. No, they are not patriots, but rather in a league with the insurgents and bin Laden.

I'm afraid that, once again, you've got it totally backwards. It is not well reasoned dissent that harms our efforts but rather total psycophantic unreasoned devotion to this costly war.

Humor me. Name some equally repugnant dictators and I shall tell you why ousting Saddam was preferable to deposing them.

From Yahoo!news via shortnews.com (http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63115) (the Yahoo! article has expired).

Sudan
Somalia
Zimbabwe
Chad
Ivory Coast
Dem. Rep. of Congo
Guinea
Central African Republic
Haiti
Pakistan
North Korea
Burma
Uganda
Bangladesh
Nigeria
Ethiopia
Burundi
East Timor

The remainder of the top 20 when Iraq (#2) and Afghanistan (#8) are removed from the list. This is post-invasion. The Administrations obsession with Iraq and only Iraq is disturbing.

From New Statesman (http://www.newstatesman.com/200609040067).

The Western Favourite
Dictators: Islam's man of action
Ziauddin Sardar on Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan
www.newstatesman.com/200609040030

The Dictator on Europe's Doorstep
Dictators: Dreaming of the USSR
Andrey Kurkov on Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus
www.newstatesman.com/200609040031

The Religious Authority
Dictators: Reform and the mullahs
Ali M Ansari on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran
www.newstatesman.com/200609040032

The Nuclear Threat
Dictators: The depths of evil
Jasper Becker on Kim Jong-il of North Korea
www.newstatesman.com/200609040033

The Personality Cult Leader
Dictators: Central Asia's new idol
Lucy Ash on Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan
www.newstatesman.com/200609040034

The Mandarin
Dictators: Between the Party and the markets
Xiao Jia Gu on Hu Jintao of China
www.newstatesman.com/200609040035

The Oil Profiteer
Dictators: Africa's brutal secret
Hector Rodrigues on Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea
www.newstatesman.com/200609040036

The Absolute Monarch
Dictators: Oil, torture and the west
Damian Quinn on Abdullah Ibn Abdul Aziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia
www.newstatesman.com/200609040037

The Modernising Sheik
Dictators: Meet the CEO, Dubai Inc
William Wallis on Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai
www.newstatesman.com/200609040038

The Last Latin Autocrat
Dictators: Goodbye to all that
Ben Davies on Alfredo Stroessner, former leader of Paraguay
www.newstatesman.com/200609040039
To read the nominated worst despots visit our dictators survey at www.newstatesman.com/dictators

Worst for freedom of speech
1 Kim Jong-il, North Korea
2 Isaias Afewerki, Eritrea
3 Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan
4 Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran
5 Senior General Than Shwe, Burma
Source: Reporters Without Borders' press freedom index 2005

Most corrupt
1 Yoweri Museveni, Uganda
2 Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan
3 Hu Jintao, China
4 Raul/Fidel Castro, Cuba
=5 Laurent Gbagbo, Ivory Coast
=5 José Eduardo dos Santos, Angola
Source: Transparency International annual report 2004. This is not a list of the most personally corrupt dictators, but a list of how much each country's population perceives corruption in government

Largest armies (active troops)
1 China 2,255,000
2 North Korea 1,106,000
3 Pakistan 619,000
4 Iran 420,000
5 Burma 375,000
Sources: Centre for Strategic and International Studies and International Institute for Strategic Studies

Military spending as percentage of GDP
1 Eritrea - 17.7
2 North Korea - 12.5 (estimate)
3 Jordan - 11.4
4 Oman - 11.4
5 Qatar - 10
Source: CIA World Factbook. GDP figures for North Korea are estimates

Longest in power (in years):
1 Cuba: Fidel Castro - 47
2 Libya: Muammar al-Gaddafi - 37
3 Gabon: Omar Bongo - 31
4 Equatorial Guinea: Teodoro Obiang Nguema - 27
5 Angola: José Eduardo dos Santos - 27
research by Daniel Trilling and Karolin Schaps

Bullshit. If your nation claims to hold freedom-- including freedom of speech-- to be sacred, then speaking your mind in the hopes of swaying your government when you think it is erring is essential. It's a direct exercise of the freedoms that are supposedly being fought for abroad. Further, this protofacist idiocy about "our heroic troops going off to war for our freedom and way of life" is crap. Are the 'evil aliens' actually trying to invade your country? No. They're trying to get us to butt the hell out of their part of the world, so that they can live the way they choose. We might not understand or approve of their beliefs and values-- we might think they're backwards and ignorant and unhumane, or whatever-- but here's the truth: the "global Islamic empire" is a marginal delusion of a tiny minority of the most hardcore fanatics. Most of the 'scary' Muslims just want the freedom to live their lives according to their beliefs, in their own home lands, just like the rest of us do. They, however, have been mostly on the receiving end of history's beating stick for so long-- being invaded and milked for natural resources (with corruption being reinforced by those same outsiders in order to better facilitate their own extraction interests)-- that a lot of 'em are pissed off and so some of them get lured in by the worst of the extremists and convinced to lash out violently. But if left alone, the "Muslim world" could *only* moderate itself internally, because the average human being-- Muslim or Christian or whatever-- is not some inhuman marauder eager to go on a bloodthirsty rampage. And once their own 'civilisation' was allowed to sort itself out instead of being constantly interefered with and exploited by those who had the sheer dumb luck of gaining the upper hand militarily, they would be unfriendly neighbours at worst, but more likely leave us alone or, one could hope, be good neighbours.



Further bullshit. Words and speeches don't "kill" soldiers. If they did, the system would have to be cranking out some pretty pitiful soldiers. The words that you find *so* awful and treasonous are meant to influence the political leaders to change course. You say people can exercise their democratic rights to influence policy during elections. Oh, that's fantastic, so once every four years people can have an opinion, and it can't change-- or if it does, they can't say anything about it-- in between. If, heaven forbid, they should disagree or come to disagree, they have to STFU if we're "at war" because it would be "bad for morale." Well, smart-guy, suppose the government decides to suspend elections because we're "at war?" What if it's indefinite? What if the government lies, and is known to lie, about its reasons for going to war? What if there's a looming threat that the leadership-- overrun with lying cleptomaniacs and/or ideological fanatics-- will declare so many wars that it becomes ruinous to the nation? What then? You still expect everyone to keep quiet because "dissent is treason?"



Now you just swing towards the assanine. I don't suppose it's occurred to you that there are more casualties because the enemy is building bigger and deadlier IEDs, and because troops are being kept in action months longer than they were expecting to be-- making them exhausted and disgruntled with the dishonest politicians who stuck them there-- and because more troops are being thrown fodder-like at the problem, offering more targets than were previously available, and that the loss of popular support for the war is because of the mounting casualties? Noooo, it must be that evil, treasonous words are magically imbuing the enemy with superhuman power from across the ocean. Oh, and the media, they're using their satellites to amplify the magical power-words and strengthen the power-emparting thoughtwaves.

Here's a radical proposition. If you support the troops so much, bring them home (for advocate publicly to said effect) to be with their families and defend the nation's borders from attack, instead of tossing them into harm's way for oil and empire. Shipping them off to some alien part of the world to fight an enemy that-- however fanatical-- does not posess the resources to invade your home soil, and will never have the means or the manpower to do so, is foolhardy. And that's the scary spectre that fuels your blind, paranoid nationalistic militarism, isn't it? Aircraft carriers full of spooky arabs invading your shores. Well get over it, it's never going to happen. A small-but-fanatical religionist group is never going to pull it off, the most they can hope to accomplish is terrorist attacks, and terrorism can be fought without waging foreign wars. You do so by tending your own garden, keeping your forces at home and alert, cultivating good intelligence networks, setting a good example that others won't want to attack, even if they don't care to follow, and by not antagonising others. And if you seriously think that by doing those things-- by us minding our own business and stop meddling in other peoples' affairs, by trying to be good and humble, by concentrating on fortifying ourselves from within against attack instead of going looking for more and/or bigger fights than are legitimately justified in the name of self-defense-- we'll still be targets for invasion, then you're just hopelessly divorced from reality. In reality, people who are not invaded and meddled with and abused by outsiders don't lash out at others in the way that you so fearfully envision.



Yeah, again, it says that those awful foreigners are building bigger bombs to blow our asses out of their back yards, and that in turn we have become more and more disaffected with our young people coming home in boxes for politicians' screwed-up priorities. They aren't dying for our "freedom," because our "freedom" is not in actuality threatened with invasion or annihilation. The only kinds of attacks that we do have to worry about from the fanatical fringe that hates us don't go away with foreign wars, they're as likely to happen if we go to war overseas as if we don't-- if anything, being invaded only radicalises more of them and increases the likelihood of terrorism, because that's the only kind of assault they have the power to launch. So yeah, if you really 'support the troops' you should oppose their being shipped off to fight and die in wars for ambiguous or specious causes. You should want them at home, with their loved ones, where they can actually protect the nation from being overthrown, and where they're less likely to be shot at or blown up than they are kicking down other peoples' doors on the other side of the world.

Like I said, though, you're pretty obviously divorced from reality, obsessed with your doomsday fantasies, so this whole response was undoubtedly a waste of time akin to bludgeoning my face against a brick wall. And you'll obviously respond-- if you do at all-- with some more nonsense and empty rhetoric that won't be worth reading, let alone replying to any further. So you'll excuse me if I don't waste any more time trying to reason with someone who doesn't have the capacity to be reasoned with.
Applause....applause....and more applause!! :)

Partly because you posted a quote not even tangentially pertinent to this discussion, thus "bumping" it.

Yeah, 'cause that "bump" three minutes after the previous post had been made was the dealbreaker - that's the one that's kept this BS thread around for so long too. Yeah. :rolleyes:

And read what I posted. If you can't even comment on the Edward R. Murrow quote, you should never have made this thread in the first place.

(This post made seconds after the previous one.)

Actually, nuclear warheads are much smaller than most people believe. When not attached to a ballistic missile, they can easily be enclosed within a lead box and hidden within a medium-sized vehicle. They could then be transported out of the country through Iran's porous borders (which currently allow many foreign terrorists within the country without our knowledge) and to the African nation of Saddam's choosing. We cannot constantly monitor every square inch of Iraq's borders, and even if we could, we would be unable to detect the nuclear warheads.

Wait, you said there was a mass exodus of these weapons when Saddam was "on the brink" of an invasion. Who wouldn't have noticed caravans headed for Africa -- or better yet, cargo plane caravans? Here's your own words, 'cuase I know you've forgotten them:

Imagine you were a maniacal, nihilistic, power-hungry dictator for a second, standing on the brink of a cataclysmic confrontation with the forces of good in the world. A powerful and righteous nation was about to overrun your armies and liberate your country. You had committed grievous violations of human rights and had been pursuing a WMD program which had yielded fruits. What would you do? Would you allow the invading state to be completely vindicated by the presence of your diabolical weapons, thus further besmirching your reputation in the face of the world? Or would you secretly scheme to send those weapons elsewhere, thus casting doubts on the noble intentions of the invader and the campaign in general and possibly prolonging your life? Certainly, you would opt for the latter. But where to send the weapons? The most logical choice would be a lawless African nation, as corrupt and devoid of morals as yourself, far away from the prying eyes of the West.

Sorry, but that would have been noticed. Especially as we were surveilling the living shit out of Iraq prior to going in. Nice try.

That was not one of our concerns when making the decision to invade.

Oil wasn't a concern? Then why all the no-bid contracts to Halliburton to get the oil up and out of the ground before we'd even invaded? Go on, invent some more reality.

oh you meant in reality? MTAE/FAG isn't into that. He's also a brave patriot because his support of the war is far greater than those who fight it. He's already made himself irrelevant and I think we need to stop feeding the troll.

Yeah, you're right. There's no point.

Oil wasn't a concern? Then why all the no-bid contracts to Halliburton to get the oil up and out of the ground before we'd even invaded? Go on, invent some more reality.

Can you please present the full text of those alleged contracts?

One of the most infuriating messages which I have seen ubiquitously splashed about on bumper stickers is the following: "dissent IS patriotic," or some other variant thereof. Under the current circumstances with which we are faced (namely, the terrible specter of Islamo-fascism, silently hovering above us and patiently awaiting a chance to strike), the statement should read: "dissent IS traitorous."

Perhaps you recall the elementary school rhyme: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Unfortunately, when applied to the modern conditions, this is patently false. Not only can words hurt, but they can kill. Speeches decrying the war in Iraq are deadly, fatal to our just cause and injurious to the American people.

Enemy combatants employ many techniques to wound our troops. Some use rifles, others use IEDs; some use machine guns, others use grenade launchers. However, the most maleficent foes take advantage of a more subtle, far-reaching, and corrosive method: anti-war commentary. They sabotage the American nation stealthily, slowly poisoning those who are oblivious to their vile intent. They spew treacherous pronouncements with impunity. The morale of our troops ebbs as they are subjected to this constant, unceasing onslaught of pessimistic outlooks, bleak prognoses, and biased reports.

The constant barrage of slanted media commentary imbues our troops with the notion that they are fighting in vain: that the cause is lost and their mission is meaningless. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many are neglecting to endeavor in performing their duties to their utmost capacity; as a result, the enemy is strengthened and more American troops die. The security of the mainland US cannot be guaranteed if the only thing standing between us and another 9/11 is a line composed of disgruntled and disillusioned soldiers, continuously tormented and harried by the barbaric media.

But the media isn't the only wrongdoer here; all those who speak out against the war are giving succor to the enemy. They are actively contributing to the climate of hostility towards our mission in Iraq which currently exists; thus, they are allowing the media to air their disturbing coverage of the war in Iraq. They are even tainting those who previously supported the war with their insidious message of despair and gloom. Our troops need a stable platform on the home front if they are to persist in heroically carrying out their noble duty, yet this very platform is being chipped away at by those who condemn the war, and the soldiers are suffering. They're dying and the American populace does not appreciate their effort -- they're saying that despite the tireless work of American forces, Iraq is ruined, destroyed, desolate, irrevocably damaged.

If you insult the way the war is being handled, you might as well be taking up arms against the American forces yourself. Now, I'm not saying that the war has been handled well -- that's not the point. The fact of the matter is that whether or not the war has been smoothly and properly executed, saying that the war is a failure, that American troops should withdraw, or that the commanders are misjudging the situation imperils troop morale and the lives of American soldiers. As the disaffection of the American people mounted, so too did the death toll of the US forces in Iraq -- that tells us something.

I find it despicable that the very men and women who are so busily engaged in bedeviling US forces claim to be patriots. Those who are contributing to the deaths of our soldiers say that they love their country. No, they are not patriots, but rather in a league with the insurgents and bin Laden.

dissent isn't traitorous. deciding to break away in 1776 was.

From Yahoo!news via shortnews.com (http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63115) (the Yahoo! article has expired).

None of those countries had experienced a genocide as widespread as the one which occurred in Iraq. Furthermore, they did not present an equally significant threat to their neighbors nor to world stability.

Sorry, but that would have been noticed. Especially as we were surveilling the living shit out of Iraq prior to going in. Nice try.

No, we certainly would not have. Perhaps you have some delusions about the state of US intelligence services. They are not sufficiently advanced technologically in order to detect a concealed nuclear weapon contained within an adequate case.

None of those countries had experienced a genocide as widespread as the one which occurred in Iraq. Furthermore, they did not present an equally significant threat to their neighbors nor to world stability.

Ethiopia's genocide of the Eriteans during the civil war.
- Yes it was a genocide on the scale of Saddams genocide of the Kurds
- Yes it did present am equally if not greater threat to their neighbours, most notably Djibouti.

Try again FAG, you lose, AGAIN.

None of those countries had experienced a genocide as widespread as the one which occurred in Iraq.
Pure bullshit...

BTW, the US maintained diplomatic relations with Iraq, before and after the alledged "genocide". Why?

Furthermore, they did not present an equally significant threat to their neighbors nor to world stability.
Proof that Iraq was a "significant threat to their neighbours"?

No, we certainly would not have. Perhaps you have some delusions about the state of US intelligence services. They are not sufficiently advanced technologically in order to detect a concealed nuclear weapon contained within an adequate case.

Saddam never had nukes. His ability to build them was destroyed in the early stages by the Isrealis. Prove otherwise.

Oh no, you can't. You lose AGAIN FAG

was I the only one who could guess who the OP was just by looking at the title?

Ethiopia's genocide of the Eriteans during the civil war.
- Yes it was a genocide on the scale of Saddams genocide of the Kurds

False. Saddam's al-Anfal campaign claimed 200,000 civilian victims whilst Ethiopia's genocide resulted in under 70,000 deaths.

- Yes it did present am equally if not greater threat to their neighbours, most notably Djibouti.

Ethiopia did not declare war on Djibouti; Iraq declared war on both Iran and Kuwait.

BTW, the US maintained diplomatic relations with Iraq, before and after the alledged "genocide". Why?

Because we wanted to exhaust diplomatic possibilities before taking more forceful action. Is there something wrong with diplomacy?

Proof that Iraq was a "significant threat to their neighbours"?

It initiated hostilities against two neighboring nations within the past two decades.

:pFalse. (1) Saddam's al-Anfal campaign claimed 200,000 civilian victims whilst Ethiopia's genocide resulted in under 70,000 deaths.



(2) Ethiopia did not declare war on Djibouti; Iraq declared war on both Iran and Kuwait.

(1) Source for those figures? With very little western involvement in either figures are difficult to come by. And 200,000? Ooo kay

(2) I never said they did. You said that they wern't a threat to their neighbours, they were, so much so that Djibouti saw fit to hand over their entire national defence to the French. I'd say they felt threatened

BTW Iraq declared war on Iran with the full backing of the US and the west. They sold him weapons for that war remember?

Keep going, thats strike 3. You'll never give up though you never do. Its like shooting fish in a barrel:p

It initiated hostilities against two neighboring nations within the past two decades.

So did Isreal. Going to invade them next?

So did Israel. Going to invade them next?

They defended themselves against Islamo-fascism; they did not instigate the conflicts.

How do you know?

Also, relevant pic:
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/1185226427812.jpg

Care to try and answer F'n'G?

Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Care to try and answer F'n'G?

It refuted itself by saying that Bush was not elected. It's false, hateful, anti-American, liberal propaganda.

None of those countries had experienced a genocide as widespread as the one which occurred in Iraq. Furthermore, they did not present an equally significant threat to their neighbors nor to world stability.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha that is quite simply the most stupid thing I have ever read in my life!
Rwanda? Sudan? Somalia? Ethoipia/Eritrea? In each of those countries, more people have been killed by their "leaders" than in Iraq.

Significant threat to world stability? Why? Was Hussein threatening to take away all tent pegs and let the world blow away in the wind? If he had WMD's, why did he not use them? Surely they are there to use when you are getting invaded? Well why didn't he? Sudden moral dillema? Fuck right off.

You my friend do not know the meaning of the word freedom.
Your meaning seems to forget that freedom is all encompassing and does not ever get eroded. If we do not tell our govts that they are doing the wrong thing when they are actually doing it, how the fuck will they ever find out?
If a bunch of American soldiers came round your parents house and declared war on it, would you speak out like a traitor? Or would you sit there and let them get shot like the good little American that you are?

In the words of Mel Gibson as William Wallace "Ssssiiilllleeennnncceeeee"!!!!!

AMK
xxx

It refuted itself by saying that Bush was not elected. It's false, hateful, anti-American, liberal propaganda.

Bush wasn't elected, he lost. He was put in the White House by the courts, not the people. Its true, free thinking, pro American. Unlike you.

Bush wasn't elected, he lost. He was put in the White House by the courts who correctly interpreted the disputed will of the people.

Corrected.

FAG so far in this thread you have stated

- Saddam had nukes

- Saddam had WMDs and shipped them to Afica in the opening stages of the war

- Isreal has never instigated a war

- Saddam killed 200,000 in the Al-Anfwah (sp?) uprising

- Iraq has killed more people than Rwanda, Somalia or Ethiopia

- Iraq was a greater threat to its neighbours than Rwanda, Somalia or Ethiopia

Prove one of these statements, JUST ONE, with, you know, EVIDENCE, and I'll give you a point. Till then you get zip

It refuted itself by saying that Bush was not elected. It's false, hateful, anti-American, liberal propaganda.

Liberal, as taken from the Collins English Dictionary 2004 (ISBN 007163347)

adj. Tolerant of other people
adj. Of or relating to an education that aims to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability
adj. relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom

Yet for some reason you seem to think this is a bad thing.

Fuckwit

Ah, heck, FreedomAndGlory, if you hate dissent so much, join a radical Madrassa or move to China. It's a bit less tolerated there; you'd feel right at home.

Corrected.

Falsly corrected.

"Government for the people, by the people, of the people" (Might have them in the wrong order but I'm not USian)

People, not courts. That means voting. You fail AGAIN, strike 4

Humor me. Name some equally repugnant dictators and I shall tell you why ousting Saddam was preferable to deposing them.
Than Shwe.

Incidentally, please get around to answering my last post ;)

It refuted itself by saying that Bush was not elected. It's false, hateful, anti-American, liberal propaganda.

Ignore the picture then, it's only for the lols. What about the question above it? How do you know that oil was not a factor in the decision to invade Iraq?

Haven't any of you figured it out yet? It's treason to disagree with F&G.

How do you know that oil was not a factor in the decision to invade Iraq?

Faith. However, the onus is on you to prove that it was a factor.

Ignore the picture then, it's only for the lols. What about the question above it? How do you know that oil was not a factor in the decision to invade Iraq?


Ifreann, he only answers posts that don't have anything that proves him wrong. C'mon, you must know that by now. :p Thats why i just call him names. Makes me feel good and it achieves all the same in the long run.

AMK

Than Shwe.

He did not kill hundreds of thousands of people despite being a brutal tyrant.

The United States is not a full democracy. There's checks and balances in place for reason so that the people dont..you know...vote away their personal freedoms. Though our government doesn't seem too intent on protecting them either ...

Faith. However, the onus is on you to prove that it was a factor.

Faith is not proof. YOUR the one wanting to make a point, the onus of proof is on YOU.

Every thread you make is based on YOUR OPINION not proof. So, FAG or MTAE or CitizenPatriot or whatever the hell you call yourself, make a point and prove something. Till then your not even an iritation, just mildly amusing:p

FAG so far in this thread you have stated

- Saddam had nukes

- Saddam had WMDs and shipped them to Afica in the opening stages of the war

- Isreal has never instigated a war

- Saddam killed 200,000 in the Al-Anfwah (sp?) uprising

- Iraq has killed more people than Rwanda, Somalia or Ethiopia

- Iraq was a greater threat to its neighbours than Rwanda, Somalia or Ethiopia

Prove one of these statements, JUST ONE, with, you know, EVIDENCE, and I'll give you a point. Till then you get zip


Now try actually debating instead of trolling. You have made these statements, back them up. If you can

Rwanda? Sudan? Somalia? Ethoipia/Eritrea? In each of those countries, more people have been killed by their "leaders" than in Iraq.

Yes, but the deaths were not so widespread (ie, dispersed over an equally wide geograpic area).

If he had WMD's, why did he not use them?

He wanted to preserve his cult status among fanatics as a hero of the Arab world; to harm the US war effort, he would be forced to employ the warheads against his own country as he lacked adequate delivery systems to target the US itself. That would jeopardize his standing without altering the course of the war; furthermore, it would have certainly led to his execution as a war criminal at the conclusion of the conflict.

He did not kill hundreds of thousands of people despite being a brutal tyrant.
Err.. he's killed various ethnic minorities off (killing thousands), the army takes women as sex slaves and it's one of the most corrupt and brutal regimes in the world.

You seemingly don't know a fucking thing about the regime in Myanmar, and are basically stuck with your own retarded ideas about what a baddie Saddam was.

Also, ANSWER MY LONG POST ABOUT THE TROOPS!

Faith. However, the onus is on you to prove that it was a factor.

I can't. Similarly you cannot prove that the war was about ousting Saddam. Funny how that works.

Yes, but the deaths were not so widespread (ie, dispersed over an equally wide geograpic area)
That's shit and you know it.

Yes, but the deaths were not so widespread (ie, dispersed over an equally wide geograpic area).

Thats not what you said is it? You said they hadn't killed on a the same scale. That means numerically, not geographically. So are you going to admit you were wrong?

YOUR the one wanting to make a point, the onus of proof is on YOU.

No, I'm not. Somebody else claimed that the war in Iraq was driven by oil interests.

Thats not what you said is it? You said they hadn't killed on a the same scale. That means numerically, not geographically. So are you going to admit you were wrong?
Incidentally, he's completely fucking wrong about Rwanda.

FAG, you should move to North Korea. I hear they hate freedom almost as much as you do over there.

Also, ANSWER MY LONG POST ABOUT THE TROOPS!

If you can significantly condense it, I will. Otherwise, I'm a busy man and have no time for such lengthy posts.

Yes, but the deaths were not so widespread (ie, dispersed over an equally wide geograpic area).



He wanted to preserve his cult status among fanatics as a hero of the Arab world; to harm the US war effort, he would be forced to employ the warheads against his own country as he lacked adequate delivery systems to target the US itself. That would jeopardize his standing without altering the course of the war; furthermore, it would have certainly led to his execution as a war criminal at the conclusion of the conflict.


Its hard to see how killing a million people in one city is better than killing 100 people all over the world? I like your logic though. Means people like Thomas Hamilton are ok because he killed all the school children within one building. What a hero he is.

And on your second point, mate, you are just plain wrong. If he was happy to kill hundreds of thousands of his citezins before, what was stopping him doing it to defend himself? And if he couldnt target the US? what the hell do you care? Lets face it, there are only 2 countries in the world. Iraq and USAmerica?

AMK
xxx

Troll.

I can't. Similarly you cannot prove that the war was about ousting Saddam.

But Bush stated that as one of his reasons for declaring war. He said nothing about oil.

If you can significantly condense it, I will. Otherwise, I'm a busy man and have no time for such lengthy posts.
Ok, here you go :

- You are wrong on so many levels

kthxbye, love Yootopia xx

But Bush stated that as one of his reasons for declaring war. He said nothing about oil.

Sorry, I must have missed that one. I thought the reason for the war was to get rid of those nasty imaginary WMDs. No one started mentioning toppling a despot and freedom for Iraq till after the event.

If he was happy to kill hundreds of thousands of his citezins before, what was stopping him doing it to defend himself?

He was willing to ruthlessly butcher Kurds, who are generally despised throughout the Arab world, but reluctant to slaughter Sunnis or Shias.

Incidentally, he's completely fucking wrong about Rwanda.

Hes completely fucking wrong about most things but that don't stop him. :p

You said they hadn't killed on a the same scale. That means numerically, not geographically.

Look at the scale on a map. Now, is it a geographical or numerical construct? Does it represent distance or quantity?

He was willing to ruthlessly butcher Kurds, who are generally despised throughout the Arab world, but reluctant to slaughter Sunnis or Shias.


And what about the first bit? or are you admitting defeat there?

Kurds are generally despised are they? I take it you have been to Arabia and asked everyone then ye? Or just reading what you hear in the US press?

AMK
xxx

But Bush stated that as one of his reasons for declaring war. He said nothing about oil.

And so we come full circle. Bush wanted to oust Saddam, but not the other bastards, people will continue to point out how there were and are(apparently) dictators as bad or worse than Saddam who do not currently have the US Military kicking down their door. You'll continue to "disprove" this by moving the goalposts around. Nobody will achieve anything, with the possible exception of you, since, if you are a troll, you would likely be enjoying us feeding you immensely.

Look at the scale on a map. Now, is it a geographical or numerical construct? Does it represent distance or quantity?

Genocide of 100,000 over a city is worse than genocide of 1,000 over a whole nation. True or false?

Because we wanted to exhaust diplomatic possibilities before taking more forceful action. Is there something wrong with diplomacy?
The illegal invasion of Iraq is definitely not a diplomatic move. :eek:

It initiated hostilities against two neighboring nations within the past two decades.
Iran, which was totally supported by the US, and the other was Kuwait, which if you remember Ambassador Gillespie's remarks, Saddam believed that the US would not get involved in their mutual dispute. Or do you disregard history?

If you can significantly condense it, I will. Otherwise, I'm a busy man and have no time for such lengthy posts.But for some reason he does have time for a lengthy original post, unless of course, not only has it been said before, but it also has been copied from someone that said it. And it seems as if he's been poring over the thread for at least an hour.

Look at the scale on a map. Now, is it a geographical or numerical construct? Does it represent distance or quantity?

So when you said that nobody else killed people on the same scale as Saddam, you meant that Saddam's maps used a unique scale that no other maps use.

How utterly ridiculous.

No one started mentioning toppling a despot and freedom for Iraq till after the event.

I shall quote from Bush's speech on the day armed intervention began. "We have no ambition in Iraq, except to...restore control of that country to its own people."

I shall quote from Bush's speech on the day armed intervention began. "We have no ambition in Iraq, except to...restore control of that country to its own people."
Great. And when the Berlin Wall came up, Kruschtyev said that it was there to help protect the sovereignty of the DDR. Didn't mean that it was a good thing, or that it was true at all.

...Saddam believed that the US would not get involved in their mutual dispute.

He obviously misunderestimated us, then, didn't he?

I shall quote from Bush's speech on the day armed intervention began. "We have no ambition in Iraq, except to...restore control of that country to its own people."

Thats not before the war is it? Thats after the event as I stated isn't it? You lose AGAIN FAG, strike 5:p

It would appear we have reached a point in patriotism where killing 1 000 000 people in a room is ok. As long as you don't do it across a nation. I think that speaks volumes about the level of this debate and the level of the person who started it. Luckily for us he is an American and therefore pretty much harmless and unable to function outside of is own little zone of comfort within the World According to Jefferson. (USA)
That means that the rest of the world can go along quite happily letting the corruption that spreads like a cancer across the USA and down into its badly educated proletariat and we do not need to care a shit because they are so insular and "neo conservative" that they will end up suffocating up their own arse and WMD's.

GOD BLESS THE USA
GOD BLESS THE USA
GOD BLESS THE USA

So when you said that nobody else killed people on the same scale as Saddam, you meant that Saddam's maps used a unique scale that no other maps use.

No. I am simply referring to the geographic area over which the killings were dispersed.

He was willing to ruthlessly butcher Kurds, who are generally despised throughout the Arab world, but reluctant to slaughter Sunnis or Shias.
How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been "butchered" in the Iraq War to date? Whipping a little "freedom" on them??

No. I am simply referring to the geographic area over which the killings were dispersed.

So it doesn't matter how many people were killed, it matters whether they were all close together or spread apart?

This is also ridiculous.

Somebody please close this thread or would everybody just please ignore FAG and his willfully ignorant comments. They're not worth rebuttal. It's like arguing with your WW2 vet grandpa about today's different issues. The world is not how you see it, FAG. There is a real history out there that exists independent of FOX, CNN, ABC, and the lot. It's a history that you obviously need to study. The Americans on this board love America every bit as strongly as you do, but unlike you they do not accept the crude deceipt with which this administration and the many before it operates. You are either a troll or a country bumpkin that has no business talking international politics.

Somebody please close this thread or would everybody just please ignore FAG and his willfully ignorant comments. They're not worth rebuttal. It's like arguing with your WW2 vet grandpa about today's different issues. The world is not how you see it, FAG. There is a real history out there that exists independent of FOX, CNN, ABC, and the lot. It's a history that you obviously need to study. The Americans on this board love America every bit as strongly as you do, but unlike you they do not accept the crude deceipt with which this administration and the many before it operates. You are either a troll or a country bumpkin that has no business talking international politics.

No Old Alba, why take away our fun? I'm loving this, if yu dont like it dont read it, but this is like taking candy from a baby. Only this time the baby has more intelligence because it at least knows when its lost some candy.

AMK
xxx

Great. And when the Berlin Wall came up, Kruschtyev said that it was there to help protect the sovereignty of the DDR. Didn't mean that it was a good thing, or that it was true at all.

You're being disingenuous. I was refuting the assertion that freedom was not mentioned as a war aim except after the beginning of the war.

You're being disingenuous. I was refuting the assertion that freedom was not mentioned as a war aim except after the beginning of the war.

...and failing.

misunderestimated

Off topic but this is not a real word. I believe it is a "Bushism".

FAG so far in this thread you have stated

- Saddam had nukes

- Saddam had WMDs and shipped them to Afica in the opening stages of the war

- Isreal has never instigated a war

- Saddam killed 200,000 in the Al-Anfwah (sp?) uprising

- Iraq has killed more people than Rwanda, Somalia or Ethiopia

- Iraq was a greater threat to its neighbours than Rwanda, Somalia or Ethiopia

Prove one of these statements, JUST ONE, with, you know, EVIDENCE, and I'll give you a point. Till then you get zip


Still waiting.

Genocide of 100,000 over a city is worse than genocide of 1,000 over a whole nation. True or false?

And still waiting.

Great. And when the Berlin Wall came up, Kruschtyev said that it was there to help protect the sovereignty of the DDR. Didn't mean that it was a good thing, or that it was true at all.Interestingly enough, right before they put it up, the Sec Gen of the Socialist Unity-Party of Germany said: "No one has the intention of building a wall..."

You're being disingenuous. I was refuting the assertion that freedom was not mentioned as a war aim except after the beginning of the war.
I'm not being disingenuous at all. I'm saying it could be absolutely bollocks.
Interestingly enough, right before they put it up, the Sec Gen of the Socialist Unity-Party of Germany said: "No one has the intention of building a wall..."
Haha yeah, and the Grenztruppen sure showed everyone else, eh?

How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been "butchered" in the Iraq War to date? Whipping a little "freedom" on them??

The perpetrators of the gruesome violence against civilians are the terrorists whom we are seeking to eliminate.

Still waiting.

OK. No nation called "Isreal" exists. 1-0 me. Happy?

I'm just thinking, can you really blame the pilots on the 11th of September? I mean, maybe its a bit extreme, but if flying an aeroplane into a skyscraper means I get to kill off a few thousand people like FAG, sounds like a good deal to me.

Anyone got a spare set of keys?

AMK

Off topic but this is not a real word. I believe it is a "Bushism".
"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test" :D

And still waiting.

Whether or not it's worse, it's less widespread.

Whether or not it's worse, it's less widespread.

Thats fucking irrelevant you rapist!

Whether or not it's worse, it's less widespread.

Thats not what you insinuated. Now who's being disingenious? Just simply answer the quyestion instead of prevaricating.

The perpetrators of the gruesome violence against civilians are the terrorists whom we are seeking to eliminate.
Erm. You mean there's never any 'collateral damage' caused by US troops?

Around 90,000 Kurds were killed in the Anfal campaign (the mid-point of the UN estimates being taken here) - The US has done this, if not more, either by directly shooting people by accident, or by destroying the infrastructure that would otherwise save lives.

It's not original; many people have said this before me, and hopefully they will persist in informing the American people of the mortal peril of dissent.The same sorts of people also vigorously persisted in informing the Soviet people of "the mortal peril of dissent" in the same spirit. Certain British colonials were also informed of the traitorous nature of their dissent. Strangely enough, these rebellious subjects of His Royal Majesty King George III are today known as the original American patriots and are idealized by the likes of you.

The true moral peril lies in the deification of state power and branding all those who oppose it as enemies of the people. Such a mindset suggests neither freedom nor glory but rather an ignoble slavishness.

OK. No nation called "Isreal" exists. 1-0 me. Happy?

I'll be happy when you answer the questions instead of being childish. So, got any answers, with, you know, proof or evidence?

Whether or not it's worse, it's less widespread.
...

That's possibly the worst argument ever.
Indeed they did. I'm glad my German grandparents fled right before it went up. They didn't take too kindly to the stifling of dissent; getting dragged off to go voting by the police in elections that always resulted in 99.9% acceptance didn't turn my grandfather on very much.
Ah, the VoPo and the Stasi. Good times, good times... (or not)

Haha yeah, and the Grenztruppen sure showed everyone else, eh?Indeed they did. I'm glad my German grandparents fled right before it went up. They didn't take too kindly to the stifling of dissent; getting dragged off to go voting by the police in elections that always resulted in 99.9% acceptance didn't turn my grandfather on very much.

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test" :D
This is why Bush was elected. For us to laugh at.
Whether or not it's worse, it's less widespread.

100 people on the top floor of a hotel room has somehow contracted a mysterious and fatal disease.

Meanwhile one man in northern Canada and another in southern New Zealand have contracted a different disease, though it is equally mysterious and fatal as the first.

By your reasoning we should concentrate our efforts on curing the two men, because their disease is more widespread.

Oh snap, reductio ad absurdum.

Thats not what you insinuated. Now who's being disingenious? Just simply answer the quyestion instead of prevaricating.

Who am I to decide what's worse? I'm sure the victims of the second genocide would say that it's worse than the first.

Right, i'm going to my pit. Can I just thank you FAG for making my evening so entertaining. There are few people in the world who can tick every single box of ignorance, stupidity, intolerance, short sightedness, racism, arrogance, sadness and most of all someone who never ever ceases to deliver.
For that I gotta thank you and pray that you keep posting on this forum. If it were not for the likes of you we would be having serious debate about issues that matter with people who know how to use the English language in a proper and coherent manner.
Again, on behalf of everyone who knows what freedom is, thank you very much indeed. May you sleep well and god bless...:fluffle:


AMK
xxx:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Who am I to decide what's worse? I'm sure the victims of the second genocide would say that it's worse than the first.
Good question, which you tried to answer in the same post.

Oh and good night, Chesser Scotia!

Who am I to decide what's worse? I'm sure the victims of the second genocide would say that it's worse than the first.

You gave an opinion, now you say you don't have one. And you have the temerity to accuse others of being disingenious.




Now answer my questions.

By your reasoning we should concentrate our efforts on curing the two men, because their disease is more widespread.

Yes, if they are in two different geographic areas, then they have a greater potential for spreading the disease all over the world. Those in the hotel are more closely confined, thus limiting the damage they may cause.

I suggest everyone keep quoting this until FAG answers:
FAG so far in this thread you have stated

- Saddam had nukes

- Saddam had WMDs and shipped them to Afica in the opening stages of the war

- Isreal has never instigated a war

- Saddam killed 200,000 in the Al-Anfwah (sp?) uprising

- Iraq has killed more people than Rwanda, Somalia or Ethiopia

- Iraq was a greater threat to its neighbours than Rwanda, Somalia or Ethiopia

Prove one of these statements, JUST ONE, with, you know, EVIDENCE, and I'll give you a point. Till then you get zip

To alter another internet term.

FACTS or GTFO.

And the idea of limiting political opposition to regular elections has a name. It's called 'democratic centralism' and it is the tenet of the Marxist-Leninist system that solidifies the Party dictatorship.

Good question, which you tried to answer in the same post.

Oh and good night, Chesser Scotia!

Thanks, i really don't want to go to bed. Its like putting the telly off before Fawlty Towers is finished, you know whats going to happen, but you really want to watch it time and again because you always laugh.

Long live Basil And Glory

You gave an opinion

No, I claimed that the deaths were more widespread; that is a factual statement, not an opinion.

No, I claimed that the deaths were more widespread; that is a factual statement, not an opinion.

And by doing so you were insinuating that the deaths in Iraq were worse to justify US involvement there and nowhere else, which was the original question. You are now trying to disown this statement because you have been proved wrong on it.






Now answer my questions.

And by doing so you were insinuating that the deaths in Iraq were worse to justify US involvement there and nowhere else, which was the original question.

Actually, I was demonstrating the ways in which Saddam's actions were exceptional with respect to the list of nations supplied by another poster. I did this because I did not wish to go through the 20-odd items on the list and assess each independently -- as I previously stated, I am a busy man.

Actually, I was demonstrating the ways in which Saddam's actions were exceptional with respect to the list of nations supplied by another poster. I did this because I did not wish to go through the 20-odd items on the list and assess each independently -- as I previously stated, I am a busy man.

But not too busy to come up with several pages for an OP? So when someone questions you your suddenly too busy? Feeling the pinch FAG?:p

Actually, I was demonstrating the ways in which Saddam's actions were exceptional with respect to the list of nations supplied by another poster. I did this because I did not wish to go through the 20-odd items on the list and assess each independently -- as I previously stated, I am a busy man.
Rwanda had casualties of around a million, all around the country.

The perpetrators of the gruesome violence against civilians are the terrorists whom we are seeking to eliminate.
Those "terrorists" gravitated to Iraq after the US invaded Iraq illegally. The Sunni based insurgency, and the Shia death squads are a direct result of the US invasion. Therefore, most of the deaths of Iraqis is due to the fact that BushCo "misunderestimated" the consequences of his actions.

In other words.....Bush's War of Error!!

Actually, I was demonstrating the ways in which Saddam's actions were exceptional with respect to the list of nations supplied by another poster. I did this because I did not wish to go through the 20-odd items on the list and assess each independently -- as I previously stated, I am a busy man.

So the original question still stands. IF, as you state, the goal of the invasom of Iraq was to topple Saddam, why have the USA not tried to topple dictators of equal or worse means? You said to list them and that you would answer. They have been listed, so do as you promised, and answer.

They have been listed, so do as you promised, and answer.

No, they have been not. Countries have been listed, but the alleged dictators ruling them have not. Somebody spent 10 seconds copying a list from elsewhere -- am I expected to spend 27 times that much time preparing an adequate and comprehensive response?

Look at the scale on a map. Now, is it a geographical or numerical construct? Does it represent distance or quantity?

That is, without a doubt, the worst attempt at playing with semantics I have ever seen. You know very well what is meant by the word "scale" in this context, and are changing definitions in mid-stream to make yourself look better. If you thought this was an adequate rebuttal, then your debate skills are even poorer than I thought. I've encountered people with your debate style before, but rarely beyond the 5th grade.

No, they have been not. Countries have been listed, but the alleged dictators ruling them have not. Somebody spent 10 seconds copying a list from elsewhere -- am I expected to spend 27 times that much time preparing an adequate and comprehensive response?

Well, seing as you said you would, then yes.

Rwanda had casualties of around a million, all around the country.

Yes, but Rwanda's area is a measly one-sixteenth of Iraq's.

No, they have been not. Countries have been listed, but the alleged dictators ruling them have not. Somebody spent 10 seconds copying a list from elsewhere -- am I expected to spend 27 times that much time preparing an adequate and comprehensive response?
You failed to refute my listed dictator. Because you fail in every aspect of life.

Yes, but Rwanda's area is a measly one-sixteenth of Iraq's.
Saddam did not kill 16 million people. Hence Rwanda was worse.

Incidentally, if someone deployed a WMD over, say, New York, would that be OK?

Well, seing as you said you would, then yes.

No, I stated that I would compare Saddam with a given dictator and explain why the deposing him is preferable to ousting the other dictator.

.

From New Statesman (http://www.newstatesman.com/200609040067).

The Western Favourite
Dictators: Islam's man of action
Ziauddin Sardar on Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan
www.newstatesman.com/200609040030

The Dictator on Europe's Doorstep
Dictators: Dreaming of the USSR
Andrey Kurkov on Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus
www.newstatesman.com/200609040031

The Religious Authority
Dictators: Reform and the mullahs
Ali M Ansari on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran
www.newstatesman.com/200609040032

The Nuclear Threat
Dictators: The depths of evil
Jasper Becker on Kim Jong-il of North Korea
www.newstatesman.com/200609040033

The Personality Cult Leader
Dictators: Central Asia's new idol
Lucy Ash on Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan
www.newstatesman.com/200609040034

The Mandarin
Dictators: Between the Party and the markets
Xiao Jia Gu on Hu Jintao of China
www.newstatesman.com/200609040035

The Oil Profiteer
Dictators: Africa's brutal secret
Hector Rodrigues on Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea
www.newstatesman.com/200609040036

The Absolute Monarch
Dictators: Oil, torture and the west
Damian Quinn on Abdullah Ibn Abdul Aziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia
www.newstatesman.com/200609040037

The Modernising Sheik
Dictators: Meet the CEO, Dubai Inc
William Wallis on Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai
www.newstatesman.com/200609040038

The Last Latin Autocrat
Dictators: Goodbye to all that
Ben Davies on Alfredo Stroessner, former leader of Paraguay
www.newstatesman.com/200609040039
To read the nominated worst despots visit our dictators survey at www.newstatesman.com/dictators

Worst for freedom of speech
1 Kim Jong-il, North Korea
2 Isaias Afewerki, Eritrea
3 Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan
4 Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran
5 Senior General Than Shwe, Burma
Source: Reporters Without Borders' press freedom index 2005

Most corrupt
1 Yoweri Museveni, Uganda
2 Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan
3 Hu Jintao, China
4 Raul/Fidel Castro, Cuba
=5 Laurent Gbagbo, Ivory Coast
=5 José Eduardo dos Santos, Angola
Source: Transparency International annual report 2004. This is not a list of the most personally corrupt dictators, but a list of how much each country's population perceives corruption in government

Longest in power (in years):
1 Cuba: Fidel Castro - 47
2 Libya: Muammar al-Gaddafi - 37
3 Gabon: Omar Bongo - 31
4 Equatorial Guinea: Teodoro Obiang Nguema - 27
5 Angola: José Eduardo dos Santos - 27
research by Daniel Trilling and Karolin Schaps

Oh look, it wasn't just countries after all, it was exactly what you asked for, and right below the list of countries. Comprehension not up to scratch wither FAG? Well, what are you waiting for?

I've encountered people with your debate style before, but rarely beyond the 5th grade.

Are you so deluded as to believe that your puerile, ad hominen debate style is superior to my seasoned use of logic?

Are you so deluded as to believe that your puerile, ad hominen debate style is superior to my seasoned use of word play and semantics?

Now answer the questions

Are you so deluded as to believe that your puerile, ad hominen debate style is superior to my seasoned use of logic?
I don't know what your logic is seasoned with, but I'm sure as fuck not eating it.

No, I stated that I would compare Saddam with a given dictator and explain why the deposing him is preferable to ousting the other dictator.
Yeah. Now re-refute Than Shwe after I pointed out where you were going wrong.

*edits*

261,227 sq mi (Myanmar) vs. 169,234 sq mi (Iraq)

Oh fucking yeah, I immediately win on your terms of most widespread tyranny!

Come on FAG, you have been given what you asked for, several times. Now do as you promised and you might be able to prove to all and sundry your not just a little troll. This is your big chance

Oh look, it wasn't just countries after all, it was exactly what you asked for, and right below the list of countries. Comprehension not up to scratch wither FAG? Well, what are you waiting for?

Very well.

The invasion of Pakistan would require vast amounts of manpower reserves which exceeded our capacity at the time. The civilian resistance to our invasion would likely be stiffer than in Iraq. Furthermore, Pakistan is at least a somewhat democratic nation and Musharraf has not been engaged in any particularly gross human rights violations (ie, genocide).

Andrey Kurkov on Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus hardly warrant an invasion; they are not bloodthirsty tyrants and have not systematically killed civilians.

Invading Iran would be much more complex than invading Iraq due to the much larger population. However, I believe we should launch an assault upon it in the future, having refined the techniques we learned in Iraq. However, it would have been foolhardy to invade it prior to attacking Iraq, given the nuisances we have encountered in the latter.

Invading North Korea would be a political blunder with respect to China (who joined the war on the North Korean side last time we tried to defeat them militarily).

Invading China would be idiotic as China possesses nuclear weapons.

Actually, not one tyrant on this list, now that I look at it, has been engaged in such ruthless slaughter as has been conducted under the auspices of Saddam. Case closed.

Actually, not one tyrant on this list, now that I look at it, has been engaged in such ruthless slaughter as has been conducted under the auspices of Saddam. Case closed.
Than Shwe!

Oh fucking yeah, I immediately win on your terms of most widespread tyranny!

You win a highly effective albeit disingenuous straw-man argument, perhaps. I claimed that the genocide was widespread; however, there has been no genocide perpetrated in Burma.

You win a highly effective albeit disingenuous straw-man argument, perhaps. I claimed that the genocide was widespread; however, there has been no genocide perpetrated in Burma.

Damn those non-existant Karen getting involved in non-existant genocide

:Very well.

The invasion of Pakistan would require vast amounts of manpower reserves which exceeded our capacity at the time. The civilian resistance to our invasion would likely be stiffer than in Iraq. Furthermore, Pakistan is at least a somewhat democratic nation and Musharraf has not been engaged in any particularly gross human rights violations (ie, genocide).

Andrey Kurkov on Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus hardly warrant an invasion; they are not bloodthirsty tyrants and have not systematically killed civilians.

Invading Iran would be much more complex than invading Iraq due to the much larger population. However, I believe we should launch an assault upon it in the future, having refined the techniques we learned in Iraq. However, it would have been foolhardy to invade it prior to attacking Iraq, given the nuisances we have encountered in the latter.

Invading North Korea would be a political blunder with respect to China (who joined the war on the North Korean side last time we tried to defeat them militarily).

Invading China would be idiotic as China possesses nuclear weapons.

Actually, not one tyrant on this list, now that I look at it, has been engaged in such ruthless slaughter as has been conducted under the auspices of Saddam. Case closed.

Uh uh not that easy. YOU wanted this debate, so you have it.

Firstly, your entire reasoning runs along the lines of Iraq was the easiest option. Glad you finally admitted it.

Secondly that lst statement is so false as to be stupid. Are you really trying to say that Saddam instituted worse slaughter than Kim Jong Il, Hector Rodriguez or Than Shwe? On both the numerical and economic scale, all three leaders have been far more ruthless and committed worse slaughter than Saddam.

Prove your statement or go away.

You have again given opinion, not proof.

PROVE SOMETHING!:p:p

You win a highly effective albeit disingenuous straw-man argument, perhaps. I claimed that the genocide was widespread; however, there has been no genocide perpetrated in Burma.

!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you living under a rock?

You win a highly effective albeit disingenuous straw-man argument, perhaps. I claimed that the genocide was widespread; however, there has been no genocide perpetrated in Burma.
*coughs*

Karen genocide.

- From Dictatorwatch.org , although there are a great many similar sources :

In total, a million or more Karen have been forced from their homes and villages. At a minimum tens of thousands have been killed, or died from disease, in particular malaria and diarrhea, while on the run. (No reliable figures are available.) Thousands of villages have been destroyed. And, when the villagers flee, all of their choices are bad: they become confined in relocation villages and are subjected to forced labor, theft and extortion; they become IDPs, struggling to survive in the forest; they become camp refugees (although this option, as unpleasant as it is, to be locked up in a camp for years, even decades, and to be banned from receiving visitors, is no longer available); or they become migrant laborers, subject to worker abuse and even slavery.



Nice one there, FAG!

Are you so deluded as to believe that your puerile, ad hominen debate style is superior to my seasoned use of logic?

I really can't answer that, as I've yet to see you use anything remotely resembling logic. Your statements aren't true simply by virtue of you saying they are. Provide proof of your assertions, or admit that they are merely opinions. You are welcome to express any opinion you wish, but expect to be disagreed with, and stop stating your opinion as if it were some universal truth. Because that is exactly what your claims of logic and common sense are: lame attempts to make yourself appear wise.

wow, MTAE/FAG has been owned yet again. Who would you have thought it possible?

Well FAG, youv'e seen fit to quit yet again, so all I can say is well done everyone, owned yet again.

Oh and FAG, its 1am here, your offline so I'll leave this for you to read later just before I go to bed. Keep going and so will I. I did this when you were MTAE and when you were CitizenPatriot. Keep spouting and I'll keep calling you on it.

Night everyone.:p

Originally Posted by Ollieland View Post
FAG so far in this thread you have stated

- Saddam had nukes

- Saddam had WMDs and shipped them to Afica in the opening stages of the war

- Isreal has never instigated a war

- Saddam killed 200,000 in the Al-Anfwah (sp?) uprising

- Iraq has killed more people than Rwanda, Somalia or Ethiopia

- Iraq was a greater threat to its neighbours than Rwanda, Somalia or Ethiopia

Prove one of these statements, JUST ONE, with, you know, EVIDENCE, and I'll give you a point. Till then you get zip

Quoted to put the pressure back on FAG. Come on fella, your willful ignorance is lacking here even for one of your threads. Aren't you the brave patriot who comes to NSG to fight the culture war against the inferior, liberal, elitist scum? You've been reduced to a punchline now, as a horrible one at that. You make outlandish claims of bullshit without ever providing proof to the point. If you want to make a claim then back it up, otherwise STFU and admit defeat like the "warrior" you are.

Are you so deluded as to believe that your puerile, ad hominen debate style is superior to my seasoned use of logic?
Your MeansToAnEnd side is showing FAG. :p

I'm not going to say because I espoused some puerile (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11902326&postcount=13) and rather embarrassing ideas under that sobriquet, and I know that many users will use that information to discredit me.

MeansToAnEnd, from what I've read of his topics, was "fun" due to his incessant posting of preposterous ideas and ridiculous schemes. They bore no semblance to reality; not even the most gossamer ties connected them to real life. But, because of that, they were "fun."

I, on the other hand, am not trying to be original. Many people have previously espoused my viewpoints. I am not trying to be "fun." I am trying to communicate my stance on war-time dissent effectively and clearly.

Another user likened me to that individual earlier today. I searched for MTAE, but found no users matching that sobriquet (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12505551&postcount=93). Is he some kind of urban myth around here or something?

"puerile" and "espoused" are rarely used words on NSG but only a small handful have used the word "sobriquet", and it appears that you and MTAE hold the monopoly. :D

I guess your penchant for ten dollar words, your intense patriotism??, your debate style and your trollish manner expose the RealAmerica that will use any MeansToAnEnd to pursue FreedomAndGlory???

Well FAG, youv'e seen fit to quit yet again, so all I can say is well done everyone, owned yet again.

Oh and FAG, its 1am here, your offline so I'll leave this for you to read later just before I go to bed. Keep going and so will I. I did this when you were MTAE and when you were CitizenPatriot. Keep spouting and I'll keep calling you on it.

Night everyone.:p
He was CitizenPatriot too?????

I can't seem to find that alias.

One of the most infuriating messages which I have seen ubiquitously splashed about on bumper stickers is the following: "dissent IS patriotic," or some other variant thereof. Under the current circumstances with which we are faced (namely, the terrible specter of Islamo-fascism, silently hovering above us and patiently awaiting a chance to strike), the statement should read: "dissent IS traitorous."


"A specter is haunting America. The specter of Islamo-fascism."

Nothing like using the threat of fascism to suppress democratic freedoms, eh?

Haha you've been outed.

Go ahead run and hide then come back with another account pretending to be a Neocon.
Because we all know that you are nothing more than a pathetic loser who's goal of life seems to revolve around being an idiot on message boards.

FAG is still here? I don't believe it. This guy is a joke account if there ever was one. How the fuck can someone with "freedom" in their name seriously try to decry the fundamentals of free society?

Easy - doublethink.

FAG is still here? I don't believe it. This guy is a joke account if there ever was one. How the fuck can someone with "freedom" in their name seriously try to decry the fundamentals of free society?

Busheviks have a tendency to drape themselves in the very things they want to suppress... like freedom, democracy, civil liberties, you name it.

Sort of like the opposite of projectionism.

EDIT: There's doublethink too, but in Busheviks it's a bit too pathological to be just that.

Fair(er) democratic elections turn your grandfather on?

Democracyphilia?
Kinky!

I don't want to know what LG's granddad did in the pooling booth...

Indeed they did. I'm glad my German grandparents fled right before it went up. They didn't take too kindly to the stifling of dissent; getting dragged off to go voting by the police in elections that always resulted in 99.9% acceptance didn't turn my grandfather on very much.

Fair(er) democratic elections turn your grandfather on?

Democracyphilia?

This thread died a long time ago. When are we giving it a decent burial?

Is that bloggy enough?
Needs more embarrassing personal details and/or inane political diatribes.

Kinky!

I don't want to know what LG's granddad did in the pooling booth...

No wonder why people like secret elections... More privacy that way :D .

Laerod is an LG puppet?

There is only one way to destroy/close this thread without getting banned: Turn it into a blog!

So... I went to my second day of uni (second semester) today. It was alright, some of it just a rehash of the last semester subjects.

I'm also playing CN, lol.

Is that bloggy enough?

This thread died a long time ago. When are we giving it a decent burial?

Yesterday, hopefully... this shit is getting old.

Needs more embarrassing personal details and/or inane political diatribes.

Do they have to be embarassing personal details about me?

Also, stop performing the time warp :eek: .

I guess the best way to sum this up is:

No, you're not violating any laws by attacking our troops and the war.

I've heard them called cold blooded killers, monsters, ect. Seen people look and talk down to them, in the same way it happened after Vietnam.

It's wrong.

But you've got rights to protect you.

I think the real point of this is not that "the government should take away your right to dissent," but that you should "shove your protesting and quit being assholes." Do it in the right way, instead of the way that makes you look like a JERK.

Does that make more sense?

No, they are not patriots, but rather in a league with the insurgents and bin Laden.
Get them the fuck out of harm's way then.
That choice was Bush's and you know it.

What is a patriot in Iraq these days anyway? Is it an Iraqi Arab favoring pan-Arabic nationalism? A member of the Iraqi Workers' Communist Party favoring a united democratic Iraq and an immediate US withdrawal? A Kurdish nationalist favoring a united and independent Kurdistan?

Iraq is a very tenuous construct. Either way, in the US these days a 'patriot' is whomever seems to support the most oppressive government tendency whether its in or out of power, sees immigration as an 'invasion' of sorts and wants to deport all foreigners. I can imagine what these fine folks would be doing if we actually were being invaded by foreigners who wanted had just 'changed our regime.'

If you insult the way the war is being handled, you might as well be taking up arms against the American forces yourself.


I have to start killing American soilders now? Damn... all I asked was "What the hell is America doing in Iraq?". :(

Ignorance is strength.

...tens of thousands have been killed, or died from disease, in particular malaria and diarrhea, while on the run.


Nice one there, FAG!

I stated that Saddam's genocide was more disastrous in terms of the total death toll; that statement remains valid, as he butchered well over 100,000 Kurds (I tend to agree with the 200,000 figure, however).

!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you living under a rock?

The object of the Burmese is not to massacre the Karens; such an action would be pointless and accomplish no reasonable goal. Rather, they seek to tap the potential of what they deem to be second-class citizens by forcing them to work in labor camps. Thus, the Karens become an economic asset rather than a cultural and ethnic liability. Given that the intent of the Burmese is not widespread slaughter but rather an anachronous implementation of a slave system, I hesitate to call their actions "genocide." Brutal despotism? Yes. Genocide? No.

Firstly, your entire reasoning runs along the lines of Iraq was the easiest option. Glad you finally admitted it.

That's a clever distortion of what I said. In reality, I claimed that we would enjoy the greatest chances of success by invading Iraq. Furthermore, Saddam was the most repugnant dictator listed, having slaughtered more of his people than anyone else.

The death toll for civilians since the invasion of Iraq is somewhere between a minimum of 67,945, and a maximum of 74,336 (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/). With no sign of things dying down, can anyone say that the invasion has been a victory for stability and democracy in the region without laughing?

Perhaps, true blooded patriots should, when seeing innocent civilians being killed, follow the advice of Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt and 'change the channel'.

I stated that Saddam's genocide was more disastrous in terms of the total death toll; that statement remains valid, as he butchered well over 100,000 Kurds (I tend to agree with the 200,000 figure, however).
The 200,000 figure is total shite, the properly recognised figure is around 70-90,000, which is less than what's going on in Burma, which is a bigger country anyway, so by your standards, this makes it worse regardless.

Your argument just annihilates itself.

Incidentally, why do you 'tend to agree' with the 200,000 figure?

Did you actually go there and count them all, or is it more because it suits an argument weaker than the Swiss navy?

The object of the Burmese is not to massacre the Karens; such an action would be pointless and accomplish no reasonable goal. Rather, they seek to tap the potential of what they deem to be second-class citizens by forcing them to work in labor camps. Thus, the Karens become an economic asset rather than a cultural and ethnic liability. Given that the intent of the Burmese is not widespread slaughter but rather an anachronous implementation of a slave system, I hesitate to call their actions "genocide." Brutal despotism? Yes. Genocide? No.
Abso-fucking-lute rubbish.

Tens of thousands have died, actually, you seemingly know nothing at all about the whole thing.

By all the gods, why don't I ever get to argue with a decent opponent?

Because all the decent ones agree with you. ;)

Your inability to grasp my proof does not equate to a lack of proof. Lowering our troops' morale is a wrong.

Your troops' morale as most of us aren't Yanks with our collective heads shoved twenty leagues up our collective ass where the sun don't shine, sug.

And the Americans who disagree with you are still patriots in their own right.

Just because you're twisted logic says they aren't doesn't make it so. They are equally as patriotic, if not more so.

Your proof is slipperier than a three legged dog trying to bury shit on a frozen pond. It can't be grasped because there is nothing logical about.

You're arguing in circles and have yet to tell us anything we haven't heard yet. You're worse than a scratched CD.

Further, I said if you can't back up your points that you aren't to quote me any more. So I'm telling you to remove my quote from your signature now. I have every right to demand it. I do NOT want to be quoted by someone who cannot debate without chasing their own tail ad nauseum.

Haven't any of you figured it out yet? It's treason to disagree with F&G.

Correction, it's treason to disagree with the Bushiveiks. :)

- Isreal has never instigated a war

True. Name one war which you claim Israel instigated. Israel has either defended itself from obdurate Arab government unwilling to concede its existence or obdurate Arab terrorist groups unwilling to concede its existence. Note the common denominator, here.

- Saddam killed 200,000 in the Al-Anfwah (sp?) uprising

Saddam killed 300,000 during his entire bloody reign.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/

- Iraq has killed more people than Rwanda, Somalia or Ethiopia

I never stated that.

- Iraq was a greater threat to its neighbours than Rwanda, Somalia or Ethiopia

Iraq actually invaded two of its neighbors. I'd say this constitutes a greater threat than not invading one's neighbors.

Tens of thousands have died, actually, you seemingly know nothing at all about the whole thing.

It is possible that some tried to revolt against the existing order and thus had to be subdued. However, the killing of rebels is not considered "genocide," regardless of the ethnic identity of the rebels. Also, diseases played a large role in the deaths of many Karens, as they fled into the jungles to escape persecution. There was no systematic slaughter of Karens (only several thousand died by the hand of the state); thus, there was no genocide.

The death toll for civilians since the invasion of Iraq is somewhere between a minimum of 67,945, and a maximum of 74,336 (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/).
Also keep in mind that they themselves recognise that this is going to be an underestimate, as a lot of civilian deaths aren't on the news.

It is possible that some tried to revolt against the existing order and thus had to be subdued. However, the killing of rebels is not considered "genocide," regardless of the ethnic identity of the rebels. Also, diseases played a large role in the deaths of many Karens, as they fled into the jungles to escape persecution. There was no systematic slaughter of Karens (only several thousand died by the hand of the state); thus, there was no genocide.
...

By your logic - same of the Kurds. Hey, they rebelled - wahey for nerve gassing them, eh?

That's a clever distortion of what I said. In reality, I claimed that we would enjoy the greatest chances of success by invading Iraq. Furthermore, Saddam was the most repugnant dictator listed, having slaughtered more of his people than anyone else.

You seem to be forgetting the likes of hitler and stalin.

(1) True. Name one war which you claim Israel instigated. Israel has either defended itself from obdurate Arab government unwilling to concede its existence or obdurate Arab terrorist groups unwilling to concede its existence. Note the common denominator, here.



(2) Saddam killed 300,000 during his entire bloody reign.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/



(3) I never stated that.



(4) Iraq actually invaded two of its neighbors. I'd say this constitutes a greater threat than not invading one's neighbors.

(1) Terrorist campaign of independence against the British. Proof please

(2) You didn't say his whole reign, you said Al-Anfal. Proof please

(3) Yes you did. You stated that the nations and leaders listed by Yootopia experienced slaughter "not as widespread" as Iraq to justify the US invasion of Iraq, Anyone who speaks English would interpret this as "not as many". You have tried to use semantics and wordplay to disavow this statement since.

(4) That may be so, but one ofg those invasions was nacked by the US. You don't mind backing Iraqi aggression when it suits you it seems.

Again, all opinion. I'll say it again, troll.

PROVE SONETHING!!

Oh look, a challenge and he goes offline.

FAG you really are a coward of the first rate. You espouse pro war views and call the troops brave (which they undoubtably are) yet not only do you refuse to join up yourself, stateing your efforts are far better employed arguing the case here (!?!?!?!?), you then refuse to do even that. Coward.

Iraq actually invaded two of its neighbors. I'd say this constitutes a greater threat than not invading one's neighbors.

I hadn't invaded jack-shit since 1991. The Iraq-Iran war was a conflict waiting to happen, and if Iraq didn't start it, Iran would have. Push.

As for Kuwait, they invaded and were pushed back in two fucking days. And then they sat with their thumbs up their asses for twelve years waiting to be invaded by the U.S. Yeah, that's real fucking threatening.

They're about as threatening as a grumpy, middle-aged man who threw a rock at a paperboy twelve years ago and got his car blown up for it by a motorcycle gang and hasn't done anything since except yell at his wife. The motorcycle gang was stupid to burn his house down; now there's mob rule.

I'd just like to say, after reading the first page and the last, that FreedomandGlory or whatever he wants to call himself drastically overinflates the egos of the media conglomerates. I don't care what the media says about the war in Iraq, they aren't there, and if anybody thinks that military personnel are fragile as to the opinions of others, they are very, very wrong. No military members I know give two shits about what anybody says about the war, or any war, because it really doesn't matter what they think. I care about what I think, and about what my superiors think, not what some douchebag from Maryland thinks, and especially not if said douchebag is a politician.

(1) Terrorist campaign of independence against the British. Proof please

The conflict which you are describing occurred prior to the foundation of the Israeli state. You cannot fault Israel for the campaign perpetrated by a loose association of Zionists.

(2) You didn't say his whole reign, you said Al-Anfal. Proof please

Here's a reliable site placing the official figure at 182,000 casualties. Now, are you going to play semantics and tell me that's not equivalent to 200,000?

http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profile/db/facts/tahir_tawfiq-al-ani_581.html

(3) Yes you did. You stated that the nations and leaders listed by Yootopia experienced slaughter "not as widespread" as Iraq to justify the US invasion of Iraq, Anyone who speaks English would interpret this as "not as many". You have tried to use semantics and wordplay to disavow this statement since.

Simply because several posters eagerly leaped to flawed conclusions does not reflect poorly upon me. As the saying goes, if you assume, you make an ass of u and me.

(4) That may be so, but one ofg those invasions was nacked by the US. You don't mind backing Iraqi aggression when it suits you it seems.

Stop trying to change the goal-posts. The question wasn't whose fault the wars were, but rather whether or not they posed a threat to Iraq's neighbors. Clearly, war is dangerous.

The conflict which you are describing occurred prior to the foundation of the Israeli state. You cannot fault Israel for the campaign perpetrated by a loose association of Zionists.


Nonsense. They were formed into the IDF and many of those involved went on to hold high office, as has been the case in countries with similar beginnings. Now, go away.

Now, go away.

I second this.

Really, why are you even bothering to post here FAG? Just go to some conservative forum where you can wallow in your ignorance and cruelty unchallenged.

Nonsense. They were formed into the IDF and many of those involved went on to hold high office, as has been the case in countries with similar beginnings. Now, go away.

Are you being intentionally think-headed? The state of Israel did not exist back then. Thus, Israel did not instigate the conflict.

Really, why are you even bothering to post here FAG? Just go to some conservative forum where you can wallow in your ignorance and cruelty unchallenged.

The truly ignorant are those who resort to ad hominem attacks rather than engaging in proper and polite debate.

Are you being intentionally think-headed? The state of Israel did not exist back then. Thus, Israel did not instigate the conflict.


The founders of the state of Israel instigated the conflict against the British. Get used to it. Now hit the road.

I second this.

Really, why are you even bothering to post here FAG? Just go to some conservative forum where you can wallow in your ignorance and cruelty unchallenged.

Hey, I'm conservative and cruel, and I want FAG to go away...

Hey, I'm conservative and cruel, and I want FAG to go away...
Nice one. Well, you've moved up a notch in my books, then. In fact, throughout this whole topic, you've mainly been fairly reasonable, so yeah, cheers.

It is possible that some tried to revolt against the existing order and thus had to be subdued. However, the killing of rebels is not considered "genocide," regardless of the ethnic identity of the rebels.

Then why was Slobodan Milosevic tried for genocide in the hague?

And whats this?
http://www.yale.edu/gsp/guatemala/guatemala_maps.html

(1) The conflict which you are describing occurred prior to the foundation of the Israeli state. You cannot fault Israel for the campaign perpetrated by a loose association of Zionists.



(2) Here's a reliable site placing the official figure at 182,000 casualties. Now, are you going to play semantics and tell me that's not equivalent to 200,000?

http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profile/db/facts/tahir_tawfiq-al-ani_581.html



(3) Simply because several posters eagerly leaped to flawed conclusions does not reflect poorly upon me. As the saying goes, if you assume, you make an ass of u and me.



(4) Stop trying to change the goal-posts. The question wasn't whose fault the wars were, but rather whether or not they posed a threat to Iraq's neighbors. Clearly, war is dangerous.

(1) Who went on to form the IDF and the state of Isreal, so yes I can. Making that statement is the equivalent to saying tjose who formed the US government after the war of independence had no part in it. Its ridiculous.

(2) Semantics is your game. Most sources place the casualties at 80.000 -100,000 but I'll concede the point. Thanks for finally providing proof - after nearly 8 pages of asking!!


(3) Several posters "leaped to the conclusion" because that is what you were insinuating. If, as you claim, you were stating the Iraqi slaughters were more geographically widespread, exactly how is this relevant to you using that as an excuse to take on Saddam and not other dictators?

(4) No one is changing the goalposts, I am merely stating a fact. Comprehension letting you sdown again? I am conceding the point you (sign of a half decent debator, something you seem incapable of doing). The relevance of this fact is that you have stated that one of the reasons for taking on Iraq was that it was a threat to its neighbours. My assertion is that is false, as shown by US support of the Iraqi regime when he went to war with Iran. It would seem that he is only a threat to his neighbours when those neighbours are your friends.

Nice one. Well, you've moved up a notch in my books, then. In fact, throughout this whole topic, you've mainly been fairly reasonable, so yeah, cheers.

It's ok to say, "Well, initially I was for the Iraq War, but now I think it was a daft idea".

Then why was Slobodan Milosevic tried for genocide in the hague?

Am I correct in saying that he was not found guilty of charges of genocide? He allegedly engaged in genocide, but this was not proven.

And whats this?
http://www.yale.edu/gsp/guatemala/guatemala_maps.html

Judging from the URL, maps of Guatemala. What's your point?

It's ok to say, "Well, initially I was for the Iraq War, but now I think it was a daft idea".
Yeah, exactly. If people can see they were wrong, then that's good. When people continue on after 4 bloody years believing that it's for the greater good and start legitimising their views with ridiculous 'points' - that's where problems lie.

Judging from the URL, maps of Guatemala. What's your point?

Ah the joys of selective reading

Am I correct in saying that he was not found guilty of charges of genocide? He allegedly engaged in genocide, but this was not proven.?

But, if mass killings of rebel groups aren't genocide, then why was he charged at all?



Judging from the URL, maps of Guatemala. What's your point?

Genocide, yet "counterinsurgency". See above.

Am I correct in saying that he was not found guilty of charges of genocide? He allegedly engaged in genocide, but this was not proven.
...

He died.

But, if mass killings of rebel groups aren't genocide, then why was he charged at all?

Because of socialist European nations who had a soft spot for Muslims, going to any lengths to defend them against perceived aggression (this problem has been exacerbated by further bending over of European nations to Muslim demands). Even Noam Chomsky, the liberal golden-boy linguist, stated that calling Milošević's acts genocide was "an insult to the victims of Hitler."

Genocide, yet "counterinsurgency". See above.

What legal body determined it to be genocide?

...

He died.

So he was not, in fact, convicted on charges of genocide. Thank you very much; that is all.

So he was not, in fact, convicted on charges of genocide. Thank you very much; that is all.
...

Because he died before the end of testimonial hearings...

Yeah, exactly. If people can see they were wrong, then that's good. When people continue on after 4 bloody years believing that it's for the greater good and start legitimising their views with ridiculous 'points' - that's where problems lie.

Well, I don't think it was daft to topple Saddam - even if it's just because we think he's an ass. It's daft to think that we could hold the place together after we did it.

Really, the whole Middle East is a clusterfuck, and it's not because of US policy, or EU policy, or anything external. The people who live there are experts at fucking themselves into dictators and totalitarian states.

At this point, since they have so much animosity (especially Sunnis and Shias in the Iraq/Iran region), we should leave immediately and let nature take its course.

But, if mass killings of rebel groups aren't genocide, then why was he charged at all?

Genocide, yet "counterinsurgency". See above.

Lots of people commit genocide and don't get charged.

See anyone from the Sudan charged yet?

Well, I don't think it was daft to topple Saddam - even if it's just because we think he's an ass. It's daft to think that we could hold the place together after we did it.

Really, the whole Middle East is a clusterfuck, and it's not because of US policy, or EU policy, or anything external. The people who live there are experts at fucking themselves into dictators and totalitarian states.

At this point, since they have so much animosity (especially Sunnis and Shias in the Iraq/Iran region), we should leave immediately and let nature take its course.
This is where we disagree, but that's for another topic, really.

So he was not, in fact, convicted on charges of genocide. Thank you very much; that is all.

WARNING

Godwin's Law in action

Hitler wasn't either.


Sorry.

[SIZE="1"]Hitler wasn't either.


Sorry.

No, but other top Nazi officials were, thus allowing the Holocaust to be branded as "genocide."

No, but other top Nazi officials were, thus allowing the Holocaust to be branded as "genocide."
...

You should write this amazing crap that you speak down in a book, list it under the 'comedy' section of your supermarkets and roll in money, to be honest.

No, but other top Nazi officials were, thus allowing the Holocaust to be branded as "genocide."

I assume you support abortion then?

No, but other top Nazi officials were, thus allowing the Holocaust to be branded as "genocide."

Ah but other Serbian leaders are still being tried for Genocide. So using your logic, if they are convicted, then it is indeed a genocide.

The truly ignorant are those who resort to ad hominem attacks rather than engaging in proper and polite debate.

lol.

I like how you manage to come across as being superior, while still getting to hypocritically call someone else "truly ignorant." Almost appears as if you aren't yourself engaging in an ad hominem attack, doesn't it! Clever!

I also like how you constantly appeal to "debate" even when it's been shown you ignore any argument made that you can't answer. In other words you "debate" for only one purpose, to continue the thread - not to actually, ya know, communicate and engage in the marketplace of ideas. But alas, what else to expect from a stupid little troll...

F&G, you've had you ass handed to you on a silver platter. Just admit you can't substantiate your bullshit and move on. While you're at it, cease and desist in quoting me in your signature.

Ah but other Serbian leaders are still being tried for Genocide. So using your logic, if they are convicted, then it is indeed a genocide.

According to the ICC and their particular intepretation of the "genocide," which is not necessarily equivalent to my definition and the one employed by the majority of the world. As I previously pointed out, Noam Chomsky (who I am sure is adored by many liberals here) vehemently contests the branding of the conflict as a "genocide," even going so far as to state that such a term is an "insult."

While you're at it, cease and desist in quoting me in your signature.

If you are ashamed of that which you post on this forum, carefully review it before irrevocably submitting it into full public view. If, however, you take pride in what you write, there is no need to protest against your "wisdom" being shared with others via my signature.

According to the ICC and their particular intepretation of the "genocide," which is not necessarily equivalent to my definition and the one employed by the majority of the world. As I previously pointed out, Noam Chomsky (who I am sure is adored by many liberals here) vehemently contests the branding of the conflict as a "genocide," even going so far as to state that such a term is an "insult."

Congratulations! You completely dodged my point.

Clever...stupid little troll

Your contradictory nature is a hindrance to taking you seriously; within the scope of one post, you manage to not only use mutually exclusive terms in describing a fellow poster (clever and stupid), but you also perversely use (and abuse) pejorative language. As I have amply reiterated, this "attitude" which you have assumed is an impediment to proper debate.

Congratulations! You completely dodged my point.

No. I stated that it would be a genocide, but only according to the institution responsible for prosecuting the trial. The ICC cannot pretend to speak for all of us; indeed, it is an entity consumed by petty political bickering. Also, it is overly sensationalist in order to whet its appetite for blood and to prove its worth. I cannot take its judgments seriously; that is indeed why the US withdrew from it.

Because of socialist European nations who had a soft spot for Muslims, going to any lengths to defend them against perceived aggression (this problem has been exacerbated by further bending over of European nations to Muslim demands).

Yep, by the look of that bollocks, you're a trolling little snot allright. Well, now thats clear you'll pardon me not helping you fill your school holidays with the attention its somebody elses job to give you.

No. I stated that it would be a genocide, but only according to the institution responsible for prosecuting the trial. The ICC cannot pretend to speak for all of us; indeed, it is an entity consumed by petty political bickering. Also, it is overly sensationalist in order to whet its appetite for blood and to prove its worth. I cannot take its judgments seriously; that is indeed why the US withdrew from it.

...So a genocide is only a genocide if you think so. And if it's over a wide enough area. But if it's over a wide area and has more people, then it's not really genocide, because the government is just wiping out rebels (who just happen to all belong to a single racial group). Gotcha.

Your contradictory nature is a hindrance to taking you seriously; within the scope of one post, you manage to not only use mutually exclusive terms in describing a fellow poster (clever and stupid), but you also perversely use (and abuse) pejorative language. As I have amply reiterated, this "attitude" which you have assumed is an impediment to proper debate.


What? He called you a fuckwit? Bit harsh.......




....on fuckwits.

...So a genocide is only a genocide if you think so. And if it's over a wide enough area. But if it's over a wide area and has more people, then it's not really genocide, because the government is just wiping out rebels (who just happen to all belong to a single racial group). Gotcha.

The area over which the killings occur is irrelevant; however, the total casualties do matter. For it to be a genocide, wanton and deliberate slaughter of innocent civilians must occur. Many instances of alleged "genocide" are mitigated, if not completely excused, by the fact the a particular ethnic minority is violently opposing the state, necessitating a harsh retaliation. One example of this is the conflict in Чече́нская Респу́блика.

The area over which the killings occur is irrelevant; however, the total casualties do matter. For it to be a genocide, wanton and deliberate slaughter of innocent civilians must occur. Many instances of alleged "genocide" are mitigated, if not completely excused, by the fact the a particular ethnic minority is violently opposing the state, necessitating a harsh retaliation. One example of this is the conflict in ????????? ??????????.

So why not do something about Than Shwe? Rwanda? They meet your standards.

So why not do something about Than Shwe?

His regime has killed, at most, several thousand people. That's hardly enough to justify intervention in such a large country, probably resulting in many more deaths. The country is a bigger and more populous Vietnam.

Rwanda? They meet your standards.

Unfortunately, Clinton did nothing about Rwanda. I agree that it's sad, but you can't expect more from politicians like him.

Unfortunately, Clinton did nothing about Rwanda. I agree that it's sad, but you can't expect more from politicians like him.

Oh I agree. Which is exactly why Bush has done the same thing. Sitting on his hands about Rwanda. Pity that our elected representatives are doing so little to better the world. But that's politicians for you.

OP most likely dissented against the Clinton administration.

You traitor.

OP most likely dissented against the Clinton administration.

You traitor.

I never dissented against the Clinton administration during wartime.

Oh I agree. Which is exactly why Bush has done the same thing. Sitting on his hands about Rwanda.

The genocide in Rwanda has been over for a decade.

If you are ashamed of that which you post on this forum, carefully review it before irrevocably submitting it into full public view. If, however, you take pride in what you write, there is no need to protest against your "wisdom" being shared with others via my signature.

Actually, I can. However, that isn't to say I don't take pride in what I write, though I do have the right to ask someone to remove it if I don't want that person to quote me out of context, as you have done. This is no different than you asking for people to address you in a certain fashion. My request for you to remove the quote from your signature is clearly no different than yours that asks for people not to call you "fag".

The area over which the killings occur is irrelevant; however, the total casualties do matter. For it to be a genocide, wanton and deliberate slaughter of innocent civilians must occur. Many instances of alleged "genocide" are mitigated, if not completely excused, by the fact the a particular ethnic minority is violently opposing the state, necessitating a harsh retaliation. One example of this is the conflict in Чече́нская Респу́блика.

But that was a central tenet of your argument! So you were wrong on that then?

I do have the right to ask someone to remove it if I don't want that person to quote me out of context

Give me the context in which you would like me to use that quote and I shall consider complying with your request.

Give me the context in which you would like me to use that quote and I shall consider complying with your request.

None of the above.

But that was a central tenet of your argument! So you were wrong on that then?

No, it was never part of my argument; I simply stated it as a fact. I could have said that Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti had more letters in his name than any of the other leaders provided. That's a fact. Showing me that Mobutu Sese Seko Nkuku Ngbendu wa Za Banga has more letters would prove that there is another dictator (not included in the original list, mind you) with a longer name. However, this would not automatically make him a worse dictator in my eyes. I never claimed that the length of one's name is a criterion upon which I judge his ruthlessness.

FAG, can I ask a question. If during the course of a war, your government decided the best thing to do was nuke your neighbourhood. Assuming you were not killed in the outright carnage that followed, ie you were somewhere else at the time, would you protest?

AMK
xxx

None of the above.

Am I to deduce from that statement that you would not like me to use that quote even in a different context (of your choosing)?

FAG, can I ask a question. If during the course of a war, your government decided the best thing to do was nuke your neighbourhood. Assuming you were not killed in the outright carnage that followed, ie you were somewhere else at the time, would you protest?

That's ridiculous; it would never happen.

No, it was never part of my argument; I simply stated it as a fact. I could have said that Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti had more letters in his name than any of the other leaders provided. That's a fact. Showing me that Mobutu Sese Seko Nkuku Ngbendu wa Za Banga has more letters would prove that there is another dictator (not included in the original list, mind you) with a longer name. However, this would not automatically make him a worse dictator in my eyes. I never claimed that the length of one's name is a criterion upon which I judge his ruthlessness.

You claimed that the killings in Iraq were more widespread, and then after stated that you meant more widespread geographically, in the first case using this argument to justify the US actions against Saddam Hussein rather than against other dictators. Its there for everyone to see.

Stop confusing the issue with laying down accusations I have not made.

That was what you said. You have now said that geographical area in relation to genocide and killings is irrelevant.

So which is it?:rolleyes:

That's ridiculous; it would never happen.

Irrelevant, its a hypothetical situation aimed at guaging where treason ends and common sense starts.

Also, 60 years ago, if I suggested that my government was going to follow a self elected imbicile into a country, kill its citizens indescriminately and cause chaos and madness, the reply would be exactly what you just said.

So please FaG, answer the question directly without dodging round what is a simple and easy to understand concept.

AMK
xxx

in the first case using this argument to justify the US actions against Saddam Hussein rather than against other dictators.

I was simply pointing it out as a shocking fact; it was meant to illustrate the villainy of Saddam, but not as a means of proving his relative maleficence with respect to the other dictators.

dodging round what is a simple and easy to understand concept.

If 2 + 2 = 5, then what does 3 + 3 equal? Your question does not take into account even a semblance of reality; thus, I cannot honestly comment on it by virtue of its sheer impossibility.

I was simply pointing it out as a shocking fact; it was meant to illustrate the villainy of Saddam, but not as a means of proving his relative maleficence with respect to the other dictators.

More wordplay.

You were asked to justify why Saddam was taken on and not other dictators.

You were then given a list of nations and dictators (as requested but conveniently ignored) and asked to say why Saddam was worse than them.

You then stated that the killings in Iraq were more widespread than in the other countries.

Most people reasonably interpreted this as you stating the killings were more numerous, and proceeded to prove this point wrong.

You then backtracked saying you mean't geographically more widespread.

You then stated that geographical area is irrelevant to genocide and killings.


Sigh


So you were using that in your argument. Read through your own posts.

Now, answer the question. Which statement you made is true, and which statement you made is wrong?

If 2 + 2 = 5, then what does 3 + 3 equal? Your question does not take into account even a semblance of reality; thus, I cannot honestly comment on it by virtue of its sheer impossibility.

My friend, please, please do not delve into such realms of hypocrasy as you are currently.
You're entire thread thus far has involved movng around questions that disprove or disassimilate the points you are trying to put forward. It has involved completely ignoring any semblance of reality in your single minded and ill-informed stance.
As my proof to the above accusations I cite this entire thread for people to browse at their leisure.
So do not, even consider coming to me with an accusation of me divorcing anything from reality when it is merely in the tone of what has preceeded.
On a technical point, it is not impossible, all that has to happen is that a nuclear bomb has to be aimed at wherever you happen to soil by your residency. And the necessary commands put in place to bring to bear the ordinance within the nuclear warhead. The likelihood, I grant you is small, however put me anywhere near one of your lovely little missile silos and I will be more than happy to oblige.

Now please Mr andGlory, in the words of Jeremy Paxman. You have not answered the question.

AMK
xxx

[QUOTE=FreedomAndGlory;12904854]If 2 + 2 = 5, then what does 3 + 3 equal? Your question does not take into account even a semblance of reality; thus, I cannot honestly comment on it by virtue of its sheer impossibility.[/QUOTE

Imaginary number mathematics. If 2 + 2 = 5, 3 + 3 = 7

Now answer the very simple question thats been put to you.

Which statement you made is true, and which statement you made is wrong?

You know, I had questions like this on my Chemistry SAT II back in the day. They gave you two statements. You had to say whether one was true and then whether the other was true. After that, you had to say whether the second one was a reasonable explanation for the first. For example:

He is an inert gas because He has less than 8 electrons.

Both statements are true, but the second is not an adequate explanation of the first. Let us apply this to our current dilemma.

Saddam is a worse dictator than the others provided because his killings were more widespread.

Again, both statements are true, but the second is not an adequate explanation of the first. However, you were the one who unreasonably assumed that the second was proffered as an explanation of the first when, in reality, it was simply put forth as a matter of fact.

Now answer the very simple question thats been put to you.

Very simple? I'll give you an equally simple question: what is the color of music?

Answer the question please. Stop dodging!

Its black if you print it on black and white, and in the words of David Gilmour, any colour you like, if you use a colour printer. Now get on with it... answer the question.

OK. Yes, if the destroyed city rises from the ashes of its desolation, more magnificent than ever before, and, miraculously, nobody is injured in the nuclear reaction.

Very simple? I'll give you an equally simple question: what is the color of music?

Its black if you print it on black and white, and in the words of David Gilmour, any colour you like, if you use a colour printer. Now get on with it... answer the question.

When I clicked on this thread and read the first post I was a little put off by the sheer stupidity of it. But as an open-minded American citizen I held out hope that maybe-just maybe-FreedomAndGlory would come out with something to validate his argument, or at least come out with something that resembled a well structured and cohesive argument. I was wrong on all points and I believe I have grown dumber from reading this entire thread from first post to last post.

I should be ashamed...

When I clicked on this thread and read the first post I was a little put off by the sheer stupidity of it. But as an open-minded American citizen I held out hope that maybe-just maybe-FreedomAndGlory would come out with something to validate his argument, or at least come out with something that resembled a well structured and cohesive argument. I was wrong on all points and I believe I have grown dumber from reading this entire thread from first post to last post.

I should be ashamed...

Unlucky mate, don't worry. I honestly don't think the world sees all Americanians like that. You're going to be ok. The guy is a traitor and a disgrace to himself and his country.

Unlucky mate, don't worry. I honestly don't think the world sees all Americanians like that. You're going to be ok. The guy is a traitor and a disgrace to himself and his country.

Thanks, I am really looking forward to being active in the NationStates Forums, but I am officially declaring that FAG is on my ignore list. Permanently.

As for this thread:

I enjoyed reading the intellegent remarks made by some of our fellow NSG members, but it was all ruined everytime FAG stepped in and dumped his extreme right-wing 'the government is always right' bullshit on this thread.

You know, I had questions like this on my Chemistry SAT II back in the day. They gave you two statements. You had to say whether one was true and then whether the other was true. After that, you had to say whether the second one was a reasonable explanation for the first. For example:

He is an inert gas because He has less than 8 electrons.

Both statements are true, but the second is not an adequate explanation of the first. Let us apply this to our current dilemma.

Saddam is a worse dictator than the others provided because his killings were more widespread.

Again, both statements are true, but the second is not an adequate explanation of the first. However, you were the one who unreasonably assumed that the second was proffered as an explanation of the first when, in reality, it was simply put forth as a matter of fact.


So, not only have you yet again failed to answer a question, when opne of your previous answers is proved wrong you deny it was an answer, just a statement.

Forget your SAT, you didn't write it, YOU wrote those statements which contradict each other. So which is true?

By their very nature they can't both be true, which means you have made a mistake. Now be a man and admit.

By their very nature they can't both be true, which means you have made a mistake. Now be a man and admit.

To which two statements are you referring?

Thanks, I am really looking forward to being active in the NationStates Forums, but I am officially declaring that FAG is on my ignore list. Permanently.

As for this thread:

I enjoyed reading the intellegent remarks made by some of our fellow NSG members, but it was all ruined everytime FAG stepped in and dumped his extreme right-wing 'the government is always right' bullshit on this thread.

Cevnia, you'd be surprised, but FaG is not actually right wing, he sadly just doesn't have the ability to think for himself. Algining him as one particular viewpoint suggests he has been able to sit down and think it all through. Ive been in NS Forums for just under a year and don't really contribute much, but I do enjoy FaG's threads as they don't provide too much cerebral challenge and are always a good laugh.

Are you american?

AMK
xxx

Oh shit, forgot to say, FAG, answer the question big boy, i answered yours.

Also He is an inert gas because its outer cloud of electrons is full. fud

AMK
xxx

Also inert gasses have 8 outer electrons.

No, they have a full outer shell. Most have a sufficiently large principal energy level in order to have a p electron sub-level requiring 6 electrons to fill. To this is added the more "lowly" s electron sub-level, requiring only 2 electrons to fill. Valence (ie, "outer") electrons are the total number of electrons contained within the s and p electron sub-levels. Helium only has two valence electrons as it lacks a p electron sub-level. It is nonetheless an inert gas (and a noble gas, a particular sub-type of inert gases).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_gas

Cevnia, you'd be surprised, but FaG is not actually right wing, he sadly just doesn't have the ability to think for himself. Algining him as one particular viewpoint suggests he has been able to sit down and think it all through. Ive been in NS Forums for just under a year and don't really contribute much, but I do enjoy FaG's threads as they don't provide too much cerebral challenge and are always a good laugh.

Are you american?

AMK
xxx

Okay, he's not a right-wing extremist, just an idiotic nutcase. Got it.

I am an American, that is the one and only thing FAG and myself have in common. I live in Hamblen County, East Tennessee. Not really a fun place to live it you think about it. :(

No, they have a full outer shell. Most have a sufficiently large principal energy level in order to have a p electron sub-level requiring 6 electrons to fill. To this is added the more "lowly" s electron sub-level, requiring only 2 electrons. Valence (ie, "outer") electrons are the total number of electrons contained within the s and p electron sub-levels. Helium only has two valence electrons as it lacks a p electron sub-level. It is nonetheless an inert gas (and a noble gas, a particular sub-type of inert gases).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_gas

My word, the boy is blind as well as stupid.

Ahh

My word, the boy is blind as well as stupid.

I disproved a false statement of yours. You are being not only disingenuous but also highly hypocritical.

Okay, he's not a right-wing extremist, just an idiotic nutcase. Got it.

I am an American, that is the one and only thing FAG and myself have in common. I live in Hamblen County, East Tennessee. Not really a fun place to live it you think about it. :(

I honestly wouldn't know. Tennessee has always appealed to me. Its also the name of a very good song by the Manic Street Preachers.
I am from Aberdeenshire in Scotland, at Uni in Edinburgh and currently living in Bristol in England for the summer, so at least you have roots! ;-)

AMK

I honestly wouldn't know. Tennessee has always appealed to me. Its also the name of a very good song by the Manic Street Preachers.
I am from Aberdeenshire in Scotland, at Uni in Edinburgh and currently living in Bristol in England for the summer, so at least you have roots! ;-)

AMK

Tennessee is not all that bad, it is just the parts of it where 'Holier than thou' fanatical baptists are common place. According to them, and I quote from one that was quite entertaining, 'Anything you do for your own self-pleasure is a dire sin! You should spend every waking moment praising your lord and saviour Jesus Christ!!!'

As for myself, I am a very undevout Roman Catholic Christian. I would actually rather becalled Agnostic, Atheist, or some synonym of the two than Catholic.

To which two statements are you referring?

Your two statements linking slaughter and geographical area, the two statements I mentioned in the post that you conveniently edited out, the two statements I have been going on about for nearly two pages.

Now answer the question

I disproved a false statement of yours. You are being not only disingenuous but also highly hypocritical.

Physician, Heal Thyself.

Im much the same as you. RC by denomination but really canna be doing with religion as a concept. It only really serves to ruin peoples lives. Someone once said to me, "Live by faith not sight" And it says a lot for my self control that I never punched them on the spot for being so bloody stupid.
Some decent Whisky from down your way?

AMK
xxx

Scotch Whisky is spelt without the e, Irish is spelt with, whiskey, but is there an official spelling for American whisky?:eek:

Your two statements linking slaughter and geographical area, the two statements I mentioned in the post that you conveniently edited out, the two statements I have been going on about for nearly two pages.

List the statements as follows.

1. First statement.
2. Second statement.

Is that too hard?

Tennessee is not all that bad, it is just the parts of it where 'Holier than thou' fanatical baptists are common place. According to them, and I quote from one that was quite entertaining, 'Anything you do for your own self-pleasure is a dire sin! You should spend every waking moment praising your lord and saviour Jesus Christ!!!'

As for myself, I am a very undevout Roman Catholic Christian. I would actually rather becalled Agnostic, Atheist, or some synonym of the two than Catholic.

Im much the same as you. RC by denomination but really canna be doing with religion as a concept. It only really serves to ruin peoples lives. Someone once said to me, "Live by faith not sight" And it says a lot for my self control that I never punched them on the spot for being so bloody stupid.
Some decent Whisky from down your way?

AMK
xxx