Post by: EGOvoruhk on April 04, 2003, 11:55:00 AM
Post by: BenJeremy on April 04, 2003, 12:06:00 PM
Perhaps it was the recent influx/return of whackos?
Post by: KazuyaWaruasobi on April 04, 2003, 12:07:00 PM
Post by: M3_DeL on April 04, 2003, 12:12:00 PM
and on that topic are they going to strip his mod powers? Or are they just gonna let him keep his spot at mod so when he comes back in a month he can still be a mod?
Post by: KazuyaWaruasobi on April 04, 2003, 12:16:00 PM
Post by: gainpresence on April 04, 2003, 12:18:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Apr 4 2003, 02:17 PM) |
| Are you kidding? I'm serious here, he actually did this on a whim? |
Well, he is Canadian you know..
Post by: Lizard_King on April 04, 2003, 12:25:00 PM
But is there confirmation that Cheerio did this?
Post by: Mage on April 04, 2003, 12:27:00 PM
Post by: jasonmvt on April 04, 2003, 12:30:00 PM
Post by: Mage on April 04, 2003, 12:34:00 PM
| QUOTE (jasonmvt @ Apr 4 2003, 01:30 PM) |
| see Mage, we can agree! |
Haha, when I saw the list and saw you posted, I didn't know what the hell to expect.
But it's nice to agree with you for once.
Post by: Lizard_King on April 04, 2003, 12:35:00 PM
| QUOTE (jasonmvt @ Apr 4 2003, 09:30 PM) |
| see Mage, we can agree! |
...and knowing is half the battle...
why don't you two kiss and make up already?
| QUOTE |
| mageIf so, that's kinda a blatent abuse of power, seeing as that is technically the only thread where we are supposed to discuss the current events. |
It's less an abuse of power and more of a generally childish and idiotic thing to do. I will withhold judgment until someone reconfirms that this is not simply M3's best guess (I would just like some sort of official word, if it's not too much to ask).
Post by: Lizard_King on April 04, 2003, 12:46:00 PM
Post by: Mage on April 04, 2003, 12:50:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Apr 4 2003, 01:46 PM) |
| I dunno. Probably busy, as usual. More importantly, where's Al Ghazi, so he can tell us how ze Jews did it? |
Haha yes the Zionist have sooo much power that they now also control the xbox scene.
Post by: HSDEMONZ on April 04, 2003, 01:12:00 PM
I'll pin it again after XAN figures out who deleted it...
Post by: HSDEMONZ on April 04, 2003, 01:13:00 PM
Post by: DaGamePimp on April 04, 2003, 01:14:00 PM
***
Post by: HitmanX on April 04, 2003, 01:15:00 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com Select "Live NOW! Baghdad cam"
*Needs Real One Player ( www.real.com )
http://www.msnbc.com/m/lv/ Select "Baghdad camera"
*Needs Windows Media Player ( www.MS.com )
http://www.n-tv.de/3147867.html "Will Auto Launch"
*Needs Real One Player ( www.real.com )
*More Will Be Posted
Post by: MartialXboxArtist on April 04, 2003, 01:18:00 PM
Bunch of people with their heads cut off like chickens making themselves look retarded as hell..
Post by: Lizard_King on April 04, 2003, 01:49:00 PM
Post by: M3_DeL on April 04, 2003, 02:02:00 PM
George Carlin had a great speach about how stupid the protestors are!!!!
He said if they put as much tim in their resume as they did into those signs they might have something to do on weekdays taht is actually worth somethin......that is not a specific quote mind you
Post by: DaGamePimp on April 04, 2003, 02:12:00 PM
--DGP--
Post by: HSDEMONZ on April 04, 2003, 03:05:00 PM
Post by: Ace25 on April 04, 2003, 04:10:00 PM
Post by: M3_DeL on April 04, 2003, 04:26:00 PM
Post by: Dark Schneider on April 04, 2003, 08:14:00 PM
It deserved to be deleted, but some of the better posts should have been moved over here.
Oh well, it was most likely deleted do to the bullshit being expressed against people living in Zion I assume. If ya read it, you'll get it...if not....who cares!
Post by: brahm2 on April 04, 2003, 08:22:00 PM
1. they never really accompolish anything
2. while i may support their cause, there surely must be a better way to show support/non-support
Post by: Lizard_King on April 05, 2003, 12:05:00 AM
What a profound level of reasoning...They hate Bush + I hate Bush = I support them. At no point were they threatened or harmed. Their careers are not even in jeopardy. Quite simply, some people disagreed with what they said, and were vocal about it. But of course, Gore only believes people he agrees with should be allowed to speak.
Post by: chad000 on April 05, 2003, 12:25:00 AM
He answered by saying,
"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."
It became very quiet in the room.
Go here for the entire transcript
Post by: phantazma1 on April 05, 2003, 02:27:00 PM
is it illegal to burn flags in the U.S.? i've never seen a flag burn over here...
so why that everytime i turn on the T.V., a different country is burning a U.S. flag.
i mean, EVERYWHERE! Greece, China, South Korea,Iraq,Turkey, and even the Australians
are burning our flag, and they are WITH US in this fight. it's so immature if you ask me.
the funny part is that when they are burning flags, they are probably burning a flag made
by a U.S. company, which in turn gives profit for America. Even if they buy flags that says
"made in china", it could have been manufatured for a parent company in the U.S. i don't
understand it at all. "oohh, look at me, i'm burning a flag because i hate ALL americans".
well i'm glad you're a fucking pyro with no future, burning a piece of cloth in which you
you probably don't even know where our country is in the world. i just wanna work for the
CIA and kill all those idiots. the world doesn't need this, nor does it needs 2000 volunteer
suicide bombers who has no future and are gonna go to hell sooner or later. So they think
that they might as well go out with a big bang.
So many problems in the world. I don't want to raise a child when we are still at a primitive
stage like this. *sigh*
Post by: Lizard_King on April 05, 2003, 03:55:00 PM
In any case, the Palestinians at least tend to use homemade paper flags these days. Which is even more ironic if you think about it.
Post by: Dark Schneider on April 05, 2003, 04:01:00 PM
Post by: Dark Schneider on April 05, 2003, 04:02:00 PM
Post by: Colonel32 on April 05, 2003, 04:52:00 PM
lmao
Post by: chad000 on April 05, 2003, 06:39:00 PM
Post by: chad000 on April 06, 2003, 01:53:00 AM
Who's Smarter?
by Cindy Osborne
The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like "stupid" , "morons", and "idiots". Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American.
So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid", "ignorant" , "moronic" leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:
President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other than Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win
the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a false story about his I.Q. being lower than any other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to URBANLEGENDS.COM and see the truth.)
Vice President Dick Cheney: Earne d a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966, both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes to Capital Hill to meet with Senators and members of the House of Representatives to work on the Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America.
Secretary of State Colin Powell: Educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country. (Note: He retired as Four Star General in the United States Army)
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: Attended Princeton University on Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957- 59; U.S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77.
Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge: Raised in a working class family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U.S. House, and was overwhelmingly re-elected six times.
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice: Earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. (Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum Laude). Both of her advanced degrees are also in Political Science.) She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center f or International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the
Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and K QED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14, 1954in Birmingham, Alabama, sheresides in Washington, D.C.
So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also have all the facts on their educations and background:
Barbra Streisand : Completed high school Career: Singing and acting
Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade. Career: Singing and acting
Martin Sheen: Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton. Career: Acting
Jessica Lange: Dropped out college mid-freshman year. Career: Acting
Alec Baldwin: Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal. Career: Acting
Julia Roberts: Completed high school. Career: Acting
Sean Penn: Completed High school. Career: Acting
Susan Sarandon: Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. Career: Acting
Ed Asner; Completed High school. Career: Acting
George Clooney: Dropped out of University of Kentucky. Career: Acting
Michael Moore: Dropped out first year University of Michigan. Career: Movie Director
Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High School. Career: Acting
Jennifer Anniston: Completed High School. Career: Acting
Mike Farrell: Completed High school. Career: Acting
Janeane Garofelo: Dropped out of College. Career: Stand up comedienne
Larry Hagman: Attended Bard College for one year. Career: Acting
While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders. These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed, by freedom-hating terrorists, while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, Republican sits in the White House.
Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE, FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons, in order to promote world peace. It is curious that now, even after we have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical, biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave him alone in his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even though it is certain that these deadly weapons will eventually be used against us in our own cities.
So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also determine the course of our Nation? That they can make viable decisions concerning war and peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing of the Nation when he recently thanked France, on our behalf, for being a "good enough friend to tell us we were wrong"? I know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from war? Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in more money per year than the average American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him clout?
The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!
It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation remains strong. We must make certain that those who would destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall them.
Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real. We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F. Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH.
Honestly written, no diatribe, just the facts, simply stated. How could one draw any conclusion other than
"What fools are they who would ignore the facts, worse would pretend statements of fact with out evidence?"
Sounds like candidates for Dictatorship!
Post by: DaGamePimp on April 06, 2003, 09:13:00 AM
, I really liked his reporting style and I respected him as being an honest reporter . I hope ole' Walt makes it out , this guy is great !!! He puts so much energy into his reports .
---DGP---
Post by: Dark Schneider on April 06, 2003, 10:09:00 AM
Post by: Lizard_King on April 06, 2003, 10:56:00 AM
| QUOTE (DaGamePimp @ Apr 6 2003, 05:13 PM) |
| Very sad to see David Bloom has passed away today , I really liked his reporting style and I respected him as being an honest reporter . I hope ole' Walt makes it out , this guy is great !!! He puts so much energy into his reports . ---DGP--- |
In that same vein
Atlantic Monthly Editor Killed in Iraq
And the worst part about it? Some subhumans who don't even have the justification of being born in a country where such a viewpoint would have some historical merit are fucking thrilled about it.
It's funny how the same internet that provides room for so many intelligent people of all views to express them is also the home of these dirtbags who hide behind the anonymity to permit them to say things they know would get them in trouble in real life.
Post by: nonamer66 on April 06, 2003, 11:58:00 AM
Saddam's Willywong found in Iraq, described by soldier who found it:
Post by: Cheerio on April 06, 2003, 12:04:00 PM
Post by: Cheerio on April 06, 2003, 12:14:00 PM
Post by: BenJeremy on April 06, 2003, 12:17:00 PM
| QUOTE (Cheerio @ Apr 6 2003, 03:14 PM) |
| moved to comedy - i thought it was real, ddidnt quite realize, and i forgot we had a comedy. seems to be all fucking drama on these boards!~ |
Sorry, Cheeri0, already merged.
Post by: MartialXboxArtist on April 06, 2003, 01:34:00 PM
| QUOTE (nonamer66 @ Apr 6 2003, 01:58 PM) |
| Threads merged. Saddam's Willywong found in Iraq, described by soldier who found it: |
Post by: Colonel32 on April 06, 2003, 05:13:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Whatever you think of the Dixie Chicks' statements agains the war, Al Gore has managed to prove once again why he is such an ass-hat. |
you LOVE Rachel Lucas don't you
Post by: HeLiuM on April 06, 2003, 06:04:00 PM
| QUOTE (chad000 @ Apr 6 2003, 10:53 AM) |
| Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed, by freedom-hating terrorists, while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, Republican sits in the White House. Honestly written, no diatribe, just the facts, simply stated. How could one draw any conclusion other than "What fools are they who would ignore the facts, worse would pretend statements of fact with out evidence?" Sounds like candidates for Dictatorship! |
has al queda been linked to iraq? i didnt think so..
im pro war.. but they're not against the war just becuz a republicans the president.
maybe its the fact he didnt win the popular vote.. but thats no surprise. the reason bush is the president is becuz the system made and enforced by past presidents "worked". the people were protected from their own ignorance. i personally feel thats bullshit, but hey, bush certaintly isnt going to change that now.
people will always wish for world peace in the public eye. its whats expected of them, and so the public pulls their metaphorical strings accordingly
they're hardly candidates for dictatorship.. just icons in the public eye. newage "American Heroes"... but that they aren't. they take no risk, have no sacrifice other then their own depth and individuality
Post by: Colonel32 on April 06, 2003, 07:43:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Apr 7 2003, 01:13 AM) QUOTE Whatever you think of the Dixie Chicks' statements agains the war, Al Gore has managed to prove once again why he is such an ass-hat. you LOVE Rachel Lucas don't you You bet I do. |
I've got a mug a capitalist girlfriend left behind for me lol
Post by: nonamer66 on April 06, 2003, 09:39:00 PM
Post by: loai on April 06, 2003, 09:43:00 PM
Post by: chad000 on April 06, 2003, 10:39:00 PM
Post by: gainpresence on April 06, 2003, 11:48:00 PM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Apr 7 2003, 12:46 AM) |
no kidding the iraqi information ministry isn't very informed..... giving a press brief proclaiming no US troops have entred the city, meanwhile tanks roll by and he is muffled by sporadic arms fire and explosions in the near distance  |
Haha
I wonder if he's even in Baghdad.. or Iraq..
Post by: nonamer66 on April 06, 2003, 11:56:00 PM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Apr 7 2003, 01:48 AM) | ||
Haha I wonder if he's even in Baghdad.. or Iraq.. |
the troops at one of the palaces said they are within viewing distance of the information of ministry where the moron is at. They said the guy can cleary see us from across the river.
Post by: Jsmith on April 07, 2003, 12:17:00 AM
Post by: gainpresence on April 07, 2003, 12:22:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Do you think that we will find any missiles in Iraq? And if so do you think that they have all ready been destroyed by American missiles? |
Haha, if we blew them up, I think we'd know about it... since there would be no Middle East, just a big crater.
Post by: stupid2ass on April 07, 2003, 12:55:00 AM
And no, I doubt Saddam was stupid enough to hide the WMD where the Americans suspected them (via satellite observation). The US military has already been going to places where they were highly likely to have been hidden and not finding a thing.
So no, the US didn't blow them up. Saddam hid them well enough (at least that's what the US and Brits are hoping) or else it'd look bad if Saddam actually did destroy them when asked by the UN and this was all about modern day imperialism/colonialism.
Still, the French and Germans are now finding some wriggle room so that they can have some of that Iraqi rebuilding contracts after the war is over. Lord knows all their oil contracts have already been ripped up by now.
Sigh, the stench of money is already emanating and the war isn't even over yet ... there's already talk of IMPOSING US technology "standards" which are not being used by neighboring Arab countries so that it can be made sure that money flows back to the US. So, well-to-do Iraqi's ( we all know the average Iraqi will not have a sniff of that rebuilding money nor the oil money) will have to buy some new tV's featuring NTSC signals and cell phones with CDMA inside.
Post by: gainpresence on April 07, 2003, 01:04:00 AM
| QUOTE (fletch_dev @ Apr 7 2003, 01:21 AM) |
| Shame some children had to die but it was all for a good cause. |
I wonder how many children would die if we didn't do something.
You leftists are so caring and unselfish..
Post by: aNAREXIA on April 07, 2003, 01:38:00 AM
So there goes the legamitity (or how do u say that) of this f**king war.
grtz
Post by: Novahux on April 07, 2003, 01:47:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| US needs to find them. We need a "smoking gun" or else all that talk of WMD would turn out to be lies and that's not good for credibility. |
No ya (the US) don't, the latest polls from many countries show that WOMD are not as important as regime change anymore.
And alot of countries will always hate the united states, whether they tell the truth or not.
collin powel will look pretty stupid if they don't find those mobile chem labs
Post by: pkpss on April 07, 2003, 02:42:00 AM
| QUOTE (Novahux @ Apr 7 2003, 01:47 AM) |
| Quote collin powel will look pretty stupid if they don't find those mobile chem labs |
Post by: fletch_dev on April 07, 2003, 02:51:00 AM
Plus it really helps to distract voters from local issues.
Post by: chad000 on April 07, 2003, 03:04:00 AM
Post by: Novahux on April 07, 2003, 03:09:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| chad000 |
The sad thing is that its probably what is really on the Araba TV network.
Aljazeera got kicked out of Iraq because they wouldn't edit stufff the way the iraqis wanted it.
Can you belive it, Aljazeera hates the US and they still were not bullshiting enuff for the Iraqi's
Post by: Novahux on April 07, 2003, 04:29:00 AM
Post by: gainpresence on April 07, 2003, 06:04:00 AM
| QUOTE (aNAREXIA @ Apr 7 2003, 02:38 AM) |
| If there where any WMD sadam would have used them by now. So there goes the legamitity (or how do u say that) of this f**king war. grtz |
Well, Saddan doesn't push the button to launch them himself, you know. The orders have to get out, and people have to follow them. Which is hard to do if you're dead.
BASRA, Iraq Ali Hassan al-Majid, one of the most brutal members of President Saddam Hussein's inner circle, was apparently killed by an airstrike on his house in Basra, British officials said Monday. He had been dubbed "Chemical Ali" by opponents for ordering a 1988 poison gas attack that killed thousands of Kurds.
Edit: Whoa, I thought you were Ace25, you have the EXACT same icon that he had once..
Post by: Tk0n on April 07, 2003, 07:46:00 AM
| QUOTE (pkpss @ Apr 7 2003, 10:42 AM) |
| I guess finding over 3000+ chemical suits wasn't enough... Ohh yea, firing biological weapons at the Kurds a bit earlier shouldn't matter either... |
no, finding chemical suits is not enough.
whats next? u.s. army finds ducktape and says thats a proof?
and the firing of biological weapons at kurds was 15 years ago. (when iraq was a partner of the united states)
i wouldnt define that as "a bit earlier"
btw, the united states army fired at kurds yesterday... and probably today too
Post by: Lizard_King on April 07, 2003, 08:19:00 AM
| QUOTE (fletch_dev @ Apr 7 2003, 10:46 AM) |
| Mate if you're going to give me a label, i'd prefer humanist. You guys think the whole world is politics and as long as your political agenda is the right one (the good one) then damn humanity. You make me sick. |
Call yourself whatever you like. China can be the Democratic People's Republic, and it changes not a thing about its actual ideology.
| QUOTE |
| tkon btw, the united states army fired at kurds yesterday... and probably today too |
Keep gloating, fucker.
Like I've said before, we won't know the true extent of Hussein's weapons program until after the war is over. I don't see why the same time frame that was extended the inspectors that you all swear were operating with full Iraqi cooperation (since they had "nothing to hide") shouldn't be extended to us.
The Kurds and Shiites were also gassed after the first Gulf War, when UN pressure drove a weaker US president to withdraw his support from the popular revolt.
In any case, even finding a cache of sarin and VX loaded missiles will never be enough for you people. The US government could assert that black is black and white is white and it would be proclaimed a bunch of filthy capitalist lies. Yours (and by that I mean tkon and fletch dev) is an ideological opposition to the US.
Post by: Lizard_King on April 07, 2003, 08:53:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Japan will get itself into a big trouble beyond imagination, if it acts like a puppy knowing no fear of the tiger. |
Just thought I'd help you "humanists" out with some rhetoric from your allies....
Post by: nonamer66 on April 07, 2003, 09:09:00 AM
http://www.msnbc.com...sp.htm?0cv=CA01
Post by: Tk0n on April 07, 2003, 09:29:00 AM
| QUOTE (nonamer66 @ Apr 7 2003, 05:09 PM) |
| Chemical Weapons Found!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.msnbc.com...sp.htm?0cv=CA01 |
dont you know the word "suspected" anymore?
how many of this suspected wmd findings did we have since the war started? 30?
Post by: nonamer66 on April 07, 2003, 10:26:00 AM
| QUOTE (nonamer66 @ Apr 7 2003, 11:09 AM) |
| Chemical Weapons Found!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.msnbc.com...sp.htm?0cv=CA01 |
damnit
http://story.news.ya...md_030407175243
tkon, I'm ignoring you so don't expect a reply.
Post by: chad000 on April 07, 2003, 11:18:00 AM
| QUOTE (nonamer66 @ Apr 7 2003, 06:26 PM) | ||
damnit http://story.news.ya...md_030407175243 tkon, I'm ignoring you so don't expect a reply. |
Is that the same WMD site? The times that it was reported doesn't seem to add up with the other report..Maybe I'm wrong..
Post by: chad000 on April 07, 2003, 11:33:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Apr 7 2003, 07:22 PM) | ||||||
Right now there are two separate WMD related incidents in the news, one a facility near Karbala that has for the moment tested positive in the chemicals that were stored there and another actual missile cache in the post I put up. At least, last I checked. |
Yeah I was referring to the Karbala facility..I thought the earliest tests that they would perform on the material, other than the initial ones, would be done at the earliest tomorrow...Thats why I questioned the yahoo story, and the fact that I can't find any other stories supporting that the Karbala incident was found to be pesticide..
Oh thanks for the Little Green Football site Lizard King...It's a very informative site..I'd never seen it before
Post by: Dark Schneider on April 07, 2003, 04:51:00 PM
A buddy of mine supplied the saying, I made it happen =)
Smoke'm If Ya Gottem!
Post by: Colonel32 on April 07, 2003, 04:57:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Kosovo: A case study in why the UN should NOT run postwar Iraq |
Afghanistan: A case study in why the US should NOT run postwar Iraq
--------------------
You HAD to know that was soon to follow
Seriously though.... what the hell did Geraldo say to piss everyone off? Canada doesn't get msnbc anymore
(or is he Fox/Saudi newsboy now ) regardless does anyone know the quote of what he said in regards to troop location?
Post by: fletch_dev on April 07, 2003, 04:59:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Apr 7 2003, 04:19 PM) | ||||
Making friends all over the world Lizard_King?
|
Rubbish, if the govt did actually make such a strong factual statement I would accept it.
To clarify, I have an ideological opposition to war, any war, and for that you can call me an ideological fool if it makes you happy. But you will never stop me objecting to the killing of innocent people. I have an objection to some components of the US govts foreign policy but I do not have an issue with the U.S. as such.
Post by: Colonel32 on April 07, 2003, 05:16:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Right now there are two separate WMD related incidents in the news, one a facility near Karbala that has for the moment tested positive in the chemicals that were stored there and another actual missile cache in the post I put up. At least, last I checked |
but aren't they said to not be weaponized? i'm not sure, but doesn't that basically make them pcb's. Whether or not they have been altered could mean a thousand different things ..correct? i would say until they find weaponized chemicals there is not much news worthy about it
Also, what's the deal with CNN repeatedly saying within the last hour that the US didn't have any chem/bio weapons? Did anyone else notice this?...... maybe not in iraq
| QUOTE |
| It looks like Jihad TV has some competition in the form of Arabiya |
Syrian television hasn't even acknowledged that troops are in Baghdad for a few days now
Post by: fletch_dev on April 07, 2003, 05:19:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Apr 7 2003, 04:53 PM) | ||
| And in honour of the Oscar-worthy performance of the Iraqi information minister, here's just one of the many current press releases from the North Korean information ministry, in this case warning those warmongers in Japan to back off before the sea of Japan is a "sea of fire". Money quote:
Just thought I'd help you "humanists" out with some rhetoric from your allies.... |
I'll just ignore that post shall I.
Post by: fletch_dev on April 07, 2003, 05:22:00 PM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Apr 8 2003, 01:16 AM) |
| Also, what's the deal with CNN repeatedly saying within the last hour that the US didn't have any chem/bio weapons? Did anyone else notice this?...... maybe not in iraq |
Does the US have chem/bio weapons? Maybe for research in regards to defense but surely not for active deployment?
Post by: Colonel32 on April 07, 2003, 05:24:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Plus it really helps to distract voters from local issues. |
Like a failing economy, no plan to fix it but a massive tax cut. Or possibly homeland security and the "missile defence system" that the creators say will not work costing the taxpayers
YOU"RE CRAZY MAN !! Post by: Colonel32 on April 07, 2003, 05:27:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Does the US have chem/bio weapons? |
Yes, more than anyone. They have signed a treaty saying they will not use them in warfare.
That's why i don't get how they keep saying there is none on CNN. Even the govt wouldn't deny it
I think they must mean no weapons in Iraq, they should be a little more specific.HAHA look at me avatar.... i'm Saeed al-Sahaf and you're all lying zionists
Post by: fletch_dev on April 07, 2003, 05:40:00 PM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Apr 8 2003, 01:27 AM) |
| HAHA look at me avatar.... i'm Saeed al-Sahaf and you're all lying zionists |
"there are no US troops in Iraq"
Post by: Raised on April 07, 2003, 05:44:00 PM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Apr 7 2003, 08:27 PM) |
| HAHA look at me avatar.... i'm Saeed al-Sahaf and you're all lying zionists |
You have to love how this man uses high-school level slang when addressing the world media;
"We will slap these gangsters out of Iraq" and such...
I can't wait for him to get killed
Post by: gainpresence on April 07, 2003, 08:30:00 PM
| QUOTE (fletch_dev @ Apr 7 2003, 05:59 PM) |
| I have an ideological opposition to war, any war, and for that you can call me an ideological fool if it makes you happy. But you will never stop me objecting to the killing of innocent people. |
What if war is the only way to save innocent people?
3000+ Innocent people died here (USA), we're doing what we can to make sure it doesn't happen again ANYWHERE.
I'm not pro-war, but I do think that in this case, war is the only option.
Post by: brahm2 on April 07, 2003, 08:30:00 PM
Post by: Novahux on April 07, 2003, 09:14:00 PM
I need to show it to my boss.
"I have not had sexuall relations with that camel"
Post by: nonamer66 on April 07, 2003, 09:26:00 PM
| QUOTE (Novahux @ Apr 7 2003, 11:14 PM) |
| Where is that Shirack (french bastard) and saddam picture, the one with the republican guard condom. I need to show it to my boss. "I have not had sexuall relations with that camel" |
over in the HSDEMONZ cartoons thread in comedy.
Post by: Colonel32 on April 07, 2003, 10:03:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| What if war is the only way to save innocent people? 3000+ Innocent people died here (USA), we're doing what we can to make sure it doesn't happen again ANYWHERE. I'm not pro-war, but I do think that in this case, war is the only option. |
I agree with you gained, but a lot of innocent people die from American firearms.....In East Timor/Indonesia the American govt funded the most brutal genocide since the holocaust for over a decade.... undeniably. This war is about saving American lives (nothing wrong with that), but if it were about "liberation" there is a long list of countries with much more genocide and human rights violations than Iraq. Homeland security is what made this war and i hope in the future foreign policy will shift its "liberation" to non arab states like in Africa or Indochina (won't hold my breath).... until there is strategic opportunites elsewhere, the focus will be the middle east.
as you said 3000 Americans died in the horrific attacks on the WTC, with no doubt the most tragic day the west has seen.
over 1 million civilians where slaughtered by Indonesia...... and rewarded by the American govt
"doesn't happen again, ANYWHERE"..... its happening right now all over the world, not just in Iraq
Post by: gainpresence on April 08, 2003, 01:28:00 PM
Post by: nonamer66 on April 08, 2003, 02:31:00 PM
Post by: nonamer66 on April 08, 2003, 02:37:00 PM
Post by: nonamer66 on April 08, 2003, 02:44:00 PM
Post by: nonamer66 on April 08, 2003, 02:54:00 PM
Post by: nonamer66 on April 08, 2003, 03:05:00 PM
Post by: pilotz69 on April 08, 2003, 03:50:00 PM
Endless Love
Funny though
Post by: nonamer66 on April 08, 2003, 03:57:00 PM
| QUOTE (pilotz69 @ Apr 8 2003, 05:50 PM) |
| Someone had alot of free time, and it wasn't me. Endless Love Funny though |
is that the bush and blair love song on that clip?
EDIT: nevermind.... I checked it. yeah that is pretty good.
Post by: George "dubya" W. Bush on April 08, 2003, 08:40:00 PM
This is a leaked state secret! It as been cancelled
During "Operation FatCow", the Air Force would have dropped an ammunition on top of the Eiffel Tower, which we estimated had a 85% succes rate to have France coward into submission.
Thanks for ruining it, buddy!
and remember, You're going to hear the statisticians, the number crunchers, the bean counters -- as we call them in Texas -- say this might have been a recession, this might not have been a recession, this, that and the other. Well, when they do that, they get crossways with the Bush boys.
Post by: nonamer66 on April 08, 2003, 09:04:00 PM
| QUOTE (George "dubya" W. Bush @ Apr 8 2003, 10:40 PM) |
| This is a leaked state secret! It as been cancelled During "Operation FatCow", the Air Force would have dropped an ammunition on top of the Eiffel Tower, which we estimated had a 85% succes rate to have France coward into submission. Thanks for ruining it, buddy! and remember, You're going to hear the statisticians, the number crunchers, the bean counters -- as we call them in Texas -- say this might have been a recession, this might not have been a recession, this, that and the other. Well, when they do that, they get crossways with the Bush boys. |
ok, Kard63 your not fooling anyone...
Post by: loai on April 08, 2003, 09:26:00 PM
Post by: chad000 on April 09, 2003, 12:10:00 PM
Post by: Raised on April 09, 2003, 07:34:00 PM
Post by: nonamer66 on April 09, 2003, 08:44:00 PM
Post by: socrates on April 10, 2003, 09:37:00 AM
Post by: Raised on April 10, 2003, 10:12:00 AM
| QUOTE (socrates @ Apr 10 2003, 12:37 PM) |
| Whys he grabbing his nuts like that?....did he get bagged by the hand of the statue or somthing? |
No, he's like, totally turned on by the whole thing! Can't you see the profile of a humongous islamic cock in his.. robe?
Post by: gainpresence on April 10, 2003, 12:24:00 PM
| QUOTE (Tk0n @ Apr 10 2003, 11:12 AM) |
an independent sources perspective: |
That's what they were showing most of the time on Fox.. What's your point?
Post by: Tk0n on April 10, 2003, 12:49:00 PM
Post by: gainpresence on April 10, 2003, 01:03:00 PM
| QUOTE (Tk0n @ Apr 10 2003, 01:49 PM) |
| i just wanted to anticipate the "millions of liberated iraqis dancin in the streets, hailing george w." crap that i expected from the itoldyouso-front... i dont watch fox |
Ah, well alot of people are happy. And I expect than when Baghdad is completely "ours", even more people will show their joy..
Or maybe they are "programmed" to love whoever is in charge.
Either way, we're freeing them.
Post by: nonamer66 on April 10, 2003, 01:12:00 PM
Post by: Lizard_King on April 11, 2003, 12:58:00 AM
The French and the Germans demand to be in charge of postwar Iraq having done everything possible to make its liberation fail
Oh, and tkon, We told you so.
But don't worry, you're in good company with a lot of other leftists these days.
Post by: Tk0n on April 11, 2003, 01:24:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Apr 11 2003, 08:58 AM) |
| The French and the Germans demand to be in charge of postwar Iraq having done everything possible to make its liberation fail Oh, and tkon, We told you so. But don't worry, you're in good company with a lot of other leftists these days. |
you told me what? that us military would find 100 cheering people in a city of 4 million?
(some if not all of them flown in exil-iraqis)
your article doesnt load, but germany and france demanding that the united nations should be in charge of postwar iraq, does not mean that germany and france want to reign that country.
oh, and cause you like to express my nationality and also like hitler-bush comparisons.
there where a lot more people cheering in the streets of estonia, latvia or lithuania when the german troops arrived to "liberate" them.
that did not justify the second world war, did it?
Post by: Unicron on April 11, 2003, 02:58:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Apr 7 2003, 04:19 PM) | ||||
Call yourself whatever you like. China can be the Democratic People's Republic, and it changes not a thing about its actual ideology.
Keep gloating, fucker. The Kurds and Shiites were also gassed after the first Gulf War, when UN pressure drove a weaker US president to withdraw his support from the popular revolt. |
I can´t remember the name of this president you mention.
Can you help me out?
Post by: Lizard_King on April 11, 2003, 06:34:00 AM
| QUOTE (Tk0n @ Apr 11 2003, 09:24 AM) |
| you told me what? that us military would find 100 cheering people in a city of 4 million? (some if not all of them flown in exil-iraqis) |
Actually, no, that we would win, and soon. I'll gloat about the rest as it comes.
Flown in Iraqis? Yeah I'm sure that's the case.
I am sure these facilities were for storing canned dates or something.
| QUOTE |
your article doesnt load, but germany and france demanding that the united nations should be in charge of postwar iraq, does not mean that germany and france want to reign that country. |
I got the link wrong about France and Germany.. Actually, that's exactly what it means. The aegis of the UN is no less of a foreign policy interest cover than any other.
| QUOTE |
| oh, and cause you like to express my nationality and also like hitler-bush comparisons. there where a lot more people cheering in the streets of estonia, latvia or lithuania when the german troops arrived to "liberate" them. that did not justify the second world war, did it? |
I draw Hitler Bush comparisons? I'll tell you what, had the Einsatzgruppen not put in place a Holocaust of millions and the actual liberation of the countries rather than installing the only postwar rule that could make the Soviet's brutality look good, the German invasion would have been a an accurate parallel. Until then, your analogy is full of shit.
Post by: phantazma1 on April 11, 2003, 08:57:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Apr 11 2003, 01:58 AM) |
| The French and the Germans demand to be in charge of postwar Iraq having done everything possible to make its liberation fail Oh, and tkon, We told you so. But don't worry, you're in good company with a lot of other leftists these days. |
that's a funny pic
we basically freed the minority muslim group (which is actually 60% of the population) and so there are more people in Iraq who loves America than everyone thinks. good to be an american. we will prove once and for all that this war will help out the people of iraq and it is not just some random war we like to start with muslim countries. these iraqi people are finally free from persecution.
Post by: Gurux on April 11, 2003, 07:16:00 PM
Post by: Gurux on April 11, 2003, 07:20:00 PM
It is the anglo american agenda
Post by: Lizard_King on April 11, 2003, 07:54:00 PM
| QUOTE (Gurux @ Apr 12 2003, 03:20 AM) |
| It is the anglo american agenda |
bla bla bla OIIIIIIIIL bla bla bla. Your kind were wrong about wars of this nature being unwinnable, wrong about the ultimate aims for every war in the 20th century, and will continue to be wrong about the reconstruction of Iraq. Yours is the marxist agenda, no matter what else you call it.
Post by: nonamer66 on April 11, 2003, 08:56:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Apr 11 2003, 09:54 PM) | ||
bla bla bla OIIIIIIIIL bla bla bla. Your kind were wrong about wars of this nature being unwinnable, wrong about the ultimate aims for every war in the 20th century, and will continue to be wrong about the reconstruction of Iraq. Yours is the marxist agenda, no matter what else you call it. |
I repeat LizardKing is my hero.
Post by: fletch_dev on April 12, 2003, 03:36:00 AM
If there are any terrorists out there, please direct all your efforts towards America. It's a big mistake for America to occupy a middle east country. I fear the terrorism seen in the past will be nothing compared with what is to come.Of course it is important for America's conscience to see people celebrating. It allows you to sleep at night. You go into someone elses country and kill women and children, but in the end you can say "see, it was all for a good cause". People who think this way have disconnected from humanity.
What's the deal with these death cards!? I thought I was watching a movie for a minute. The US military sure has a flair for show business.
Post by: fletch_dev on April 12, 2003, 03:40:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Apr 12 2003, 12:54 PM) | ||
Yours is the marxist agenda, no matter what else you call it. |
It's really cool to put everyone into a pigeon hole isn't it LK? Helps you make order out of the world around you. Try prozac dude.
Post by: Lizard_King on April 12, 2003, 04:23:00 AM
But it's all about the OIIIIIIIL....
Oh, and for those of you who missed a fascinating "Oh, by the way, we were covering up all kinds of nasty shit" admission by a CNN bigshot in the New York Times due to the incredibly annoying and dysfunctional registration process at that rag's website, Rachel Lucas has reprinted the entire (brief) story in her April 11, 2003 post.
It really makes you wonder what they're covering up in China, Cuba, etc...
And scrappleface still rules...
EDIT (BJ): Changed NYT link to version that doesn't require registration (using "partner=GOOGLE" - hint for future).
Post by: Lizard_King on April 12, 2003, 06:00:00 AM
Post by: Lizard_King on April 12, 2003, 06:03:00 AM
| QUOTE (fletch_dev @ Apr 12 2003, 11:40 AM) |
| It's really cool to put everyone into a pigeon hole isn't it LK? Helps you make order out of the world around you. Try prozac dude. |
I call them like I see them. You have a reasonable counterargument, or just more suggestions that I do drugs and thus come closer to your state of mind?
Post by: Lizard_King on April 12, 2003, 06:04:00 AM
One argument at a time, guys. We'll just keep letting our side's actions speak louder than your words.
The New Republic has an older article describing media cooperation with Saddam from all networks that reported there. Of course, this is hardly surprising, but in the face of all the stringent denials all media sources have made in the past about the lack of objectivity of their sources in Iraq, it is interesting nonetheless. Once again, the question is raised about coverage in other, less newsworthy regimes, particularly ones where CNN has a dominant presence like Cuba.
Christopher Hitchens on why the anti-war activists were right...just not in the manner they hoped. Warning to those with no sense of irony: this contains irony.
Post by: jackster on April 12, 2003, 12:01:00 PM
I live in the UK. What did people in the US think of the image of suddam husseins statue in the centre of bagdad briefly having a stars and stripes flag over his head?
The reason I'm asking is that even though its a real morale boost for a country and the coalition to see it, I'd be worried about how other countries are going to see it. The UK think its great, I thought it was funny, and it shows how powerful we (well... the US) are. But maybe other countries (france) may not like the power it shows or think its a arrogant symbol. Opinions? and please don't just throw insults back at me, this is just a general question not meant to cause offence.
Post by: Lizard_King on April 12, 2003, 02:14:00 PM
| QUOTE (jackster @ Apr 12 2003, 08:01 PM) |
| I live in the UK. What did people in the US think of the image of suddam husseins statue in the centre of bagdad briefly having a stars and stripes flag over his head? |
To be honest I didn't see it, so I can't really offer an opinion on it. I would imagine it is just one more image to add to the almost cartoonish collection being emitted from Iraq daily.
Personally, I am more concerned by the issues your question raises about what Arab perception is based around. I have read countless articles collecting soundbites from the "Arab street", and for the most part it seems there is a real disconnect. On the one hand, they all seem to disavow any direct support for Saddam's regime, yet on the other there is a persistent desire to cast him in the role of Saladin 2003, as if simply being opposed to the US is enough to warrant their support. I guess the opinions of the many Muslim varieties he oppressed are irrelevant in the "big picture"....
I do agree that the US needs to tread a lot more carefully than it likely will. To be honest, I agree with many conservatives that the first move Goerge Bush should make is an open, forthright apology (ie, not a Clinton I-feel-your-pain) for abandoning the Iraqi rebellion in Gulf War I. I have a feeling we will not be that lucky, and that there are probably numerous factors I am not taking into account when I express that desire.
However, I think the potential damage done in the short term will ultimately be far outweighed by the material improvement in the Iraqi situation, and I think that will make a much larger difference in the long run.
It is my opinion that Arab opinion is currently under two massive constraints to action: 1) Complete disbelief at the speed with which Iraq collapsed and 2) their governments' control as they adopt a "wait and see" attitude that demands that their populace be kept in line. So I think America has a lot of leeway for the time being. Arab opinion couldn't be that much worse, anyhow...the terrorists that intend to act have no need for further justifications for their acts than were available twenty years ago...it is just a question of whether they have the means or not.
I am just glad it will be armed Marines and soldiers who will be dealing with the brunt of the terrorist assaults, as they will handily deliver death to all those who seek it, rather than the civilian population in the US.
| QUOTE |
| gurux For all of you who bought pesident bushes war plan he has somthing else for sale........... yes bush is selling the brooklyn bridge why dont you ginnie pigs go out and put you money togeather and buy it from him |
It's "Guinea Pig", and your insult makes no sense to me. Do you mean the war plan that just succeeded in taking down the Iraqi regime in record time with an unbelievably low rate of civilian casualties? If Bush is selling anything else like that, I'll take ten.
Post by: Gurux on April 12, 2003, 02:41:00 PM
Post by: Lizard_King on April 12, 2003, 02:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (Gurux @ Apr 12 2003, 10:41 PM) |
| Hey lizard king since you are busy giving the president head why dont you go a little lower and lick his balls |
That's clever. You've really managed to deepen your argument. I mean, "OIIIIIIIL!"+"playground insult" is a pretty fearsome combination....I guess I'll just have to settle for being right.
Post by: Colonel32 on April 12, 2003, 03:38:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Have you seen any major acts of terror since 9/11 on US soil? |
How do ya top 9/11?
Years went into the training and execution................ the likes of the USS Cole attack was to lull the homeland imho. Its gung-ho patriotism like that which kept warnings of 9/11 from being listened too I fail to understand why everyone whom "fears" terrorism is therefore "happy" when the unevitable happens because they proved a point of a forum....
Myself ...its not my socialist-democratic/Neo-Marxist views, rather it is a valid belief that anger is not quelled by attack unless it is a multilateral action through religion and world court and "the arab street". For every Iraqi civilian made ally by this war, there is ten enemies mades ...... If the Arab League was listened too a little more, and religious cleric involved more in the peace process than George Dubbya's face on their T.V's the outcome outside of Iraq would pave the way for REAL "liberation"P.s --- when has being a Marxist become an insult? Ya Captilist/Imperialist/Bourgeois
Post by: Dark Schneider on April 12, 2003, 03:40:00 PM
Lizard I applaud your efforts, but these people are here to cause the disruptions that they are presenting. Because you do not think their way...you are wrong. Because you are not as open minded, and fluid with other people's views......wait...sounds like them more than any of us.
Post by: Colonel32 on April 12, 2003, 03:41:00 PM
..... Ya think we would all have learned the first time. guess thats what happens when the cabinet is made up of CEO's of missile companies
Post by: Dark Schneider on April 12, 2003, 05:53:00 PM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Apr 12 2003, 04:41 PM) |
| For goodness states the Americans already have set forth to make a deal to sell arms to the new Iraq.... and you say it's about the oil ..... Ya think we would all have learned the first time. guess thats what happens when the cabinet is made up of CEO's of missile companies |
France must be pissed now!
Post by: Rollo on April 12, 2003, 06:26:00 PM
MLB will never let us liberate those particular commies!
Post by: chad000 on April 14, 2003, 11:27:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| And Lizard dont tell that america isnt after oil in irak, and also dont tell you americans are not conquerors, remember the 1846-1848 war against Mexico, Texas wanted independence, but you dont have to take California, New Mexico, Arizona on the way. That my friend its called invasion, and bush is now doing the same on Iraq just to have control of the oil, and he maybe now is planing taking Siria, iran, pakistan just like in the past with California, New Mexico and Arizona, isnt history great? |
Why do you make reference to a war that was over more than a 150 years ago and act like it's the same situation? Your argument for oil is just a cop out. If the U.S. wanted to control the oil, why didn't they just take control of it after the first Gulf War.
Post by: Lizard_King on April 14, 2003, 03:08:00 PM
| QUOTE (Tk0n @ Apr 14 2003, 04:40 PM) |
| oh yeah, i forgot. thank you america and russia for making germany the most likely battlefield of a nuclear war for 50 years. im from the other side of the wall, so i was huddling outside of your "nuclear umbrella" (no, i wasnt a communist, yes, i was demonstrating against the government of the gdr back then) thank you for protecting me by pointing enough atombombs at me to destroy the whole world several times. you are my hero. |
Obviously you neglect to remember that you would not have been in that situation had the German general staff not conspired to send Lenin into Russia to undermine the Tsar's regime. Or that it was hardly our fault that the situation ended up like it did, but it was definitely because of us that neither the Nazis or the Communists ended up running Europe. Sorry for dashing your dreams, then.
| QUOTE |
actually, we had a law, that was prohibiting us from taking military action in any war other than defending our own territory. you can call that cowardliness, but if any country on the world (especially yours) would have such laws, we wouldnt have this discussion. plus u.s. adminsitration made it quite clear over the last 60 years, that they dont want germanys army to take part in these conflicts, but are very willing to accept cash and have us cleaning up your mess after the wars. but we changed that law and took military action in the illegal war against yugoslavia and we took part in the illegal war against afghanistan. thats enough of this kind of "fighting for freedom" if you ask me. |
I am well aware of your "laws", and I can think of a million countries I'd take advice on pacifism from before Germany. I am glad you all learned that your way of waging war was bad for your health after 500 years or so. I guess you just don't have what it takes unless you are fighting Frenchmen.
What am I saying? Germany's stance on war in the last 50 years was not some profound moral step, nor does it in any way represent a functional foreign policy since they were in fact a US client in military-strategic terms. It was simply the result of failing repeatedly to win.
Do you forget that this "illegal war" in Yugoslavia was fought entirely at the behest of the European powers?
You consider the war in Afghanistan illegal? Riiight. I forgot. There's no "proof" Al Qaeda did it, right? It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
| QUOTE |
| oh, and my question was "when was the last time, an australian soldier fought to keep his country free?", i wasnt asking when the last time was, that a australian soldier died |
For someone that pretends to be such a global humanist, you have a very narrow definition of one country's interests. For many of us, the wars against the Nazis, Communists, etc were in fact wars for our country's sake. What would you consider a just cause? Retaking the Sudetenland?
| QUOTE |
| totally agree with you Tk0n, some americans, and i repeat SOME americans can see other way than the american way to do things. And Lizard dont tell that america isnt after oil in irak, and also dont tell you americans are not conquerors, remember the 1846-1848 war against Mexico, Texas wanted independence, but you dont have to take California, New Mexico, Arizona on the way. That my friend its called invasion, and bush is now doing the same on Iraq just to have control of the oil, and he maybe now is planing taking Siria, iran, pakistan just like in the past with California, New Mexico and Arizona, isnt history great? |
Yeah, it is great. I wish you knew some. Like that of your own glorious nation, for example. In the same spirit, don't tell me that France and Germany aren't in it for the oil as well, not to mention Russia.
| QUOTE |
| Dont get me wrong, im not pro irak, and not pro US, but now trying to intimidate siria is just ridiculous |
They actively aided one of our enemies while we were at war against them, and clearly refused to cease all such activities. Two brutal dictatorships for the price of one...
But I wouldn't be too concerned about all the saber rattling. I believe the US is well aware of how precarious the Syrian Baath regime's position is without Iraq.
Post by: Colonel32 on April 14, 2003, 06:30:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| If the U.S. wanted to control the oil, why didn't they just take control of it after the first Gulf War. |
US didn't "control" anything after the gulf war
Its not a cop-out, its one of many reasons for the "liberation" of Iraq. If you think that strategic resources are not a factor in this war you are need to review your facts. If there was no oil, the Americans tax payers would be footing the bill. Many people are confused when anti-war protesters argue this war is about oil... its not a question that the US will hijack their oil supplies, rather that the oil is a catalyst and will allow more stability for 20% of the worlds oil....No oil = no war is a fair point of view and a small factor of several reasons this war will create economic stability..... personally i see the states making more money off the bombs they drop and the rebuilding of Iraq than the oil they "liberate", but to suggest oil has nothing to do with anything is as ignorant as saying it is the only reason its not oil for our cars
Post by: Novahux on April 14, 2003, 06:55:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Tk0nand when was the last time, an Australian soldier fought to keep his country free |
You are the stupidest piece of shit, that has ever graced this forum TK0n, stupid and insensitive.
Australia only has a population of 19 million, as a percentage killed per population, we have the highest casualty rate of WW1,WW2.
You claim to be German (unlikely as I know a lot of Germans and they all seem quite intelligent).
If you are then show some thanks for getting rid of Hitler, his genetic selection policy, would most certainly have weeded out the poor example of human species that you appear to be.
Post by: chad000 on April 14, 2003, 07:34:00 PM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Apr 14 2003, 10:30 PM) | ||
US didn't "control" anything after the gulf war Its not a cop-out, its one of many reasons for the "liberation" of Iraq. If you think that strategic resources are not a factor in this war you are need to review your facts. If there was no oil, the Americans tax payers would be footing the bill. Many people are confused when anti-war protesters argue this war is about oil... its not a question that the US will hijack their oil supplies, rather that the oil is a catalyst and will allow more stability for 20% of the worlds oil....No oil = no war is a fair point of view and a small factor of several reasons this war will create economic stability..... personally i see the states making more money off the bombs they drop and the rebuilding of Iraq than the oil they "liberate", but to suggest oil has nothing to do with anything is as ignorant as saying it is the only reason its not oil for our cars |
I didn't say oil had nothing to do with it but to hear over and over and over that this conflict is based on oil and only oil (along with our conquest of the world) just throws me into a tirade...
Post by: Unicron on April 15, 2003, 01:14:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Apr 14 2003, 11:08 PM) |
| [Obviously you neglect to remember that you would not have been in that situation had the German general staff not conspired to send Lenin into Russia to undermine the Tsar's regime. Or that it was hardly our fault that the situation ended up like it did, but it was definitely because of us that neither the Nazis or the Communists ended up running Europe. Sorry for dashing your dreams, then. |
This is just a proof, that almost every political action has an impact on the generations to come.
Sending Lenin back to Russia back in 1917 to underminde the Tsars´s regime during a war
causing the eastern front to collapse. What´s the point?
I believe that no one could have foreseen the impact this would have.
Did anyone back in the late 70´s and early 80´s consider that
to temper with the goverments of Iran and Iraq could bring up
a war in the early 90´s and today?
No doubt that the USA had to protect Germany after the war was over. 1945 Russia would probably have Germany eradicated.
Sure, after suffering 21 Million casualties you can imagine what they must have been trough even with a leader like Stalin.
On the other hand you can´t deny, that the USA where pursuing their own interests in protecting germany.
I don´t understand why on one hand you seem to be a very good person to discuss with, you have a lot of distinctive knowlege
and you don´t seem to be a total brick, but on the other hand some of you quotes are so unobjective and provocative that i
think you lack cogent arguments.
Post by: Colonel32 on April 15, 2003, 01:56:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| "The prison in question was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children - toddlers up to pre-adolescents - whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace." |
This is kinda out of context..... the guy fought with the American govt to do something in '98. I believe his point is rather something should have been done a decade ago, and dropping bombs was not one of the options..... you should watch the documentary, maybe you will percieve him differently. He is one of the leading advocates of prosecuting human rights violations along with that British lady(both opposed to the war and probably in a better situation to comment than most) He meant that words of horror from his experience would only feed the "liberation" bullshit the govt is shooting out and never really adress the situation.
LK;
Looks like Syria indeed is next, i stand corrected.... you said that ages ago and i said there was no founding to begin a war with Syria.....It looks like the whole "make the public afraid of WMD" worked so well with Iraq they are going to now say Syria has them..... Of course they do, everyone does, how the hell is that a reason for war? If Saudi is next i'm onboard because at least they are accomplishing something (Iran will have a desert oasis disneyland soon
Post by: Colonel32 on April 15, 2003, 02:05:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Did anyone back in the late 70´s and early 80´s consider that to temper with the goverments of Iran and Iraq could bring up a war in the early 90´s and today? |
i like you, you should stay
Strategic Advantage has changed..... nobody cared in the 70's because it was to our advantage to support Iran..... wait then it was strategic to support Iraq..... Uh oh... its strategic to war against Iraq now.......Us foreign policy to be continued.
Its just like Afghanistan, it was a good idea at the time... in hindsight it costs too much money to police the country and the damned taliban won't roll over.... o well... here ya go taliban you can have it back we going to Iraq
I pray for the day that we will see strategic opportunity in Africa, too bad there wasn't anymore diamonds, them we could "liberate" them and stop the genocide in Indo china as well since we all seem to care so much for human rights violations this month
What would happen if one day we found gold in the gaza strip..... betcha we'd have peace in the middle east
capatilism at work
Edit: sorry if i'm a little flagrant 2day, i just watched donald rumsfield give MJ a flag from the pentagon to "remember" 9/11.... can u say publicity stunt? if ya want to remember these people lets not let it happen again!
skip the basketball game, scrap the missile defence system, and figure what the fuck we're going to do about homeland security... the orange alert just isn't cutting it for me.(another publicity stunt that costs the taxpayers)
Post by: Unicron on April 15, 2003, 02:28:00 AM
And does "Balance of Power" ring a bell?
There is no more balance today and the US are projecting their fear on other countries,
to keep them under control.
No Country in the European Community has to be afraid that a war will be carried out on their
soil except Greece. Tell me the names of the countries who supported the war in Iraq?
How many of these allies have to fear sanctions from the US if they don´t support the war?
Furthermore i would like to know how Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Iran are threatening
the American Freedom? Do you think overthrowing every goverment on the asian continent
will result in less Terrorism? So if at least on answer to these questions is no, then what is
the point in rallying over this continent and provoking one conflict after the other?
North Corea is a hole different story. I consider North Corea as threat. Not much of a threat today,
but their ambition to become a serious threat is obvious.
Post by: Tk0n on April 15, 2003, 02:49:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Obviously you neglect to remember that you would not have been in that situation had the German general staff not conspired to send Lenin into Russia to undermine the Tsar's regime. Or that it was hardly our fault that the situation ended up like it did, but it was definitely because of us that neither the Nazis or the Communists ended up running Europe. Sorry for dashing your dreams, then. |
thanks for the lesson in german history but i tend to contradict that the u.s. army alone was responsible for the downfall of the third reich. the russian red army did a incomparable bigger part in this.
about the tsar-lenin thing. us making this mistake (even if i wouldnt define it that way) is your excuse for making the same mistake over and over again? and whats all your hatred against communism about? did you have any bad experiences with communists?
im not a communist either, but i wouldnt compare them to the nazi-regime.
the world isnt black and white, good and evil.
for instance, most communist countries have/had a social network you can only dream of and that with only a fraction of your gnp.
and all where equaly poor, so there was no envy
its true, thanks to the u.s. and the russians, europe was and is split in half. none of you two had unselfish reasons for this.
i have big problems in differing a good occupying power and a evil occupying power.
the cold war could have been ended a long time ago when one of the superpowers would not have been so stubborn.
| QUOTE |
| I am well aware of your "laws", and I can think of a million countries I'd take advice on pacifism from before Germany. I am glad you all learned that your way of waging war was bad for your health after 500 years or so. I guess you just don't have what it takes unless you are fighting Frenchmen. |
if i remember correctly the last modern army the u.s. fought against was germanys.
dont try to impress me with your victories against third world countries.
yes, i know, iraq had a big army and wasnt a third world country 12 years ago.
but hussein showed in the iraq-iran conflict, that he isnt able to take strategic advantage out of that fact.
while we're at it. i was manovering with your army some years ago. your artillery cant hit shit and its no wonder that the coalition fears you more than they fear the enemy. but your chicks play soccer quite good
| QUOTE |
| Do you forget that this "illegal war" in Yugoslavia was fought entirely at the behest of the European powers? |
i did not say "your illegal war" did i? but i did not say "our illegal war" either.
its simply not true that you had nothing to do with it.
i would say, paying a terrorist group like the uck to provoke something like this, makes it your war also.
| QUOTE |
| You consider the war in Afghanistan illegal? Riiight. I forgot. There's no "proof" Al Qaeda did it, right? It would be funny if it weren't so sad. |
would you have given the undenyable proof that you had against bin laden to the taliban (like they requested). bin laden would be in your hand and you would not have to kill thousands of innocent afghans. in my eyes it was a totaly unnecessary attack. now we have a known druglord as head of state instead of the taliban.
freedom horray...
| QUOTE |
| You are the stupidest piece of shit, that has ever graced this forum TK0n, stupid and insensitive. Australia only has a population of 19 million, as a percentage killed per population, we have the highest casualty rate of WW1,WW2. You claim to be German (unlikely as I know a lot of Germans and they all seem quite intelligent). If you are then show some thanks for getting rid of Hitler, his genetic selection policy, would most certainly have weeded out the poor example of human species that you appear to be. |
first, thanks for insulting me so uncalled for.
i wont ask a question about your [sinking to your level] precios army of ex-cons and descendants of ex-cons [/sinking to your level] again.
i was asking when was the last time that a australian soldier was fighting to keep his country free. i was reading in your heartwarming poem: "He is an Aussie Soldier that has kept this country free for over 200 years".
i just wanted an explanation on this special part, this was not meant as an afront.
[sinking to your level again] free from what? free from aborigines? [/sinking to your level again]
i did not want a lesson on how admirable the aussie army is. i know that it did fight for good reasons in the past.
also, i did not bring up the issue of me being german, lk did.
i think it has nothing to do with anything and a discussion about that is pointless.
could we go back to the issue of this thread now?
this "shut-up, we liberated you, you're not allowed to criticize anything, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" aditude is getting on my nerves. as i said, the world isnt black and white, good and evil.
fighting a justified war doesnt justify any war you're fighting and criticizing this war has nothing to do with ungratefulness.
Post by: Unicron on April 15, 2003, 03:17:00 AM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Apr 15 2003, 10:05 AM) | ||
i like you, you should stay Strategic Advantage has changed..... nobody cared in the 70's because it was to our advantage to support Iran..... wait then it was strategic to support Iraq..... Uh oh... its strategic to war against Iraq now.......Us foreign policy to be continued. Its just like Afghanistan, it was a good idea at the time... in hindsight it costs too much money to police the country and the damned taliban won't roll over.... o well... here ya go taliban you can have it back we going to Iraq I pray for the day that we will see strategic opportunity in Africa, too bad there wasn't anymore diamonds, them we could "liberate" them and stop the genocide in Indo china as well since we all seem to care so much for human rights violations this month What would happen if one day we found gold in the gaza strip..... betcha we'd have peace in the middle east capatilism at work Edit: sorry if i'm a little flagrant 2day, i just watched donald rumsfield give MJ a flag from the pentagon to "remember" 9/11.... can u say publicity stunt? if ya want to remember these people lets not let it happen again! skip the basketball game, scrap the missile defence system, and figure what the fuck we're going to do about homeland security... the orange alert just isn't cutting it for me.(another publicity stunt that costs the taxpayers) |
Well thank you.
Post by: Lizard_King on April 15, 2003, 03:37:00 AM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Apr 15 2003, 09:56 AM) |
| This is kinda out of context..... the guy fought with the American govt to do something in '98. I believe his point is rather something should have been done a decade ago, and dropping bombs was not one of the options..... you should watch the documentary, maybe you will percieve him differently. He is one of the leading advocates of prosecuting human rights violations along with that British lady(both opposed to the war and probably in a better situation to comment than most) He meant that words of horror from his experience would only feed the "liberation" bullshit the govt is shooting out and never really adress the situation. |
I have seen his "documentary" and all it shows is that he is devoid of morals. Let's get down to brass tacks: What stops these prisons from existing? All the UN talk in the world did nothing; all the sanctions in the world did nothing. You call this man a humanitarian? At the very least it is obvious that his concerns do not have to do with seeking decent living conditions for the Iraqi people.
It is obvious that something massive in Scott Ritter's life changed that made him do a 180 from someone who incessantly warned of the danger Saddam's regime posed to one of its foremost spokesmen, who actually received 400,000$ from the Iraqi government to make that documentary.
Why is it that the one country that is actually doing something materially good for Iraq, irrespective of its motivations, is the *only* country that is not given the benefit of the doubt, ever? I wonder...
| QUOTE |
LK; Looks like Syria indeed is next, i stand corrected.... you said that ages ago and i said there was no founding to begin a war with Syria.....It looks like the whole "make the public afraid of WMD" worked so well with Iraq they are going to now say Syria has them..... Of course they do, everyone does, how the hell is that a reason for war? If Saudi is next i'm onboard because at least they are accomplishing something (Iran will have a desert oasis disneyland soon |
Syria should have that of that before they backed another country in war agains the United States. It seems we return to the paradigm of the Palestinians again and again; a group of people that backs the wrong horse in a race cannot accept the consequences of being on the losing team. You either accept the conditions of defeat, or you pay the consequences. That's war, and that's life.
I *told* you there was a bigger plan afoot, and thus far its targets have been most obliging in behaving as self-destructively as possible, sometimes literally.
| QUOTE |
| I pray for the day that we will see strategic opportunity in Africa, too bad there wasn't anymore diamonds, them we could "liberate" them and stop the genocide in Indo china as well since we all seem to care so much for human rights violations this month What would happen if one day we found gold in the gaza strip..... betcha we'd have peace in the middle east |
Yes, having valuable natural resources has done wonders for the Middle East thus far, what with providing the local despots with sufficient funds to repress their people.
Honestly, Colonel, I expected a little better of you than yet another rehashing of such quaint Imperialist theory. If you want to have a drawn out discussion on why Marxist-Leninist analysis has failed in every conceivable manner, that is a separate issue. But until you have more than vague prophecies that have had absolutely no historical precedent up until the current day, it belongs in a wholly different genre from foreign relations, which require a grasp of reality.
The United States will fight what wars it finds in its interest, just like any other country on earth. Your argument seems predicated on either attacking every despotic regime or none, which is absurd at best. Why would doing some good be inferior to doing nothing?
| QUOTE |
| Unicron This is just a proof, that almost every political action has an impact on the generations to come. Sending Lenin back to Russia back in 1917 to underminde the Tsars´s regime during a war causing the eastern front to collapse. What´s the point? I believe that no one could have foreseen the impact this would have. |
Actually, if you look at the plans of the general staff in that period, they knew exactly what they were doing at the time, which was perfectly rational at that time. In fact, had the United States not been run by a bizarre college professor/ignoramus/anti-monarchist Anglophile at the time, I would wager they might have had a chance in hell of winning the war, and thus providing Europe with a strong means of containing Bolshevism later on, and obviating the need for later US involvement.
My point was not that the US has never done similar things that backfired later on. Rather, I was trying to address what should be an obvious point; the way things turned out, for better or worse, left Western Europe as a client of United States foreign policy, with no real foreign policy of its own. They then pursued their Socialist utopias, with the burden of providing for their own defense removed from their shoulders, not to mention most of the initial reconstruction being subsidized by the Marshall Plan.
There is no such thing as a credible foreign policy without the threat of military force. No part of Europe has had that to any real degree since WWII, despite De Gaulle and his histrionics. Why? Because no European military, except the British to a small degree, has any means of projecting its military force. F
Ergo, when folks like Tkon pretend that Germany's stance favouring negotiation is a moral one, it is utterly absurd. Quite simply, these countries prefer diplomatic solutions irrespective of the consequences or factors at hand *because* they are the only solutions available to them.
Compare that to Japan, for example, where it is in fact largely a moral issue, as they have maintained one of the most considerable militaries (3rd in spending after the US and Russia) but were so traumatized by the impact of war on their homeland that only the threat of more nuclear weapons from North Korea has galvanized them into all sorts of strong lines against rogue governments.
Now, since I am a materialist when it comes to foreign policy, I do not care one whit whether the stance of a government is moral or practical, so long as the ultimate results and the means taken are materially good and useful. In this case, I see no way that further dithering by Kofi & friends could have accomplished in a thousand years what America has accomplished in a few weeks.
We have gotten so used in our lifetime, possibly due to the presence of such luminaries as Jimmy Carter in the American presidency, to seeing inaction as the only means of dealing with tricky issues. History can teach anyone that the most effective way to deal with troublesome, dangerous governments is to obliterate them.
| QUOTE |
| Did anyone back in the late 70´s and early 80´s consider that to temper with the goverments of Iran and Iraq could bring up a war in the early 90´s and today? |
Actually, if you read Richard Nixon's letters to his successor as well as his own oft-stated views, in many ways influenced by Kissinger, he felt that detente was a workable means of surviving with rational opponents like the Soviet Union and the Chinese, but was incredibly concerned about the situation in the Middle East, particularly as it concerns all of the trouble spots today. He saw the "anti-communist" Muhadejin as the problem of tomorrow, for example.
Now, I hardly blame Ronald Reagan for seizing the opportunity presented by Gorbachev's vacillating leadership to drive the Soviets to the wall. But his successors, Bush I and Clinton, have no excuse for adopting Carteresque half-measures with the Middle East rather than strength. In fact, it is an open question exactly how much of the perception of American weakness in the Middle East, as a popular view and as one shared by radical organizations like Al Qaeda, can be ascribed to the disgraceful behaviour of the Carter administration during the Iranian hostage crisis.
| QUOTE |
| No doubt that the USA had to protect Germany after the war was over. 1945 Russia would probably have Germany eradicated. Sure, after suffering 21 Million casualties you can imagine what they must have been trough even with a leader like Stalin. On the other hand you can´t deny, that the USA where pursuing their own interests in protecting germany. |
When have I ever denied that? What possibly reason could I have for denying it? Is it suddenly a motivation to see an act as wrong if it is beneficial to the actor?
| QUOTE |
| I don´t understand why on one hand you seem to be a very good person to discuss with, you have a lot of distinctive knowlege and you don´t seem to be a total brick, but on the other hand some of you quotes are so unobjective and provocative that i think you lack cogent arguments. |
Point out specifics, and I will be happy to elaborate, or correct myself. Personally, *I* don't understand why so many of the people I argue with on this board make a pretense of being focused on reason and objectivity when the roots of their arguments are clearly ideological, and no more subject to reasoned debate than a Christian's belief in God.
What quotes are so"provocative" as to seem "not cogent"? Without any clarification or examples, that is at the very least a non-sequiter.
| QUOTE |
| And does "Balance of Power" ring a bell? |
A "balance" of power requires actual powers to deal with; there are none, so it is a moot point.
| QUOTE |
| Tell me the names of the countries who supported the war in Iraq? How many of these allies have to fear sanctions from the US if they don´t support the war? |
I would love to see an actual example of this sort of negative retribution that you are speaking of; All I see is the United States choosing to be more selective about who it gives money away to in times when we are in need of cooperation (ie Turkey). Personally, I don't think the United States should be giving anyone who is not our express ally a red cent, but at the very least some incentive to cooperate is in order.
| QUOTE |
| Furthermore i would like to know how Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Iran are threatening the American Freedom? Do you think overthrowing every goverment on the asian continent will result in less Terrorism? |
It's actually quite simple. All of these countries have been permitted to fester in a self-destructive orgy of despotism for too long. As 9/11 demonstrated, there are serious consequences for ignoring the root causes of such anti-American movements (mind you, I say causes, NOT justifications). I don't think overthrowing every government is necessary for the US to do; for instance I do believe the Iranian people are just about fed up enough with the bullshit they have to put up with to deal with it themselves, especially given the lack of centralization and general weakness of the regime in place. I do think it is necessary for the United States to start the ball rolling somewhere, as we have done, as we did after WWII and did NOT do after WWI.
| QUOTE |
| North Corea is a hole different story. I consider North Corea as threat. Not much of a threat today, but their ambition to become a serious threat is obvious. |
North Korea is the present day equivalent of what Iraq would have been with nuclear weapons. Is that really, really so hard to understand?
Given the very different North Korean psychology as to their relationship with the US, and the unique situation of having China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan as different pressure sources on their behaviour, I believe the situation is well in hand.
Post by: Tk0n on April 15, 2003, 04:20:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Apr 15 2003, 11:37 AM) |
| Ergo, when folks like Tkon pretend that Germany's stance favouring negotiation is a moral one, it is utterly absurd. |
i did never say anything like that.
i was just denying that germany is against this war cause we allegedly made such high profits out of saddams regime.
iraq is a much better marketplace without the un-sanctions and we have almost only advantages out of this war.
Post by: Tk0n on April 15, 2003, 05:08:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Apr 15 2003, 12:16 PM) |
| Ariel Sharon modifies his position on settlements Yup. No doubt some stealthy zionist maneuvering afoot...or could it possibly be a sign that the removal of Iraq allows for a great deal more flexibility in Israeli-Palestinian relations? Naaaaah.... |
only time will tell.
maybe israel will just make another of its "generous" offers to the palestine people...
i doubt they will draw back to the borders of 1967.
but its a perfect example for the use of different standards regarding "liberation of people".
as the article states, israel is facing shortage in financial aid from the u.s...
funny thing that george w. adopts michael moores isreal/palestine peace solution from "stupid white men"
Post by: Lizard_King on April 15, 2003, 05:16:00 AM
| QUOTE (Tk0n @ Apr 15 2003, 01:08 PM) |
| only time will tell. maybe israel will just make another of its "generous" offers to the palestine people... i doubt they will draw back to the borders of 1967. |
Would you withdraw to wholly militarily indefensible borders being surrounded by hostile countries? Just because one is gone does not mean the others that attacked it three times in its history will not continue to menace them.
In any case, I though that was one of the rewards of being attacked and defeating your assailants. *You* get to decide the terms of the peace.
| QUOTE |
| funny thing that george w. adopts michael moores isreal/palestine peace solution from "stupid white men" |
oh please. I *know* you just mentioned that name for the express purpose of antagonizing those of us who disagree with you.
| QUOTE |
| i did never say anything like that. i was just denying that germany is against this war cause we allegedly made such high profits out of saddams regime. |
Bollocks. You're just lucky the previous thread was deleted. You have often framed your argument for your country's stance from various positions, but never from the relatively modest defensive claim you make now.
Post by: Tk0n on April 15, 2003, 05:53:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Would you withdraw to wholly militarily indefensible borders being surrounded by hostile countries? Just because one is gone does not mean the others that attacked it three times in its history will not continue to menace them. In any case, I though that was one of the rewards of being attacked and defeating your assailants. *You* get to decide the terms of the peace. |
ofcourse you deside the terms of peace.
but winnig a war does not at all justify any actions you take.
i just think 35 years of occupation are enough.
| QUOTE |
| oh please. I *know* you just mentioned that name for the express purpose of antagonizing those of us who disagree with you. |
only to antagonize you
| QUOTE |
| Bollocks. You're just lucky the previous thread was deleted. You have often framed your argument for your country's stance from various positions, but never from the relatively modest defensive claim you make now. |
i did? as far as i remember i wasnt basing this discussion at all on german politics.
one thing i can remember regarding that issue was that i said, that not taking part in military actions against iraq is almost the only point i go concur with my government.
i remember also that i statet that my views are my views alone and have nothing to do with german politics or even the majority of germans.
other than that, we were talking about france/russia where i said that totalfinaelf/russoil has/had valid contracts for the exploitation of iraqi oil. there is ofcourse economical impacts for this two countries, especially russia.
Post by: fletch_dev on April 15, 2003, 07:36:00 AM
| QUOTE (Tk0n @ Apr 15 2003, 07:49 PM) |
| first, thanks for insulting me so uncalled for. i wont ask a question about your [sinking to your level] precios army of ex-cons and descendants of ex-cons [/sinking to your level] again. i was asking when was the last time that a australian soldier was fighting to keep his country free. i was reading in your heartwarming poem: "He is an Aussie Soldier that has kept this country free for over 200 years". i just wanted an explanation on this special part, this was not meant as an afront. |
If it was not meant as an afront then why ask a question that is so easily answered?
Anyway, LK has already answered this question satisfactorily. Read back thru the thread if you need your answer.
Post by: fletch_dev on April 15, 2003, 07:38:00 AM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Apr 15 2003, 07:05 PM) |
| Strategic Advantage has changed..... nobody cared in the 70's because it was to our advantage to support Iran..... wait then it was strategic to support Iraq..... Uh oh... its strategic to war against Iraq now.......Us foreign policy to be continued. Its just like Afghanistan, it was a good idea at the time... in hindsight it costs too much money to police the country and the damned taliban won't roll over.... o well... here ya go taliban you can have it back we going to Iraq I pray for the day that we will see strategic opportunity in Africa, too bad there wasn't anymore diamonds, them we could "liberate" them and stop the genocide in Indo china as well since we all seem to care so much for human rights violations this month What would happen if one day we found gold in the gaza strip..... betcha we'd have peace in the middle east capatilism at work Edit: sorry if i'm a little flagrant 2day, i just watched donald rumsfield give MJ a flag from the pentagon to "remember" 9/11.... can u say publicity stunt? if ya want to remember these people lets not let it happen again! skip the basketball game, scrap the missile defence system, and figure what the fuck we're going to do about homeland security... the orange alert just isn't cutting it for me.(another publicity stunt that costs the taxpayers) |
Totally agree. You've summarised my feelings exactly.
And your avatar is making me want to go to Canada.
Post by: Lizard_King on April 15, 2003, 07:45:00 AM
| QUOTE |
But I clearly believe that the only way now for us to successfully deal with the North Koreans is to enter into direct talks, to make sure that we have people sitting across the table to address the concerns specifically enunciated by this administration -- and they can't do it too soon." -TOM DASCHLE National Press Club, January 27, 2003 |
Ah, the rank smell of appeasement...The same people that crow about how multilateral action is necessary when the US holds all the cards would rather have us on our own when there are plenty of other countries who should be dealing with the problem as well. I guess you just can't win...there are a couple of other quotes from such has-beens as Madeline "Gargoyle" Albright over here.
You know, since North Korea keeps coming up...
Post by: Unicron on April 15, 2003, 09:41:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| It seems we return to the paradigm of the Palestinians again and again; a group of people that backs the wrong horse in a race cannot accept the consequences of being on the losing team. |
This is just what the US Goverment does exept that the consequence of being on the losing team for the US means that
you have to take military action to "shoot" the horse just to back another wrong horse.
| QUOTE |
| In fact, it is an open question exactly how much of the perception of American weakness in the Middle East, as a popular view and as one shared by radical organizations like Al Qaeda, can be ascribed to the disgraceful behaviour of the Carter administration during the Iranian hostage crisis. |
So you think it is only possible to be a successful politician if you back up your deeds with military force? That means you have to be a threat to your political counterpart just to keep up a forced-friendly relationship. In this case the cold war is far from beeing over, just the targets have shifted. Well maybe i am a little too naïve to think that at least the last 10 years could have made a difference to the Industrial Headquaters of the world.
| QUOTE |
| When have I ever denied that? What possibly reason could I have for denying it? Is it suddenly a motivation to see an act as wrong if it is beneficial to the actor? |
No it is not, but i think "huddeling behind the umbrella of protection" to describe germany is not the right term then. I thought the relationship between the USA and Germany would go far beyond that.
| QUOTE |
| Point out specifics, and I will be happy to elaborate, or correct myself. Personally, *I* don't understand why so many of the people I argue with on this board make a pretense of being focused on reason and objectivity when the roots of their arguments are clearly ideological, and no more subject to reasoned debate than a Christian's belief in God. What quotes are so"provocative" as to seem "not cogent"? Without any clarification or examples, that is at the very least a non-sequiter. |
"The only one using displaying bigotry here is you. Must be tough losing all the time...I am glad you found someone other than just the Jews to blame for your country's impotence." I was refering to statements like this one, which i consider not very sober, even if i have to admit that Bigotry and Sarcasm are also the wrong way to begin a discussion.
| QUOTE |
| I would love to see an actual example of this sort of negative retribution that you are speaking of; All I see is the United States choosing to be more selective about who it gives money away to in times when we are in need of cooperation (ie Turkey). Personally, I don't think the United States should be giving anyone who is not our express ally a red cent, but at the very least some incentive to cooperate is in order. |
I refer to those 40 countrys who GWB claimed are his allies on this war and will back up his actions. The "coalition of the willing"
Countrys like Rwanda, Panama, Nicaragua, Ethiopia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Solomon Islands, Mexico, Romania, Phillippines, Palau, Mongolia, Micronesia, Eritrea, El Savador, Dominican Republic, Great Britan, Denmark, Island, Poland.
I don´t want to emphasize that these Countrys have nothing to say in world politics, but in my eyes these aren´t the countrys
usually asked to support a war. If you see the names of these countrys it has much less impact than saying "we have 40 supporting countrys"
| QUOTE |
Post by: Colonel32 on April 15, 2003, 03:38:00 PM
woot the socialists are coming out of the woodwork | QUOTE |
| Countrys like Rwanda, Panama, Nicaragua, Ethiopia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Solomon Islands, Mexico, Romania, Phillippines, Palau, Mongolia, Micronesia, Eritrea, El Savador, Dominican Republic, Great Britan, Denmark, Island, Poland. |
haha how many of these countries have been at war with the states b4
Why the hell is panama on that list, i've been to Panama and certainly that was a govt decision.| QUOTE |
| Honestly, Colonel, I expected a little better of you than yet another rehashing of such quaint Imperialist theory. If you want to have a drawn out discussion on why Marxist-Leninist analysis has failed in every conceivable manner, that is a separate issue. |
Ya i know, i was in a bad mood, i don't really buy up the imperialism, you agree though that if zimbabwe or indonesia where closer to a world power or had strategic resources something would have to be done about it....don't think we're trying to run the world per say rather use it to our advantage which is a problem to us egalitarians...... and Marxist/Leninist movement failed in action, not theory.....it merely showed the major flaw of communism that not evrybody wants to work... hence the iron fist. One day we will see a new form of socialist democracy that address these flaws.
EDIT PS mexico is not on the list of the willing i believe
Post by: Colonel32 on April 15, 2003, 03:42:00 PM
Post by: Lizard_King on April 15, 2003, 05:11:00 PM
| QUOTE (Unicron @ Apr 15 2003, 05:41 PM) |
| This is just what the US Goverment does exept that the consequence of being on the losing team for the US means that you have to take military action to "shoot" the horse just to back another wrong horse. |
I don't understand what you are saying here.
| QUOTE |
| So you think it is only possible to be a successful politician if you back up your deeds with military force? That means you have to be a threat to your political counterpart just to keep up a forced-friendly relationship. In this case the cold war is far from beeing over, just the targets have shifted. Well maybe i am a little too naïve to think that at least the last 10 years could have made a difference to the Industrial Headquaters of the world. |
Politician, monarch, dictator, whatever you are, if your policy does not ultimately carry a credible threat of force, you have no rule of law domestically and no say internationally. How would unilateral disarmament have made the world safer? Why is it that you do not see that guarantees of security come only when those who would harm us are dead or have it made clear that they will be killed if they act?
| QUOTE | ||
No it is not, but i think "huddeling behind the umbrella of protection" to describe germany is not the right term then. I thought the relationship between the USA and Germany would go far beyond that. |
Then tell me the right term. I think that while somewhat disparaging it is perfectly correct.
| QUOTE |
| "The only one using displaying bigotry here is you. Must be tough losing all the time...I am glad you found someone other than just the Jews to blame for your country's impotence." I was refering to statements like this one, which i consider not very sober, even if i have to admit that Bigotry and Sarcasm are also the wrong way to begin a discussion. |
I respond to people in the manner in which they communicate with me. From day one when I registered on this board I have been arguing about this shit. tkon and I started off on the wrong foot as his very first post actually said stuff like "the US attacked Afghanistan, and there is no proof that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11", probably inspired by the example set by xbox-scene's resident Arabist, Al Ghazi (currently AWOL). Ever since then it has been a chore for me to respond in a cordial manner. I think you'll find that if you can handle courtesy while disagreeing like Colonel and occasionally fletch dev on his better days, we won't have a problem.
now then:
your original statement:
| QUOTE |
| Tell me the names of the countries who supported the war in Iraq? How many of these allies have to fear sanctions from the US if they don´t support the war? |
Clearly implying that the United States had threatened these allies with sanctions if they did not side with us. I asked you for some of evidence of this, and you responded with:
| QUOTE |
| I refer to those 40 countrys who GWB claimed are his allies on this war and will back up his actions. The "coalition of the willing" Countrys like Rwanda, Panama, Nicaragua, Ethiopia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Solomon Islands, Mexico, Romania, Phillippines, Palau, Mongolia, Micronesia, Eritrea, El Savador, Dominican Republic, Great Britan, Denmark, Island, Poland. I don´t want to emphasize that these Countrys have nothing to say in world politics, but in my eyes these aren´t the countrys usually asked to support a war. If you see the names of these countrys it has much less impact than saying "we have 40 supporting countrys" |
Which all of a sudden shifts the issue not to the US threatening these countries, which I'll assume you have no evidence for, to claiming somehow these countries are not as important in determining any sort of consensus about US action. I disagree. Canada is no world power but their opinion matters. Belgium is no world power, and yet their support was held in high esteem by the French and German antiwar leadership. Hell, if we were just talking militarily relevant, Russia, China, England and Japan would be at the table long before France or Germany.
| QUOTE |
| Colonel32 serously though did anyone else think that the secretary of defense showing up at a basketball game and giving micheal jordon a flag to remember 9/11 absolutely disgusting.... if i EVER see jean chretien giving out shit at a hockey game it's the day i run for prime minister |
Yeah, yeah, we heard you the first time, and I'm still not outraged about it. Donald Rumsfeld can give the flag that was hanging over his office to anyone he likes; I think someone that was right in the middle of a 9/11 attack in the midst of the smoking wreckage, has the right to do with souvenirs as he will. Personally, I find your feigned outrage far more repulsive, but that's just me.
| QUOTE |
| haha how many of these countries have been at war with the states b4 Why the hell is panama on that list, i've been to Panama and certainly that was a govt decision. |
What's your point? We've been at war with the British in the past as well. Different times.
| QUOTE |
| Ya i know, i was in a bad mood, i don't really buy up the imperialism, you agree though that if zimbabwe or indonesia where closer to a world power or had strategic resources something would have to be done about it....don't think we're trying to run the world per say rather use it to our advantage which is a problem to us egalitarians...... |
No, I don't agree. I think it is impossible to speculate, for example, what should have happened with southern Africa. Zimbabwe as Rhodesia was reasonably prosperous; unfortunately, people were unaware that destabilizing the entire region by replacing apartheid with incompetent Communists was going to have serious repercussions for the whole area.
In any case, it's not a problem for me, as I am not an egalitarian. The only equality I value is before the law, everything else is bullshit, and destructive, too.
| QUOTE |
| and Marxist/ Leninist movement failed in action, not theory.....it merely showed the major flaw of communism that not evrybody wants to work... hence the iron fist. One day we will see a new form of socialist democracy that address these flaws. |
That's complete nonsense. How can something be sound in theory if it does not work in practice? How can Marxist analysis be sound in theory if it has failed every test of history?
If I invent a theory that goes against the laws of nature (ie in nature even genes function on a simplified, nonsentient form of self interest) is it my theory that is wrong or all of nature?
As to your dream of socialist democracy...well, I believe in neither socialism nor democracy, so I guarantee you those changes will happen in my country over my dead body and those of many others.
Post by: Lizard_King on April 15, 2003, 05:45:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| thanks for the lesson in german history but i tend to contradict that the u.s. army alone was responsible for the downfall of the third reich. |
I never said that. However, without US arms and supplies, neither the Russian nor the English war effort would have lasted much longer than 1943. It is a mutually dependent historical outcome.
| QUOTE |
| russian red army did a incomparable bigger part in this. |
Yes. That's true. Doesn't change a thing about how pivotal US involvement was.
| QUOTE |
| about the tsar-lenin thing. us making this mistake (even if i wouldnt define it that way) is your excuse for making the same mistake over and over again? and whats all your hatred against communism about? did you have any bad experiences with communists? |
I study history and economics. Both those things make me the enemy of communism. I was raised in Latin America, where Communism is rampantly trendy among the young and the "intelligentsia". I have visited communist countries, especially Cuba, and seen the disasters firsthand.
Please list some specific examples of the United States making this mistake, and what you would have done in the circumstances that was so superior. Then we'll toss in whatever the European powers were up to, and see who really has the high ground in long term success.
Obviously, since you don't see communism as an enemy, you would be all for letting them run the world on their terms. I happen to think that for every mistake like Afghanistan there is a successful endeavour like Chile or, for that matter, western Europe. They don't justify one another, but it is
| QUOTE |
| im not a communist either, but i wouldnt compare them to the nazi-regime. the world isnt black and white, good and evil. for instance, most communist countries have/had a social network you can only dream of and that with only a fraction of your gnp. and all where equaly poor, so there was no envy |
That's nonsense. Tell me of these communist countries. You ever hear of a little book called "The Black Book of Communism"? It was put together by some french leftist academics who felt it necessary to clear the slate of leftism and communism by attempting to quantify the numbers slain in the name of this utopia you dream of. If tens of millions of dead people are an acceptable casualty ratio, then I don't even understand why you talk about being concerned about the hundreds of Iraqis killed in this war.
In material terms, Stalin was far worse than Hitler, and Mao certainly was no slacker in terms of sheer numbers killed. You will recall that "Nazi" is a slang name for "National Socialism"; it is a competing form of socialist totalitarianism (to communism), NOT its ideological opposite. It is not by accident that so many former communists became fascists, and vice-versa (like Mussolini, for example). I have no doubt Hitler would have given them a run for their money had he been victorious, but in terms of what actually happened, the Soviet Union was at least as brutal for a far longer period.
I highly recommend "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn if you wish to begin to understand the experience of the Russian people under Stalin.
| QUOTE |
| its true, thanks to the u.s. and the russians, europe was and is split in half. none of you two had unselfish reasons for this. |
Again, what is your point? Nothing in this world EVER has "unselfish" reasons; everything from the lowliest virus to Gerhard Schroeder functions on self interest.
| QUOTE |
| i have big problems in differing a good occupying power and a evil occupying power. |
Then what is the point in arguing about it? We might as well ask a colorblind person to debate about paint schemes.
I suggest you find yourself someone that has lived under either of the two systems, and ask them what they think. If you still can't tell the difference between being an American client and a Soviet Satellite, it would explain a lot of the issues on this thread.
| QUOTE |
| the cold war could have been ended a long time ago when one of the superpowers would not have been so stubborn. |
Oh, really? And how was that supposed to happen? Is like how the Israel-Palestine question could have been resolved had the Israelis not been so "stubborn" about having war waged on them?
There were many different ways the cold war could have been dealt with, on both sides. But if you are in serious doubt about whether the right side won, then you are in dire need of an economics textbook.
| QUOTE |
| if i remember correctly the last modern army the u.s. fought against was germanys. dont try to impress me with your victories against third world countries. yes, i know, iraq had a big army and wasnt a third world country 12 years ago. but hussein showed in the iraq-iran conflict, that he isnt able to take strategic advantage out of that fact. |
Don't flatter yourself. Fighting the Japanese and the million or so Chinese in North Korea was at least as difficult.
The amazing thing is not that the US won, per se, but how they won. No other military in the world could have done that.
| QUOTE |
| while we're at it. i was manovering with your army some years ago. your artillery cant hit shit and its no wonder that the coalition fears you more than they fear the enemy. but your chicks play soccer quite good |
Hilarious. Nothing like the insults of unruly children.
| QUOTE |
| would you have given the undenyable proof that you had against bin laden to the taliban (like they requested). bin laden would be in your hand and you would not have to kill thousands of innocent afghans. in my eyes it was a totaly unnecessary attack. now we have a known druglord as head of state instead of the taliban. freedom horray. |
You are unbelievable. You continue to vouch for Al Qaeda's innocence based on shallow legalities and word games, once again giving the lie to any claim of reason in your foreign policy thought. As to your response to Novahux...well, you never do disappoint. Just when I think you can't sink any lower, you pull out all the stops.
I once thought it was the dismay at seeing the war go well that drove Al Ghazi away...I know now it is because he was replaced by someone even fouler than he.
Post by: Colonel32 on April 15, 2003, 08:26:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| That's complete nonsense. How can something be sound in theory if it does not work in practice? How can Marxist analysis be sound in theory if it has failed every test of history |
I meant that lenins words and actions are 2 very different things
certainly his writing on the proletariats and his actions against the workforce were two different things..... same could be said of castro... good ideas, bad actions leading to dictatorship. To me, doesn't discredit the thoughts of "equalness" and the bourgeoisie.| QUOTE |
| In material terms, Stalin was far worse than Hitler |
| QUOTE |
| In any case, it's not a problem for me, as I am not an egalitarian. The only equality I value is before the law, everything else is bullshit, and destructive, too. |
how can someone of your education not see everyone as equal?| QUOTE |
| No, I don't agree. I think it is impossible to speculate, for example, what should have happened with southern Africa. Zimbabwe as Rhodesia was reasonably prosperous; unfortunately, people were unaware that destabilizing the entire region by replacing apartheid with incompetent Communists was going to have serious repercussions for the whole area. |
uhhh... ya don't think the money owed had anything to do with it? so we should have kept the slavery going..... it seems to me you are saying that we(they) would be better off if apartheid was still present.... i didn't mean should as in past, i meant should as in present. Prosperity is really easy when the workers don't get paid
Post by: Lizard_King on April 15, 2003, 08:48:00 PM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Apr 16 2003, 04:26 AM) |
| I meant that lenins words and actions are 2 very different things certainly his writing on the proletariats and his actions against the workforce were two different things..... same could be said of castro... good ideas, bad actions leading to dictatorship. To me, doesn't discredit the thoughts of "equalness" and the bourgeoisie. |
I disagree. I think it is Lenin that was logically consistent, and modern leftists that are inconsistent when they try all sorts of verbal gymnastics to separate the man from his words. But that's just my opinion.
| QUOTE |
| how can someone of your education not see everyone as equal? |
It's not a question of education. All you need is eyes, ears, and a brain. Some people are stronger, some faster, some smarter, some stupid. Some do a lot with very little on hand, some fail miserably despite having every advantage. But no one is equal, and to attempt to superimpose artificial equality through coerced mediocrity is not only illogical, but destructive.
Humans achieve as a result of ambition. Ambition is driven by inequality, just like heat transfers in physics. It is not inconsistent for the US to be the wealthiest nation in the world and the most unequal; it is perfectly logical and in keeping with nature. The rich getting richer does not impoverish the poor....rather, in the long run everyone is better off. The luxuries of the rich in the past are the everyday amenities of minimum wage workers today precisely because of that sort of progress.
| QUOTE |
| uhhh... ya don't think the money owed had anything to do with it? so we should have kept the slavery going..... it seems to me you are saying that we(they) would be better off if apartheid was still present.... i didn't mean should as in past, i meant should as in present. Prosperity is really easy when the workers don't get paid |
Don't get angry at me before you actually read what I wrote. I never said apartheid was a good thing, nor do I have a great deal of sympathy for Afrikaaners caught in the crossfire now; all I said was that replacing it with a power vacuum and some petty communists was not the optimal solution. FW de Clerk represents a troublesome, Gorbachev-like figure in that it is uncertain if shock treatment is ever a reasonable way to reorganize a previously socially backwards nation.
In any case, apartheid, while similar symbolically and ethically to slavery was materially quite different. In the 20th century, no one with aspersions to real prosperity had any delusions about the economic
(in)efficiency of slavery. For any sort of skilled labour, it is far more profitable to pay workers a salary commensurate to their tasks, whatever you may think of their race.
Apartheid was a social caste system, not a forced labour system. Again, morally, there is not much difference in how reprehensible they are; economically, very different.
Speaking of which, have you ever read "Cry, the Beloved Country" and/or "Ah, but your land is beautiful" by Alan Paton? They are truly some of the most amazing semi-fictional works about South Africa...Of course, nothing compares to the bio of Steven Biko for a view of what happened to dissenters....
Anyhow, I didn't meant to get this sidetracked...I would be happy to discuss Commies and Boers in a separate thread, as I feel I've led this one sufficiently astray for the moment.
Post by: Tk0n on April 16, 2003, 04:00:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| tkon and I started off on the wrong foot as his very first post actually said stuff like "the US attacked Afghanistan, and there is no proof that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11" |
i said, the us adminsitration did not present a proof till now.
thats a huge difference. but i see that the discussion about this doesnt bring us anywhere.
its true, we started on the wrong foot. i tend to provoke a little bit more than i want...
| QUOTE |
| That's nonsense. Tell me of these communist countries. You ever hear of a little book called "The Black Book of Communism"? It was put together by some french leftist academics who felt it necessary to clear the slate of leftism and communism by attempting to quantify the numbers slain in the name of this utopia you dream of. If tens of millions of dead people are an acceptable casualty ratio, then I don't even understand why you talk about being concerned about the hundreds of Iraqis killed in this war. |
i know that book.
and i think you have to read it quite carefully and critical.
for instance, there is a 6 million bodycount for the big famine after the revolution.
not really a direct guild of communism itself.
most in the book presented "facts" about maos communism in china are estimated and ofcourse the highest possible number is taken.
i dont want to defend communism. as i said, its not my system of choice.
but you should also differ between communism, stalinism, maoism or the red khmer.
there where no massakres, mass genocides or brutal regimes in big parts of the warshaw pact.
ofcourse, stalin was a brutal leader who killed political antagonist and opressed and exploitet his own masses. i wouldnt say, that the exploitation of slaves is to benchmark ethically higher.
you see, the whole math, "communism = mass murder" is wrong. its if i would say, "capitalism = slavery".
| QUOTE |
| Again, what is your point? Nothing in this world EVER has "unselfish" reasons; everything from the lowliest virus to Gerhard Schroeder functions on self interest. |
the point is, that we're ungratefull bastards when we are following our own interests and you like to see yourself as the big liberator if you're doing the same.
| QUOTE |
| Then what is the point in arguing about it? We might as well ask a colorblind person to debate about paint schemes. I suggest you find yourself someone that has lived under either of the two systems, and ask them what they think. If you still can't tell the difference between being an American client and a Soviet Satellite, it would explain a lot of the issues on this thread. |
the outcome was simply a difference in the plans of the two superpowers.
americas plan was to build a strong trade partner and a buffer to russia.
america striped germany only of knowledge by poaching german scientists.
(and i cant argue with that)
russia wanted to regain parts of the losses they made in world war 2, so they stripped east germany of almost everything. (i cant argue with that either cause we brought the war to their ground and the scorched earth tactic worked out quite well)
| QUOTE |
| As to your response to Novahux...well, you never do disappoint. Just when I think you can't sink any lower, you pull out all the stops. |
huh? i thought it was an appropriate reaction on a guy who called me a retard who would have been euthanased by the nazi's just cause disagree with his and your standpoint. espiecially considering that this conniption came from a person who unreflected recites soldier poems (like the nazis did for the very same reasons he's doing it now)
Post by: Lizard_King on April 16, 2003, 07:52:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Italy says it will seek the extradition of Abu Abbas, the Palestinian militant who masterminded the hijacking of an Italian cruise ship in 1985. Abbas - who was sentenced in absentia to five life terms by an Italian court for the attack - was captured in Iraq this week by US forces. The Palestinian Authority has called for his immediate release, saying his capture violates 1995 peace accords which included an amnesty for Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) officials. The daughters of an elderly American Jewish tourist killed during the hijacking of the Achille Lauro have called for Abbas to be tried in the US. Leon Klinghoffer, who was confined to a wheelchair, was shot dead and his body flung into the sea. |
Way to keep backing the wrong horse, guys...
Marines free 123 from Iraq hellhole
Bill Clinton: tkon's president of choice
EU leaders build bridges over Iraq
Iran's Rafsanjani Suggests U.S. Ties Be Put to Vote
| QUOTE |
| i know that book. and i think you have to read it quite carefully and critical. for instance, there is a 6 million bodycount for the big famine after the revolution. not really a direct guild of communism itself. most in the book presented "facts" about maos communism in china are estimated and ofcourse the highest possible number is taken. i dont want to defend communism. as i said, its not my system of choice. but you should also differ between communism, stalinism, maoism or the red khmer. there where no massakres, mass genocides or brutal regimes in big parts of the warshaw pact. ofcourse, stalin was a brutal leader who killed political antagonist and opressed and exploitet his own masses. i wouldnt say, that the exploitation of slaves is to benchmark ethically higher. you see, the whole math, "communism = mass murder" is wrong. its if i would say, "capitalism = slavery". |
Do you consider the natural state of man, competition and adaptation, a form of slavery? Do you think totalitarianism is justified in the name of egalitarianism? Because there is no other way to implement communism. How exactly is totalitarianism NOT slavery, in a literal form rather than some metaphorical construct for describing the wage labour relationship?
What would be your alternative, then, if communism is not your system of choice?
And if, in fact, communism does not equal murder, then it is some coincidence that they go hand in hand that often...
As to the famine, it was a direct consequence of government policy, in many ways an intentional starvation of the people. There was no real shortage of food except that engineered by the Bolsheviks. Do you also not blame Mao for the disastrous Great Leap Forward?
I do differentiate between the various forms of communism, but only to the same degree you differentiate between different forms of capitalism. There are different flavours and intensities, but if you hate the system, they are *ALL* wrong.
| QUOTE |
| huh? i thought it was an appropriate reaction on a guy who called me a retard who would have been euthanased by the nazi's just cause disagree with his and your standpoint. espiecially considering that this conniption came from a person who unreflected recites soldier poems (like the nazis did for the very same reasons he's doing it now) |
Fine. But I do think your mockery of Australia's wartime contributions was out of line irrespective of how odd his choice to post that poem was. You did start it, deliberately provoking such a reaction...I guess you just said that without really meaning it. But comparing him to a Nazi? Is that *really* necessary?
The Nazis also ate breakfast. Does that make it necessary to compare me to them because I eat breakfast?
Post by: Tk0n on April 16, 2003, 08:19:00 AM
| CODE |
| As to the famine, it was a direct consequence of government policy, in many ways an intentional starvation of the people. |
thats one of the flaws in that book.
the famine is described as a ukrainian famine. used as a weapon against ukrainians.
in fact the famine was in almost all parts of the u.s.s.r. even moscow.
none of us will ever know exactly what happened.
i really hate it that you push me into the corner to defend communism as i was always an opponent of this system.
| QUOTE |
| Fine. But I do think your mockery of Australia's wartime contributions was out of line irrespective of how odd his choice to post that poem was. You did start it, deliberately provoking such a reaction...I guess you just said that without really meaning it. But comparing him to a Nazi? Is that *really* necessary? |
it described quite well what i thought about his posts.
the national socialist system is measured by its cruelty and its crimes.
there is currently nothing on this planet comparable to this crimes and of course, soldier poems are not a part of these crimes.
of course it wasnt necessary. my apology to novahux.
| QUOTE |
| The Nazis also ate breakfast. Does that make it necessary to compare me to them because I eat breakfast? |
you eat breakfast?
Post by: Lizard_King on April 16, 2003, 11:06:00 AM
| QUOTE (Tk0n @ Apr 16 2003, 04:19 PM) |
| you eat breakfast? |
You bet. Fresh baked Arab children....mmmm.....
Post by: slamer on April 16, 2003, 03:38:00 PM
i havent followed this topic very much. cause its useless
Post by: slamer on April 16, 2003, 03:43:00 PM
the other side
Post by: Lizard_King on April 17, 2003, 04:35:00 AM
Post by: fletch_dev on April 17, 2003, 06:36:00 AM
| QUOTE (slamer @ Apr 17 2003, 08:43 AM) |
| visit this while your at it the other side |
It's gross, emotional and loaded.
Sadly that site is no better than a journalist throwing a teddy bear onto a dead child.
It is designed to provoke emotion. Basic human emotion is a powerful tool. It is the fundamental tool of terrorists, so as long as these images are real and presented in the wrong context, the terrorists will always find happy recruiting grounds.
When will we learn?
Post by: Lizard_King on April 17, 2003, 07:36:00 AM
| QUOTE (fletch_dev @ Apr 17 2003, 02:36 PM) | ||
It's gross, emotional and loaded. Sadly that site is no better than a journalist throwing a teddy bear onto a dead child. It is designed to provoke emotion. Basic human emotion is a powerful tool. It is the fundamental tool of terrorists, so as long as these images are real and presented in the wrong context, the terrorists will always find happy recruiting grounds. When will we learn? |
I wish to note this historic moment when irrespective of ideological stances, fletch-dev and I have agreed on something.
You know, dissecting Fisk's absurd articles is sort of a cottage industry on the internet, to the point where the common blogger's practice of inserting comments in a different font throughout a piece for satirical or critical effect has widely become known as "fisking". The excellently funny pieces that often result are perhaps RF's only (indirect) contribution to the world that is worth a damn.
To see the piece that made him such a "celebrity", click here.
Warning...it may make you bust a gut laughing, and you may also understand why John Malkovich randomly commented at a speech in Cambridge that he'd like to shoot R. Fisk himself.
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on April 18, 2003, 11:37:00 AM
Post by: Lizard_King on April 20, 2003, 08:56:00 AM
-I can only hope we're that lucky.
Post by: Lizard_King on April 21, 2003, 12:53:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| WITH THE 101ST AIRBORNE DIVISION, south of Baghdad, Iraq, April 20 A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said. They said the scientist led Americans to a supply of material that proved to be the building blocks of illegal weapons, which he claimed to have buried as evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs. The scientist also told American weapons experts that Iraq had secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to Syria, starting in the mid-1990's, and that more recently Iraq was cooperating with Al Qaeda, the military officials said. The Americans said the scientist told them that President Saddam Hussein's government had destroyed some stockpiles of deadly agents as early as the mid-1990's, transferred others to Syria, and had recently focused its efforts instead on research and development projects that are virtually impervious to detection by international inspectors, and even American forces on the ground combing through Iraq's giant weapons plants. |
German spies offered Iraq help in preparation for war
-Speaks for itself.
Post by: Al_Ghazi on April 21, 2003, 11:53:00 AM
Why not give Rupert Murdoch a rest? That Zionist will print anything, your repeating his manipulative lies only shows how slanted and twisted you are.
Gaz.
Post by: Jreb892 on April 23, 2003, 07:41:00 AM
I dont get it, WTF are they protesting against? They want the US out? BUT THEN SOME OTHER DICTATOR WILL COME INTO POWER!
Post by: jive bunny on April 23, 2003, 07:44:00 AM
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Post by: gainpresence on April 23, 2003, 08:42:00 AM
The links don't work (for me), just watch the flash movie..
Post by: HSDEMONZ on April 23, 2003, 09:25:00 AM
LOCKED!
Post by: Lizard_King on April 23, 2003, 03:54:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Apr 23 2003, 05:42 PM) |
| Not to offer an opinion one way or the other, I wonder if it's occurred to the Shi'ites that the more 'trouble' they cause, the longer the U.S. will stay? I'd imagine the U.S. will stay as long as it takes to stabilize the country and make sure it's on an even keel, regardless of their intentions toward 'occupation' |
No, you'd *hope* that the US will stay as long as it takes. However, we are talking about a ten year process at the least...which means a good chunk will have to happen under a president with a (possibly) wholly different foreign relations approach. Whatever you may think of the Bush/Reagan style, there is no doubt that the worst thing that could be done about it is to stop it halfway...which is a very real possibility.
The Shi'ites have only to look at the "success" the Palestinian movement has had, at least on Arafat's part. Their leadership has been given the example of terrorism as a successful means of executing policy.
Thus Shi'ite clan leaders have every incentive to use their factions to cause as much trouble as possible, particularly when you realize how profoundly the desire for theocracy moves some segments of the population (usually those that think they will be in charge in such a framework). They are well aware that a theocracy is just about the only government the US will not tolerate...
Personally, I have a great deal of optimism simply because the collapse of Pan-Arabism is virtually assured as a viable uniting ideology. I have a feeling there will be a great deal more hesitance on the part of the Arab public in the future about backing a dictator simply because he is against the US... the images of Iraqi liberation have been very jarring, despite Jihad TV's best efforts to wrap it in conspiracy theories.
The next step is removing our troops from Saudi Arabia ASAP...or dissolving NATO officially. Either one of those would free up a lot more resources for a more thorough Iraqi occupation...the one place sheer numbers are crucial.
Post by: Lizard_King on April 23, 2003, 04:42:00 PM
A fascinating New York Times editorial on the closed books of the UN with respect to Iraqi Oil-For-"Food" program
--Once again, it is necessary to accept that what motivates any organization or state on the Iraqi question is self interest, and the UN is no different. The problem is the UN also produces absolutely nothing that it does not first mooch off of some country...is this parasite worth it?
Post by: Colonel32 on April 23, 2003, 05:12:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| No, you'd *hope* that the US will stay as long as it takes. However, we are talking about a ten year process at the least...which means a good chunk will have to happen under a president with a (possibly) wholly different foreign relations approach |
ya exactly.... they are saying eight to nine years min. just to get the oil output back to where it should have been, that's a long time..... imagine what would happen if say Al Sharpton was pres in the next election. :rolleye
theocracy seems to be the way this is headed in Iraq
hey whats the deal with this?
i know little about internal politika in the republican party, so what i'm wondering is... what are they threatening? what could the repercussions be on France and their economy? seems like sort of an empty threat unless they are talking about possible scaling back trade which seems kinda childish in the big picture
Post by: Lizard_King on April 24, 2003, 04:20:00 AM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Apr 24 2003, 01:12 AM) |
| theocracy seems to be the way this is headed in Iraq |
Like I said, I know that is the one form of government the US will not tolerate. But I suppose you'll continue seeing the worst possible outcome as most likely...
Wouldn't worry too much about Al Sharpton anytime soon. With any luck, his attempt to run in addition to the shift further to the left by the Democratic party will keep them out of the presidency for some time.
| QUOTE |
| hey whats the deal with this? i know little about internal politika in the republican party, so what i'm wondering is... what are they threatening? what could the repercussions be on France and their economy? seems like sort of an empty threat unless they are talking about possible scaling back trade which seems kinda childish in the big picture |
Well, there is a current gaining force in American politics (and this is independent of the Republican party, although certainly more likely to be openly espoused by a Republican) to regard France's actions with respect to Iraq no longer as the mere disagreement of an ally but the opposition of an enemy. Why?
1. There is a lot of pent-up resentment about NATO, period. Obviously, given the refusal of both France and Germany to back the US, there is no benefit any longer to the US in being part of the organization. In fact, the US's continued presence serves only to give France and Germany a bargaining chip over other European countries that want to join, again with no benefit to the US one way or another. It is a financial and strategic burden for the US.
2. I am guessing that if Colin Powell of all people is bringing this up, that a great deal more has been found than just the cache of French missiles manufactured in 2002 and found in Iraq now, despite being completely in violation of anti-proliferation agreements (M. De Villepin: "They were black market..." Sure, Sure). Given that this is the same country that would not even let the US sell Turkey Patriot missiles, a wholly defensive measure, the hypocrisy is rank.
Here's the thing: De Gaulle's style of foreign policy, of France first independent of any other concern, was a perfectly rational choice for France to make during the Cold War. They knew the US was in a bind and its options for response were very limited with the big picture involving the Soviet Union.
Nowadays, though, I think even the US State Department, long a bastion of Francophiles, is sick of it. That France and Russia have a long tradition of selling arms to the Iraqis is fine; everyone did at some point. That Russia continued to do so in a direct effort to kill as many US troops as possible is a concern but hardly an unexpected one...they had just better remember that next time they go begging for aid.
But for France, a nation that is supposed to be our ally, to conduct itself in a manner designed first to impair our foreign policy as much as possible (acceptable if annoying on a diplomatic level), and then for it to be supplemented with material aid and comfort to a nation we are at war with is unacceptable, and will require a reshuffling of US priorities. We are talking about acts designed to kill more US troops, and that will not be dealt with lightly, although likely privately.
That is the viewpoint you are up against. You can call it childish or whatever other adjectives catch your fancy, but it won't make it any less real. If it is any consolation, most of the dealing will likely be behind the scenes.
Post by: ruffles_x on April 24, 2003, 05:57:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Apr 24 2003, 11:20 AM) | ||||
Like I said, I know that is the one form of government the US will not tolerate. But I suppose you'll continue seeing the worst possible outcome as most likely... Wouldn't worry too much about Al Sharpton anytime soon. With any luck, his attempt to run in addition to the shift further to the left by the Democratic party will keep them out of the presidency for some time.
Well, there is a current gaining force in American politics (and this is independent of the Republican party, although certainly more likely to be openly espoused by a Republican) to regard France's actions with respect to Iraq no longer as the mere disagreement of an ally but the opposition of an enemy. Why? 1. There is a lot of pent-up resentment about NATO, period. Obviously, given the refusal of both France and Germany to back the US, there is no benefit any longer to the US in being part of the organization. In fact, the US's continued presence serves only to give France and Germany a bargaining chip over other European countries that want to join, again with no benefit to the US one way or another. It is a financial and strategic burden for the US. 2. I am guessing that if Colin Powell of all people is bringing this up, that a great deal more has been found than just the cache of French missiles manufactured in 2002 and found in Iraq now, despite being completely in violation of anti-proliferation agreements (M. De Villepin: "They were black market..." Sure, Sure). Given that this is the same country that would not even let the US sell Turkey Patriot missiles, a wholly defensive measure, the hypocrisy is rank. Here's the thing: De Gaulle's style of foreign policy, of France first independent of any other concern, was a perfectly rational choice for France to make during the Cold War. They knew the US was in a bind and its options for response were very limited with the big picture involving the Soviet Union. Nowadays, though, I think even the US State Department, long a bastion of Francophiles, is sick of it. That France and Russia have a long tradition of selling arms to the Iraqis is fine; everyone did at some point. That Russia continued to do so in a direct effort to kill as many US troops as possible is a concern but hardly an unexpected one...they had just better remember that next time they go begging for aid. But for France, a nation that is supposed to be our ally, to conduct itself in a manner designed first to impair our foreign policy as much as possible (acceptable if annoying on a diplomatic level), and then for it to be supplemented with material aid and comfort to a nation we are at war with is unacceptable, and will require a reshuffling of US priorities. We are talking about acts designed to kill more US troops, and that will not be dealt with lightly, although likely privately. That is the viewpoint you are up against. You can call it childish or whatever other adjectives catch your fancy, but it won't make it any less real. If it is any consolation, most of the dealing will likely be behind the scenes. |
| QUOTE |
| But for France, a nation that is supposed to be our ally, to conduct itself in a manner designed first to impair our foreign policy as much as possible (acceptable if annoying on a diplomatic level), and then for it to be supplemented with material aid and comfort to a nation we are at war with is unacceptable, and will require a reshuffling of US priorities. |
Ok, so US is going to return its greatest symbol of liberty to france?
ohhhh talking about US priorities, oil is runing again, but colera is starting to apear around cities around irak, isn´t funny how oil has priority over water.
Come lizard you can say whatever you want, but better turn off cnn (you most trusted news network?), wenever i see headline news, they are more bussy showing news thats sound more like war propaganda than anything, realize that there is a world outside US that also watch the hipocrecy of you goberment. There is a News program here transmited in US over galvision Network, guess what, its banned now in galavision, after showing scenes of war not seen over cnn, and some opinnions of intellectuals about war, so much for american freedon of speech.
I really fear what you goverment can start with this war of declaration, if powell is treating France, i dont whant to think what will happen with México and Chile that also opposed to war in the security council.
And again, it seems like the UN are worth nothing anymore.
Post by: fletch_dev on April 24, 2003, 06:20:00 AM
In regard to French foreign policy I am appalled. Testing nuclear weapons on a small island in the pacific, far from France and with no regard for local effects, destroying a Green Peace vessel in dock in Auckland and killing 1 civilian, defying NATO purely for what appears to be arrogant anti-British motives.
Nobody is perfect and I like the French, I appreciate their culture, food etc but what the hell is going on with their foreign policy? They are just another European country, the sooner they realised this fact the better.
Post by: ruffles_x on April 24, 2003, 06:38:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| I'm certainly no expert on foreign policy but I would rather discuss foreign policy than bring up the statue of liberty. This isn't a divorce, workout who owns what and decide what should be given back etc lol |
don take it literally
but what powell said its not to be taken lightly
| QUOTE |
| In regard to French foreign policy I am appalled. Testing nuclear weapons on a small island in the pacific, far from France and with no regard for local effects, destroying a Green Peace vessel in dock in Auckland and killing 1 civilian, defying NATO purely for what appears to be arrogant anti-British motives. |
and what do you say to the fact that a tank shoot at the Palestine Hotel killing a spanish cameraman, and that US bomber where about to bomb the hotel right after that, even that everybody know that in thet hotel thats where the press people for around the world lived during the war, hell i knew that more than 1 week before the atack, ok, they where in a city under war, and maybe this is not foreign politics, but also dont say anithing good about US army, so dont say france is alone in this.
| QUOTE |
| Nobody is perfect and I like the French, I appreciate their culture, food etc but what the hell is going on with their foreign policy? They are just another European country, the sooner they realised this fact the better. |
I also like france, but thay are not just another european country, and thay have the right to oppose whatever the feel necesary in the security council, anyway US did what they wanted, so who cares about who opposes what anymore, if the US can do anything without the UN aprovement.
Post by: fletch_dev on April 24, 2003, 08:33:00 AM
What I'm saying is, if you go it alone then you stand alone, thus you become just another European country. This is 2003, France is no longer in possesion of dozens of countries, nor is Britain.imo Britain has done a wonderful job of relaxing its global ambitions and thus you see many countries still willing to be part of the commonwealth. France seems to have lost ground in a series of dismissals. Time for France to realise they are no longer an association of states but rather a single European country.
wow I really have been drawn off topic
sorry about that.Give me a few minutes to collect my thoughts and I'll be back onto criticising the yanks about their short sighted efforts to stop terrorism.
Post by: ruffles_x on April 24, 2003, 08:38:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| As to the oil thing...listen ruffles, as a French person yourself, you should understand in the light of France's long relationship with Iraq, founded entirely on oil, that such criticisms coming from the French are complete nonsense. Do not presume to lecture us on the ethics of the oil trade; the primary beneficiaries of the UN oil for food program were clearly the Russians, French, Germans, Egyptians, and the UN itself. |
Im not French, im Méxican, and as you know México never had any real bussines with irak. Except for being also an oil exporter we are very distant. so you can see im not biased in any way.
| QUOTE |
| Our invasion has done more for the Iraqi people than all the palaces French money bought for Saddam. |
Oil First, then water... What do you think iraki people need more right now?
| QUOTE |
| If the best you can do is pretend my views are coming from the mainstream media, I suggest you find a more entertaining way to insult me. |
Im not trying to insult anyone, but thats what i see when you talk about this war.
| QUOTE |
| Bla bla bla freedom of speech. There are many reasons why certain channels are not shown in the US, and none of them have to do with government intervention. |
Its was one of the most viewed news programs among latin people, and you know latins are now the biggest minority over afroamerican people.
| QUOTE |
| The issue is not that France did not support the US in the war. It is that France actively aided and abetted the Iraqi military effort, in a manner that ultimately could have resulted in more dead American soldiers, while making a pretense of being the "loyal opposition". Neither Mexico nor Chile did any of those things, so they have nothing to "fear". In any case, it is not military action we are discussing. |
of course not military, but you know how depndent on US economy are latin america economies, some kind of economical measures could really hurt downhere.
| QUOTE |
| How exactly are they not just another European country? Tiny military...check. Socialist Welfare state...check. Hostile immigrant minority population that holds public debate of important issues hostage...check. What is so special about France that it requires different treatment from the US? |
Then who is not just another country, in your point of views it seems that only america.
Post by: Lizard_King on April 24, 2003, 10:33:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Im not French, im Méxican, and as you know México never had any real bussines with irak. Except for being also an oil exporter we are very distant. so you can see im not biased in any way. |
I apologize for my mistaken assumption then. I don't know where I got that idea.
Although I find it amusing that you consider your views "not biased in any way", as if that were possible.
| QUOTE |
Oil First, then water... What do you think iraki people need more right now? |
The two things are not mutually exclusive, nor are they being handled in that way. The simple fact is that due to the success of the US plan, restarting oil is a far more simple proposition than distributing water. Both are being worked on at the same time by wholly unrelated aspects of the occupation team; there is only so much that can be done in a personnel and vehicle-intensive effort like handling clean water.
| QUOTE |
| Im not trying to insult anyone, but thats what i see when you talk about this war. |
I could just as easily say your opinions are just a rehashing of the standard Latin American Neocolonialist bullshit that is often taught as a catechism in those countries. I know of what I speak; I was born and raised in Costa Rica, and have traveled extensively.
But I don't, because it is very possible to arrive to either your viewpoint or mine without being brainwashed. That's called civil debate; respecting your opponent's opinion.
| QUOTE |
| Its was one of the most viewed news programs among latin people, and you know latins are now the biggest minority over afroamerican people. |
Big deal. If Latinos in the US were this interested in the show, it would have been here years ago courtesy of any of a number of entrepreneurs. That the show does not exist in the US is only indicative that there must not be a demand for it, or no one has thought of bringing it over. It says absolutely nothing about freedom of speech in this country.
What does being a large minority mean? Suddenly the US government should have to take measures to accomodate the viewpoints *you* think they should be exposed to? If they wanted it, they'd have it.
Believe me, there is no shortage of anti US criticism in this country. Hell, a good segment of the Democratic party has a cottage industry in that line of work. The media is in many ways dominated by that brand of leftism that is actively hostile to America; if I'd only read Time Magazine or the New York Times or Newsweek during the Iraq war I would have sworn Americans were being slaughtered in droves.
| QUOTE |
| of course not military, but you know how depndent on US economy are latin america economies, some kind of economical measures could really hurt downhere. |
Like I said, no Latin American country that I can think of, short of possibly (but unlikely) Hugo Chavez's Venezuela could have offered material military aid to Iraq in recent years. They have nothing to worry about.
| QUOTE |
| Then who is not just another country, in your point of views it seems that only america. |
All countries are just that: countries. They are free to make their own diplomatic choices, so long as they are willing to deal with the consequences (ie France and Germany had better never need any sort of NATO support for any of their causes). But when they actively participate in a material way on the behalf of someone the US is waging war against, AND claim to be an ally of the US, that is going to be a problem.
Post by: Colonel32 on April 24, 2003, 01:31:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| the primary beneficiaries of the UN oil for food program were clearly the Russians, French, Germans, Egyptians, and the UN itself. Our invasion has done more for the Iraqi people than all the palaces French money bought for Saddam. |
The primary benificaries were the people being fed in my opinion
| QUOTE |
| The two things are not mutually exclusive, nor are they being handled in that way. The simple fact is that due to the success of the US plan, restarting oil is a far more simple proposition than distributing water |
well, same could not be said for the electricity or medical aid... Its more to do with the fact that the faster the oil is pumping at full, the faster the occupation can end. i don't disagree with that at all but don't understand how the success of the war would have changed this in your view.
Yasser was sidelined.... not a single miltant in the new cabinet and it looks like the US is going to recognize the new Govt and release the roadmap Post by: Lizard_King on April 24, 2003, 04:08:00 PM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Apr 24 2003, 09:31 PM) | ||
The primary benificaries were the people being fed in my opinion |
So, you mean Saddam and the Baathist party? Because everyone else in Iraq was below subsistence level.
You cannot possibly be ignorant of how much of that money was directly funneled into Saddam's repression of his people, the further lining of the pockets of the elite (have you completely missed the discovery of caches of millions of dollars in the nicer neighborhoods of Baghdad?)...
The people of Iraq were being wilfully deprived for the same reason Fidel Castro does it to his people; it gives him more money to spend on himself and his friends, and it is easy to shift the blame to outside forces and maintain control with the bogeyman of foreigners.
| QUOTE |
| well, same could not be said for the electricity or medical aid... Its more to do with the fact that the faster the oil is pumping at full, the faster the occupation can end. i don't disagree with that at all but don't understand how the success of the war would have changed this in your view. |
You are barely making sense. It must be difficult to string together that much Leninist theory into one paragraph.
Situations are not zero sum, as much as the Marxists among us would like us to believe. Oil was largely undamaged during the invasion; the civilian infrastructure took a beating. It is a LOT harder to restart an electrical infrastructure, for example, and it takes some time. Have some patience. I would love to see the UN try to do it more effectively, as they have done *so* well keeping much smaller Kosovo in the dark ages for the last 2 years.
If you think we are out of there the moment the oil is flowing you are out of your mind. You know as well as I do that as long as George Bush is in office we are committed to setting up a new regime. The oil will be flowing long before that.
| QUOTE |
| Yasser was sidelined.... not a single miltant in the new cabinet and it looks like the US is going to recognize the new Govt and release the roadmap |
If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. We are nowhere near hearing the last of Arafat, and this charade of a power struggle is absurd.
The US will deal with the "new" gang, but I seriously doubt that we will see much progress until it is clear what direction Iraq is going to take.
Post by: Lizard_King on April 28, 2003, 11:26:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| The attack on a civilian bus with an "energy weapon" in the town of al-Hillah, killing at least 10 passengers. |
An "energy weapon"?
Probably sharks with frickin laser beams...Could they at least not make their political slander so humourous? I mean, come on. The funny threat?
| QUOTE |
| If an indictment is filed against the general and other U.S. officials, they could be convicted and sentenced by a Belgian court. "Belgium could issue international arrest warrants, but I don't think we will get to that point," Mr. Fermon said. If arrest warrants were issued, U.S. officials could be arrested on entering Belgium. |
The not-so-funny threat?
| QUOTE |
| "there will be diplomatic consequences for Belgium" if the complaint is taken up by a court there and Belgian authorities issue indictments against Gen. Franks and other U.S. officials. |
Egyptian Sailor Dies in Brazil From [Weaponized] Anthrax
The really interesting part? He was on his way to Canada with the suitcase of anthrax. Now, there's a good likelihood it was then to go to the US, as it would make sense, but there is just as good a chance it was meant for distribution in Canada.
Sharia Law, now and then. WARNING HIGHLY GRAPHIC IMAGES OF AMPUTATION
But you see, even there the Iraqi regime had their fundamentalist neighbors beat, as you can see by the use of of an iron maiden in Hussein Juniors funhouse: The Olympic Committee building in Iraq.
Post by: Lizard_King on April 28, 2003, 02:11:00 PM
Post by: Lizard_King on April 28, 2003, 02:38:00 PM
-Take into account the Iraq war had not occurred yet when this was written. But his perspectives on American Naval power and its implications, and lots of other diverse themes, are fascinating.
Post by: jz28 on May 01, 2003, 07:03:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Apr 28 2003, 06:38 PM) |
| A very interesting interview with military historian Victor Davis Hanson, circa March 2003 -Take into account the Iraq war had not occurred yet when this was written. But his perspectives on American Naval power and its implications, and lots of other diverse themes, are fascinating. |
You are really on the ball lizard king, this thread made for a good read. I am glad someone who does his research is able to voice what a lot of us feel.
Post by: Colonel32 on May 01, 2003, 01:09:00 PM
, but i have her convinced it will better us as people to not go to a resort..... plus its a hell of a lot cheaper than hawaii i'm going to go challenge mugabe to a duel and become the new ruthless dictator of rhodesia/zimbabwe.... lizard you can be my military advisor and lead the miltia against all the bastard commies
Post by: Beastie_ on May 01, 2003, 01:19:00 PM
Post by: Colonel32 on May 01, 2003, 06:43:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Man, I wish I could be optimistic about this whole roadmap thing |
ya i'm not so optimistic for the whole 2005 thing.... thats silly but i do believe that the states are in the perfect position to "push" both sides into agreement... sometime over the next ten years i think ther could be somewhat of an independent state given, but there will still be hamas and fateh(sp?) and will probably be war and horror for many years therafter. I'm just happy that the discussion seems to be at the forefront of middle east policy and the media is starting to catch on
We would be meeting a health worker friend of mind in africa, so i think it will be somewhat safe.... and i miss Costa Rica much i lived at jaco beach for some time in my youth and unfortunately i remember little
I would love to see the markets in san jose again, i loved being able to argue the price of everthing.... that roxsPost by: bagel5009 on May 02, 2003, 08:34:00 AM
Post by: Lizard_King on May 02, 2003, 04:09:00 PM
| QUOTE (Tk0n @ May 2 2003, 11:44 PM) |
| maybe they dont show him in uniform cause he never served |
Can you land on an aircraft carrier? Because George Bush just did, because he was a pilot in the National Guard. Although to be honest I have no idea what he was thinking pulling that stunt, given that he should have absolutely no carrier experience.
Post by: gainpresence on May 02, 2003, 07:27:00 PM
Post by: Lizard_King on May 03, 2003, 07:46:00 AM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ May 3 2003, 04:27 AM) |
| I heard that he flew, but didn't land. |
From where? (just curious, since I've seen precious little actual information in news reports about this)
Saddam's last videotaped address released
A full copy of the State Dpt's "roadmap" for the Middle East
The Wall Street Journal Op/Ed breaks down why exactly this plan is going nowhere
Two obvious reasons it won't:
Saudi Funding of Palestinian Terrorism
The dirtbags at Hizballlah don't have any incentive to stop: Speaking of which, how come no one bitches and moans to the UN about the ongoing Syrian occupation of Lebanon?
And, finally, in a bit of tragicomic relief:
Intellectuals Launch Campaign to Defend Cuba
That's right. In light of Castro's recent efforts to play catch up with other brutal dictatorships around the world, "intellectuals" are not only jumping out of the woodwork to defend it, but in the height of irony using it as a platform to criticize US tyranny.
Keep in mind though, that Reuter's definition of intellectuals is pretty broad...basically anyone who's left wing and loud. I mean, Harry Belafonte? Danny Glover?
Post by: phantazma1 on May 03, 2003, 07:53:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ May 2 2003, 06:09 PM) | ||
Can you land on an aircraft carrier? Because George Bush just did, because he was a pilot in the National Guard. Although to be honest I have no idea what he was thinking pulling that stunt, given that he should have absolutely no carrier experience. |
i saw a TV program last week about aircraft landing and the new F-33 planes. It's amazing how they do it. The "last manned US fighter jets" can hover and land vertically now. it can also take off vertically too. Pretty cool design...
Post by: SupeRdUPErBlakE on May 03, 2003, 08:01:00 AM
Post by: Lizard_King on May 03, 2003, 11:22:00 AM
| QUOTE (SupeRdUPErBlakE @ May 3 2003, 05:01 PM) |
| Who really cares about all this war stuff....its getting old.....can we get back to just flaming bagel? Thats the real war here....We are currently in the Bagel Saga. Who shall be the victor!? |
Just because *you* have no interest in world politics does not mean the rest of us live in such a bagel-centric world. We are only allowed one thread when it comes to Iraq and the Middle East; if you don't like it, just stay out.
| QUOTE |
| really? i didnt know that. im just curious, i dont know enough of the us army structure. whats the purpose of the national guard? why cant the regular army not fullfill this purpose? is it a part of the regular army? and if not, why not? thanks for your explanation in advance |
The National Guard is one of the more interesting constitutional gray areas in our country's history. It is a long and very interesting story, but since I must take my gf out to lunch now, I will give you the short short version for now. If you are interested in more clarifications, just ask.
The purpose of the National Guard is almost legalistic in its conception. Essentially, at stressful times in American history, governors, legislators, and presidents have struggled with the problem of how to deal with domestic unrest when it requires force, since the conventional military branches are simply not designed to take on American citizens if it becomes necessary. I'm not talking about questions of logistics, but ones of training and psychology. Essentially, the NG's members trade any moral issues that they may have with dealing with such tough questions for a far reduced chance of being sent into a foreign country at the vanguard of an invasion, or anything of the sort.
Mind you, they are still called in as reserves occasionally, since an active duty National Guard unit is superior to a reserve Army unit, as a general rule.
In addition to that function, most of the time the National Guard serves as an auxiliary law enforcement mechanism, in states of emergency. In floods, for example, their manpower is used to help set up countermeasures as quickly as possible. In 9/11, they were crucial in restoring a semblance of order, as in the Rodney King riots, etc.
It does function, I believe, under the same dept of Defense as everyone else. But it has its own independent chain of command.
In my humble opinion, they are a necessary part of the federal and state government's coercion mechanisms. Their jobs lack the glamour of serving abroad in war, but that does not make them any less important.
Were we at the point they were created nearly a century ago, I would have a lot of issues with the US government explicitly wiping its ass with our constitution by designing a military force explicitly for domestic repression. But like with a number of other long established precedents, it is far more profitable to seek to make the best of them than to undo them. They try to legitimize by claiming it is just a logical evolution of state militias, but just because it absorbed state militias into it when it was created does not make it any less legitimate. There is no reason such a military force should be handled at the federal level rather than the state level. It is just one more tragic step in the centralization of power in Washington rather than at the local level.
Despite their claim to be a part of the constitution, that is clearly a violation of the obvious intention of the law, which was to reserve as much power as was reasonable and practical to the states, not the federal government.
Keep in mind these are, of course, my opinions. America's bloodiest war was fought in part over questions like these, so my view is hardly definitive. Just correct, that's all
This is not a critique of the people that serve in it. They are just as likely to be highly motivated, patriotic citizens looking to serve their country. But I think their willingness to do so is founded on ignorance of America's history and what the country was supposed to be...
Damn, that wasn't brief at all. You bastard! and there's still so much more...
Post by: SupeRdUPErBlakE on May 03, 2003, 11:25:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ May 3 2003, 02:22 PM) | ||||
Just because *you* have no interest in world politics does not mean the rest of us live in such a bagel-centric world. We are only allowed one thread when it comes to Iraq and the Middle East; if you don't like it, just stay out.
The National Guard is one of the more interesting constitutional gray areas in our country's history. It is a long and very interesting story, but since I must take my gf out to lunch now, I will give you the short short version for now. If you are interested in more clarifications, just ask. The purpose of the National Guard is almost legalistic in its conception. Essentially, at stressful times in American history, governors, legislators, and presidents have struggled with the problem of how to deal with domestic unrest when it requires force, since the conventional military branches are simply not designed to take on American citizens if it becomes necessary. I'm not talking about questions of logistics, but ones of training and psychology. Essentially, the NG's members trade any moral issues that they may have with dealing with such tough questions for a far reduced chance of being sent into a foreign country at the vanguard of an invasion, or anything of the sort. Mind you, they are still called in as reserves occasionally, since an active duty National Guard unit is superior to a reserve Army unit, as a general rule. In addition to that function, most of the time the National Guard serves as an auxiliary law enforcement mechanism, in states of emergency. In floods, for example, their manpower is used to help set up countermeasures as quickly as possible. In 9/11, they were crucial in restoring a semblance of order, as in the Rodney King riots, etc. It does function, I believe, under the same dept of Defense as everyone else. But it has its own independent chain of command. In my humble opinion, they are a necessary part of the federal and state government's coercion mechanisms. Their jobs lack the glamour of serving abroad in war, but that does not make them any less important. Were we at the point they were created nearly a century ago, I would have a lot of issues with the US government explicitly wiping its ass with our constitution by designing a military force explicitly for domestic repression. But like with a number of other long established precedents, it is far more profitable to seek to make the best of them than to undo them. They try to legitimize by claiming it is just a logical evolution of state militias, but just because it absorbed state militias into it when it was created does not make it any less legitimate. There is no reason such a military force should be handled at the federal level rather than the state level. It is just one more tragic step in the centralization of power in Washington rather than at the local level. Despite their claim to be a part of the constitution, that is clearly a violation of the obvious intention of the law, which was to reserve as much power as was reasonable and practical to the states, not the federal government. Keep in mind these are, of course, my opinions. America's bloodiest war was fought in part over questions like these, so my view is hardly definitive. Just correct, that's all This is not a critique of the people that serve in it. They are just as likely to be highly motivated, patriotic citizens looking to serve their country. But I think their willingness to do so is founded on ignorance of America's history and what the country was supposed to be... Damn, that wasn't brief at all. You bastard! and there's still so much more... |
Dude your posts are way to long to read...
BUT They are very inciteful.
Post by: sulfur on May 03, 2003, 05:26:00 PM
Post by: Colonel32 on May 11, 2003, 10:15:00 PM
..... not as much as i would have liked.... still looking forward to it none the less tho
Post by: ArMaGeDdOn on May 17, 2003, 11:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Apr 4 2003, 09:18 PM) | ||
Well, he is Canadian you know.. |
heh....and so am i, but i'd like to kick his ass with some crazy funky jujube love.
Post by: Fuzzy on May 22, 2003, 04:27:00 PM
Post by: survivorejam on May 27, 2003, 08:56:00 AM
Pleaze just let it die ...
Post by: KenCuz on June 01, 2003, 02:23:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Jun 1 2003, 05:02 AM) | ||
I've got a better idea. Why don't you let the mods do their job, and shut the hell up? |
Up!
Post by: survivorejam on June 06, 2003, 11:23:00 AM
Post by: Lizard_King on June 11, 2003, 06:04:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| fletch dev I wonder what that 50% of the population is actually willing to believe. Almost anything it appears. |
I don't think the surly minority that holds that Saddam Hussein and his European buddies were being forthright has much of the high ground on this one.
If you don't think WMD was a good enough reason to go to war with Iraq, fine. But if you don't think Iraq was harbouring WMD's prior to Enduring Freedom, you are a fool.
Post by: survivorejam on June 12, 2003, 09:59:00 AM
Post by: Colonel32 on June 14, 2003, 04:14:00 PM
stfu guy
you are against sex, porn, weed, drinking, and politics
what do u do besides bitch and judge
Post by: survivorejam on June 15, 2003, 06:29:00 AM
Post by: survivorejam on June 15, 2003, 09:08:00 AM
Post by: GREGWILLRULEYOU on June 15, 2003, 10:41:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Jun 15 2003, 05:53 PM) | ||
What are you going to do about it, shit drinker? You're going to be a whiny bitch anyway, so I don't think Colonel will be "sorry" about shit either way. Here's a thought: try threatening people that think you have some ability to affect their lives. Or go back to prolonging the vicious cycle of child molestation that has obviously brought you to this sad state of affairs. I don't care. |
hehe your a jackass I think he could effect your life in more than one way
What the Fuck is a shit drinker?Do us all a favor and just shut the fuck up.
You fuck with one you fuck with all
Post by: XB0X_Mod on June 15, 2003, 12:05:00 PM
survivorejam until you can prove there is anything to do with it that report was a waste of time... except for the rude comment on it, you know who posted it and he/she knows who they are...
Edit: Please remove your flames or edit them, preferably delete them.... please no more of this flaming and topic crapping, I have got better things to do while you lot have access to an online community that is being destroyed by the so called "Hooligans.." pls, for the sake of everyones peace online?
Post by: chilin_dude on June 17, 2003, 12:37:00 PM
Post by: bong888 on June 17, 2003, 12:41:00 PM
Post by: NeO529 on June 17, 2003, 12:44:00 PM
| QUOTE (bong888 @ Jun 17 2003, 03:41 PM) |
| no - never was |
never was?
There definatly were. What do you think the gulf war was all about??? Perhaps you meant that there wasn't since the beginning of this little "war" we started.
Post by: bong888 on June 17, 2003, 12:48:00 PM
the war was not about missiles
Post by: The unProfessional on June 17, 2003, 01:14:00 PM
No missiles? never were? I'm amazed to see that people still believe saddam never had a weapons program. C'mon, he admitted to it years ago... spent the last 11 years developing great ways to hide them. You bleeding heart lefties will give Hans Blix and his roadies years to wander around iraq, but won't give the military but 2 MONTHS to find 'em. Hello, my friend... Iraq is the size of california... if california was riddled with underground *hiding* places, would you find anything in two months?
Clearly, the pres and his admin used the WMD excuse to oust saddam... knowing that they will most likely find WMD somewhere in iraq, someday. But either way, many people, whether they appreciate it/realize it, have received justice in saddam's removal. They may never realize it, but oh well -- that's the beauty of ignorance.
No gov't is perfect... of course our (the us) gov skews facts. Govt's need to skew facts to a degree in order to keep order. it's never a good idea to spill all the intel, now is it. Of course, living in your comfy 3-bedroom house with your Xbox makes it easy to say that it was all a hoax and saddam is somewhere raising puppies. Wake up my friend, not everyone lives like you do...
Diplomacy is a great thing... but it doesn't work in every case... ask mussolini, ask hitler, ask kim jung il... wake up, folks
Just my political 2 cents... i dont hate the UN... i dont hate peace. I love peace as does anyone. But let's not be naive or ignorant... i dont doubt that the gov't lied about the urgency of the WMD, but let's understand the facts.
Edit: just wanted to add one other short thing... currently the most prominent of attacks against our troops' progress. We are not there to steal the world's oil. As you know (since it's a huge issue), the war cost a great deal... and the rebuilding of iraq will cost even more. Now people are bitching that iraq's oil is being used to rebuild iraq? iiiinteresting.
Post by: GREGWILLRULEYOU on June 17, 2003, 01:29:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Jun 17 2003, 05:32 PM) |
| Greg, I'm terrified. I don't know what I will do now that you and your posse of imaginary friends have it in for me. |
Sorry didnt mean to scare you
I htink htis war was bs never should of happened it was a ego war.
Post by: The unProfessional on June 17, 2003, 02:10:00 PM
If you just simply mean that bush initiated this whole sequence just because he woke up one morning needing a boost in self-esteem, you need to pull your thoughts together. Hasn't it occured to you that maybe there's a liiiittle more to it?
Because after all, wars are fun, aren't they greg. (ignorance is bliss ;-])
Post by: The unProfessional on June 17, 2003, 02:31:00 PM
Post by: Lizard_King on June 18, 2003, 05:57:00 PM
| QUOTE (fletch_dev @ Jun 18 2003, 05:15 AM) |
| Hey Lizard I read up there that you would be happy to let this thread die I don't have an opinion either way on that, but if it does fade away then I'd like to thank you now for your patience with some of my posts. I'd like to also thankyou for your point of view and colonel32 for his. |
It was fun while it lasted. Or at least interesting.
| QUOTE |
| Off topic for a minute, those people who have a sig that is taller than it is wide, could you please examine the dimensions of a standard PC monitor paying particurlar attention to the ratio between width and height. While I'm on this line of thought, a 500 pixel high sig is more a wallpaper than a sig imo. I mean I'm on 1152x864 and some of these crap sigs are taking up half my screen. (your new sig does look good Lizard and more importantly it meets my stringent size regulations ) hehehe |
You're preaching to the choir here. And thanks. TGV did an exceptional job, for no other reason than having spare time.
| QUOTE |
| On topic, whatever the reason was for the war, whether it be free oil for everyone, WMD's, elimination of terrorist cells or the liberation of the oppressed, I still don't know why we had this particular war. I want cold hard facts. I want facts that leave no room for deabte, I want to be able to say "ok that's why we had that war, there obviously was no other way". |
I think you're mixing a lot of distinct issues in this question, which I think will give you wholly unsatisfying answers.
1. I think I've gone into depth in the past on why in my opinion the war was/should be waged. At this point, and for quite some time, opinions are all we have.
2. I would love to see which frame of reference you are operating in re: "cold hard facts". Last I checked, there are still no such things in historical events, even ones that are examined closely with lots of material at hand. We have some facts, and a lot of opinions, but what it comes down to is an ideological question. There will always be room for debate, even if incredibly sound facts arose for either side, because it is as much a moral and cultural issue as it as a rational one.
| QUOTE |
| The reason I want this is because that's why I vote. That's why I want a democratic government. The fundamental role of the government is to represent the people and you can't do that unless you present good, reliable and umambiguous evidence and based on that evidence present a course of action that is supported by logic and sound reasoning. |
That makes one of us. I don't want a democratic government; I agree with the guys that came up with the term that it is tantamount to mob rule. There is no such things as true representation in any government; the proper role of representation in government like America's small r republic is not to do exactly as 51% of the people want but to moderate the most extreme impulses of the masses and the influence of demagogues.
So to get back to your question, I don't think that's ever happened, anywhere, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on it, either.
| QUOTE |
We shouldn't even be having this debate. The reasons and the evidence should be widely known and accepted or am I over-simplifying matters? |
I think you are, but for the right reasons, at least.
Post by: Colonel32 on June 18, 2003, 08:47:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Anyhow, Colonel, I actually saw something of a future to the roadmap for peace up until Israel cleverly decided to throw the whole thing in the shitter for some targeted assassinations, thus giving Hamas the excuse to continue their bullshit. Why not put the assholes on both sides in one room and let them beat each other to death? |
yep i'm not too optimistic about the whole thing anymore
never thought i'd say it, but bush really needs to flex his muscles - sharon gave the radicals and excuse by bombing gaza - abbas seems to be handling it somewhat well tho, at least on the exterior
and sorry i didn't mean to start a big flamewar - wish i could have seen what he said
- just see a lot of negativity about everything on this site and all the regulars seem to have jumped ship - thank you tech tv for the kidsfletch dev - same to you too
Post by: TheGreatVirus on June 18, 2003, 11:45:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Jun 18 2003, 08:57 PM) |
| You're preaching to the choir here. And thanks. TGV did an exceptional job, for no other reason than having spare time. |
Hey man I did it because ur a cool guy 2!
Post by: The unProfessional on June 20, 2003, 09:51:00 PM
It's not a perfect world. Many things, especially historical events (as Lizard said) leave only some evidence for us to analyze. Why do you think historical scholars exist? Because things ARE ambigious... there are always theories -- because things can't always be proven in such a 1/0 Yes/No fashion.
it's reality, my friend... people disagree. not everything is quite so black and white. Hell, some people aren't even sure if they're gay or straight!
Debating is always a healthy thing. Basically, those of us lucky enough to enjoy a free country are welcome to express our opinions. Have you ever wondered why schools have debate programs? Because it's a great intellectual exercise to debate. It tests our critical thinking skills and teaches us how to control our temper while expressing our ideas and opinions. It's a GOOD thing... never take it for granted, because some people just simply aren't ALLOWED to do it.
Post by: The unProfessional on June 23, 2003, 10:16:00 AM
I'm a semi-support of Bush. I'm a republican, however, I disagree with quite a few of his "behaviors". But, unless I see a more promising leader in the 04 elections, I'm sure i'll cast my vote his direction. As of now, the left has proposed nothing promising, giving Bush a HUGE advantage.
As for my references on ambiguity.... I may have come across incorrectly. My intention was not to say that ambiguity should be accepted in all situations. But, ignorantly, someone said they want black and white facts right here and now. Let's be a little reasonable here... a little over 2 months after a war, he wants all the details? Give me a break. Things are still very tense and by all means still underway. So, how can anyone expect all the details right now?
You want a detailed analysis of the war, why it took place, etc. Well, you must wait until everything's on the table. The Bush administration will soon be under investigation as to whether or not things were exaggerated, and to what degree. He will lose most of his credibility if things are proven against him. Then you'll have your cold hard facts. But, for right now, no one's going to give them to you. Also, don't just accept what the media throws at you... try to come up with some thoughts, then you can see the obvious holes in what the media tells you.
Post by: George "dubya" W. Bush on June 23, 2003, 07:27:00 PM
Post by: The unProfessional on June 24, 2003, 10:09:00 AM
Maybe I should create a fake Hillary Clinton account and toss a check your way...
that could work...
Nick: The one and only Mrs. Hillary Clinton
Signature: I love Me, you should love me too
Image: 2 smiley pictures of me, 2 pictures of me kicking over kids' bikes.
Post by: flagg on June 24, 2003, 02:58:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| like your arguments regarding marketing and the way it can easily poison an election -- as it has in the past, i'm sure. Never is marketing the best way to judge a "product", however, it is usually the best way to sell it. So, as marketing succeeds in selling us B.S. products, it will probably succeed in selling the people their leader. It always has |
Well said. Damn I should have taken more poly science classes so I could come up with something original respond with
Again, well said.