Print

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE (Achtung @ Mar 11 2003, 01:27 AM)

In defence of Dude , he not once said that the questions that he was asking were his, mearly to just answer them QUOTE Jasonmvt and Lizard King: Please answer any of these questions which are all points I myself have been trying to get across and answered straight out. But you choose to just keep attacking him on that they are not his questions (which he never claimed they were) and dance around them rather then try and answer them. I tried to get this back into a serious discustion (as Ill plainly addmitt I acted out of anger because of earlier posts which didnt help the situation for the better) and I give Lizzard King and Jasonmvt  and now Dude credit for trying aswell. But I see that there are just people waiting in the mists that have no real opinion at all other then to Insult  and attack someones stance on a subject. I might not agree with the thoughts of Jasonmvt or Lizzard King but I can respect there opinion if they show the same for mine. So bottom line If you dont have something inteligent to contribute then just dont for the sake of it.

It's quite simple.  I am not willing to formulate the lengthy responses that all these red herrings will require if dude is not willing to even bother to create his own questions, and provide counter theories of how he best thinks Arab terrorism, Iraq, and North Korea should best be resolved.  Take the last case...Anti-war types have seized on Kim and now their chant is "well, North Korea's a threat, why don't you do something about them"?

In any case, I did not accuse him of plagiarism per se since he did not, in fact, explicitly claim they were his.  However, I do find the way in which he posted them somewhat disingenuous, much the way I felt when Al Ghazi posted like 2 pages of quotes by famous historians from an English newspaper.  AG claimed them as learned sources backing his side exclusively, but only proved that he did not even bother to read his own posts since at least two of the eight had arguments closely resembling mine.  

The reason that bothers me is because it wastes my fucking time.  Don't just offer doubts about what is being done, offer credible alternatives with what you think the results will be.  Then you have an argument.

Well, tell me, how would you handle a rogue nation with nuclear weapons?  I think Bush's gradual approach is the only means availiable to us in the current situation.  

It's funny how it is always those on my side of the table that are being required to defend the long term prospects of our plans; we've made it clear that we believe the war in Iraq will be relatively brief, and the reconstruction successful within ten years, since with the absence of a need for carpet bombing and no real agriculture to speak of, the country has little to lose. It goes without saying that the presence of an American client state in the midst of the Middle East, which will unavoidably have far superior economic growth and personal liberty than any of its Arab neighbours, will do a great deal for shifting the basic nature of the Middle East's problems from general disarray and violence to a more ordered state.  

Now, the only truly valid issue I have seen raised about the war in Iraq is what the long term precedents that might be set by pre-emptive strikes such as this one will be, and whether they will provide a direct incentive to rogue countries to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible so that they can be treated like North Korea rather than Iraq.  That is a valid concern; however I think it hinges largely on how quickly we can get moving on Iraq.  The longer this anticipation lasts, the more likely it will trigger crises elsewhere.  If the UN had been rightly tossed aside last year and the invasion carried out, we'd already be in the phase of reconstruction.  

As an added bonus, we could have seen the leadership of continental Europe suffer a collective brain aneurysm and flock like vultures to obtain the slightest concession in the region, only to find that our allies already got the deals.  

Quite frankly, the window of opportunity is fast closing. I realize the plans for the invasion were set in motion months ago and the date decided on long before that, but I question whether there is anything more to gain from waiting longer.

[Ronnie]

QUOTE (xboxmodder4life @ Mar 10 2003, 02:48 PM)

when ur 18 ur supposed to register for the draft. Theres no actaul draft but incase there ever is. Your legally obligated if your a citizen of the united states at the age of 18 to sign up for a potential draft

Sorry to let you know but you are wrong.Im more than 18 years old but when I did turn 18 I signed up for selective services.And it aint the draft...

What is Selective Service registration?
Registration is a way our government keeps a list of names of men from which to draw in case of a national emergency requiring rapid expansion of our Armed Forces. By registering all young men, the Selective Service ensures that a future draft will be fair and equitable.

And no way in hell is the draft coming back unless we attack 2 powerful countries at one time.N.Korea and China or one of those countries and Russia(We would never fight Russia but another war with N.Korea will happen soon and there buddies up above may want to hep them out like last time.So a draft is possible but dubious)

[dude]

QUOTE (Wong Hung Lo @ Mar 11 2003, 12:03 AM)

At least I use my own words. You just copy and paste from your favorite communist websites. If you think that Bush is bad. Be thankfull I'm not your president. If I was president their would be less terrorist in this world. And I think Israel should take off the gloves and leave them off. Then take Afrafat and hang him from the nearest tree. Also my hats off to Russia on how they took care of those terrorist in that theatre last year. I really love how they burried them wrapped up in pigskins   Don't forget that Saddam funds terrorism. Remember how he gives the familes of suicide bombers $50,000. Here's something you can copy and paste. " Not all muslims are terrorist, but all terrorist are muslims".

Sorry Wung Ho but I am certainly not a communist and for you to infer as such is just plain assinine.  As I said in my earlier post Republicans (or Bush supporters) resort to Ad Hominem attacks when there is no other avenue for them to take in their arguments and are quite frankly not be taken seriously when doing so.  As far a copying and pasting goes...so what!  They're valid points to be discussed, recommended or admonished but I see you have a hard time doing just that.

Were you not treated well as a kid?  Maybe you still are one.  Jeez, I can't believe I am even replying.

[mickandthebadboyz]

here is a link that shows some scenarios that the US dont seem to thinking about



http://www.idleworm..../11/iraq2.shtml


BTW how many UN resolutions are israel breaking and why is nothing being said about it


mick

[dude]

QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 11 2003, 01:36 AM)

It's funny how it is always those on my side of the table that are being required to defend the long term prospects of our plans; we've made it clear that we believe the war in Iraq will be relatively brief, and the reconstruction successful within ten years, since with the absence of a need for carpet bombing and no real agriculture to speak of, the country has little to lose. It goes without saying that the presence of an American client state in the midst of the Middle East, which will unavoidably have far superior economic growth and personal liberty than any of its Arab neighbours, will do a great deal for shifting the basic nature of the Middle East's problems from general disarray and violence to a more ordered state.   Now, the only truly valid issue I have seen raised about the war in Iraq is what the long term precedents that might be set by pre-emptive strikes such as this one will be, and whether they will provide a direct incentive to rogue countries to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible so that they can be treated like North Korea rather than Iraq.  That is a valid concern; however I think it hinges largely on how quickly we can get moving on Iraq.  The longer this anticipation lasts, the more likely it will trigger crises elsewhere.  If the UN had been rightly tossed aside last year and the invasion carried out, we'd already be in the phase of reconstruction.   As an added bonus, we could have seen the leadership of continental Europe suffer a collective brain aneurysm and flock like vultures to obtain the slightest concession in the region, only to find that our allies already got the deals.   Quite frankly, the window of opportunity is fast closing. I realize the plans for the invasion were set in motion months ago and the date decided on long before that, but I question whether there is anything more to gain from waiting longer.

Lizard:

How much will this cost in lives, material, increased tax burden and/or deficits or for that matter international relations?  This shoot from the hip strategy of Bush's is frightening.   I do not see where any of it is funny in asking any of these questions given that we do not know for certain the response of terrorists, rogue states or emerging free enterprise economies like China's, who, by the way consider Taiwan a wayward entity and, according to your theory of dangerous precedent will look to fold them back under their wing.  What would be our response to that provocation?

Further, looking at it from a purely financial point of view doesn't it bother you that your tax dollars are going to enrich Bush's cronies in this whole affair ala the $900M being offered today to a number of American construction firms one of which happens to be a subsidiary of Halliburton (Cheney's old firm).  Are the Afghans really better off now that there is really only law and order restored in Kabul and just Kabul?  Who just signed a $3.2 billion dollar contract for a pipeline last December 28th and who will be the beneficiaries?  You really have to question the motives of such an administration!  

[ppbest]

QUOTE (Ronnie @ Mar 11 2003, 03:15 AM)

And no way in hell is the draft coming back unless we attack 2 powerful countries at one time.N.Korea and China or one of those countries and Russia(We would never fight Russia but another war with N.Korea will happen soon and there buddies up above may want to hep them out like last time.So a draft is possible but dubious)

Why you prefer war not peace? To fight with N.Korea or China or Russia is not the only way that you could come back from the hell. China will not side with N.Korea anylonger because N.Korea got too much help from China, and now says "China is no longer a real Communist country, so we leave him". Do you think someone like N.Korea can be a real friend even over 300,000 chinese soldiers died for him in the Korea War? I do not think so . But that doesn't mean N.Korea's people is bad, but the Chairman JIN ZHENGRI!! China will not help N.Korea any more unless someone like US takes the power of JIN, please note, to stop the nuke plan in N.Korea is not enough at all! Thinking about millions of people getting no enough food while JIN invited the Italian Pizza Maker for his dinner! Saddam and JIN are both shit that your goverment should kick them off, again, not the people(except Japan, there people and goverment are both shit, you will never know why, so don't ask).
So do not post something like " we should attack......" again unless you are really under 18 y, since you insiste ur over 18, that really could be serious problem.

----Do not like Bush
----LOVE Clinton
----Fuck all Muslims

[Mage]

QUOTE (ppbest @ Mar 11 2003, 04:24 AM)

(except Japan, there people and goverment are both shit, you will never know why, so don't ask).

Have you lived in Japan?  Well why exactly would you say that about Japanese people?  As for me, I've seen both sides of Japanese life, living in a small country-side area and then Toukyou.  So I think I could understand why, unless it's just pointless hate.

[Wong Hung Lo]

LOL! No more stories about the 3 little pigs or Charlotte's Web for the children.

School bans pigs stories

Mmmmmm! Canadian bacon & eggs fried in bacon grease sounds good right now. I guess I'll eat that for lunch.

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE (Al_Ghazi @ Mar 10 2003, 08:30 PM)

Ho I turned 18 the year that 'ol Ray-Gun brought that draft registration thing into effect.  I filled my card out in pink crayon and put a note at the bottom "Please forgive the crayon, but they won't let me have sharp instruments". i got a stinkin letter from the DoD containing a blank registration card and telling me that I was going to do it right this time or I was going to jail.  I whimped out and did it right.  I am after all an armchair liberal. Even stranger was that although I could drink at 18, then they passed that law that made the drinking age 21 and I was no longer allowed to go into the bars I had been drinking at.   Republicans... Bah! Gaz.

Oh, by the way, the two Senators that have put forth an (unsuccessful) motion to reinstate the draft in recent years were both Democrats, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina (the same sack of shit spearheading the DMCA and all such initiatives) and Charles Rangel of NY.  So put credit where credit is due.  Republicans haven't supported the draft since Vietnam.

[dude]

QUOTE

Their conventional forces are alarmingly underwhelming, better suited to crushing student rallies than highly motivated, well-trained Taiwanese soldiers with absolutely nothing to lose.

A little off there:
Conventional forces
China: 2.47M in uniform
Taiwan: 0.370M "      "
N. Korea: 1.082M
S. Korea: 0.683M

Tanks (MBT)
China: 7060
Taiwan: 739
N. Korea: 3500
S. Korea: 2390

Air Force
China: 3000
Taiwan: 570
N. Korea: 621
S. Korea: 555

Submarines
China: 57
Taiwan: 4
N. Korea: 26
S. Korea: 19

I would say China's military is anything but   underwhelming!

QUOTE

Is paying tribute to our enemies the rational approach to things?

How was he (Clinton) paying tribute to our enemies by giving aid?  Maybe the real question should be what far greater damage is Bush doing with his current PNAC diplomacy with the rest of the international community than Clinton ever did.  What are these costs, financial or otherwise going to be?  $1 trillion for Iraq and how would they be funded?  Do you want to pay for them because surely our soon to be former allies are not going to?

QUOTE

You know what really bothers me? That no one on your side of the debate even acknowledges that such financial motivations are central to nearly all of the Western government's opposition to the war in Iraq. Hell, the number one revenue source for the UN is the Iraqi oil for food program: 8 billion dollars going through their greasy little palms every year, and you think the UN doesn't have an interest in the status quo?  That France isn't hinged on cheap oil?  That Russia doesn't love instability in the Middle East as it makes its own oil fields that much more valuable?

You're a little shortsighted on this one but yes, this is most likely part of the equation.  You cannot debate the fact that these same governments (who have legal and binding contracts with Iraq) are willing to do this under an international mandate/blessing of the UN unlike our blatant grab for their oil.  So the question then becomes who is right?  France, Russia getting from Iraq what they have agreed to in the past or our militaristic go kill'em all and screw the rest of the world we're the US type of approach?  It's no wonder Blair's populace is revolting against him.

QUOTE

I don't think Bush's "cronies" are the motivation for his action.  Your claim is wholly a subjective one, as is my belief in what his motives really are.  I think it has a lot more to do wtih his management style than with what sector of industry he was most closely related with.  Moreover, I don't see how oil companies benefitting from the war hurts me in any way, other than providing me with cheaper gas and oil.  Last I checked, that was not a problem.

You must own stock in some of these oil companies.  Again, you didn't address my question of the plans being hatched and bid on by American companies to benefit from the aftermath of our military attacks on Iraq.  The administration should just admit this 'motivation' and they would garner some respect or do you think that the over 30 former members of the oil industry in Bush's cabinet is just a fluke?

QUOTE

As to the first question, yes, indisputably, Afghanistan is better off.  It has always been a country poorly suited to central administration, but the fact that there are no longer totalitarian fundamentalist fringe elements ensuring that the worst of the country runs it is indisputably a good thing.  It may never be a country that would be considered in tune with western standards of personal liberty and democracy, but it is certainly far more in that direction than it has been in the last 50 years.  And again, America's goal is not to set up democracies in all the Arab world, political rhetoric aside.  It is to find the best balance between cultural particularities of the country and stable, functional government.  I don't think true democracy works in the West (fortunately, America is still mostly a republic, not a democracy), and I don't see how it could possibly function in the Middle East.

Afghanistan is not better off from what I have heard and that law and order is only present in Kabul.  The warlords still impose their will outside the capital and do as they want.  Please show me otherwise.

QUOTE

Show me the details of this deal, and I'll be glad to talk about it.  I don't see how an oil pipeline through Afghanistan would be harmful to either my interests or to those of the Afghan people, nor do I think such a business deal was the motivation for actions in Afghanistan.  You may have forgotten about 9/11, but some of us have not.

Have not forgotten about 9/11 at all but I don't run around with this all-pervasive, sky is fallin' terrorism paranoia that the right-wing corporate media and especially the administration so wantonly shove into our face every day.  Why is the administration doing this you may ask?   Because Karl Rove has said so in August of last year that the administration can 'run' on the war effort and this would detract from all of his other policies that have failed so miserably.  

Good quote
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war
in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor,
for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword.
It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has
closed, the leader will have no
need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry,
infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of
their rights unto the leader, and gladly so.

How do I know?

For this is what I have done.

And I am Caesar."


You may want to check out this link regarding the oil pipeline:

http://www.buzzflash...y_Pipeline.html

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE (dude @ Mar 12 2003, 12:15 AM)

A little off there: Conventional forces China: 2.47M in uniform Taiwan: 0.370M "      " N. Korea: 1.082M S. Korea: 0.683M Tanks (MBT) China: 7060 Taiwan: 739 N. Korea: 3500 S. Korea: 2390 Air Force China: 3000 Taiwan: 570 N. Korea: 621 S. Korea: 555 Submarines China: 57 Taiwan: 4 N. Korea: 26 S. Korea: 19 I would say China's military is anything but   underwhelming!

Again, you are using numbers for what is entirely a qualitative judgement.  The size of the terrain being fought on and the significant shortage of amphibious landing craft that virtually every military other than the US has would also radically limit China's ability to wage war effectively.  In the Korean War they had no problem marching hordes across the border...in this case I hope they are fantastic swimmers...

North Korea can barely feed its soldiers, much less train them effectively.  They would be useful in an attritional style of warfare only, one which a modernized military opponent would render obsolete (such as South Korea).  Their only hope would be guerrilla warfare, which is far more suited to defensive war than offensive.

The Taiwanese military is extremely well trained, equipped and highly motivated with a home field advantage.  See Finland in WWII against the Soviets for an example of what such troops can accomplish (Vietnam is not nearly as good an example as that had much more to do with public relations than with military outcomes): not necessarily a defeat for the Chinese, but certainly an extraordinarily costly costly victory.  Not to mention it would require the virtual annihilation of Taiwanese infrastructure, which would pretty much defeat one of the purposes of taking it over: economic plunder.

QUOTE

How was he (Clinton) paying tribute to our enemies by giving aid?  Maybe the real question should be what far greater damage is Bush doing with his current PNAC diplomacy with the rest of the international community than Clinton ever did.  What are these costs, financial or otherwise going to be?  $1 trillion for Iraq and how would they be funded?  Do you want to pay for them because surely our soon to be former allies are not going to?

Tribute: A payment in money or other valuables made by one ruler or nation to another in acknowledgment of submission or as the price of protection or security. (courtesy of dictionary.com)

Yes, that's exactly what Clinton was doing. As North Korea has demonstrated, not only is it humiliating and have all sorts of unintended consequences in what people think they can get away with, but it does not work.

QUOTE

You're a little shortsighted on this one but yes, this is most likely part of the equation.  You cannot debate the fact that these same governments (who have legal and binding contracts with Iraq) are willing to do this under an international mandate/blessing of the UN unlike our blatant grab for their oil.  So the question then becomes who is right?  France, Russia getting from Iraq what they have agreed to in the past or our militaristic go kill'em all and screw the rest of the world we're the US type of approach?  It's no wonder Blair's populace is revolting against him.

Your argument only holds water if you think that majority rule is inherently correct.  I don't.  An international mandate means that, and nothing more.  What's more, how would an American company dealing with a freed Iraqi government and people (relatively) be more like robbery than the current state of affairs, where French and others' money goes straight into Saddam Hussein's pockets and into his war machine, in other words, directly into the instruments of repression of his own people?  

QUOTE

You must own stock in some of these oil companies.  Again, you didn't address my question of the plans being hatched and bid on by American companies to benefit from the aftermath of our military attacks on Iraq.  The administration should just admit this 'motivation' and they would garner some respect or do you think that the over 30 former members of the oil industry in Bush's cabinet is just a fluke?

1. I don't think there is anything wrong with American companies planning for the postwar scenario.  And I still think there is a huge difference between a possible benefit of the war and a motivation.  These fall into the prior category.  Same as leftists would accuse the Johnson administration of being guided by economic interests in the Vietnam war; there were plenty of good criticisms, but those were nonsense.  It is a simple rehashing of Lenin's theories of Imperialism and capitalism, and such Marxist analyses of history are inherently flawed by their one dimensional ignorance of basic causality and economics.

2.  I don't think the administration should dignify those accusations with a response any more than they should the accusations that the President is simply trying to outdo his father.  

3.  I don't own stock in any oil companies.

QUOTE

Afghanistan is not better off from what I have heard and that law and order is only present in Kabul.  The warlords still impose their will outside the capital and do as they want.  Please show me otherwise.

I could show you reams of photographs of Afghani women getting their driver's licenses
[/URL]

or young girls going to school in Kandahar and places other than just Kabul. (I don't really feel like bombing the bandwidth tho).  Or we could talk about how it is indisputably better to have anyone other than the Taliban setting the framework for local authorities to function in...but that would make no difference as your argument is predicated on ideological rather than material concerns.  Afghanistan will never be good enough for opponents of America; by my measure, it is in fact an objectively better place due to American intervention.

QUOTE

Have not forgotten about 9/11 at all but I don't run around with this all-pervasive, sky is fallin' terrorism paranoia that the right-wing corporate media and especially the administration so wantonly shove into our face every day.  Why is the administration doing this you may ask?   Because Karl Rove has said so in August of last year that the administration can 'run' on the war effort and this would detract from all of his other policies that have failed so miserably.

I will certainly agree that Karl Rove is a bad influence in the administration. For one thing, I am certain that the soft approach he advocates towards Saudi Arabia and local Muslim leaders in America is anything but constructive.  But, as is usually the case with Bush critics, you overestimate the role advisors have to maintain your fantasy about Bush's inadequacy.  Nevermind that that fails to address how such an incompetent would manage to singlehandedly lead the Republicans to a majority in a mid-term election with a recession; what that would say about the relative incompetence of his Democratic adversaries would no doubt be too frightening to consider.

What other policies have failed miserably? Are you saying that a President in a time of war would not logically have most of the discussion centered around said war?  If you're about to dive into a "It's the economy, stupid" sort of argument, I suggest you take a long hard look at the time frame in which macroeconomic policy functions before you start criticizing Bush's economic plans.  

I am not advocating paranoia about 9/11, merely pointing out that it is absurd to contend as you did that that was not the primary motivation for the Afghan aspect of the war.  

QUOTE

Good quote "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

My favourite part about that  is when some peacenik distributed as a quote from Shakespeare's "Caesar" via email, and it went so far as to be cited as such by Barbra Streisand in one of her typically empty headed admonitions to her Democratic Senator friends.  In one fell swoop the ignorance of classical literature of leftists everywhere was put on display...but I digress.

I think it is also ironic that it is supposed to have been said by Julius Caesar, or Augustus Caesar, or any of the other autocrats of the Roman republic or empire.  An empire/republic based around military conquest would be unlike to have its leadership critical of war as a tool, on a moral or strategic level. Also, that is exactly the opposite of what happened to Julius Caesar...but dammit I digress again.

The Patriot act is a separate issue, if that is in fact what you are referring to, and I think we might find some common ground there.  It would be wrong, however, to begin a discussion of it without noting the shared responsibility every single member of congress has for such an abomination, of all parties and persuasions, with the possible exception of neo-conservatives like Ron Paul who objected stridently but were silenced.  

QUOTE

You may want to check out this link regarding the oil pipeline: http://www.buzzflash...y_Pipeline.html

Seems like pretty standard conspiracy theory fare.  I still think you fail to understand the difference between causal motivations and possible benefits in addition to the real motivations.  To allege that this oil pipeline, and not 9/11, were in any way a primary motivation for the invasion of Afghanistan is absolutely ridiculous.

[Rebel-Soul]

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE (Rebel-Soul @ Mar 12 2003, 01:27 AM)

We try to help but we get peanuts in return I personally do not mind. To give and expect nothing in return is a great thing.

It may be great, but it is also entirely nonexistent. Self interest is the only constant in human affairs, or in fact, any interaction of living creatures.  The only choice you have is to find a commonality of interests in the long term that works.  

I believe the European stance does not reflect the long term interests of America or virtually anyone in the world other than Saddam.  I believe the American stance currently best reflects our long term interests as well as those of the Iraqi people (of course, that is a secondary factor in my support of American policy).

But I am under no delusions about altruism; anyone that claims it as a motivation is likely up to something they fear admitting to.  Just think of all the crimes commmitted "for the greater good of man", and you will know of what I speak.

[Rebel-Soul]

QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 12 2003, 01:35 AM)

QUOTE (Rebel-Soul @ Mar 12 2003, 01:27 AM) We try to help but we get peanuts in return I personally do not mind. To give and expect nothing in return is a great thing. It may be great, but it is also entirely nonexistent. Self interest is the only constant in human affairs, or in fact, any interaction of living creatures.  The only choice you have is to find a commonality of interests in the long term that works.   I believe the European stance does not reflect the long term interests of America or virtually anyone in the world other than Saddam.  I believe the American stance currently best reflects our long term interests as well as those of the Iraqi people (of course, that is a secondary factor in my support of American policy). But I am under no delusions about altruism; anyone that claims it as a motivation is likely up to something they fear admitting to.  Just think of all the crimes commmitted "for the greater good of man", and you will know of what I speak.

Athough it does not exsist like world peace it is something to shoot for is it not?

[shaklee3]

I hope all of you uninformed liberal hippies die, do not talk about something you know nothing about.