An American Retort/Essay [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

dnc101

02-12-2003, 04:23 PM

Black Jack, I'll just add this to your post:

I sat in a movie theater watching "Schindler's List," asked
myself, "Why didn't the Jews fight back?"
Now I know why.
I sat in a movie theater, watching "Pearl Harbor" and asked
myself, "Why weren't we prepared?"
Now I know why.
Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of
evil people. On September 11, dozens of capable airplane passengers allowed
themselves to be overpowered by a handful of poorly armed terrorists
because they did not comprehend the depth of hatred that motivated
their captors. On September 11, thousands of innocent people were murdered
because too many Americans naively reject the reality that some nations
are dedicated to the dominance of others. Many political pundits,
pacifists and media personnel want us to forget the carnage. They
say we must focus on the bravery of the rescuers and ignore the
cowardice of the killers. They implore us to understand the motivation of the perpetrators. Major television stations have announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying devastating footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers.
I will not be manipulated.
I will not pretend to understand.
I will not forget.
I will not forget the liberal media who abused freedom of the press
to kick our country when it was vulnerable and hurting.
I will not forget that CBS anchor Dan Rather preceded President
Bush's address to the nation with the snide remark, "No matter how
you feel about him, he is still our president."
I will not forget that ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings questioned
President Bush's motives for not returning immediately to
Washington, DC and commented, "We're all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington."
And I will not forget that ABC's Mark Halperin warned if reporters wern't
informed of every little detail of this war, they aren't
"likely -- nor should they be expected -- to show deference."
I will not isolate myself from my fellow Americans by pretending
an attack on the USS Cole in Yemen was not an attack on the United
States of America.
I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic
terrorists and their supporters with the world's most sophisticated
telecommunications equipment and encryption technology, thereby
compromising America's ability to trace terrorist radio, cell phone,
land lines, faxes and modem communications.
I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes
like those perfected by the previous administration.
I will not be comforted by "feel-good, do nothing" regulations
like the silly, "Have your bags been under your control?" question at
the airport.
I will not be influenced by so called,"antiwar demonstrators" who
exploit the right of _expression to chant anti-American obscenities.
I will not forget the moral victory handed the North Vietnamese by
American war protesters who reviled and spat upon the returning
soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines.
I will not be softened by the wishful thinking of pacifists who chose
reassurance over reality.
I will embrace the wise words of Prime Minister Tony Blair who told
the Labor Party conference, "They have no moral inhibition on the
slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000
but 70,000, does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in
it?
There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of
minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice:
defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must!"
I will force myself to:
> -hear the weeping
-feel the helplessness
-imagine the terror
-sense the panic
-smell the burning flesh
- experience the loss
- remember the hatred.

I sat in a movie theater, watching "Private Ryan" and asked myself,
"Where did they find the courage?"

Now I know.

We have no choice.. Living without liberty is not living.

-- Ed Evans, MGySgt., USMC (Ret.) --

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by red5angel
your still playing the clown I see...

Naah, I have given up, compared to your skill at clowniness.

There is no way that anybody will ever be as good as you.
:D

Bows to the Master.

Fred Sanford

02-12-2003, 04:27 PM

If you don't like the US, then you don't. What do I care.

I've lived in Europe and I prefer the US. I think it's just jealosy on the Europeans part, although they will never admit it.

red5angel

02-12-2003, 04:29 PM

hooah dnc101...

LC- :rolleyes: keerist brother I got out of grade school along time ago....

eulerfan

02-12-2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by red5angel
Design Sifu, I was waiting for someone to realy miss the point. The guy knows there are bad points to his beloved country as well, but it wasn't his point to go down the list of good/bad,

If that was his point, he didn't make it very well. I don't think Design Sifu was being obtuse. I think that article was a grab bag of 'change the subject' logical falacies at best.

I think you are superimposing your ideas on that article when they aren't really there. Maybe only hinted at, but that hint is lost in a lot of what is pure emotion provocation.

That article was written for the exclusive benefit of people who already agree with that guy completely. I think, to the rest of us, he was just all over the place.

joedoe

02-12-2003, 04:30 PM

I am not a US hater - I recognise both the good and the bad things about the US and I think all things considered the US tries to make the best of bad situations :)

However, do you think that it is good for countries to fear the US? At the risk of sounding like Yoda, don't you think that fear leads to things like Sept. 11?

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by red5angel

1.) What does that have to do with the US? Here in this country we don't make laws like that.

Never said you did, just pointing out that other countries did and since the Law was repealed it appears to a lot of Americans that all of a sudden S.Korea turned anti-US when the sentiment was always there.

Meaning that it seemed that the USA had a lot of support when in reality it didn't.

But I guess any sharing of Information is an attack on you Guys and your values.

red5angel

02-12-2003, 04:34 PM

eulerfan, almost all articles are written for those who agree with the one writing them. Especially articles such as this. However, I think he made his points as well a she needs to and I don't really believe I need to argue with americans over what is his real point. His real point is that he is sick and tired of being surrounded by people who can't appreciate what they have, much less leave the country to be attacked by people who don't know and don't understand.
I walk by our courthouse here in minneapolis daily, and almost weekly there is some protest going on. Sometimes they are about local issues, don't cut down the trees in such and such a county, don't build the new highway or knock down that building, etc... Sometimes, like as of late, I here AMERICANS exersising their AMERICAN to bad mouth the way this country is. What bothers me the most, is that I spent plenty of time travelling the world some in our countries service, some without, and I know what I can and cannot appreciate that we do or do not have.

The guy had several valid ponts and that is ultimately what matters to me.

But you kow what really makes me sad eulerfan? I spent some time in Somalia, and even got shot at, although luckily no one was killed. We were there for humanitarian reasons, we were there to take the bad guys out of power so the good guys could start rebuilding. when things fell apart we offered amnesty to the people there.
The day after 9/11 I stood at my bus stop while all the somali cab drivers next to me talked (in somali, but I lived in the country long enough to pick some of it up) excitedly about what had happened. A few didn't agree but most were elated. As my bus pulled up, I heard something that will live with me for the rest of my life, a somali woman walked past and chanted to the men standing there, "God bless (some name here) for what those brave men did yesterday, declared war on the people of america." A woman who lives here in this country, cursing us and praying to her god that 3000 of us were killed, regardless of belief, color, or nationality.
As the bus pulled away and I saw the woman chatting with the men, I kept thinking to myself "If this was Somalia, I could have killed her on the street for saying what she did, and no one would have stopped me and nothing would have been done afterwards."

dnc101

02-12-2003, 04:36 PM

LC, we never asked Europe to kow-tow to us, or to kiss our feet. But we do get a little tired of saving your collective arses, only to have you turn around and spit in our face. The point here is the same one I made to you before: if we were to pull our forces out of Europe today, tomorrow you'd be changing your name to Recalcitrant Cow. Europe would be on it's knees, begging us to come back. It has been American power and sacrifice that has kept Europe safe in the greater than 50 years since WW II. How long after should you be thankful to us? Even a day would be nice!

Fred Sanford

02-12-2003, 04:36 PM

that's exactly it. Why doesn't the US just pull out of S. Korea and leave them to their fate. Oh well, they don't like us guys, lets go home. I have no problem with that, maybe then China and some of the other countries in the region would have to belly up and actually do something about N. Korea on their own.

by and large it's the younger generation of S. Koreans who don't like the US, their elders who were around during the Korean war like the US and are glad to have them there.

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by dnc101
LC, we never asked Europe to kow-tow to us, or to kiss our feet. But we do get a little tired of saving your collective arses, only to have you turn around and spit in our face. The point here is the same one I made to you before: if we were to pull our forces out of Europe today, tomorrow you'd be changing your name to Recalcitrant Cow. Europe would be on it's knees, begging us to come back. It has been American power and sacrifice that has kept Europe safe in the greater than 50 years since WW II. How long after should you be thankful to us? Even a day would be nice!

BS.

This type if ****e being spewed forth is EXACTLY why so many people in the world are becoming US-dislikers.

Go ahead close your bases in germany the few that there are still there, I honestly doubt that it will make much of an impact to Europe.
There is no longer a need for permanent US-Troops in Europe.

But it will hurt US Interrest more to close them as well as those in S.Korea, Japan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Sorry, guys, but stupid mindless rethoric like that ....

red5angel

02-12-2003, 04:44 PM

"Sorry, guys, but stupid mindless rethoric like that ...."

am I the only one seeing the irony here?!

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 04:45 PM

Let me ask you an honest question.

Which Country has the most problems/concerns/disputes with others like Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, etc.

It is the USA NOT Europe, or other countries.

joedoe

02-12-2003, 04:48 PM

Come on guys, let's not go here again. It's almost as tiread an argument as the BJJ vs kung fu argument (how's that for an attempt to put it on topic :D)

David Jamieson

02-12-2003, 04:48 PM

ok, first off, I wasn't aware of any polls going on worldwide as to whether or not America is liked.

secondly, this letter is a little bit of a patriotic chain yanker. ho wrote that? Tony Blair? :D

You know what, A whole lot of Canadians died and now rest in cemeteries in Europe. To the best of my knowledge, we're pretty much "liked" when we travel abroad.

In short, America, it's not about "YOU". It has little to do with you. And if you park an army next to someone elses property, expect a little blowback.

If you use your military to force american values down someone else throat, then expect some blowback there.

If you , well, sort of elect someone who clearly only has his own interests at heart, who then goes out and proclaims in a hillbilly way "If you aren't with us, you are with the terrorists" well, now you have to expect a lot of blowback. That's just plain and simple disrespect and insolence coming from a smarmy little huckster.

Me, I like you average american and i have plenty of family who live there. But your government is one of the most sleazeball group of shucks I've seen in my short of 40 years on this planet and I'm embarrassed that my own government is supporting your government in their bid to once again steal the resources of what is practically a third world nation.

A reminder about Hussein. Consider him a dog tied up in your back yard, Now you go out and hit that dog with a stick repeatedly until he's really angry. Now let's see if he will do as you ask.

Please, enough of this freakin patriotic drivel. It's shameless and it's nonsense. It's a right crock of c-r-a-p if you think for one second that America saved the world in any of the great wars.

yeesh!:mad:

Now I know I'm a moderator here, but I'm really sick of reading this drivel guys. Please, let's get back to martial arts talk instead of one sided flag waving, snarling BS.

Thank you
cheers

Braden

02-12-2003, 04:50 PM

Laughing Cow

Let me ask you an honest question.

Which country went in and caused the Iraq situation to be screwed up in the first place by drawing arbitrary borders without consulting the people who actually lived there?

Hint: It wasn't the US.

Same deal for the Palestine-Israel problems, etc, etc etc.

You left the world with your mess, and you spend all your time *****ing at the only people trying to deal with it.

P.S. It's really distastefull when moderators of a forum openly support one side of a political issue and threaten censorship when anyone mentions the other side. I sincerely hope this stops happening.

red5angel

02-12-2003, 04:52 PM

Kung Lek, I agree, let's see the end of it here atleast for a while.

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 04:52 PM

Kung Lek.

I am only aware of polls reagrding the Iraq War.

Example: 79% of Japanese are gainst it, but the goverment will still support the war effort.

Will be fun there come election time.

Percentages seem to avry between 60%~80% opposed worlwide.

What those worldwide Polls seem to show is that the USA attacking IRAQ seems to be a bad idea and shoudl not be done.

But than what power to we little people in the road wield.

joedoe

02-12-2003, 04:53 PM

I reckon kung fu would kick BJJ's arse :D

Waidan

02-12-2003, 04:54 PM

"It's a right crock of c-r-a-p if you think for one second that America saved the world in any of the great wars."

LoLz. Carry on.

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Braden
... and you spend all your time *****ing at the only people trying to deal with it.

I guess attacking them and forcing regime/democratic changes on them without asking is your way of dealing with them.
Plus, you will sell them plenty of goods and weapons to tie them economcially to you.

I still go with the UN resolutions and negotiating those issues.

Braden

02-12-2003, 04:58 PM

You guys screwed the world up.

Now there aren't any perfect solutions.

That means we should go with the best of the bad solutions available.

Why do you blame the people trying to find solutions? Surely the blame should go with the people who caused the problem?

UN resolutions and negotiating are meaningless without military support. You simply cannot just ask Saddam nicely to stop committing genocide and expect him to do it. You have to ask him nicely, with the threat of military support. This is what the UN did. USA's actions are directly aligned with that.

That the situation is old enough and complex enough now that a bunch of you Europeans have forgotten your history and bowed down to liberal propaganda doesn't change any of this.

Black Jack

02-12-2003, 04:58 PM

I love that its one-sided flag waving when its a pro-usa post but not when a host of liberals start spreading anti-usa posts all throughout kungfuonline.

How many are there on this page alone. But now you decide to get froggy.

Pardon the pun.

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Braden
You guys screwed the world up.

Our forefather maybe, but not us.

Why do you blame the people trying to find solutions? Surely the blame should go with the people who caused the problem?

I blame the USA for dealing with a problem heavy-handed.

The same way the Israeli are handling the Palestine situation heavy-handed.

It appears the USA & it's allies have their own agenda and time-frame and are now getting all uppity because the rest of the world doesn't want to play along their lines.

But I guess the UN, UNSC, IAEA aren't doing anything at the moment.
It is ONLY the USA trying to solve problems.

Have fun.

Braden

02-12-2003, 05:03 PM

It's worse even than that BlackJack - he's led the anti-US arguments on many of those threads.

Waidan

02-12-2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Laughing Cow

I guess attacking them and forcing regime/democratic changes on them without asking is your way of dealing with them.
Plus, you will sell them plenty of goods and weapons to tie them economcially to you.

I still go with the UN resolutions and negotiating those issues.

You know, I'm not real thrilled with our gov's behavior at the moment, but I've got to ask how we would go about asking the Iraqi people if they want a regime change.

"Excuse me sir, I know that opposing your dictator means torture and death for you and your family, but would you like to see Sadaam removed from power? And while we're at it, maybe you would like to answer on behalf of the rest of your countrymen, and the remaining kurds...we're having trouble getting them to turn out for a vote"

And btw, last I checked, France and Russia (gasp!) were right up there with us in world wide arms sales. But they stand for peace! How can this be!!

Braden

02-12-2003, 05:08 PM

Laughing Cow

"Our forefather maybe, but not us."

You seem pretty happy blaming the current Americans for the actions of their forefathers. The logic only applies to them?

"I blame the USA for dealing with a problem heavy-handed."

Everyone agreed with the UN's approach to the Iraq problem when it began. The USA's stance on it hasn't changed. Now that Iraq is 'calling the UN's bluff' a couple European countries want to back down: so they call the US heavy-handed. Sorry, that's a nonsensical claim. The US is doing exactly what everyone in the UN said we should do. It's Germany, France, and Belgium who are changing their story.

"It appears the USA & it's allies have their own agenda and time-frame and are now getting all uppity because the rest of the world doesn't want to play along their lines."

See above.

"But I guess the UN, UNSC, IAEA aren't doing anything at the moment. It is ONLY the USA trying to solve problems."

See above.

dnc101

02-12-2003, 05:19 PM

Forthose of you who like to say 'there's no point', as if your opinion is all that matters and we can't understand for ourselves, here ya' go:

"I think it's time to bring our boys home from Germany. Outside of the money we'd save, we'd make the Germans "like" us a lot more, after they started paying the bills for their own defense."

Come on. You may disagree with this, but I think you can understand it.

I'll paraphrase the next several lines for you:

For over a century now, we've spent money and shed our blood to protect the liberty of people all over the world. We havn't demanded anything in return, but what we've gotten is knifed in the back, repeatedly. Maybe it's time we let the world fend for itself.

Next, he does ramble a little bit, so I'll make this part easy for you by paraphrasing again:

You are not going to be able to deal with the radical Muslim world by appeasement. They hate us. They want us dead. They are willing to kill us. Our options are to kill them or die. We've been the nice guy for the last 60 years, providing materially for our enemies. Now, they have turned that on us to commit mass murder of our citizens. It is time to take a different course of action.

Or, here's a point (paraphrased again so you can understand it):

They like our military might when they are attacked and we come to their defense. Then they turn and curse our might and accuse us of abuseing it when they are again safe.

If it makes youfeel better, he did apologise for rambling:

Sorry about the rambling, ...

I do hope this helps.:rolleyes:

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 05:19 PM

Yeah, Braden.

Just read the latest news.

"No more Inspections. We will attack with UN Approval or without, but attack we will."
&
"Because of the resolve of the United States, the world will be more peaceful and the world will be more free."

I can see them really working well with the UN and listening to arguments and proposals by UN Members.
;)

Black Jack

02-12-2003, 05:21 PM

The UN is irevelant and IMHO always has been.

David Jamieson

02-12-2003, 05:30 PM

P.S. It's really distastefull when moderators of a forum openly support one side of a political issue and threaten censorship when anyone mentions the other side. I sincerely hope this stops happening.

whatever:rolleyes:

I don't recall threatening censorship there guy. You seem to be in the habit of putting words in other peoples mouths.

As for leading anti US threads, What the hey are you talkin about?

Since when is George Bush the "U.S"?

I am not anti U.S. I get tired of hearing this from Canadians too, and the British and anyone else on a soapbox who uses sophism in a lame attempt to "prove" their point.

I don't agree with dictators who kill their own either, and I sure don't like them.

But case in point, I don't think total war is a solution and I don't think sending 1000 soldiers back into some godforsaken desert is good for Canada and it sure isn't a good use of my tax dollar.

Here's a bit of martial wisdom:

"The best way to defeat your enemy is to make him your friend"

Here's a bit of non-martial wisdom:

"The psychology of hate and blame is grown from fear and ignorance"

cheers

Waidan

02-12-2003, 05:33 PM

Actually, as much as I dislike all the war-drum beating, the U.S. is sticking to the letter of the resolution. Iraq has willfully hid known WMD materials from UN inspectors, and has (according to Blix, and anyone who took a look at the report) not truthfully accounted for their stockpiles or weapons programs.

I think the thing people miss is that the inspectors are not looking for "possible" WMD materials. Rather, they are looking to recover materials we already know of, and that are unaccounted for since the original inspection teams were kicked out by Iraq.

dnc101

02-12-2003, 05:42 PM

Cow, got milk? You sure got plenty of...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Laughing Cow
BS.

This type if ****e being spewed forth is EXACTLY why so many people in the world are becoming US-dislikers.

I care less if they like me or us.

There is no longer a need for permanent US-Troops in Europe.

Right. Besides the financial boost to your predominantly socialistic economic structures, there are still plenty of threats to peace in that region. I don't for a minute think that any of the countries in Europe or Eastern Europe have changed their nature, including Germany. Nor do I believe that the Communists are completely gone or powerless in the old Soviet Block. Then, there is the Balkans. I sincerely hope you can convince your governments that we are no longer needed there. Then they can ask us to leave, and maybe then we can convince our government to pull out. Of course, we then would have to resist being pulled in to your next little squabble.

But it will hurt US Interrest more to close them as well as those in S.Korea, Japan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Mostly true because we then have to send our troops a long way back to clean up your next mess. Easier to just leave them there in the first place.

Sorry, guys, but stupid mindless rethoric like that ....

Ah, yes. The name calling and implied threat to end it. You are one intelligent bovine!

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 05:42 PM

Agree that the Inspections teams are not looking for WMD.

Here is the time-line for the 1998 Inspections fiasco:

31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom, the United Nations Special Commission set up for weapons inspections in Iraq.

14 November 1998: Baghdad tells the UN it is willing to allow inspections to resume.

17 November 1998: Unscom inspectors return to Iraq.

16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later.

17 December 1999: Unscom is replaced by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic). Iraq rejects the resolution.

Cheers.

David Jamieson

02-12-2003, 05:44 PM

Hey waidan-

I wonder where Iraq got those chem and bio weapons? hmmmm.

I wonder who is the largest producer and distributor of chem, bio and nuclear weapons? hmmmmm.

Practice what is preached. Did you know that Canada has full Nuclear capability? Why, we can produce and deliver multi megaton warheads and we can do it in a period of weeks, never mind years.

We also have level 4 and higher bio labs across the country and we have one of the best trained militaries (all be it small) in the world.

However, do we manufacture wmds? NO.
Do we manufacture chem or bio weapons? NO.
Do we cast suspicion on all Muslims in our country? NO.
Do we spend on foriegn aid? YES.
Do we actively participate in NATO and The UN? YES
Do we stand as the largest trading partner to the US? YES
Do we forgive porr countries their debt to us on a fairly regular basis? YES.
Do we interfere with the internal affairs of other countries? Not without the approval of the country in question and the United Nations council.

This, for the most part is called practicing what you preach. Many countries do this as well. Perhaps instead of "tellin" the Gov of the US should be "listenin"

I think that Mr. Blair could probably take a lesson from the "colonies" as well :D Mind you, methinks his countrymen are gonna oust him soon for his performance over the past year.

Drop educators, not bombs.

cheers

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by dnc101
I don't for a minute think that any of the countries in Europe or Eastern Europe have changed their nature, including Germany. Nor do I believe that the Communists are completely gone or powerless in the old Soviet Block. [/B]

Thanks, for the vote of confidence.

With friends like you WHO needs enemies.

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Waidan
"It's a right crock of c-r-a-p if you think for one second that America saved the world in any of the great wars."

LoLz. Carry on.

Yep, America saved the world all by themselves during WWI & WII.

NO Allies, No Freedom Fighters and so on were involved at all.

I guess the Italian, French & other Troops during the Gulf War, Afghanistan & Kosovo are also illusions.

Pity for the Family that live under the illusuon that their family members died during those conflicts.

@PLUGO

02-12-2003, 05:57 PM

This is actually becoming boring . . .

I'm all for an open exchange of ideas & views... I initially posted on this thred thinking it might become a discourse on the linked essay...

for better or for worse, strengths weaknesses and so forth...so much for that idea eh?

this whole "anti-american" labeling schtick seems weak to me. what exactly is anti-american... expressing a differnent opinion? Stateing you disagree? what?

Actually, the whole tendancy towards labeling is such a disservice to the labeled and labeler, it's just plain unimaginative. Can we argree an opinion doesn't make a person and an opinion is usually formed from a unique pool of experience?
. . . anyone?

ah... whateva...

:rolleyes:

Braden

02-12-2003, 06:04 PM

"I don't recall threatening censorship there guy."

-> "Now I know I'm a moderator here, but I'm really sick of reading this drivel guys. Please, let's get back to martial arts talk instead of one sided flag waving, snarling BS."

"You seem to be in the habit of putting words in other peoples mouths."

-> "The psychology of hate and blame is grown from fear and ignorance"

Design Sifu says: "expressing a differnent opinion? Stateing you disagree? what... Actually, the whole tendancy towards labeling is such a disservice to the labeled and labeler, it's just plain unimaginative."

Pot? Kettle here, you're still black.

dnc101

02-12-2003, 06:04 PM

LC, you have to admit that in the last century Europe has not handled its own problems very well. I don't begrudge our contribution to the wars in Europe. Had Europe fell entirely in WW II, and had Hitler been allowed to solidify his hold and rebuild, he'd have eventually came after us. Japan did attack us.

My problem is with some people and some countries in Europe who laud us as liberators, then turn around and accuse us of atrocities for our troubles. I also have a problem with our own liberals who can only see appeasement as an answer. And I have a bigger problem with our own subversive liberals who never miss a chance to blame the US for any problem anywhere in the world.

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 06:05 PM

DS.

The linked article is already biased & skewed thus there can be no objective discussion.

There can only be 2 types of people here:
1.) that say great article 100%
2.) those that point out the insonsistencies contained in it.

Since those people ten to be on the oppossite ends of the spectrum ....

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by dnc101
LC, you have to admit that in the last century Europe has not handled its own problems very well. I don't begrudge our contribution to the wars in Europe. Had Europe fell entirely in WW II, and had Hitler been allowed to solidify his hold and rebuild, he'd have eventually came after us. Japan did attack us.

Unfortunately all we have is speculations as to what WOULD have happened.
Some scientific models reckon that without the USA the war would have gone on maybe another 2-3yrs with Germany still being beaten.

My problem is with some people and some countries in Europe who laud us as liberators, then turn around and accuse us of atrocities for our troubles. I also have a problem with our own liberals who can only see appeasement as an answer. And I have a bigger problem with our own subversive liberals who never miss a chance to blame the US for any problem anywhere in the world.

I don't think many europeans see the USA as "liberators" of either WW II or now.
Thus we got misunderstandings.

Look at the current NATO split:

US sez NATO needs to upgrade Turkeys bases in case of an attack.
Nato charter sez their hands are tied until a Member state is attacked not threatened.

Maybe the NATO charter is old and outdated.

dnc101

02-12-2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
2.) those that point out the insonsistencies contained in it.

like you are the voice of reason?

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by dnc101

like you are the voice of reason?

As much as you or anybody else.

dnc101

02-12-2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
As much as you or anybody else.

Nah, I can think of a few more reasonable folks, even on your side of the debate.

@PLUGO

02-12-2003, 06:31 PM

dnc101:
I've got no problem with your stated "problems"... I still think you're "painting" with rather broad brush strokes. Go right ahead but will present such conclusions lead you to any understanding? Well, I don't know if understanding a "liberal" is a value to you...so my bad in assuming so.

Laughing Cow:
I read that article because I'm still trying to understand some of the views behind a "pro-war" stance... (Don't even like using a term like pro-war, just doing so to illustrait my point. would "pro-war" imply a proactive desire to use war for any solution? those label get in the way)
I could say "anyone supporting this invasion is obviously blind to the propaganda machine" that might even get someone upset... but would do nothing towards developing mutual understanding.

Braden:
what are you smoking mon?:rolleyes:

rogue

02-12-2003, 06:33 PM

Article (http://www.iansa.org/news/2001/may_01/france_stretch.htm)

BTW In regards to the US and WWII, we were being isolationist until Japan came-a-knockin. Let's hope we never do that again.

Question:Any ideas on who the Eurofighter is being marketed to?

If the world goes mad you don't want to be late.
Dennis Miller.

Braden

02-12-2003, 06:35 PM

I'm offering a rephrasing of the saying "That is like the pot calling the kettle black" which is meant to indicate that you are explicitly accusing people of the very thing you are guilty of. I'm sorry for the confusion.

@PLUGO

02-12-2003, 06:38 PM

Braden:

Assuming you're speaking to me...

What am I accusing people of and how am I guilty of this same "thing"

Braden

02-12-2003, 06:39 PM

Just in this thread, or in general?

@PLUGO

02-12-2003, 06:43 PM

whatever you've got.

keep it simple, this thred isn't about me.

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 06:45 PM

DS.

One of the dificulties, IMO, is the cultural and experience background behind the USA & Europe.

Europe been involved in wars & invasions for 2000+ years.
After WW II Europe has entered it's most peaceful time in history and we like it that way.

IMO, Europeans tend to understand the horrors, sufferings and frustrations of war better than the average US Citizen as it is a VERY integral part of our History, often predating the foundings of our nations.

Thus, many Europeans have become "Anti-War" and prefer to rely on the U.N. and similar to sort out problems.

One other difference I see the US Military is mostly composed of people that signed up voluntary with the majority of US-Citizens never having received any form of military training.

Most Europeans countries still have conscription & draft even though we have very small milita, this means that if we enter a war any able male citizen might be forced to leave his Family, Work and so on to fight a war if it escalates.

Now this can mean I can be called to active duty at any time from whatever I might be doing and even if I am living outside my home-country.

Therefor I and many fellow europeans will think twice before sanctioning any armed conflict and thus prefer peaceful means.
Naturally we will also resent any outside forces that try to convince us into taking steps that we don't agree with.

Just a different viewpoint.

Braden

02-12-2003, 06:50 PM

Well, to be up-front, I've found many of your past comments rather offensive, and am largely reacting with that in mind. Probably not fair, I admit.

With respect to just this thread, you say: "I'm all for an open exchange of ideas & views..." then go on to explain why '...BUT...' this thread isn't any good. Specifically, that you disagree with the ideas and views presented here.

You then label the views you disagree with as 'weak', then follow with the statement that labels are a disservice.

And you again defend your view under the pretense of "expressing a differnent opinion" being good; again with the idea that the contrary opinion _isn't_ good.

The hypocrisy of all of this is, I think, pretty obvious.

But again, to be fair with you, I wouldn't have said anything had I not found you previously to be so offensive; admitedly, my bias.

@PLUGO

02-12-2003, 06:53 PM

hear here... cow,

actually, one of our co-workers has just been called into active duty.

May be shipping out to Iraq by the weekend, sort of put a cloud over the office.

I don't know him that well, outside of the occasional He was'up dude when I'm cutting through his section of the office. Still, the fact that he may be risking his life for...
at best, something I'm still skeptical about.
at worst, the cowboy fantasies of some rich kid and his handler's stock portfolios
is frustrating. Makes me wish for an alternative all the more.

dnc101

02-12-2003, 06:55 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kung Lek
I wonder where Iraq got those chem and bio weapons? hmmmm.

Yes, some of those weaponscame from us. Sort of puts some responsibility on us to go in and deal with the situation. So, let's go!

I wonder who is the largest producer and distributor of chem, bio and nuclear weapons? hmmmmm.

You are implying that because we have them we are evil? It takes more than the fact you own a bat and ball to make you guilty of breaking the neighbors window.

Re Canada:
However, do we manufacture wmds? NO
Do we manufacture chem or bio weapons? NO..OK, but it wouldn't worry me if you did.

Do we cast suspicion on all Muslims in our country? NO.Are you implying that our Muslims are treated unfairly? This charge has been adequately answered on other threads, but go ahead. Get specific.

Do we spend on foriegn aid? YES.
Do we actively participate in NATO and The UN? YES
Do we stand as the largest trading partner to the US? YES
Do we forgive porr countries their debt to us on a fairly regular basis? YES.Based on your other posts, I'll assume that this is not an implication that we do not do these things. So, your point must be that you are good guys as well, and therefore you have a moral right to discuss these issues with us. No argument there, I agree.

Do we interfere with the internal affairs of other countries? Not without the approval of the country in question and the United Nations council.

We went to the UN. They agreed Sadaam is dangerous to the entire world, not just us. They approved action, then some of the member nations got cold feet when it came time to act. Now, we've built a coallition and are pressing forward. And, we're not asking Sadaam's permission. He's had 12 years of asking permission. It's time to go in and finish what we should have done 12 years ago. By the way, the reason he's still a problem is that we chose to abide by the UN mandate and stopped short of taking him out in the last war.

This, for the most part is called practicing what you preach. Many countries do this as well. Perhaps instead of "tellin" the Gov of the US should be "listenin" We do listen. Doesn't mean we'll do what you want, though.

Drop educators, not bombs.I wholeheartedly agree! The vast majority of our educators are way out in left field. I'd love to bury Sadaams pallace under 100 ft. of educators droped from, say, 20,000 ft. ;)

rogue

02-12-2003, 07:01 PM

I wonder who is the largest producer and distributor of chem, bio and nuclear weapons? hmmmmm. KL, that would be the empire formally known as the USSR. The US has never been big on peddling the good stuff.

Just heard on the TV that Hans Blix has found a smoking gun.

@PLUGO

02-12-2003, 07:02 PM

I wholeheartedly agree! The vast majority of our educators are way out in left field. I'd love to bury Sadaams pallace under 100 ft. of educators droped from, say, 20,000 ft.

I was going to say something whitty about the Leave no child behind bill... but there's really nothing funny about it.

the U.S. seems to value it's Bomb making industry significantly more than it's educators...

Waidan

02-12-2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Laughing Cow

Yep, America saved the world all by themselves during WWI & WII.

NO Allies, No Freedom Fighters and so on were involved at all.

I guess the Italian, French & other Troops during the Gulf War, Afghanistan & Kosovo are also illusions.

Pity for the Family that live under the illusuon that their family members died during those conflicts.

Slow down their, bovine. I never said the U.S. did anything "by themselves". In fact, you pretty much made up a bunch of points for me and then tore them apart. kudos? I know you guys had the Germans on the ropes when we showed up. Good job.

David Jamieson

02-12-2003, 07:05 PM

BTW In regards to the US and WWII, we were being isolationist until Japan came-a-knockin. Let's hope we never do that again.

rogue- this statement is untrue. The U.S was fully supporting the countries fighting against the Nazis and facists in WW2 before they fully entered the war. They supplied arms and munitions, recon and all sorts of oss style operations.

Japan's bombing of pearl harbour was the impetus to fully enter.
Isolationists, the americans have not been, in anybodies war in the last century.

cheers

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Design Sifu
Makes me wish for an alternative all the more.

I know the feeling.

Some of my American friends are sitting currently next to IRAQ after being posted there. Sad thing is that a few feel that the war is wrong.

Hope everybody can get back safe without having to fight.

dnc101

02-12-2003, 07:07 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Design Sifu
[b]dnc101:
I've got no problem with your stated "problems"... I still think you're "painting" with rather broad brush strokes. Go right ahead but will present such conclusions lead you to any understanding? Well, I don't know if understanding a "liberal" is a value to you...so my bad in assuming so.

No, your bad in assuming I don't care about the liberal viewpoint. I listen, and discuss points with those who post rationally. But most of what you get from the left is rhetoric, accusations. My problems here, as I stated, is with those who come on to bash the US.

dnc101

02-12-2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Design Sifu
the U.S. seems to value it's Bomb making industry significantly more than it's educators...

I don't know how you figure that. Our educators are the most spoiled group we have. Eavery year we allocate more money to education, and we get less for it than ever. Kids graduating that can't read. I was shocked when I went back to college and, in a second year English Comp class, found that the only people there who could carry a thought through even a paragraph were the five of us over 30. But the teachers and profs get their raises. And, when they complain about the exta work of grading papers, they get aids. And when they still have to do a little bit of work, the get student aids also. I was involved in the fight against Outcome Based Education in my state, and I've seen the manuals instructing teachers how to fool parents. Not copies, the actual manuals. Your emotional argument pitting teachers against bombs holds no water with me. We need both teachers and bombs. We need good ones in each case. And we need to use them wisely.

I haveto sign off now. Things to do. But, I'll be baaaaaaaaack!:p

David Jamieson

02-12-2003, 07:24 PM

dnc-

once something is said, it is held up by others and judged.

I don't think anyone here bashes the U.S so much as they bash the current white house administration and their seeming disregard for what the rest of the world has to say about the current situation in the world.

I don't believe anyone agrees with what the whole terrorist movement coming out of the middle east is about either.

I do believe that people are coming to a state of knowledge where they are willing to try to understand the reasons for why these factions exist and consistently attack western countries. Typically the reality since the 60's has been that more and more people are questioning the validity of the use of war to solve differences.

It is a key in most martial philosophies to use war as a last resort.

Now, we don't see an Iraqi navy ammassing on our shores and we don't have a standing army from a middle eastern kingdom, sultanate, or dictatorship sitting on western soil.

We do see a double standard in the situation when we consider the Pakistan India situation in the way action is taken by the Bush administration.

We do see a double standard with the North Korea situation.

We also see a double standard in the Russia/Chechnya situation and also in the israel palistine situation.

It's not just the U.S administration that practices this, and that is surely coming out in the wash what with all the different factions and nations taking their place on the stage for what could be the most terrifying act in any human play, ever.

There is and has been too much war in human history, so much so it is a constant and burned into our psyches so deep that it takes very little to invoke the emotional response required to spark an all out war.

People don't stop warring until they grow weary and see that it is NOT the solution. Attrition, surrender, compromise, suicide are the acts carried out when a war ends. These are the actions of those who know it is not the answer.

Nothing blinds a person more to their own folly than when they are a victor in battle.

cheers

rogue

02-12-2003, 07:27 PM

Timeline (http://www.qt.org/worldwar/timeline/)

KL, We were behaving the same way many modern Europeans are behaving today. The American people didn't want to enter the war and it was only by being bombed that we entered. Supplying arms and ordinance is a slimey way to have someone else fight your battles and doesn't float. Thank God for the Brits who were the lone fighting force for most of the war. Check the timeline to see how much happened before we felt obliged to join the fun. At least Canada declared war on Germany in 1939.

Here's a partial list of what was going on while FDR was smoking his cherot. It also points out how weak Europe had become, much like modern Europe.
1939
September 1st - Germany invades Poland.
September 3rd - France declares war on Germany.
September 17th - Soviet Union invades eastern Poland.
September 27th - Surrender of Warsaw.

1940
May 10th - Germany invades Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg.
May 15th - Holland surrenders to Germany.
May 26th - Evacuation of British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk.
May 27th - Belgium surrenders to Germany.

June 14th - German army enters Paris.
June 18th - Soviets invade Baltic states.
June 22nd - France signs armistice with Germany.

1941
April 6th - Germany invades Yugoslavia and Greece.
April 10th - Germans take Zagreb.
April 12th - Germans occupy Belgrade.
April 17th - Yugoslav army surrenders to Germans.

David Jamieson

02-12-2003, 07:48 PM

Rogue - I don't think your timeline is reflective of the big picture.

The U.S was in midst of coming out of a severe economic depression. But they were indeed quite involved with supplying the Brits with ordinance and supplies.

Canada at the time was fully and wholly part of the British empire and was the Dominion of Canada. Basically, Canada was Britain and Britain was Canada. We, as Canadians had no political say in our own affairs without asking the house in Britain first and it wasn't until long time after when Canada became a nation in it's own right. This occurance only happened in the space of my lifetime.

Believe me when I tell you that the ties between the British and the Canadians are still very, very strong as nations and as soveriegn nations. Most of our parents and grandparents and the rest of our anscestors are from the UK in the majority of the population of Canada.

I expect that will change in my lifetime also. :)

cheers

Braden

02-12-2003, 07:53 PM

"Believe me when I tell you that the ties between the British and the Canadians are still very, very strong as nations and as soveriegn nations. Most of our parents and grandparents and the rest of our anscestors are from the UK in the majority of the population of Canada."

:confused: Have you been outside Ontario?

David Jamieson

02-12-2003, 08:06 PM

Braden-

I've lived across Canada from east to west. Last I lived was Manitoba, now, admittedly I am in Ontario. I have also lived in Vancouver, spent a few years in all in Alberta and even lived in Saskatoon for just shy of a year. I have visited the rest of it coast to coast on a few occasions.

I also can pick up census information, not unlike yourself.

cheers

joedoe

02-12-2003, 08:10 PM

So Canada has been its own nation for less that a century? Do you mean as a republic or as its own federation?

Braden

02-12-2003, 08:12 PM

While I'd accept 'a strong alleigance to Britian' as being an accurate characterization of Ontario, do you really think it applies to Quebec?

Do you really think it applies to the east coast (four provinces, to the non-canuck), or Manitoba, both of whose populations have strong ties to the Highland Clearances - which I hope you can expect might tarnish alleigance to Britain.

Certainly the NW Terroritories, Yukon, and Nunavut don't consider themselves strongly British.

That leaves three provinces, which might be characterized as you do Ontario, if they weren't united in distancing themselves as much as possible from everything Ontario-ish (and thus, everything classic to the central Canadian).

Even so, that's at best 4 for, 9 against; at worst 1 for, 12 against. Hardly makes for an accurate characterization of the whole country. Especially since the bulk of the 'againsts' aren't just against Britain, but rabidly despise it.

eulerfan

02-12-2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by red5angel
eulerfan, almost all articles are written for those who agree with the one writing them. Especially articles such as this. However, I think he made his points as well a she needs to and I don't really believe I need to argue with americans over what is his real point. His real point is that he is sick and tired of being surrounded by people who can't appreciate what they have, much less leave the country to be attacked by people who don't know and don't understand.

You say you don't want to argue about what is point was and proceed to argue about what his point was. Good one.

This point is different than the one you gave earlier. So, you have come to two different conclusions about what his point was.

That's because he didn't really make a coherent point.

This is clear as day to me. I don't understand why you don't see that. The man, himself, called the essay rambling. Not once. TWICE. Because the thing is rambling.

David Jamieson

02-12-2003, 08:39 PM

Braden-

A country is made up of it's people, not of it's land area.

I can easily concede in the case of the French, but in reality, the rest of the country does have strong ties to Britain in political practice and cultural activity.

Britain has included Scotland since Elizabeth the First.
My own decent is of Scottish and Welsh origin.

The entirity of the north holds less than 100, 000 people out of approximately 30 million in total.

we have a province named British Columbia! And another named Prince Edward Island, and even better Nova Scotia, teh Latin for New Scotland :D

C'mon now, in the Province of Quebec there are roughly 7 and 1/4 million people, many of them are not french decendents, nor British, but hey.

We have a house of commons. the queen is on our coinage and a couple of our bills, up until I was in grade 7 we sang god save the queen right after Oh Canada in class each morning.

We are a bi-lingual country, but predominantly english speaking.

ah, I don't need to say more about Canada's ties to the U.K...

cheers

Braden

02-12-2003, 08:42 PM

If you include Scotland as UK, sure...

But that's exactly WHY the Scottish people have a problem with Britain. And that's exactly why the Canadian Scottish people don't have a national identity which includes alleigance to Britain.

David Jamieson

02-12-2003, 08:47 PM

Braden-

Are you a Stewart? Or a Gunn? hahahahaha.

The Scots will always be Scots, but I think they are not so full of animosity towards the english. Not for hundreds of years anyway.

Besides, dinna ya know, we're all Danes and Norweigians anyway! :D

cheers

Braden

02-12-2003, 08:51 PM

I'm a McDonald, of Clanranald.

Maybe the lowlanders don't have a problem with the British. And maybe the highlanders who have forgotten their history. But then there's the rest of us... notably, on the east coast and in Manitoba (which is why I mentioned them; of course, there's Scottish everywhere in Canada; but in these places there is a highland culture that has kept it's identity). We remember the cultural genocide, and we remember the conspiracy of shame and silence which has made it a secret to the rest of the world.

I assure you we didn't sing God Save the Queen in Antigonish.

But there's plenty of reason to mind the British even if you're not a highlander. Just look at the enduring mess they made of Iraq and Palestine. (marvel at my segue abilities - back to the main topic of the thread! :D )

Chang Style Novice

02-12-2003, 09:21 PM

I haven't read the essay or the thread. But I want to make sure it is not forgotten that critiqueing the government and policy is the second most fundamental characteristic of a democratic republic. The first being universal sufferage.

In other words, if you don't approve of my vocal opposition to the war and administration, you are a fascist and unworthy of the title American.

tnwingtsun

02-12-2003, 09:48 PM

Has this forum gone down the drain because the Moderator is allowed to speak his peace and delete other's opions,this is against not only the United States freedom of speach but should be the planet as a whole

Kung Lek,you have not deleted my post yet........

But after reading this you may.

Your words.

"The best way to defeat your enemy is to make him your friend"

The IRAQ/IRAN war of the 80's,you do the math.

"I wonder where Iraq got those chem and bio weapons? hmmmm."

IRAN =BAD,IRAQ=BAD,USA=BAD for suppling IRAQ with WMD,I was in the service at that time,we were on alert to strike,roll and take out IRAN,I feel it was a mistake to give IRAQ WMD,but it turned the tide and my buddies and I(not GOV. policy) lived another day,Charlie Beckwith(founder of Delta Force) lived the rest of his life with Desert One on his back,**** good thing he learned from his UK SAS mates in the early 60's that OUR PLANET
needs a force to combat the tango's and the opressers of our world.
Ask the mothers that live without their husbands,ask the husbands that raise their children because 9/11 destroyed their
lives,yet they continue to live and survive as the Jews post WW2.

Delete my post,you're Canadian,so what,your Snipers saved
my friend from OB's AK/RPG and morter fire,your Snipers didn't brag(they set records with their shots giving credit to Carlos Hath****/USMC),in my eyes they are of the highest of all MA's,kadoes to them,eh!

"We also have level 4 and higher bio labs across the country and we have one of the best trained militaries (all be it small) in the world."

Your Snipers are better,I for one thank your Country and your men that serve,although I think your Paratroopers got a bum rap.
Hell,David Letterman gives Paul $hit every night,lol

"In short, America, it's not about "YOU". It has little to do with you. And if you park an army next to someone elses property, expect a little blowback."

True to a point,this is a Martial Arts forum,hand to hand/CQB/Fireteam/Platoon/Company all the way up to Corps/Army.

Kung Lek,read on and you might find that we are not so far apart

Laughing Cow

"Yet.

A few bits of info I would like to add to this:

1.) Anti-US sentiments were illegal in South Korea until a few years ago, this does not mean that there were none.

The South Koreans loved us!!!!!
I don't know where you've been but there were many times I was welcomed into South Korean homes of Korean War Vets,tthey were old,I was young.

"Anti-N.Korean are still illegal."

Have you ever been shot at by North Korean SF and infiltraters and seen your buddy die??
I have.
Have you ever been deep inside of a South Korean Mountain where Ops and Intel are run?
I have.

It may suprise you that both North and South are like two Pit Bulls wanting to kill each other,the USA present in Korea is what keeps them from tearing themselves apart.

2.) How long after "saving" a country does the USA want that country to kowtow and keep kissing their feet for saving that Country?? 60yrs, 100yrs, forever.

Just some thoughts that came to mind."

" keep kissing their feet for saving that Country?? 60yrs, 100yrs, forever."

Hundreds/thousands of South Koreans like us over there
until they can work things out for themselves,too bad the North keeps sending their killer teams south.

While I served in Korea my worst nightmare was war,and still is.

Laughing Cow,you have no clue.

I'll tell you more if Kung Lek lets me havve my freedom of speach.

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by tnwingtsun

1.) Anti-US sentiments were illegal in South Korea until a few years ago, this does not mean that there were none.

The South Koreans loved us!!!!!
I don't know where you've been but there were many times I was welcomed into South Korean homes of Korean War Vets,tthey were old,I was young.

Than explain to me how that law came into being in South Korea??
Also explain to me than all the Anti-US rallies happening over there now.

Always willing to learn new things.

tnwingtsun

02-12-2003, 09:57 PM

I AM a former anti-war activist who helped to organize the first campus demonstration against the war in Vietnam at the University of California, Berkeley in 1962. I appeal to all those young people who participated in "anti-war" demonstrations on 150 college campuses this week, to think again and not to join an "anti-war" effort against America’s coming battle with international terrorism.

The hindsight of history has shown that our efforts in the 1960s to end the war in Vietnam had two practical effects. The first was to prolong the war itself. Every testimony by North Vietnamese generals in the postwar years has affirmed that they knew they could not defeat the United States on the battlefield, and that they counted on the division of our people at home to win the war for them. The Vietcong forces we were fighting in South Vietnam were destroyed in 1968. In other words, most of the war and most of the casualties in the war occurred because the dictatorship of North Vietnam counted on the fact Americans would give up the battle rather than pay the price necessary to win it. This is what happened. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, and tens of thousands of Americans, is on the hands of the anti-war activists who prolonged the struggle and gave victory to the Communists.

The second effect of the war was to surrender South Vietnam to the forces of Communism. This resulted in the imposition of a monstrous police state, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent South Vietnamese, the incarceration in "re-education camps" of hundreds of thousands more, and a quarter of a century of abject poverty imposed by crackpot Marxist economic plans, which continue to this day. This, too, is the responsibility of the so-called anti-war movement of the 1960s.

I say "so-called anti-war movement," because while many Americans were sincerely troubled by America’s war effort, the organizers of this movement were Marxists and radicals who supported a Communist victory and an American defeat. Today the same people and their youthful followers are organizing the campus demonstrations against America’s effort to defend its citizens against the forces of international terrorism and anti-American hatred, responsible for the September attacks.

I know, better than most, the importance of protecting freedom of speech and the right of citizens to dissent. But I also know better than most, that there is a difference between honest dissent and malevolent hate, between criticism of national policy, and sabotage of the nation’s defenses. In the 1960s and 1970s, the tolerance of anti-American hatreds was so high, that the line between dissent and treason was eventually erased. Along with thousands of other New Leftists, I was one who crossed the line between dissent and actual treason. (I have written an account of these matters in my autobiography, Radical Son). I did so for what I thought were the noblest of reasons: to advance the cause of "social justice" and "peace." I have lived to see how wrong I was and how much damage we did – especially to those whose cause we claimed to embrace, the peasants of Indo-China who suffered grievously from our support for the Communist enemy. I came to see how precious are the freedoms and opportunities afforded by America to the poorest and most humble of its citizens, and how rare its virtues are in the world at large.

If I have one regret from my radical years, it is that this country was too tolerant towards the treason of its enemies within. If patriotic Americans had been more vigilant in the defense of their country, if they had called things by their right names, if they had confronted us with the seriousness of our attacks, they might have caught the attention of those of us who were well-meaning but utterly misguided. And they might have stopped us in our tracks.

This appeal is for those of you who are out there today attacking your country, full of your own self-righteousness, but who one day might also live to regret what you have done.

David Horowitz

Laughing Cow

02-12-2003, 10:05 PM

Some Op-Ed Articles:

Article 1 (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20030213bg.htm)

Article 2 (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20030213dh.htm)

Article 3 (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?ed20030212a1.htm)

Just for your perusal.

tnwingtsun

02-12-2003, 10:06 PM

Time for bed,I will answer your questions latter;)

dnc101

02-12-2003, 10:31 PM

Outstanding post! I apreciate your honesty and willingness to share what your experiences have taught you.

The rest of you, listen when he speaks!

dnc101

02-12-2003, 11:30 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kung Lek
I do believe that people are coming to a state of knowledge where they are willing to try to understand the reasons for why these factions exist and consistently attack western countries. Typically the reality since the 60's has been that more and more people are questioning the validity of the use of war to solve differences.

We've tried for years to understand them. We've slaped their wrist and even ignored them when they repeatedly attacked us. We've given them aid. We've sent our military to protect their fellow Muslims. What more could we have done to try to befriend them? Now, they've attacked us at home, killing thousands. They rejoiced in the streets by the millions when they heard. They promised more and bigger attacks. What more do they have to do before you guys get the message- they want war! They hate us and want us destroyed! You can't reason with them or appease them! And your efforts to do so only embolden them.

It is a key in most martial philosophies to use war as a last resort.

It is also key in martial arts that when repeatedly attacked, you fight. And you fight to win.

Now, we don't see an Iraqi navy ammassing on our shores and we don't have a standing army from a middle eastern kingdom, sultanate, or dictatorship sitting on western soil.

Iraq has violated its treaties with us, and has supported terrorists.
What ammounts to an army has infiltrated the entire western world. Weekly we read about arrests of terrorist cells across the globe. And, how many times does the point have to be made- WE'VE BEEN ATTACKED!

We do see a double standard in...Pakistan India... North Korea ... Russia/Chechnya situation and also in the israel palistine situation.

Would you be so kind as to point out what the double standards are here?

...all the different factions and nations taking their place on the stage for what could be the most terrifying act in any human play, ever.

Other generations have faced the same terror. What makes us so special that we should hide our heads (and butts) and beg for more time so we can hand a much larger problem to our children? The time to take out this madman is before he gets nuclear capability. That means now, and it means us!

There is and has been too much war in human history, so much so it is a constant and burned into our psyches so deep that it takes very little to invoke the emotional response required to spark an all out war. People don't stop warring until they grow weary and see that it is NOT the solution.

You are heading a little to far out into space here, bud. That's just left wing psycho-babble.

Look, no one likes war, especially the warriors who will be called on to fight it. But sometimes the greater evil is inaction. That is the case with Iraq, and with radical Muslim terrorists. Sadaam has violated his treaties. He's amassed chemical and biological arsenals, and is working on a nuclear arsenal. He's used WMD's on his neighbors and his own people. The 'Arab' world fears him so much, they are willing to cooperate with us, 'The Great Satan', to get rid of him. The terrorists have repeatedly attacked us. And you want to try to understand them... ?

Mr Punch

02-13-2003, 03:35 AM

Some no-name old reactionary with no coherent point.If you aren't interested in the ramblings of an old man, please delete

now.

Consider it done!

WTF are you all talking about?!

America has its good points and its bad points... YAWN.

This first article and its supporters are one of its bad points. The equally knee-jerk reactions of its detractors one of are the reasons why... it's divisive unnecessary BS.

Couple of points: anyone blaming the current situation in Isreal and Palestine solely or even mainly on the UK is as ignorant of the last 1000 years of Middle Eastern as anyone blaming the current situation of Islamic extremism solely on the US. So shut up, or provide some evidence.

And... Speaking as an English mongrel with hell of a lot of loyal (to Scotland) Scottish ancestry, and a lot of Scottish friends plus Canadian friends from many places (and ancestries), I reckon it's mostly pinheaded rednecks who only want to bury the hatchet with the English only if it's in an Englishman's head. The normal ones don't even give a ****. Let history lie, and try to learn from its mistakes.

Braden

02-13-2003, 03:40 AM

Mat - I'm not sure what history to provide you with. Are you not aware of how the Israel-Palestine issue came to be?

"I reckon it's mostly pinheaded rednecks who only want to bury the hatchet with the English only if it's in an Englishman's head. The normal ones don't even give a ****. Let history lie, and try to learn from its mistakes."

Do you feel the same way about the treatment of the native north americans? The Jewish, gypsies, ****sexuals, etc in Nazi Germany? The Kurds and Shiites in Iraq? etc etc etc?

Also, make sure you're distinguishing between lowland and highland Scots. You can tell the lowlanders pretty easily - they're the ones who still have houses and are living in their homeland.

BTW, as 'pinheaded' as I may be, I never indicated I had any problem with Brits. I just said I didn't owe an alleigance to them. And I certainly won't forget the 'mistakes' in their history.

Merryprankster

02-13-2003, 04:05 AM

But there's plenty of reason to mind the British even if you're not a highlander. Just look at the enduring mess they made of Iraq and Palestine.

Ah no, see Braden, this is where you're wrong. According to Laughing Cow on a long-dead thread, past history has absolutely no bearing on the state of the world today. The dissolution of European empires without regard to socio-political-economic infrastructure or tribal/ethnic/religious boundaries has absolutely nothing at all to do with the way the now independent states of those former empires have developed and behave.

Mr Punch

02-13-2003, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Braden
Mat - I'm not sure what history to provide you with. Are you not aware of how the Israel-Palestine issue came to be?

I'm well aware thank you. The British government of the time made a bad situation worse. It did not create it.

Do you feel the same way about the treatment of the native north americans? The Jewish, gypsies, ****sexuals, etc in Nazi Germany? The Kurds and Shiites in Iraq? etc etc etc?

Why would this follow? I would have thought you'd have been the last person on the board trying to put words into someone's mouth.

When were the Highland clearances again?

And perhaps you can tell me how we can help the plight of the native Americans now? The Kurds? The Shiites? Oh yeah, by pointing our fingers and wagging our beards with all the benefit of hindsight but still somehow managing to fall back on unsupported rhetoric.

Or maybe by trying to understand or at least recognise the cause and effect relationship of historical and modern mistakes and 'evil' acts, and acting responsibly and accordingly. Of course, how we act on it is still going to be a matter of opinion, but at least I would hope that it's better supported by knowledge than centuries-old prejudice and rivalries.

Also, make sure you're distinguishing between lowland and highland Scots. You can tell the lowlanders pretty easily - they're the ones who still have houses and are living in their homeland.
I'm not distinguishing. And yes, I am undereducated on this part of history. But the Scottish side of my family were and still are from the Highlands. Are we only to listen to those who were dispossessed?

I just said I didn't owe an alleigance to them. And I certainly won't forget the 'mistakes' in their history.
Fine. I said learn which implies pretty strongly the opposite of forget.

David Jamieson

02-13-2003, 07:22 AM

tzwingtsun-

your supposition that I would delete your post because i don't agree is a little "first strike" in attitude.

You have full and total rights to your opinion and I won't delete it.

One must consider their own hatred before pointing fingers at others is where I'm coming from. You can label it all you like, left wing, right wing, whatever.

My opinion is that war is stupid and it is stupid people who support it in any form. It is an act of desperation carried out by people who are incapable of resolving things in a better way. They are incapable because they are ignorant and fearful of that which they do not understand. I don't think there has been much attempt at understanding the middle east, just a lot of finger pointing and taking sides.

Why penalize a whole nation for the actions of a single person and his cronies. Why interfere with another nation because it's views conflict with your nations? This is an act of ignorance. Perhaps it would be better in many respects to withold the war and up the peace play.

What can you honestly tell me about war? What can you honestly tell me about the middle eastern peoples that is your first hand knowledge of them. Restraint is paramount here due to the lack of knowledge.

I would be very surprised if Blix finds anything that the Bush administration is saying is in Iraq. It is the united states that is posturing and sabre rattling. It is the United States Government that is seeking to oust a soveriegn leader and "hold the oil fields in trust". This is theft in my opinion. An act of aggression upon a nation that is already brought to it's knees.

myopic. And just because I'm a moderator doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. All it means is that I keep it civil, stop the links to porn and outrate hate.

This isn't crossfire after all, or a listened to political forum, it's primarily a vehicle for fans and enthusiasts of Chinese Martial arts. Hardly has anything to do with the world situation politically eh? Besides, it isn't me who starts these threads.

cheers

red5angel

02-13-2003, 07:58 AM

The South Koreans don't like us? Let's pull out and watch Korea become unified. Anyone seen the nighttime pictures of the Korean Penensula yet? If you haven't you might want to take a look. We could even ship a few million of those pictures over to S. Korea itself, let them see what it is to be living in the dark under an oppressive regime that will pounce the minute we move out.

Move out of europe? No problem, might be good for them for a time. Of course we left Europe after WWI and went about doing our own thing and all of those people with the benefit of having "experienced" thousands of years of war, did what agian? Oh yeah, went back to their warring ways in no time.
While we are on that subject, what european country stepped into the serb croatian war? Bosnia?

LC- Not sure who your history teacher was but for someone who claims to know the plight of jews in europe intimately you sure do have your head up your ass when it comes to the rest of the war. Let me remind you, the war was going badly. No one was prepared for Germanies blitzkrieg, and Germany was ready to pounce on England after they were finished bombing the crap out of them. Without England the war would have been lost and most likely there would be no "Europe" But a German kingdom in its place.
and by the way 2000 years of war makes the european people an expert on what war does? Helps to to understand its horrors? Then why keep going at it? If you have learned so much about it in the last 2000 years, why have you not stopped? Oh you have? Recently?, so you mean the last 60 years is proof you won't ever fight again? You wil have to excuse me but I am an american, where is Bosnia again?

Eulerfan - I owe you an apology. while I "got" his point, and still maintain that he had a point of his own, I can understand where you are coming from and I can agree it is a rambling letter but one that for me strikes deep.

Here is something those people who are not amercians must understand. America isn't about laying down (France). We aren't about oppressing our people (N.Korea, China, Iraq, etc..). We aren't about world Domination (Germany) and we aren't going to be patting ourselves in the back staying professionally nuetral while the rest of the world blows itself up (Canada, Switzerland, etc)
We aren't going to allow other kids in the neighborhood to go screwing it up for the rest of us. If you don't like us, and you do't want us to meddle, stop screwing up. Stop picking on each other and stop escalating your arsenals to the point where we have no choice but to intervene to stop your crazy leaders and your insane extremists form doing something the entire world is going to regret.

One other thing, it's funny that the world before america was constantly at war. Not in it's entirety, and not all at once. But it seems like after both WWs', something seems alot quieter, the world seems a little safer....

KC Elbows

02-13-2003, 08:04 AM

tnwingtsun,
Your post(the lengthy one warning against the pitfalls of demonstrating against a war) was very good, I've seen your book around, I'll have to check it out one of these days.

At the same time, I could say "Those supporting the war watch out" and use Viet Nam as an example of a group within the pro viet nam war faction who were using it for nefarious gain taking advantage of their supporters. After all, key leaders recognized Ho as not just a despot, but potentially a national hero. You cannot base your life decisions on 'will there be people where I go trying to take advantage" because, no matter what you do, those people will be there, whether taking advantage of a war effort for their own profit, or taking advantage of a movement for their own agendas.

As for Viet Nam's conditions after we left, the fact is, the very communist governments that we use as examples of the weakness of their economic model, are the same nations we did everything to economically crush. Not exactly unspoiled evidence of their economic system. Now, it does reveal a weakness of their system at a certain phase in their development, I won't disagree with that, but past that, it's all kind of biased by the fact that they were in an economic war, and, for the most part, it was an economic war with a country at it's best, undamaged and pristine, often against countries ravaged beforehand, though there are definitely exceptions.

For example, the US had a serious head start on the Soviet Union after WWII, because the US didn't have to rebuild a major chunk of it's nation.

Not a big supporter of communism, I just think there are some cliches about communism from the end of the soviet union that don't always reflect reality all that well. It's somewhat like entering into a lab experiment with the express purpose of showing that ants live two hours, and stepping on ants every two hours.

Nonetheless, though, good post.

Merryprankster

02-13-2003, 08:06 AM

One other thing, it's funny that the world before america was constantly at war. Not in it's entirety, and not all at once. But it seems like after both WWs', something seems alot quieter, the world seems a little safer....

Not exactly Red--surrogate warfare in various different places continued because of the cold-war policies of the Eastern and NATO. Watch films from those time periods or read the literature and listen to congressional testimony or political speeches. War was almost constantly on everybody's mind.

Peace--physically perhaps, but people were legitimately worried about impending disaster.

dnc101

02-13-2003, 08:11 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kung Lek
My opinion is that war is stupid and it is stupid people who support it in any form. It is an act of desperation carried out by people who are incapable of resolving things in a better way. They are incapable because they are ignorant and fearful of that which they do not understand. I don't think there has been much attempt at understanding the middle east, just a lot of finger pointing and taking sides.

Well, color me stupid! More wisdom without substantiation, or even a credential to back it up.

Why penalize a whole nation for the actions of a single person and his cronies. Why interfere with another nation because it's views conflict with your nations?

This, like most of your posts, begs the question. You assume that we are interfering with Iraq "because it's views conflict with your nations". That is not the case. We are going there because they are a clear (to those of us who are stupid enough to open our eyes) threat to us, and to the world.

I doubt if we can tell you anything about war, or most other topics. So, enlighten us, which wars did you fight? Which ones did you witness first hand? When did you at least serve? And which Mid East country have you ever lived in under a despot like Sadam? If this is your requirements for us to post a serious argument, you must be a wealth of experience yourself. Those kinds of arguments sound good on an emotional level, but they don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny.

Regarding Blix, I was surprised he found as much as he did. And that was enough in itself to justify war. Documents, hardware, and even admissions. But we're asked by this proven liar to trust him, he's destroyed all his WMD's. He just had to run the previous inspectors out of his country to do it.

Come on, KL. You have a mind. Open it up and use it!

red5angel

02-13-2003, 08:17 AM

MP- right, and I agree, but warfare on the whole became smaller and smaller if you compare it in total to the history of warfare.

Kung Lek - war may be stupid but in humanities current state of evolution, it is sometimes the only way. Was there another way to oust the Taliban for example?

Merryprankster

02-13-2003, 08:19 AM

Don't worry. We'll diplomatically handle the next Hitler who attempts deaths on the Holocaust scale.

red5angel

02-13-2003, 08:30 AM

Why bother, the world doesn't need our help with guys like that anyway.:rolleyes:

dnc101

02-13-2003, 08:35 AM

r5a,

True. And we'd only be blamed for brutalizing their enemies and making them really mad at the poor, peace loving world. Oh :eek: !

dnc101

02-13-2003, 08:37 AM

MP,
Sarcasm may be the lowest form of humor. But, it's often the best way to make a good point!

By the way, good point!

eulerfan

02-13-2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by red5angel
Eulerfan - I owe you an apology. while I "got" his point, and still maintain that he had a point of his own, I can understand where you are coming from and I can agree it is a rambling letter but one that for me strikes deep.

Phew, thank you. Let me clarify that I wasn't trying to say that the man doesn't have a point. I was just trying to say that it's not fair to get frustrated with Design Sifu for missing it.

Merryprankster

02-13-2003, 11:38 AM

Stop it euler, you can't fool me. I know at the core you are a rat, pinko, commie, America-hating, Laden-Loving......

Ummmm....

Yeah....

@PLUGO

02-13-2003, 11:50 AM

DNC101:

your bad in assuming I don't care about the liberal viewpoint.

Well, I honetsy did believe that you would be interested in common understanding, I however didn't want to just assume it, and come off as putting those kinds of words in your mouth. that last add on statement was a feble attempt to say as such...appologies. :o

On education & Teachers vs. Bombs... Mostly speaking off the cuff, My biggest personal gripe about the "leave no child behind" thing (from what little I've read/heard about it).. is the mandatory requirement of all students' contact info being passed to military recruiters on threat of suspension of funding. Seems a little heavy handed. of course recruiters who want to contact students should. However, I don't think schools should be penalised financially for choosing not to offer students' info to the military? but hey that was/is a partially formed opinioned.
And as for education, California in General and Oakland in particular is having some serious woes these days... that I find unfortunate.

Braden:
Dude, it's a bit of a challenge to make sence of your post, but here goes...

With respect to just this thread, you say: "I'm all for an open exchange of ideas & views..." then go on to explain why '...BUT...' this thread isn't any good. Specifically, that you disagree with the ideas and views presented here.

You then label the views you disagree with as 'weak', then follow with the statement that labels are a disservice.

And you again defend your view under the pretense of "expressing a differnent opinion" being good; again with the idea that the contrary opinion _isn't_ good.

Yes I'm all for an open exchange of ideas... when did I say '...BUT...'? reads like an inclusion on your part.

I never stated "this thread isn't any good." again your inclusion... I did say I was getting borded.
One implies a judgement of the thred, which I'm free to make (as are you) but didn't.
The other is simply voicing a state of being.

Again, I never labeled a view I disagreed with as weak. I refered to the tendancy towards "labeling" the presenter of an opinion as weak.

watch closely...
" this whole "anti-american" labeling schtick seems weak to me.well, I didn't even state is as "IS WEAK" but pointed out how it appears to me. what exactly is anti-american... expressing a differnent opinion? Stateing you disagree? what?

Actually, the whole tendancy towards labeling is such a disservice to the labeled and labeler, it's just plain unimaginative."[/b]ahHA!!! I did refer to labels as a disservice, and you know I still believe it weither the label is "anti-american" or "American are souless" or "liberal" or "conservative"

And you again defend your view under the pretense of "expressing a differnent opinion" being good; again with the idea that the contrary opinion _isn't_ good.

Well Yes my opinion that the expression of any opinion should be allowed, mine will at time differ than another's and that's fine as well. Now this where it's a bit unclear, are you saying that I'm impling that I believe that the "contrary" to "expressing a differnent opinion"(s)_isn't_ good.?

Sounds like the contrary to expressing differing opinions is the suppression of freedom of expression, so Yes, I'm opposed to anyone suppressing or the attempt to supress someone else's expression of opinion. Might such suppression be considered "Anti-American?" :p

Now if you're trying to imply that I tend to supress differing viewpoints, then you're mistaken... I haven't, I won't, you needn't worry.

okay... I hope we've cleared this up.

tnwingtsun:
riveting post on page 6.
Not quite sure if a person should NOT persue a belief based on a fear or concern that someone else would misuse it. Struggling to find a non political analogy.... could it be like choosing not to teach someone KUNGFU for fear that said student would teach someone who would then smack their girlfiend?

Hindsight is certainly a powerful reward for the risks of experience.

ewallace

02-13-2003, 11:52 AM

My opinion is that war is stupid and it is stupid people who support it in any form.
It is my opinion that the above quote is on of the most ignorant, naive quotes I've read here. Sorry Kung Lek, but you just can't spread the love to some people. You will not be putting your arm around Sadaam, OBL, or any radical. When one group of people wants total death of another, it becomes nigh on impossible to "Diplomatically" resolve differences.

Hey, I'd love to live in a fairytale land too where everyone loves each other and there is no violence. But when the whole world, or many in it don't feel that way, well, that's how most wars start.

eulerfan

02-13-2003, 12:06 PM

I do live in a fairy tale world. In it, there was once a fairy prince named Mahatma Gandhi. In it, there are people who believe that you can 'spread the love' to anybody. It takes more strength, cunning and determination than going to war. It's is much easier to believe that it's impossible because, though possible, it is incredibly difficult.

And, I guess we're qualifying everything on this thread, right?

So, JMHO or what have you.

red5angel

02-13-2003, 12:14 PM

I believe that peaceful solutions are always possible but sometimes not expedient and not always the 'best' possible outcome.
For instance if you have a leader who is committing genocide in his own country, do you push for peaceful means no matter what? Or do you eventually go in with the use of force?

eulerfan

02-13-2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Stop it euler, you can't fool me. I know at the core you are a rat, pinko, commie, America-hating, Laden-Loving......

Ummmm....

Yeah....

Laden is a communist loved by ****sexuals? I've got to start paying more attention to the news.

;)

ewallace

02-13-2003, 12:22 PM

And, I guess we're qualifying everything on this thread, right?
Nope. However, since I support war in certain forms, I was told that I was stupid, which is generally something I respond to.

I'd love to settle the worlds' differences with love and communication. However, I won't risk my entire family being slaughtered in a communications breakdown, which pretty much rules out having a Radical Islamic Outreach Program hosted at the Wallace house anytime soon.

eulerfan

02-13-2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by red5angel
I believe that peaceful solutions are always possible but sometimes not expedient and not always the 'best' possible outcome.
For instance if you have a leader who is committing genocide in his own country, do you push for peaceful means no matter what? Or do you eventually go in with the use of force?

Well, now, we never really do it. We don't seem to have any idea how to do it with small stuff. Of course we so clueless about how one would do it with a Hitler that it seems totally implausible.

I'm talking about learning to walk, here. Let's not even worry about performing 'swan lake' just yet.

Mr Punch

02-13-2003, 12:26 PM

hosted at the Wallace house anytime soon...

Man, your name is Wallace? And all the time you were passing yourself off as Ewallace. Terrorist.

dnc101

02-13-2003, 12:28 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Design Sifu
On education & Teachers vs. Bombs... Mostly speaking off the cuff, My biggest personal gripe about the "leave no child behind" thing (from what little I've read/heard about it).. is the mandatory requirement of all students' contact info being passed to military recruiters on threat of suspension of funding. Seems a little heavy handed.

Here again, we have a point of agreement. Having fought OBE in its myriad forms, I can tell you that this is absolutely benign compared to where those in power (and I'm not talking only Dems or Reps here) are taking us. In OBE's final stages, a child entering school would be assigned a bar graph code. Every test, assignment, punishment or award in his educational career would be scanned into a permanent record. Included would be psychological exams and assesments of his values. This record would be public knowlege, available especially to government agencies and potential employers. That example itself is mild compared to some of the things I learned, first hand, from their own documents and manuals. Several teachers risked being fired to give us those manuals to be passed on to state and national organizations fighting OBE.

While I think the war effort is right, and I support it, I am not blind to the danger that outright totalitarian laws are being sliped past us while we argue. Again, I urge everyone on both sides to contact your elected officials and protest any infringement on our freedom or liberty. You libs can tell them you heard this from a raging conservative. I'll tell them I got the idea from a wild liberal who was shaking his fist at me. The main point being that we are united on this issue!

Oh, by the way, I wasn't offfended. But thanks for the appology.

red5angel

02-13-2003, 12:38 PM

eulerfan - gotcha. Although I have to say I dont think it can be done with Hitler types really. The problem is that while we may be of a peaceful state of mind, it takes both parties to tango and all you can do is lay siege at that point and wait for the guy to die.
Basically I guess what I am getting at is that while a peaceful answer is most preferable, it may not always be possible and we have to be prepared for either outcome, and as you stated, attempt the peaceful solutions first.

eulerfan

02-13-2003, 12:45 PM

r5a,

Sure, it might not be. I don't know.

The problem with Hitler types and Laden types is that they are capable of convincing people to do things, horrible, horrible things. They have to get their whole army/country behind them. And they do.

They speak that well. That's how dangerous sophistry is.

You know, since we're on the subject of that god d@maned essay.

:D ;)

@PLUGO

02-13-2003, 12:49 PM

What is this OBE!?!?
sounds horrid!!!

red5angel

02-13-2003, 01:20 PM

LOL! yep, Hitler was a genious when it comes to speaking to people, he knew when and where and what to say. With guys like him and bin laden it helps they have a small populace who share similar beliefs to get it started, start a small brushfire and it may turn into a forest fire!

eulerfan

02-13-2003, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by ewallace

Nope. However, since I support war in certain forms, I was told that I was stupid, which is generally something I respond to.

My comment was actually a dig at the little 'every opinion is valid so you can't talk about what you believe to be true as though it's a truth' turn the thread took.

Everybody started saying, "It is my opinion that...."

I find it kind of trying.

dnc101

02-13-2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Design Sifu
What is this OBE!?!?
sounds horrid!!!

Outcome Based Education

They've changed the name several times, but the basic program is the same. It is education based entirely on shaping a childs social values and restructuring the social mores of our country. This program is wholeheartedly endorsed and supported by the NEA (teachers union). Some of its features:

It teaches sight reading- pick out as many words on a page as you want, or can recognize, in any order, and you fill in the blanks. No matter what you come up with, you are correct. You can't tell a child he is wrong as it might hurt his self esteem. At one time, we had a tape of a speech by the chief archetect of this reading program. In it, he stated the programs purpose- that there is no greater form of censorship than a populace that can't read. He also said,"You can't tell me that isn't the purpose, because I wrote the carriculum." (This man was a Catholic,and got a conscious about what he was doing. He obviously left the program).

Math and science are approximate disciplines- they actually put this out in full public view in the written objectives in one school I dealt with: 'The objective for students passing a math or science class is that they be able toapproximate well.'

Children are regularly tested on their values and beliefs, and those deemed 'at risk' are sent to counciling. What type of child is at risk? In their words, all children are at risk.

In most states it is against the law for a teacher to remove a child from school without the parents consent, a court order, or emergency. But with OBE, there is (in its final stage of emplimentation) a DSHS (social services) office on campus. The teacher can take the child there, and once with the DSHS rep, that child is no longer considered to be on campus. The rep can remove that child and is under no obligation to notify the parents. You simply come home and find out that your child is missing. You have no idea why. There have been cases where this has happened and it took years of legal battles to get the child back.

This isn't even the tip of the iceburg. George Orwell, or even Machiaveli couldn't have immagined this system. Every where it is tried, it is eventually thrown out. But the dammage it does is incalculable. The new tactic is to revert to a more incrimental implementation. Use things like the War on Terror as a smoke screen to put in little things like making records available to recruiters. Once they have the precident, ... .

Edit: I should add that it has been many years since I was involved in this issue. Some things have probably changed. But one thing I'm sure of, these people never give up. They are the most rabid of the left wing, the ones who'd turn the stomache of anyone here if you actually saw what they were about. They put on a liberal facade to achieve their ends. But they aren't liberals. If conservatism makes a better cover at some point, I'm sure they would changetheir stripes.

Braden

02-13-2003, 02:58 PM

Mat

"I'm well aware thank you. The British government of the time made a bad situation worse. It did not create it."

How did it not create it? It invented Israel out of a place where the Palestinians had been living for thousands of years.

"Why would this follow?"

I'm asking you if that's what you believe, not claiming you believe it. I didn't think you'd respond 'Yes, we should forget all those things, they don't matter'; rather, expected you to reply, 'No! Of course not!' - in which case, I'd have to ask: Why are those different? So, I'll take your response as a no, and ask: Why are they different?

"When were the Highland clearances again?"

I think most people consider the main period to be a hundred years between mid-1700s and mid-1800s.

"And perhaps you can tell me how we can help the plight of the native Americans now? The Kurds? The Shiites? Oh yeah, by pointing our fingers and wagging our beards with all the benefit of hindsight but still somehow managing to fall back on unsupported rhetoric."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

We're currently going to war to help the Kurds and Shiites.

"Of course, how we act on it is still going to be a matter of opinion, but at least I would hope that it's better supported by knowledge than centuries-old prejudice and rivalries."

Who is supporting prejudice and rivalries?

"I'm not distinguishing. And yes, I am undereducated on this part of history. But the Scottish side of my family were and still are from the Highlands. Are we only to listen to those who were dispossessed?"

No, but you should certainly keep in mind who you are listening to when you ask them specific questions. The lowlanders and highlanders would obviously have very different views of the british involvement in their culture; which is what you were making a claim about.

"Fine. I said learn which implies pretty strongly the opposite of forget."

So what's the problem?

Braden

02-13-2003, 03:07 PM

Kung Lek

"I would be very surprised if Blix finds anything that the Bush administration is saying is in Iraq."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=736&e=10&u=/ap/20030213/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_missiles

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=736&e=10&u=/ap/20030213/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_inspectors

"My opinion is that war is stupid and it is stupid people who support it in any form. It is an act of desperation carried out by people who are incapable of resolving things in a better way. They are incapable because they are ignorant and fearful of that which they do not understand."

Yes, war is always bad. It's just sometimes less bad than the alternatives. No one supports war. They just support it over the worse alternatives.

David Jamieson

02-13-2003, 06:18 PM

ok, so here's what I know for sure-

war is not a solution

the Bush administration has no irrefutable proof of anything.

The missiles that were found have no guidance system and have extended perhaps 10-15 km over the allowed range of 150km :rolleyes: Truth is, any missile system without a guidance system will behave in this way frequently. Again this is typical obfuscation coming out of how the current white house administration figures the american people and the rest of the world are stupid enough to think that what they say doesn't need to be substantiated.

Of the 41 or 42 members of the current Bush administration, each and everyone of them was in the Oil business.

The food for Oil project is about the same as the opium for tea deal that spraked the wars in China.

I do not for one second trust the Bush administration.

I do not condone my own governments participation in any unilateral american lead effort to further oppress in the middle east. I speak against it at every opportunity to do so.

Blix hasn't found a thing that the Iraqis haven't given up in their documents or by their own indications.

Warmongers are idiots.

People who at this point in the game think that Iraq is a threat to the States or the world are in dire need of taking a reassessment of the situation and getting of the teat of "white house news radio"

I am not a Liberal.

I am not a conservative.

I am tired of the geopolitics of the few determining the peace, safety and happiness of the rest of us.

George Bush isn't worthy of the office he currently holds and if Americans were truly civilized they would impeach his ass as soon as possible.

For those of you who think it is "ignorant" to be against war in the current situation. I can only have pity for you. You are blind and need help but will not take it and therefore will continue to trip over your own hubris again and again. Perhaps when your friends die in this "needed war" you will reconsider as their bodies get shipped home in bags. In many cases from friendly fire, not unlike the last incursion in the middle east.

until then...

cheers

Braden

02-13-2003, 06:28 PM

"war is not a solution"

It certainly _sometimes_ is the best of bad solutions available, right?

"the Bush administration has no irrefutable proof of anything."

The Shiites and Kurds seem to think otherwise, don't you think? The UN seems to think otherwise, don't you think?

"The food for Oil project is about the same as the opium for tea deal that spraked the wars in China."

That's not true.

In China, we got them addicted to opium because we had nothing to trade that they wanted. Then we traded them opium for the things of theirs we wanted.

In the Food For Oil project, they allready want food, desperately. And they certainly should want food, for their health and the health of their nation, right?

This seems like a fundamental difference.

"I do not for one second trust the Bush administration."

Who does? That's not the issue.

"I do not condone my own governments participation in any unilateral american lead effort to further oppress in the middle east."

What's unilateral about it? If it's with the favor of your country and several others, by definition it's no longer unilateral. Since so far the US position has been exactly the UN position, it's not even contrary to the UN, let alone unilateral.

"Blix hasn't found a thing that the Iraqis haven't given up in their documents or by their own indications."

The issue is that the UN wants Iraq to disarm.

Iraq doesn't want to, and won't just if we ask nice.

So the UN has to 'ask' under the threat of military power.

As a direct result of the imposing threat of military power, Iraq is finally agreeing to UN demands which were made a dozen years ago.

This is exactly how the process was meant to work. What error are you finding in it?

"Warmongers are idiots."

Anything mongers are idiots; presuming we define 'mongering' as demand for a certain thing or action despite obvious superior alternatives.

"People who at this point in the game think that Iraq is a threat to the States or the world are in dire need of taking a reassessment of the situation and getting of the teat of 'white house news radio'"

Do the Kurds and Shiites fall in this category? Do the Israelis? Does Turkey? I'm not being facetious or rhetorical.

"George Bush isn't worthy of the office he currently holds and if Americans were truly civilized they would impeach his ass as soon as possible."

According to who? _You_? George Bush is the legally elected official of the Unites States of America. What right does anyone have to deny that?

"I can only have pity for you. You are blind and need help but will not take it and therefore will continue to trip over your own hubris again and again."

Come on. Are these kinds of comments needed?

Laughing Cow

02-13-2003, 06:36 PM

Looking at all the Data and Info out there.

Here is the picture I see at the moment.

The US Goverment at the moment has their own agenda for their role in the world, don't know what it is and I guess nobody besides the real movers and shakers really does.

AS for the IRAQ issue, IMHO, I think that the war has been planned and that the war machine started grinding some time ago and it has become too late to switch it off.

Problem being that the US Goverment counted on support for their effort by a given date which would than co-incide with them attacking IRAQ.
This hasn't happened and thus we see the current flurry of activity to gain support.

Latest reports indicate what the plans are for IRAQ after the war:

Powell told the House Budget Committee that if war comes and is won, a U.S. military leader would take temporary charge of Iraq. That person would give way to a prominent American or international figure, whose own term would be limited with an eye toward turning over the government to the Iraqis themselves, the secretary of state said.

The US Goverment sez that IRAQ will disarm either by themselves or by force.
Now the way I see force is that you need to occupy IRAQ and oversee the dis-armament yourselves.

If not you are back at the current situation with the Weapons Inspectors just that a new figure head runs IRAQ than.

As Bush issued his call for unity, the administration said Americans should be prepared for "a fairly long-term commitment" in Iraq if the United States goes to war.

There are other things and developments that make me really think about what is truly going on.
No need to list them as they should be obvious to the objective mind.

This here should worry US Taxpayers:

Secretary of State Colin Powell told the House Budget Committee he had no estimate of the cost of war with Iraq.

I hope you are just as much confused as I am as to what is really going on.

Just my Opinion and viewpoint naturally.

rogue

02-13-2003, 08:12 PM

I wonder what the Shia News thinks of Sadaam? (http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000346.php)

David Jamieson

02-13-2003, 08:51 PM

nobody is saying saddam is a good guy rogue.

nobody said the shah of iran, noriega, amin or many other past and present leaders are good for their own people or contributors to the rest of the world.

What is at question is why Iraq? Why now?

You give us a link that clearly shows that Saddam has commited atrocities in his own country. What was done about those atrocities when they occured?

What was done when the Shah of Iran was torturing and killing his own people?

What is ever done by anyone so long as it doesn't effect their own lifestyle at home? Usually nothing.

Now, that Iraq is threatening the oil supply of not only the west, but many nations, it seems it is imperative that action be taken?

These kind of ideals are misplaced in my perspective. The actions and sanctions should have taken place long ago, even before the Gulf war of 91. They didn't. But when Kuwaiti oil fields were taken in the dispute, well, that was the reason the Gulf war happened.

2 million people have died in the conflicts in the congo so far, what is being done to right that? Not much, because there is no monetary interest there.

Somalia was a mistake, the Sudan, the lenient treatment of the Sauds, the meddling in central america, all of it is a large black stroke of paint across the credibility of the Countries who participate. There is as much shame in turning an eye to these tragedies as there is to declaring war because the price of gas is getting to high.

It clearly points to our falabilities as human beings, and our inability to work from higher ideals. I can only hope that such a day will come when there is no longer these types of behaviours and actions taken by any nation's elite. Sadly, I seriously doubt that this will occur in my lifetime.

cheers

Mr Punch

02-14-2003, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Braden
Mat

"I'm well aware thank you. The British government of the time made a bad situation worse. It did not create it."

How did it not create it? It invented Israel out of a place where the Palestinians had been living for thousands of years.

I thought we'd all agreed on this on a thread about a year ago... The 'Palestinians' are comprised of diverse nomadic tribes, a few of which settled in the area on occasion. There were tensions between Jews and Arab tribes in that region for centuries, since the Roman Palestinate (which was the last time Palestine was even recognised as an independent even semi-autonomous region before the Balfour Declaration). The Ottoman Turks who ruled the area for 400 years didn't consider Palestine as a place, or Palestinians as a people, but two thirds of it as Syria.

So no, I'm not denying that Israel was formed by the British (and the UN mandate of 1947), and I'm not saying I agree in the slightest. But what I'm saying is, there were many problems for many centuries which were getting worse before the British intervened. I then said that they got worse afterwards.

Tell me if this is difficult to follow and I'll try again (and no, I'm not being facetious!).

"Why would this follow?"

I'm asking you if that's what you believe, not claiming you believe it. I didn't think you'd respond 'Yes, we should forget all those things, they don't matter'; rather, expected you to reply, 'No! Of course not!' - in which case, I'd have to ask: Why are those different? So, I'll take your response as a no, and ask: Why are they different?

LOL!:D Why are people different?

Why are the situations of the native Americans, the Shiites and the Highlanders different? Are you serious?!

They are all examples of tyranny and injustice. OK. Other parallels can be drawn, but... What do they have in common that is useful in helping their situations now?

"When were the Highland clearances again?"

I think most people consider the main period to be a hundred years between mid-1700s and mid-1800s. Thanks, and apologies: then I was being facetious. The different time-scales (thus moral perspectives) of all of these different examples of injustice further highlight to me how useless it is to draw general conclusions on current problems.

"And perhaps you can tell me how we can help the plight of the native Americans now? The Kurds? The Shiites? Oh yeah, by pointing our fingers and wagging our beards with all the benefit of hindsight but still somehow managing to fall back on unsupported rhetoric."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

We're currently going to war to help the Kurds and Shiites.
I was saying that the man who wrote the original article was falling back on unsupported rhetoric (though maybe I was wrong... falling back would imply that he'd started from a more educated perspective), as were a lot of his supporters on this thread, and that the supporters were also misusing historical examples.

As for helping the Kurds and the Shiites, I'm sure opinion is divided as to whether war would be the best way. And as for why we are going to war, I would like to believe the same as you, but truth is, I don't know why 'we' are going to war. Neither of these argument points have anything to do with my original point about the original article and the thread. Please see below for a reiteration.

"Of course, how we act on it is still going to be a matter of opinion, but at least I would hope that it's better supported by knowledge than centuries-old prejudice and rivalries."

Who is supporting prejudice and rivalries?
Just about everybody who has responded to this thread, either pro the article or con.

"I'm not distinguishing. And yes, I am undereducated on this part of history. But the Scottish side of my family were and still are from the Highlands. Are we only to listen to those who were dispossessed?"

No, but you should certainly keep in mind who you are listening to when you ask them specific questions. The lowlanders and highlanders would obviously have very different views of the british involvement in their culture; which is what you were making a claim about.Looking back at my posts, I fail to see where I was claiming anything about English involvement in Scottish culture. I was implying that it is only the more rabid Scottish nationalists who are still actively and seriously antagonistic towards the English.

"Fine. I said learn which implies pretty strongly the opposite of forget."

So what's the problem?
I don't have one. And it seems as though we agree on a lot of things... I will reiterate, however that I think this thread is a waste of time. I even agree with some of what the original article's writer had to say. But I do not agree with the antagonistic tone, which has just continued everybody's knee-jerk responses and has not contributed any useful discussion. As I have allowed myself to be dragged into this farce, I am now getting dragged into answering questions that are not relevant to my original point or the thread, but I feel I am in good company. However, as I do not want to further contribute to this meaninglessness when I could be achieving just as much towards world peace by talking about Underpants Gnomes on the other thread!

If you have any more questions about my stance, I might come back to answer them.

Braden

02-14-2003, 02:24 AM

Dude, I think you must have just not read the thread properly. I never said a thing about the article. The stuff about the Scottish came up in a tangent with Kung Lek about Canadian culture.

I can understand if you were ****ed at the article, then skimmed the thread you might make that mistake.

If I'm mistaken here and there's something to discuss, please tell me.

BTW, I'm sincerely sorry you read in an antagonistic tone to my posts. I assure you I come straight out and say any antagonistic thoughts I have.

Merryprankster

02-14-2003, 03:43 AM

You're right Kung Lek, it's all about the oil necessary to fuel a consumer lifestyle. I wish I'd seen that in the beginning. It's quite clear to me now that wealthy and powerful people in a free society who have the ability to invest their money and influence would never consider the energy sector, and oil specifically, as a potential market for their resources because we all know it's a shaky investment. It's also quite clear that these same wealthy and powerful people would never be considered for high-level executive positions in a business-friendly administration unless there were a grand plot to control the oil supply of the world and thus increase their profits at the expense of human life and welfare.

I think I'll write a book to expose this obvious conspiracy. I'll call it "Even Though the United States Government Leeks Classified Information Like a Sieve, Here's What the Largest Issue of the Day, War With Iraq, is All About--a Giant Cover-Up!!!"

Or is that too wordy?

KC Elbows

02-14-2003, 07:35 AM

Merry,
Nah, it'll just have to be a coffee table edition to fit the title. And, if you could try to fit in a chapter about Aleister Crowley's involvement, it would be much appreciated.

red5angel

02-14-2003, 07:48 AM

Kung Lek - "Truth is, any missile system without a guidance system will behave in this way frequently"

So up until guidance systems were installed, missiles had an accuracy of 10-15 km?

"Of the 41 or 42 members of the current Bush administration, each and everyone of them was in the Oil business"

Oh right I forgot this war was about oil. :rolleyes: Funny though, they say SIberia is stock full of oil but we never went to war with the Soviet Union...

"You give us a link that clearly shows that Saddam has commited atrocities in his own country. What was done about those atrocities when they occured?"

2 words, Desert Storm. Oh wait, that was about oil too wasn't it?

" million people have died in the conflicts in the congo so far, what is being done to right that? Not much, because there is no monetary interest there."

Not too mention those in the congo aren't supplying and training terrorist.... which brings me to-

"What is at question is why Iraq? Why now?"

Sept 11th 2002, roughly 3000 deaths in an act of terrorism by terrist Iraq has been known and confirmed to support in the past with resources and training.

LC- "The US Goverment at the moment has their own agenda for their role in the world, don't know what it is and I guess nobody besides the real movers and shakers really does."

Right, it's all about the oil, haven't you been paying attention?

"No need to list them as they should be obvious to the objective mind."

again, hypocrisy and irony reign supreme...

Braden

02-14-2003, 11:32 AM

"You give us a link that clearly shows that Saddam has commited atrocities in his own country."

Wow. I must have missed that one.

I'm guessing you don't count any result of invading Kuwait nor the Iran-Iraq war as an atrocity. Sounds a little arbitrary to me, but we'll stick to the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq.

I would have figured that their support might be a somewhat obvious indication of how the feel (not to mention Turkey's and Israel's support, but we'll stick to inside the borders of Iraq).

Since you want links though:

From the globe and mail: http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurdistanobserve/26-12-01-opinion-romano-us-kurds-saddam.html pertinent quotes: "they [Iraqi Kurds] loathe Mr. Hussein (he dropped chemical weapons on them in 1988, part of a genocidal campaign that killed 100,000 to 200,000 Kurdish civilians)..." "Israel and the Shah's Iran persuaded Iraq's Kurds to rise up against Baghdad, but then changed their policies on the issue and left the Kurds to be crushed by the Iraqi army..." "...When Shia Muslims in the south, along with the Kurds, followed his advice, they were left holding the proverbial bag, to be slaughtered by Mr. Hussein's Republican Guard." ...

I'm not entirely sure why you're unfamiliar with this, as it's not even remotely obscure. (This was from the first link Google shows for kurds+saddam)

Want more?

@PLUGO

02-14-2003, 12:49 PM

"What is at question is why Iraq? Why now?"

Sept 11th 2002, roughly 3000 deaths in an act of terrorism by terrist Iraq has been known and confirmed to support in the past with resources and training.

I thought British Intelligence only just admitted that they have yet to find any solid "proof" of a connection between Iraq and 9/11 Al Queada etc...?

Article here... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42276-2003Feb7?language=printer)
"The incident also opened a rare window on what seems to be a dispute about Iraq between the prime minister's office and British intelligence services. The spy agencies have been much more cautious than Blair in their assessment of Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction and links with the al Qaeda terror network.

In another apparent example of feuding between Downing Street and the British intelligence world, sources in the Defense Ministry earlier this week leaked to the BBC a classified assessment by a British intelligence agency that there were no current links between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda. The report appeared to contradict Blair's claims that Baghdad was giving shelter to al Qaeda operatives.

red5angel

02-14-2003, 12:52 PM

DS - there is no "proof" that Iraq was involved in 9/11 directly because they weren't, but I can tell you beyond the benefit of the doubt that Al Quaeda training camps were and are located in Iraq with Saddams blessing and that many of these camps are provided with monetary as well as other resources to continue training terrorists. There are other countries on that list by the way, Iraq just happens to be the largest and richest of them

@PLUGO

02-14-2003, 01:12 PM

well I just came accross this article (http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,892112,00.html) which not only stats the oppost... but along with this one (http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/6743/1.html) and these (http://cryptome.org/mi5-verio.htm) seem to imply that not only are they ****ed about people noticing this slips they're stilltrying hard (http://cryptome.org/mi5-verio.htm) to make such connections... as well as seal up such leaks...

Haven't fully read all this stuff.... but I thought it work noteing.

David Jamieson

02-14-2003, 01:35 PM

There is no proof.

Mat- do you honestly think that the U.S is trying to start a war with Iraq to help the Kurds and Shias? They haven't even been mentioned so far in the show of the so called evidence.

Merry- Surely you can see this is truly about oil and not about wmds. If the US wants to know where saddams weapons are, I'm sure they can find out right quick. Even Ritter agrees with Blix that there is no substantial evidence and Scott Ritter was the singularly most agressive inspector ever in Iraq. Just months ago he sat in front of the US people and clearly stated what he knew, and he was right there doing the inspections day in and day out.

He was also an American, but apparently, this is unwelcome news. Since then, he (Scott Ritter) is not being given air time, how strange!
It seems like the Bush administration is just itching for a fight for some reason that the rest of us are as of yet unaware...unless of course it is the Oil reserves there?

I was very happy with my own Prime minister's statement last night that the rest of the world is not so ready to quickly jump into this with the Bush admin. Good on him.

Braden, I am well aware of the situation that took place in Kurdistan. Please do not take what I say out of context. The entire post was inclusive to the thought being put forward.

The evidence that Powell presented to the UN was ridiculously loosey Goosey. I think it was said best when there was a statemnt issued that said "any third rate spy store could produce that evidence". I tend to agree. The argument for war with Iraq based on them disobeying the UN resolution is weak.

As for the missiles and the lack of guidance systems, this statement I made is clearly misunderstood.
The missile will fly until the fuel is spent. the Iraqis possess a missile which has no guidance system. It is surface to surface. It is the UN that stated they may only have missiles that fly 150 kms
Their tests showed that the missiles they had were flying between 160 and 175kms. This is because you cannot have absolute accuracy without guidance systems installed on board to the missiles and they are targeted using ballistics instead of lasers or what have you. Is this clearer?

I would also add that It was the Iraqis who told the UN about this problem they are having with the systems.

So, once again I will reiterate. Saddam is a **** to be sure, but he is no more a **** than many other national leaders worlwide. He is definitely no more of a **** than any other middle eastern leader. Or African Leaders or Western leaders. They all have skeletons in their closets.

To reference WW2 is not so out of line either. There are plenty of reminders and indicators from that war which are still useful analogies in context to this current situation.

The wars of a thousand years ago, or more than a century ago are however in my view irrelevant except for the lessons learned.

Regarding the founding of Israel:

After World War II the Zionist movement intensified its activities. The sufferings of the European Jews at the hands of the Germans demanded the opening of a refuge; the stiffening opposition of the Arabs increased the urgency. At this time the World Zionist Congress was divided, the Revisionists demanding all Palestine and the General Zionists reluctantly accepting the United Nations plan to partition Palestine (see Israel ). After the Jewish state was proclaimed (May 14, 1948), the Zionist movement was forced to reevaluate its goals.

Against those who argued that the simple expression of support for Israel was sufficient for affiliation, the movement's 1968 Jerusalem Program defined the goal of personal migration to Israel as a requirement for membership. However, most Jews in the United States and other Western democracies seemed content to support the Zionist movement as a means of supporting Israel, without any personal commitment to living there. The Zionist movement today facilitates migration to Israel and supports Jewish cultural and educational activities in the diaspora.

Ok, I still am not swayed to the idea that war with Iraq is a solution.

Anybody got anything that isn't just Bush rhetoric?

Anybody got any hard evidence that continued inspection and sanctions aren't worth the efforts?

Anybody got any evidence that perhaps a non military action is the best solution to this?

Anybody notice the price of gas today?

cheers

Braden

02-14-2003, 01:46 PM

This, copied over from the other thread, because it seems to me it might clarify (re: Kung Lek's last post) just exactly this pre-war phase we are in is all about... specifically, I think it answers the questions he poses at the end:

Yes, I agree. There's alot about the way the Bush administration is handling this that I don't like. But when I compare it to the Clinton administration, I come up smiling...

You have to realize though that what you (and I) find grating about the Bush administrations approach is, no doubt, a carefully considered tactic.

Bush has to whine and shout about what he's doing.

Solving this without open war is dependant entirely on Saddam being scared enough of real war to cooperate with the UN. The more Bush whines and shouts, the more scared Saddam gets: the more likely he'll cooperate with the UN -> the more likely there'll be no war.

Then, if there is a war, the serious 'complication' of the war is potential fighting in Baghdad. The US (et al.) can easily take all of Iraq up to the gates of Baghdad, but the Republican Guard can hold Baghdad. (By which I mean, they can hold it such that there would be horrendous causalties on both sides; and the US cannot bomb, besiege, artillery, or heavy armor strike the city due to the horrendous loss of civilian life and property). At this point, it's kind of a bluff game. So long as the Republican Guard is determined to hold Baghdad, there's nothing the US can do. What they are dependant upon is a) some degree of uprising and resistance against Saddam among the Sunnis in Baghdad, and b) the Republican Guard being so scared of the States that they don't hold their ground. No one knows how likely these things are. But they do know that, the more we shout and whine about war, the more likely they become. This means that it's more likely the war is over quickly, with minimal losses (for both sides; and especially minimum Baghdadi civilian loss).

It's easy just to shout warmonger. The actual situation is much more complex.

red5angel

02-14-2003, 02:06 PM

DS - having spent 4 years studying terrorist and terrorist habits, tactics, etc...in the USMC, I can tell you that you shouldn't believe everything you read. Besides if I looked hard enough I am sure I could find plenty of articles for you to point the opposite as well, funny thing the media.

Kung Lek - maybe you have been paying more attention to the media then you have to the state of the world currently? Iraq is responsible for supporting terrorism. You could argue that all you want but what do you think a guy like Saddam does when he doesn't have the ability to strike at his enemies any other way?
Gas prices? I am sure Bush didn't raise the gas prices?
What you guys are missing is that it isn't about the ban on weapons of mass destruction and it isn't about oil. America made a promise to start going after terrorist and those who support them. Shortly after 9/11 eyes turned towards Saddam, why do you think that is? Because if anyone was arond and paying attention way back in 91 these issues were argued then as well. Should we push into Baghdad since we know Saddam will always be a problem? Should we because he is one of the biggest supporters of muslim terrorists in the middle east? Should we because he will continue to oppress the kurds and those he doesn't see as fit to live in his country?

fukk you guys have real short memories...

and to be picky, a rocket has no guidance system. Also, not sure your understanding exactly how a missile works. It goes up and then comes down, but if you have NO guidance system then it is near useless since it will go up and come down in just about any location. I highly doubt the information you are getting is being reported accurately either to or through you.

rogue

02-14-2003, 02:47 PM

Scott Ritter was the singularly most agressive inspector ever in Iraq...Since then, he (Scott Ritter) is not being given air time, how strange!
Might have something to do with him having the same hobby as some guy named Neil.

David Jamieson

02-14-2003, 03:21 PM

yes rogue, that is an interestin gthing isn't it? I mean about ritter.

after he releases his views about Iraq on 60 minutes and cnn and various other news outlets, all of a sudden, whammo! He's a pedophile! And then nothing to back that up.

Pretty convining.:rolleyes:

Red5, missiles, rockets, etc. Can be laser guided from the air or from the ground.

They can also be targeted mathematically using a little thing called ballistics and stabilizers which can fairly accurately tell you where it will land.

The Iraqis do not have smart weapons by any measure and still use math and ballistics to target weapons.

so, any more hard evidence that this war is required?

Braden, I think your hypothesis is not bad. But that's one hell of a gambit to pull. I mean, hoping for the opponent to be scared is pretty risky.

cheers

@PLUGO

02-14-2003, 03:31 PM

well.... don't believe everything you read/hear....funny thing the media.
:p

red5angel

02-14-2003, 04:05 PM

kung lek - 9/11 is as hard as it needs to be for me. how many more deaths before you are convinced?

Black Jack

02-14-2003, 04:09 PM

I must of been watching a different report.

Blix stated today that over 1,000 units of chemical munitions are unaccounted for, not to mention german vx-nerve gas that has vanished since 1999, ummmmm.......

To say that Saddam is the same as Bush or Blair is pretty lame but so has been your whole side of the conversation IMO. Your idea of proof is Saddam coming on the old boob tube and screaming I have weapons of mass destruction while sitting on a giant missle.

Even then I doubt you would believe it.

red5angel

02-14-2003, 04:13 PM

right BJ because then it would be him just trying to hold on to his oil since this whole thing seems to be about that!

Water Dragon

02-14-2003, 04:13 PM

How many French Soldiers does it take to defend Paris?
No one knows, it's never been tried.

red5angel

02-14-2003, 04:15 PM

ROFLMAO!!!

Black Jack

02-14-2003, 04:15 PM

WD, :D

Red, Yea, thats what its about, you go ahead and believe that.

red5angel

02-14-2003, 04:17 PM

no really BJ, it's all about the oil. Why else would the US risk the lives of several hundred thousand of its soldiers? Also, why would it also risk the wrath of the united nations, the muslim world, and anyone else who has a bone to pick? It HAS to be oil!!!!

Water Dragon

02-14-2003, 04:20 PM

American Tourist: Excuse me, do you speak German

Snooty French Waiter: Of course not!

American Tourist: You're welcome

Water Dragon

02-14-2003, 04:25 PM

Believe it or not, it's actually easier (and a lot more fun) to pick on the French than Canadians.

Black Jack

02-14-2003, 04:25 PM

sorry red, I have to many thoughts of dinner on mind, I didn't pick up the sarcasm:D

WD-Shiznit

red5angel

02-14-2003, 04:26 PM

BJ - no prob man ;)

@PLUGO

02-14-2003, 05:10 PM

"Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences"

by US Senator Robert Byrd Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already strethed thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

David Jamieson

02-14-2003, 05:59 PM

wow -

those are powerful words

Water Dragon

02-14-2003, 06:30 PM

Yes, they are very powerful words. Too bad at least some of them are empty. It's pretty much well known fact that Presidential Administrations have absolutely on effect on economic cycles. In fact, the Fed only has a minute influence.

My personal opinion is this:
1. Taking out Iraq is probably a good thing.
2. Bush is an idiot who became president because his daddy wanted him to. He screwed this one up big on a diplomatic level.
3. If Bin Laden is or is not affiliated with Iraq, he will do his best to make this war happen because it fits in beautifully with his agenda.
4. There's a whole lot more grey in this area than pretty much anyone has acknowledged on this thread.
5. About the only thing we know for certain in regards to this whole issue is that the French are a bunch of idiots with no spine.

Laughing Cow

02-14-2003, 07:11 PM

DS.

Thanks, for posting that.
:)

Braden

02-14-2003, 09:47 PM

Interesting article. Too bad almost all of it is simply a lie.

There is no standard about to be set for pre-emptive attacks. Clinton has allready done this. There is no standard to be set for unilateral action. Clinton has allready done this.

Moreover, we're not at war. We're demonstrating our absolute willingness to go to war. As I have allready noted, this is a necessary step to a) minimize the chances of actually going to war, and b) minimize the suffering caused by any war that does occur.

The only thing the anti-war propaganda machine is doing is a) increasing the chance of a war, and b) increasing the chance the war will be as bloody as possible.

To put a fine point on it, the people inventing ridiculous conspiracy theories, protesting in between sips of Starbucks, and propagandizing about Bush and the US may very well be the very reason an unneeded war will happen, and the very reason a potentially short and clean war will become an absolute bloodbath.

But they feel really good about themselves. And that seems to be all that matters.

To put a fine point on it, these are the same kinds of people who got nuclear power plants shut down and replaced with coal plants in the name of saving the environment. These are the same kinds of people who intercepted food aid sent to Zambia, causing hundreds of thousands of people to starve to death, because the food was genetically engineered. These are the same kinds of people who got the "sweat shops" employing people for 10 cents an hour to get shut down, resulting in the people working for 1 cent an hour at the local factories instead.

To put a fine point on it, these are the people who value their own self-riteousness over the lives and wellbeing of the rest of the world.

These are the people who are too busy declaring how wrong everyone is to actually open their eyes and see what's going on in the world.

Hundreds of thousands of people will die because of these people. And tomorrow they will log onto the internet, or sit in their coffee shop, and feel really great about themselves for opposing everything that is wrong.

tnwingtsun

02-14-2003, 10:27 PM

"Also, why would it also risk the wrath of the united nations, the muslim world, and anyone else who has a bone to pick? It HAS to be oil!!!!"

We need more Jed Klampets with flintlocks

Black Jack

02-15-2003, 09:56 AM

Well written post Braden.

Braden

02-15-2003, 04:24 PM

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20030215/s/1045317735.4026605632.jpg

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20030215/i/1045316317.4227883084.jpg

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20030215/i/1045316078.4026613833.jpg

Way to protest war.

Good job lads.

No hypocrisy to see here, please go back to your propaganda.

David Jamieson

02-15-2003, 04:40 PM

Braden-

Do you have any context to go with those photos?

Can you also elaborate on how the Clinton adminstration has practiced first strike policy? Or pre-emptive doctrine?

Do you really think war is a solution?

It's funny, because i was watching the toob last night and it was like everyone who was for war in Iraq was doing the old "la la la, I'm not listening, I'm not listening" routine.

Plain as the nose on their faces what's the beef, but still in denial over what the sentiments of the people are. Amazing that is, simply amazing.

Talking with the Axis of Evil speech writer, David Frum (a canadian) and even he had all his facts mixed up. In the end he did even a poor job of back peddling when he was confronted with this.

The protest marches across the world today were so far, peaceful.
Reports from England were that the police said this is the Largest protest they have ever witnessed in that country.

Tony Blair was up in Scotland addressing his party and actually stated that regardless what people think, the UK should go ahead with a strike on Iraq.

Now there's a guy with an unclear view on democracy!
I believe it is the Majority the rules?

cheers

Braden

02-15-2003, 04:40 PM

BTW, I need to correct an error in my previous post. Conservative estimates of starvation in Zambia is 1.2 million people, with more liberal estimates as high as 10 million. At least they're not eating GE corn though! Job well done, Greenpeace! Now you can focus all your attention on the Iraq crisis! It really could use a bit of your guiding hand.

red5angel

02-15-2003, 04:46 PM

aaahh how else would you protest war except with violence?

rogue

02-15-2003, 05:28 PM

KL, in regards to Scott Ritter not getting the air time that he once did. How about Ritter received $400,000 from an Iraqi-American businessman with close ties to Saddam for the purpose of producing a documentary called In Shifting Sands.

Ritters other problem. (http://www.timesunion.com/aspstories/ritter.asp)

"Tony Blair was up in Scotland addressing his party and actually stated that regardless what people think, the UK should go ahead with a strike on Iraq."

Maybe old Tony knows something that we don't?

Braden

02-15-2003, 05:33 PM

"Do you have any context to go with those photos?"

They're from the anti-war protests in Athens.

"Can you also elaborate on how the Clinton adminstration has practiced first strike policy? Or pre-emptive doctrine?"

I provided links previously and you didn't reply. I don't mind doing so again though.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/clinton.02/
http://www.progressive.org/mprothschild998.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs/980820-strike7.htm
http://www.dcwatch.com/archives/election98/socialist-7.htm
http://www.af.mil/news/Aug1998/n19980820_981248.html
http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/asbombing/clintonwash.html
http://www.san.beck.org/US-MissileStrike.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98082002.htm
http://www.acronym.org.uk/29strike.htm

And so on...

The real scary thing to me isn't just that this happened. It's that the people currently ranting and protesting about Bush and Iraq have no idea that this happened. They are responsable for changing the face of the world, and they're, almost to the man, utterly ignorant of even the basics of history, contemporary affairs, politics, etc.

It shouldn't be a surprise that if you have no idea what you're doing, you're going to foul it up.

"Do you really think war is a solution?"

I really think showing an absolute willingness to go to war is a solution. I've detailed my reasoning behind this before, but will do so again if you asked.

"It's funny, because i was watching the toob last night and it was like everyone who was for war in Iraq was doing the old "la la la, I'm not listening, I'm not listening" routine.

Plain as the nose on their faces what's the beef, but still in denial over what the sentiments of the people are. Amazing that is, simply amazing.

Talking with the Axis of Evil speech writer, David Frum (a canadian) and even he had all his facts mixed up. In the end he did even a poor job of back peddling when he was confronted with this.

The protest marches across the world today were so far, peaceful.
Reports from England were that the police said this is the Largest protest they have ever witnessed in that country."

I'd just like to point out that in the above you make no actual allegations, so there's nothing a reader can consider, and nothing a reader can respond to. It amounts to only an empty negative characterization of people with opposing views than your own.

"The protest marches across the world today were so far, peaceful."

Not according to Reuters. Didn't I allready provide links on this topic?

"Tony Blair was up in Scotland addressing his party and actually stated that regardless what people think, the UK should go ahead with a strike on Iraq."

That's right, because he understands that saying anything but this will necessarily result in both war, and make the war that results a needless bloodbath.

And he doesn't want either of those things. And he's willing to put aside his self-riteousness (not to mention career) to this goal.

"Now there's a guy with an unclear view on democracy!"

No, the people constantly claiming that Bush isn't and/or shouldn't be the president of the United States (a group which includes you) don't understand, clearly, how our political system works.

Laughing Cow

02-15-2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Braden
No, the people constantly claiming that Bush isn't and/or shouldn't be the president of the United States (a group which includes you) don't understand, clearly, how our political system works.

Not really surprising considering that YOUR politial system is often NOT the same as practiced by the rest of the world.

Again a case of the US Goverment trying to enforce their standards on the rest of the world.

:( :(

rogue

02-15-2003, 05:44 PM

One other thing I don't get about the anti-war protesters. They'll protest the US going to off a dictator somewhere but you never hear them speak out against existing wars.

Maybe the human shields could make themselves available in these countries.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/so.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/rw.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ks.html

Braden

02-15-2003, 05:46 PM

"Not really surprising considering that YOUR politial system is often NOT the same as practiced by the rest of the world.

Again a case of the US Goverment trying to enforce their standards on the rest of the world."

Um... wouldn't people claiming Bush shouldn't be president be an example of the exact opposite!?

(notably: the rest of the world trying to impose their political system on the states)

rogue

02-15-2003, 05:49 PM

When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive. GWB.:D

Laughing Cow

02-15-2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Braden
"Not really surprising considering that YOUR politial system is often NOT the same as practiced by the rest of the world.

Again a case of the US Goverment trying to enforce their standards on the rest of the world."

Um... wouldn't people claiming Bush shouldn't be president be an example of the exact opposite!?

(notably: the rest of the world trying to impose their political system on the states)

Hey, I thought you Guys practiced Democratic principles thus the majority gets to say what happens.

4% of the World population don't make a majority.

Personally, I reckon that most US Presidents shouldn't have been there.
When an actor with No political training/education can become a president than I think the system is flawed from the start.

Back home If you want to become a politician you need to take certain courses at a University and be qualified.

Just my Opinion naturally.

rogue

02-15-2003, 05:59 PM

No political training/education I would call being Govorner of California pretty good training.

Laughing Cow

02-15-2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by rogue
I would call being Govorner of California pretty good training.

So he took courses on political themes at a University??

Of did he just become governor with no political training??

Laughing Cow

02-15-2003, 06:16 PM

Braden sez:

And guess what... thanks to these protesters, NATO said no!

Good job guys. Real good job.

NATO cannot act in a pre-emptive manner, it is part of their charter, as well as the UN's.

Thus we got the current conflict, because the USA wants to act in a pre-emptive manner which has NEVER been done before.

Doing Pre-emptive strikes opens up a whole quagmire of problems and pitfalls, plus WHO will decide when it is ok to act pre-emtpive and when NOT.
Plus, can it be justified morally & ethically.
The US Goverment is currently pre-emptive with their People too, hence the erosion of Civil rights and liberties.

One Turkey is attacked than NATO will act and only than.
But It cannot upgrade Turkish bases on behalf of the US-Troops that asked for it.

NATO NEVER said that they will not protect Turkey.

Get your facts straight before slamming people.

Braden

02-15-2003, 06:18 PM

Dude, yer too stoned to argue with. Sorry.

Laughing Cow

02-15-2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Braden
Dude, yer too stoned to argue with. Sorry.

Atleast I don't think that I am the righteous, all knowing dude with ALL the right answers to solve all the problems.

:D :D

Braden for US President I say.

BTW, Guys contact him to find out how I can get stoned without ever having touched the stuff.

Laughing Cow

02-15-2003, 06:38 PM

Braden.

If you want to find out some things about pre-emptive actions, tah check some SF out.

Like:
Fahrenheit 453
Minority Report
Logan's run
1984
Watership Down
etc.

Than let me know if you would like to live in such a world, where most things are controlled and supervised.

Also remember one quoe from a Book:

"All Animals are equal, but the Pigs are more equal."

Good reading and many similarities can be seen between those Books and what is happening now.

David Jamieson

02-15-2003, 08:59 PM

I'd just like to point out that in the above you make no actual allegations, so there's nothing a reader can consider, and nothing a reader can respond to. It amounts to only an empty negative characterization of people with opposing views than your own.

You don't think so? I think there is plenty to consider.

I wonder why people get frustrated at rallies and protests.I wonder who all goes. Some people just go on thechance that there will be some "action" akin to the photo Links you have posted.

I suppose, that is what can happen. Was anybody killed?

I remember the Clinton strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan. Apparently, turns out that place was something like an aspirin factory. What were the other places? I think that was wrong as well and yet another example of what heppens when one commits a knee jerk reaction.

Well, that only speaks to the reliability of the intelligence Mr. Clinton relies upon. That would be the same intelligence that Bush is relying on more or less.

You are correct, I am a peacnick of sorts and I really do think that those who want to run to war are acting foolishly and hastily.

I do not think that the deaths of servicemen and Iraqis is the answer. It is an error in thinking that blowing up the people is a solution. Surely, you can see at least that? Is that an agreeable tactic with you in solving the Hussein problem? Kill the people he holds hostage?

My disagreeance with the Bush administration does not centre on his current actions. Even before 911 I didn't think well of his ability to lead the US. I am not a Clinton fan either. My queries are not to compare the two or to say one's better than the other.

My only point is, that attacking the nation is not a solution. Bush is not a capable leader, and I am happy to see that worldwide, peace marches have been organized. This is impressive to me, this is what should be.

people everywhere just want to live in peace.

If they can capture and try Milosevic, they should do the same to Saddam. That would be an acceptable solution. It has been a continous fubar across a few administrations in the United States that has a lot to do with the fundamental structure of the foriegn policy practiced there. This is what needs to be looked at. Why is there so much hatred directed at this country? Why? People don't lash out for no reason. There must be a reason?

cheers

Braden

02-15-2003, 09:36 PM

"You don't think so? I think there is plenty to consider."

Should I hold my breath waiting for you to point any of it out?

"I wonder why people get frustrated at rallies and protests.I wonder who all goes."

This board probably isn't that bad a cross-section of the population.

"Well, that only speaks to the reliability of the intelligence Mr. Clinton relies upon."

No. It speaks to the idea of Bush making a precedent for pre-emptive and unilateral action. Which is exactly what I replied to with that point.

"I am a peacnick of sorts and I really do think that those who want to run to war are acting foolishly and hastily... I do not think that the deaths of servicemen and Iraqis is the answer."

No one does. I've elaborated several times the difference between willingness to go to war, and being in war; the difference between preparing to go to war, and being in war; and why I strongly support one. Yet you continue to reply with the above, which is a completely different issue; one which no one has ever espoused. Will elaborating upon these differences again change anything? Tell me if it will.

"Even before 911 I didn't think well of his ability to lead the US... Bush is not a capable leader."

Will you point out why?

" am happy to see that worldwide, peace marches have been organized. This is impressive to me, this is what should be."

I hope you're as impressed when there's blood in the streets of Baghdad.

Actually, I'm being facetious. I hope it makes you ask yourself if that cost of human life was worth feeling impressed with yourself now.

"people everywhere just want to live in peace."

Is that why the "protesters" in Iraq were carrying signs saying 'Bomb Israel'? Is that why Saddam is trying to genocide a race of people? Is that why he invaded Kuwait? It's all about peace?

For that matter, is that why the protesters in Athens burnt down buildings and cars?

Braden

02-15-2003, 09:47 PM

"If they can capture and try Milosevic, they should do the same to Saddam."

They would love to just shoot Saddam in the head and leave it at that. For better and worse, that's considered 'wrong' now. They can't "capture" him because he happens to be surrounded by an army. They have asked him to leave Iraq, take money with him, and head off to a tropical island somewhere to live out the rest of his days in peace, and he has declined.

"It has been a continous fubar across a few administrations in the United States that has a lot to do with the fundamental structure of the foriegn policy practiced there."

No, it has been fubar since the borders of the country were written on a map and the people there were told to obey them.

"This is what needs to be looked at."

Applied to the above: quite right.

"Why is there so much hatred directed at this country?"

Because they want to kill everyone around them. People have a problem with that.

dnc101

02-15-2003, 11:17 PM

Guys, this is not a preemptive strike. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The world kicked their butts out. We all signed a treaty. For 12 years, Iraq has consistently violated that treaty. Even if they have no WMD's, the fact that they've vascilated between interefering with inspectors and kicking them out entirely is reason enough to go to war. In fact, in this context, we aren't going to war at all- we're continuing the one that's already started but never resolved. Case closed. Give it a rest and support our fighting men for a change. I care less if you support Bush, but you antics aid and comfort the enemy, at the expense of those who are being sent to fight.

Now, a god example of a preemptive strike, and a good idea also, would be to obliterate France before they do something else stupid. France IS a terrified- I mean terrorist- nation, after all! And we have enough oil reserves. But, think about it- can you ever have enough wine?

Edit: I'm not agreeing with you that they have no WMD's. I know they do, and if you were honest about it, so do you. I'm just saying that it really is a moot point as we have reason enough even if none are found prior to our attack and eventual conquest.

Laughing Cow

02-15-2003, 11:31 PM

dnc101.

By the looks of it the majority of people on this Earth don't seem to agree with you, Braden and others.
Even a lot of Syrians don't agree with you.
Now why could that be??

Answer it for yourself.

The rest of the World couldn't give a hoot who the current US President is, therefor it is NOT an issue if we like GWB Jr. or not.

BTW, last time I checked the Incestigators were WITHDRAWN out of Iraq to make room for an US Air-strike.

Again it seems you Guys get different Info to the rest of the World.

Have fun.

dnc101

02-15-2003, 11:45 PM

Sorry LC, I forgot that you are the sole possesor of the true news.

A lot of Syrians danced in the streets on 9/11. You figure it out.

This time they came back to report, and probably to get out of the line of fire too. But a big part of their report was how, again, the Iraquis are not cooperating. And you conveniently ignore the fact that this obdtructionist behavior to and outright deportation of inspectors has been going on continually for 12 years!

Laughing Cow

02-16-2003, 12:11 AM

DNC101.

I have NO recollection of any Syrians dancing in the street on 9/11.
Last time I checked that footage was shot way before 9/11 and included Palestinians.

Neither do I have any recollection of IRAQ forcing any Investigators out of IRAQ peaceful or not.

Like I said You guys are getting different news to the other 96% of the worlds population.

But keep going and slamming us for the wrong reasons.
We are not support ers of Hussein, but we reckon that the UN & UNSC should determine the worlds fate not your Goverment.
Thus we are opposed to the IRAQ War.

But I guess you Guys will NEVER EVER get it, and thus you generate so much animosity worldwide.
Plus, that you Guys generate a LOT of problems that never need to occur.

Just another fact that you Guys seem to be confused about.

USA never won WW II the Allies(Britain, France:eek:, Russia & the USA) did, I give you the Pacific War, but not WW II.

Since you are also so clever name 3 Wars that the USA won without UN or any other allies support in the last 100 Years.

BTW, things like Somalia don't count as they were not wars.

Have fun.

Laughing Cow

02-16-2003, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by dnc101
And you conveniently ignore the fact that this obdtructionist behavior to and outright deportation of inspectors has been going on continually for 12 years!

NOBODY is ignoring nothing.

But both the UN & UNSC don't agree with your viewpoint either.

Did you realise that your Goverment is ready to use tactical nukes over there?

It is NOT just about if IRAQ is cooperating or not, but about the WHOLE future of the rest of the world too.

So stop being so anrrow-minded and see the bigger picture.
The IRAQ war will hurt international commerce for Years to come, and thus your own pockets too,

dnc101

02-16-2003, 12:27 AM

Cow,

It sounds like you aren't getting much news at all- just what fits inside your "narrow mind".

The UN seldom agrees on anything with any body. They are mostly useful as a ploy to buy time to allow us to get our troops in position to attack.

You think we're ready to use Nukes? Maybe. Bush said he hadn't ruled their use out. I personally think this is rhetoric designed to make Saddam think twice about useing those WMD's he doesn't have. But I'm not sure about that- havn't talked to him in a few days. What did he tell you?

yenhoi

02-16-2003, 01:47 AM

It is NOT just about if IRAQ is cooperating or not, but about the WHOLE future of the rest of the world too.

Not one Nation on earth acts for the benefit of the whole world. All Nations compete for the same resources. I for one do not want a government in my Nation that worries a) about how the rest of the world will feel when the next round of the game starts, or b) about how heavy the pocket books of the rest of the world will be affected when making decisions about the welfare, security, power and longevity of my own Nation.

There is no such thing as international law.

The United Nations is a western political entity, which as Braden points out often, officially has the same exact 'position' as the United States government.

Did you realise that your Goverment is ready to use tactical nukes over there?

Huh? So what? As an American citizen, I am very happy to have a strong government that I hope will use every and all means to enforce its will on other strong or not-strong governments around the world. I really doubt you will see the USofA using any Tactical nukes anytime soon, of course, I do think weapons of that sort have a huge value when it comes to having them so you can threaten others with them.

"...ready to use tactical nukes..." lol, lol, and lol. Probably would be less expensive, but I think you bleeding heart types would probably...... bleed and whine, like everything else.

USA never won WW II

Where did all the guns and rifles and bullets the brits, french (those that hadent pussed out yet..) and russians come from? Where did the steel for tanks, or the oil for fuel to run them come from? The United States of America did win WWII. You are flat out wrong.

Since you are also so clever name 3 Wars that the USA won without UN or any other allies support in the last 100 Years.

BTW, things like Somalia don't count as they were not wars.

I challenge you to name 3 wars in the last 100 years.

The United Nations doesnt give support to Nations that fight wars. The United Nations is a concept, a name, and a blue ribbon that soverign Nation's troops tie on when they transform from Soldiers to Peacekeepers.

The problems of the world today are problems today because the Empires of Europe ****ed it all up the first time around. So stop being so anrrow-minded and see the bigger picture.

The IRAQ war will hurt international commerce for Years to come, and thus your own pockets too,

You are flat out wrong. Having a pro-western government in Iraq will not be a bad thing for the western world. For someone who rattles about 'the big picture' you are pretty bound by rhethoric.

Laughing Cow

02-16-2003, 02:04 AM

Yenhoi.

You are just like the rest of the Idiots on here, rehashing Pro-War & Anti=War propaganda without thinking.

You Guys complain about the Anti-War league rehashing propaganda, problem is so are you.

Step outside the Box and see, listen what is relly going on.

But I guess you Guys can't because it scares the living bejeezuz out of you that you might be manipulated and wrong.

You can quote as much as you want, but like I said previously:

1.) If you think that the War is so ok, great & needed, WHY the heck are you guys not in IRAQ fighting it.

2.) There is a large amount of people that disagree, ever considered that they might be right??

Nuff said.

yenhoi

02-16-2003, 02:13 AM

My position is that there is no right and wrong in this situation. Or ever. One side is looking to fight a war to advance their own interests, another side is trying to stop that war to advance their own interests, others are doing whatever it is they can to advance their own interests. No one is doing anything because they really care about the other guys. Well, maybe South Africa is, but what can you expect from such a wittle country.

1.) if you think this war is so bad, why arent you in Iraq fighting against the Americans and other Idiots?

2.) There is a large amount of people that disagree, ever considered that they might be right??

Step outside the Box and see, listen what is relly going on.

Oh, okay. I see, since you cant hang with the specifics, sure.

Its seems once people get past your knee-jerk mob-mentality randomness, this is all that is left:

You are just like the rest of the Idiots on here, rehashing Pro-War & Anti=War propaganda without thinking.

!

Okay froggie.

:eek:

NYerRoman

02-16-2003, 03:01 AM

That had to be the most simplistic and ridiculous commentary on the international political realm I have seen in a while. Thank you for reminding me as to why I find people that believe in that way of thinking are not capable of actually voting for the right person in office.

Do I begin?? This old man has stated centric points due to results of military conflicts given political insurrections and militaristic means to resolve them.

Black Jack, can you give me the reasons why they came about? Start with the economic arguments, in a global context. Then speak about the political results of which. Please don't forget about the military industrial complex issue and its relation to an eventual emergence from isolation in the late 30s in the US.

This is stuff you learn in graduate school when you specialize in international economics and international political-economy at Johns Hopkins University School of Int'l Studies like I did.

Just for starters....Korea was a UN action dominated by a US domination given its presense in Japan. The factors (Black Jack, listen up now) are not just "stopping Communism and fighting the Soviets and Chinese." What are they?

cho pei.

How are people Kung Fu MArtists when they're missing the important aspect of it all?

David Jamieson

02-16-2003, 07:03 AM

Braden-

"Even before 911 I didn't think well of his ability to lead the US... Bush is not a capable leader."

Will you point out why?

from another source:

WHO WILL PAY FOR BUSH'S WAR? The Bush deficit of $304 billion, the largest in history as well as the most precipitous, (see above) is pre-budget. With the new Bush budget in place, our deficit is $5.4 trillion over ten years. (Bush is back-loading the deficit so the entire economic penality of what he is doing will not be readily apparent until after he is out of office.) Paul Krugman suggests that we count on that post-budget deficit to increase by around $140 billion evey six months, and that's based upon past behavior and does not count the Bush war against Iraq: "Independent analysts, who take into account the stuff the administration pretends doesn't exist — the war, the alternative minimum tax, and so on — think we're looking at deficits of 3 or 4 percent of G.D.P., maybe more, for the next decade. And then it will get much worse." We know that a deficit such as that which is predicted could move our country into a depression in ten or so years. But as Bush said as he was leaving Texas for D.C. when told that the state was moving into deficit spending due to his ill-advised tax cuts, "That's not my problem." To see how bad it could get, let's look at a NYT estimate of the cost of a Bush war on Iraq.

Military Deployment = $79 billion
Military Occupation = $105 billion (First 5 years only.)
Humanitarian Aid = $10 billion
Governance = $12 billion
Reconsrtuction/Recovery = $105 billion
Debt/Claims/Reparation = $361 billion
Aid To Allies = $10 billion (Does not include quid pro quo deals)
TOTAL: $682 billion

The Bush budget assumes a deficit of $5.4 trillion by the end of ten years, but the addition of a Bush Iraq war deficit of .7 trillion will push it up to $6.1 trillion, and assuming Bush will continue his ill-advised economic plans with a GOP Congress in place, the deficit by the end of his present term in office will reach $6.7 trillion. Bush plans to plunder the taxpayers' money coming in to support Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security to bring down the deficit to $3.2 trillion, but pretty much eliminating the three programs by so doing, which is his ultimate goal, thereby destroying the key economic safety nets nearly all of the poor and most of the middle class have. By then, the government will have to delete 30% of its social programs or put heavy taxation in place to avoid doing so. Given the huge deficit we will still have at that point, "the temptation to print money to pay our debts will become almost irresistible." That being the case, inflation will set in, jobs will be lost, and wages will remain fixed as prices go up. By then, of course, ex-President Bush will be saying, "That's not my problem."

-regarding:

"Why is there so much hatred directed at this country?"

Because they want to kill everyone around them. People have a problem with that.

So far, the countries around Saddam have NOT said they felt he was an immenent threat to their nations. Instead, it is the opposite when the opinions are given to the UN council. I would imagine that the Kuwaitis feel threatened though to some degree as they were the focus of Saddams wrath in the Gulf War. However, Saddam hasn't made any incursions to that country since the end of the Gulf war.

The talk of exile is just that, talk.

Again I will reiterate. I am not pro saddam. Nor am I pro war. Nor am I pro Bush.
Bush currently has the control of a larger militray machine than Saddam can ever hope of having. George Bush senior blew his opportunity to capture and Try Saddam.

It is frustrating dealing with a shadowy enemy such as we see in Bin Laden.

There is no evidence of links between Saddam and Bin Laden.

Bin Laden is operating from his erroneous interpretation fo Islamic religious doctrine and man made islamic law. (not unlike the Talmud vs. the Torah or the State law versus the Gospel or the what have you.

Bin Laden cannot by principle ally himself with a secular dictator such as Saddam.

The US and it's ability to gather intelligence is more than capable of finding out if there are wmds on Iraqi soil. They have presented what is the most flimsy "evidence" ever! some blurry photos, a couple of nebulous phone conversations that don't really say anything at all.

The missiles. Well apparently, even I got it wrong as it was recently revealed that these so called contraband missiles fly less than 12km beyond the 150km limit imposed by the UN sanctions and resolutions on the Iraqi military.

He is a toothless dictator. The incursions with the Kurds and Shias have been going on for years. It is a small and obscure conflict, of which there are 100's going on in the world right now.

The whole focus on Saddam and the reasons for that focus as expressed by the Bush administration are just plain...well, flimsy.

There is a huge difference between the folly that was Clinton ordering attacks on what he believed to be very specific targets being used by Bin Ladens group and an all out war on a Nation the size of Iraq. Apples and Oranges.

The cost in human life of this war is incomprhensible. The Nation of Iraq is weakened to the point that if there was a war, there would be total collapse in the region. The people who live there would die off from contaminated water, no food, no medicine.

George Bush has continuously disregarded the urging of many a european country to not go forward with this. He has exhibited on several occasions his fundamental inability to deal with the rest of teh world. He has exhibited to his own people his inability to deal with his own countries problems.

People who have many a legitimate lobby cannot be heard because of jingoistic war rhetoric being spewed forth all over the United States by the Right.

Th anti war protest in New York city serve as a very interesting example of how the american people see things. Clearly, even in his own country his support is waning. The american people do NOT have a resolve to go to war. For the most part, they do not want to go and they are expressing their reasons for this right now.

Every time these thoughts are put forward, they fall on the deaf ears of the administration who refuses to hear it's own people. (remind you of someone?)

Bush has nothing. If he doesn't act rashly, you will see over the next few months that the backpeddling will begin and he will need to renew his effort in obfuscating the real problems that face the American people.

I for one cannot say enough about how Bush is the WRONG man to be in the Oval office.

cheers

Braden

02-16-2003, 04:03 PM

Kung Lek

"Even before 911 I didn't think well of his ability to lead the US... Bush is not a capable leader."

Re: The deficit. It's orthodox (Keynesian) economic thought to run a deficit in recessions. Are you a Monetarist? Since you seem to lean to the left, I assumed you weren't.

"So far, the countries around Saddam have NOT said they felt he was an immenent threat to their nations."

:confused:

Do you remember the invasion of Kuwait? Do you remember the Iran-Iraq war? Do you remember the Osirak raid? Are you aware that Turkey is currently calling for the emergency defense aid of NATO?

I have no idea how you rationalize your statement with these events, they seem directly antithetical; so I don't know how to reply further.

"The talk of exile is just that, talk."

Correct, because Saddam has declined.

"George Bush senior blew his opportunity to capture and Try Saddam."

GB sr. was at the gates of Baghdad and agreed to leave Iraq be if they agreed to disarm. They agreed. This was a UN resolution. But they never followed through with it. And so we have the situation we're in now.

It's unclear to me how you would have preferred GB sr. to have acted. Would you be singing his praises had he flattened Baghdad and assassinated a foreign leader who was screaming that he'll surrender under any conditions?

"There is no evidence of links between Saddam and Bin Laden."

Nor does there have to be to relate to the primary reason behind the war. See above.

"They have presented what is the most flimsy 'evidence' ever!"

As I have pointed out before, it is a farce to believe that we are currently looking for evidence of Iraqi weapons. We know they have them. What we are looking for is evidence that they have disarmed. It's unfortunate that the media does it's best to mislead you otherwise.

"The incursions with the Kurds and Shias have been going on for years. It is a small and obscure conflict."

Thank god no one made this argument about 'incursions' against the Jews, Gays, Gypsies, etc in Nazi Germany. I'm wondering what difference people note here.

"The whole focus on Saddam and the reasons for that focus as expressed by the Bush administration are just plain...well, flimsy."

What's flimsy about holding them to the 12-year old UN agreement which they have systematically violated?

"There is a huge difference between the folly that was Clinton ordering attacks on what he believed to be very specific targets being used by Bin Ladens group and an all out war on a Nation the size of Iraq. Apples and Oranges."

Quite right. The current Iraq situation is a direct consequence of Iraq violating UN agreements. The Sudan and Afghanistan situations under Clinton were unilateral and pre-emptive. Apples and oranges indeed. The latter is absolutely unthinkable.

"The cost in human life of this war is incomprehensible."

If people who don't understand the situation continue to Bolster Saddam's position such that the Republican Guard will hold their ground in Baghdad, you're quite right. Who's hands will this blood be on though?

"George Bush has continuously disregarded the urging of many a european country to not go forward with this."

I'm assuming you mean France and Germany. He's also being urged to go along with it by Britain and Australia. So what's your point?

"Every time these thoughts are put forward, they fall on the deaf ears of the administration who refuses to hear it's own people. (remind you of someone?)"

Yes. It reminds me of every anti-war argument I've seen put forth here. The proponents of which are either unable or unwilling to reply to my questions, and their arguments depend on demonstratably absurd beliefs like "So far, the countries around Saddam have NOT said they felt he was an immenent threat to their nations", "George Bush senior blew his opportunity to capture and Try Saddam", and the farce about what constitutes negative proof of Iraq's transgressions; not to mention accepting the genocide of a people as acceptable causalties for their beliefs (something which is repugnant, at face, to me).

I keep getting told the anti-war argument is irrefutable. Ok then, why won't anyone state this marvelous argument? If the anti-war argument is so irrefutable, why do protesters burn flags, paint Hitler moustaches on pictures of Bush, and throw molotov ****tails at cars and buildings? If they have such an irrefutable argument, why don't they simply state it instead of relying about offensive, groundless propaganda and violence?

NYerRoman

02-16-2003, 04:33 PM

Branden,

I really don't have the strength right now to read everything you wrote since it's late BUT just to correct you on something that caught my eye....

You tell everyone to read up on history BUT you seem ignorant of the fact when you talk about Kuwait and the Iran-Iraq War as proof of neighbors being threatened by him.

The fact is...as you know...Kuwait was founded in the 50s by Great Britain. It was part of Iraq. When Saddam announced his intentions of annexing it again, the US State Department sent over an envoy to tell him we didn't care. The only thing was we didn't want him to touch the price of crude (which the Saudis wanted raised to 22 usd a barrel. Saddam wanted 25 AND as you know, oil is extremely elastic in price).

CNN televised and reported the meeting as it was televised on Iraqi television. Big slap in the administration's face. GB Sr tried to cover his butt stating then that democracy needed to be restored in Kuwait....but he failed to mention that it was never a democracy but a monarchy. He was caught on that one too.

SO...point no. 2. Iran-Iraq. A US promted war giving Saddam all the weapons he wanted to fight the Iranians. That's why he was such a strong US ally, apart from the fact he his a lay muslem. (You know what that means, right?).
We encouraged it b/c we are enemies with Iran. BUT OOOPS, we sold Iran weapons too after Reagan stated to all countries NOT TO. We didn't want a winner in the war afterall. Remember what that was all about....IRAN-CONTRA. Selling weapons to Iran and using the money to train and finance right-wing extremist military groups that massacred the people in the Nicaraguan country-side.

The US was condemned for International Terrorism by the World Court on 31 March 1986 exactly for this.
The only country to date to be condemned for such.

Therefore, I think your argument is a bit flaccid. In fact, neighbors are not worried. The man is in charge of a third world nation very controlled and poor. Please man....

THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE AND HOW MUCH THEIR SUFFERING. NO WAR. Enough killing. It's wrong.

Braden

02-16-2003, 04:36 PM

I'm aware and agree with the issues you bring up regarding Kuwait and Iran.

I have no idea why you think they change my argument though. At face, they don't seem to.

Simply discussing details related to an event, or pointing out other bad things that happened around those events, doesn't change the fact that those events happened, nor the impact they have made upon world affairs.

There was alot of support for Nazi philosophy in Britain before the second world war too. But this doesn't mean the Nazis were right, and it doesn't mean the Brits are responsable for the atrocities committed by the Nazi's.

Simply, these are interesting historical facts, but they don't change the argument.

rogue

02-16-2003, 04:49 PM

"George Bush has continuously disregarded the urging of many a european country to not go forward with this." Odd how only France and Germany are counted.
Poland (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?art_id=22289242)

I guess Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain aren't part of Europe. Maybe since many of these countries were recently ruled by despots they have a better perspective of what Sadaam is doing to his own people than the rest of Europe. ;)

David Jamieson

02-16-2003, 05:02 PM

More food for thought (http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20030216/focus/focus1.html) for those that support the Bush administrations position on war with Iraq.

Braden-
I have stated before that I am neither Left, nor Right in my political leanings. I try to see what is correct as best I can with the facts at hand.

You have still not provided me with any reason to support an attack on Iraq. Your words are as empty as you think Senator Byrd's are.

cheers

Braden

02-16-2003, 05:23 PM

"You have still not provided me with any reason to support an attack on Iraq."

I've tried to. I have difficulty clarifying because you don't explain what problem you have with what I say, you simply say it is wrong. I'll hope this is a simple miscommunication, rather than a tactic of closed-mindedness and silence, and try to clarify again.

Gulf War: Iraq defeated. US withdraw as their half of a unanimously supported UN agreement that Iraq disarm.

Following 12 years: Iraq systematically violates this agreement.

Now: The US is insisting this violation stops.

I'll leave it at that, rather than expound, in hopes that a simple, bare-bones, straight-forward presentation of the very basics might be easily comprehendable, or more easily lend itself to discovering a logical disagreement you may have with my position.

"Your words are as empty as you think Senator Byrd's are."

I encourage you to illustrate why.

Look back on my posts, this is the approach I have taken to your position. I don't simply call your words empty, I illustrate why I believe you are wrong, in a manner which I hopes facilitates you a) investigating my claims for yourself, b) considering my claims in light of observation and evidence, rather than only your bias to agree or disagree with me, and c) illustrate, if you have the desire and ability, why my observations are in error and/or my logic is flawed.

For instance, you claimed that Bush was setting a standard for pre-emptive and unilateral and I showed you that this was incorrect with observations that Clinton had allready done this. I get the impression that you failed to recognize what I was doing, as you replied that you had no interest in comparing Clinton and Bush. But perhaps because of that misunderstanding, it's an excellent example to show what I'm asking you for. Show me why my words are empty, don't just claim that they are.

I believe your words are empty. But I'm not just claiming it. I'm showing you, as outlined above, why each statement you make is false. You state Iraq's neighbours aren't wary of it's military actions, I showed you otherwise. You stated Europe was against Bush, I (and rogue) showed you why it wasn't. I have done this with every statement you have made. Where does this leave your argument? Still in a good position? If so, don't just claim it, show it.

We don't simply state you were wrong, we show you why.

I'm asking you to do the same with me.

If all you do is state I am wrong, you turn the debate into a simple popularity contest. Logic and observations (in short: reality) play no part in determining the outcomes to such contests. When the outcome determines loss of human life, surely this approach is an immense tragedy.

David Jamieson

02-16-2003, 05:35 PM

Braden-

You are again stating that I am simply of the position you are wrong. This is indeed wrong.

I have provided planty of information to back what I state. Are you not reading this stuff?

Double standard there dude.

I do think it is wrong to support a war wiuth Iraq. I have also reiterated with my own views and the views of others why I think this is wrong.

You feel free to go ahead and support Bush and his administration. I won't deny you that.

I see you as a sophist and one who would obfuscate the truth of the matter. But Hey, that's just me right? :) No worries there for you. I'm just a left wing hippy as far as you're concerned.

cheers man, I hope you don't have friends who are charged with having to go and fight for the chicken hawk #1.

I don't know what more to say to you. Even when the sky is blue, you will still say it's green. Enjoy your green sky..while it lasts.

cheers

Braden

02-16-2003, 05:48 PM

"You are again stating that I am simply of the position you are wrong. This is indeed wrong.

I have provided planty of information to back what I state. Are you not reading this stuff?

Double standard there dude."

Where? Quote me. Show it.

Here, I'll give you an example:

From one of my posts:
-----------------------------
Kung Lek: So far, the countries around Saddam have NOT said they felt he was an immenent threat to their nations.

Me: Do you remember the invasion of Kuwait? Do you remember the Iran-Iraq war? Do you remember the Osirak raid? Are you aware that Turkey is currently calling for the emergency defense aid of NATO?
--------------------------------

See? I don't just claim you're wrong. I show you why I think you are wrong. Bringing up multiple events to back up my position. These are things you can verify yourself, then either prove to be wrong, or attack my logic in using them.

Do you do this? Your response:

From one of your posts:
---------------------------------
Kung Lek: Your words are as empty as you think Senator Byrd's are.
--------------------------------

That's it. That's the whole thing. You don't quote any particular statement of mine to reply to. You offer no observations. You don't attack my logic. I'm just wrong.

Am I making this up? It's right here on this page. Am I wrong? Hey, quote away man. Every post is right here.

"I do think it is wrong to support a war wiuth Iraq. I have also reiterated with my own views and the views of others why I think this is wrong."

Yeah, you keep reiterating your opinion. This isn't an argument. You don't give any observations, nor any logic. Just your opinion, which you reiterate over and over again. Do you really want a conversation to go like this? What on earth can anyone learn from: "Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No." until the people involved get tired? What's the point of this?

"I see you as a sophist and one who would obfuscate the truth of the matter."

Obfuscate the truth? How!? Look at my posts man, they're littered with links to news sources so people can check in on my claims. Look at your posts: none. How on earth am I obfuscating the truth?

BTW, I don't "see you" as anything. I have no desire to label you based upon my preconceptions and interpret your views based on that label. Instead, I have and will continue to take you only for what you yourself say, and limit myself directly to responding to that. This is probably a notable difference between us.

"I'm just a left wing hippy as far as you're concerned."

Where did I claim this? Come on man, everything I have ever said on this board is on a searchable database. Search it for hippy. Don't be content to make empty claims when direct quotes are at your fingertips.

BTW, are you in Greenpeace? Just curious.

"I hope you don't have friends who are charged with having to go and fight for the chicken hawk #1."

And I hope all your friends get to live in happiness and peace. Probably another notable difference between us.

"I don't know what more to say to you. Even when the sky is blue, you will still say it's green. Enjoy your green sky..while it lasts."

Again. I provide constant external sources for everything I say. You do not. I encourage you to back up this useless insult.

Oh no wait, actually making an argument would be 'sophistry.' Better to insult others and demand your view is correct.

P.S. This is a funny note, and a perfect example of your approach to this entire topic.
You: "You have still not provided me with any reason to support an attack on Iraq."
Me: "I'll...try to clarify again.[argument follows]"
You: "I see you as a sophist and one who would obfuscate the truth of the matter."

That's it. You ask for a reason, when I give it, you ignore it and call me names. Again, a perfect little example, right on this page, of what's been your tactic all along.

Laughing Cow

02-16-2003, 05:58 PM

Braden.

Are you aware that Turkey is currently calling for the emergency defense aid of NATO?

It WAS the USA that asked for the support not Turkey.

The United States wants NATO to send early-warning aircraft, missile defenses and anti-biochemical units to Turkey in case Iraq attacks.

Also Sunday, Turkey appeared to take a step back from its already lukewarm backing of the United States, with the government saying a Tuesday vote was likely to be delayed on allowing U.S. troops to base in Turkey for war with Iraq.

Take also into account that of the countries that said they are supporting the war on IRAQ maybe a handfull will send Field Surgeons, 1 or 2 ships or a few Troops.

They are paying lip-service to NATO and the USA being new or upcoming Members.

Their support is mostly in voice only as they have NO troops, planes or other equipment that could help the war.

It is all out there in the News, written in plain balck & white.

This is NOT Anti-War propaganda but the plain facts.

Cheers.Source (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=518&e=1&u=/ap/20030217/ap_on_re_eu/europe_iraq)

Braden

02-16-2003, 06:11 PM

Laughing Cow

"It WAS the USA that asked for the support not Turkey."

Oh really? Man, you must have searched long and hard to find a source that worded it that way. Good effort.

"Crisis talks at NATO began Monday after Turkey invoked the alliance's core mutual defense treaty" from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030213/ap_wo_en_ge/eu_gen_germany_nato_turkey_2

"But after France, Germany and Belgium blocked the planning for three weeks, Turkey last Monday invoked NATO's mutual defense treaty, which bind the allies to talks when one feels threatened, but so far to no avail." from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030216/ap_wo_en_ge/eu_gen_nato_iraq_76

"After the three countries vetoed a U.S. request to start military planning last Monday, Turkey invoked Article IV of NATO's founding treaty, which allows any ally to request consultations if it feels its security is threatened." from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030215/wl_nm/iraq_nato_dc_49

"The refusal of France, Belgium and Germany to endorse any military planning for Turkey — which has requested assistance from its fellow allies — has plunged NATO into its deepest crisis since the end of the Cold War." from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030215/ap_wo_en_ge/eu_gen_belgium_iraq_2

"Crisis talks at NATO began Monday after Turkey invoked the alliance's core mutual defense treaty, but the three holdouts so far had refused to budge despite charges from the United States and the 15 other allies that continued division weakens NATO solidarity and sends a dangerous message of disunity to Saddam Hussein " from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030213/ap_wo_en_ge/eu_gen_germany_nato_turkey_3

And so on. Nearly a thousand articles on this topic from a search of the news sources for turkey+nato.

For future reference, I'm fairly convinced Laughing Cow is a troll, so I tend to ignore what he says. But I don't mean to be ignoring any pertinent issues, so if someone else thinks he brings up an important point, if they could repost it, I'm likely to respond.

Laughing Cow

02-16-2003, 06:16 PM

View from Turkey (http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/feb/030213.raz.html)

Doesn't get clearer than from the Horses Mouth directly.

;)

Just because I doesn't agree with you doens't make me a Troll.

Like Kung Lek I also post supporting Info, but I guess your sources are superior to ours AGAIN.

Can't win against a Guy like you.
Guess 10 Million people protesting worldwide against the War are ALL wrong too.

Hmmmm..

Enjoy your green sky.

Braden

02-16-2003, 06:36 PM

"Just because I doesn't agree with you doens't make me a Troll."

I don't think you're a troll because I disagree with you.

I disagree with Kung Lek, but don't think he is a troll, for instance.

I think you're a troll because you disagree with everyone and explicitly lie for the sake of extending a conversation and in an attempt to get people upset.

Remember in the other thread (Is GW Bush Cursed?), you posting, "Kung Lek. You are an idiot... So take your Books & Videos and crawl back up your hole."? In this thread you gotta change your tack to troll. How wonderfull.

"Like Kung Lek I also post supporting Info, but I guess your sources are superior to ours AGAIN."

I didn't claim to have superior sources. That's your approach. I showed why what you posted was wrong, by addressing it's claims with retorts that any reader can research and verify for themselves (indeed, I gave links for the very lazy). Your response, as usual, was to ignore the criticism and instead insult me and simply restate that you are right and I am wrong. Again, how wonderful.

I keep forgetting I'm ignoring you, sorry. Good job dragging me back in though. I'm a sucker for thinking people are actually being straight-forward and deserve a response.

yenhoi

02-16-2003, 06:41 PM

Braden,

Laughing Cow is not a troll, just 7-900 clicks past Kung Lek on the sillyness meter.

:o

Braden

02-16-2003, 06:50 PM

Maybe, man... either way, same result.

David Jamieson

02-16-2003, 08:08 PM

Again. I provide constant external sources for everything I say. You do not. I encourage you to back up this useless insult.

Actually I have provided links that counter as well as quotes. As well as my own commentary on what's being fed to us by various media.

No I am not with Greenpeace, and truthfully, I've never given them my dime. If you know what I mean.

I would also like to add that I can readily admit that tempers flair and feelings are very strong surrounding this current global situation.

People at demonstrations will lash out and have. But not to the point where anyone gets killed, unlike..well, the current agenda of the Bush administration to go and wage war.

What has the US been doing for the last 12 years that they would let the situation in Iraq get to where it is now?

You keep saying it's about Iraq's non compliance with the disarming resolution and yet it has been failure in the area of finding that they haven't.

Just suspicion that they have wmds when all the inspections and sattelites and 3rd party observers have turned up nada, nothing.
The missiles that were "found" were not found and instead were presented to the world because Iraq was concerned that they exceeded the limits imposed by the sanctions (150kms).

When the kurds were Gassed, the US wasn't prepared to do anything about that use of a wmd? i ask you why not? THis was before the sanctions, before Kuwait.

The Kuwait issue is another one entirely and there is plenty of blunders documented by daddy g surrounding that whole scenario.

I think it is a lack of focus on the real issues facing America and the Bush administrations attempt to distract with a war on terror, and to get everyone to turn their heads and look at th flock of turtles while the country slowly goes into a recession that will inevitably lead to near depression.

Drop a couple of bombs, that'll throw em off the trail.:rolleyes:

Oldest political tactic in the book.

cheers

Volcano Admim

02-16-2003, 08:31 PM

whack fOr
my daddy-O
there whiskey in the jar-O

me like sleeping
ispecialy in my mollys chamber

Laughing Cow

02-16-2003, 08:42 PM

Wonder what is being done about IRAN, since they restarted their program to enrich uranium not too long ago.
They are also mining new Uranium.

News are very quiet on this issue at the moment.

They gave the same reason for doing so as did the N. Koreans = needed elictricity generated.

Braden

02-16-2003, 08:42 PM

"But not to the point where anyone gets killed, unlike..well, the current agenda of the Bush administration to go and wage war."

There's an important difference: people will get killed in Iraq even if Bush/US/UN do nothing. The question is, what solution will result in the least suffering. To claim that anyone supporting Bush wants people to die is a straw man fallacy.

"What has the US been doing for the last 12 years that they would let the situation in Iraq get to where it is now?"

Ask Clinton.

"You keep saying it's about Iraq's non compliance with the disarming resolution and yet it has been failure in the area of finding that they haven't."

No there hasn't. You probably keep seeing on the media, quotes from Hans Blix saying "We have not found undeniable evidence of WMD programs in Iraq, we have also not found any evidence that they have been dismantled." And the media, depending on the source, is playing this either as a neutral position or a position against Bush. This is the farce which I described earlier. The farce originates from the idea that the UN weapons inspectors goals in Iraq is finding evidence of WMD programs. That's not their goal; it never was. We know those programs exist. The goal of the UN weapons inspectors is to prove that the WMD and affiliated programs have ceased, and their products been destroyed. Once you realize this, it's apparent that Blix's statement isn't the neutral or anti-Bush statement it's being played in, but rather directly supports an interpretation that Iraq is in fault.

"When the kurds were Gassed, the US wasn't prepared to do anything about that use of a wmd? i ask you why not?"

Because it was downplayed because we believed Iraq to be our allies. Was this wrong? Absolutely. Does it mean we should let them keep gassing Kurds? No.

"The Kuwait issue is another one entirely and there is plenty of blunders documented by daddy g surrounding that whole scenario."

Similarly: Have there been mishandlings of the Kuwait issue? Yes. Does this mean it's ok to kill Kuwaitis? No.

"I think it is a lack of focus on the real issues facing America and the Bush administrations attempt to distract with a war on terror"

It's a lack of focus that people have been distracted as to the true grounding of the war. To a significant extent, the Bush administration has been one of the key players in this fault. However, it was a key player because they were asked to be, and the alternative is that the ignore public inquiry into their actions, which I believe would have been an even worse fault.

"and to get everyone to turn their heads and look at th flock of turtles while the country slowly goes into a recession that will inevitably lead to near depression."

The country was allready in a recession. Bush's economic policy, which you criticized earlier, is (at least according to the orthodox Keynesian economics) the approach one takes to get out of a recession.

It's not clear to me what your stance on this issue is. Earlier you criticized a policy meant to end a recession. Now you critize him for doing the opposite. Which is it?

NYerRoman

02-17-2003, 02:40 AM

Rogue,
Most of those countries you listed have JUST been accepted into NATO and therefore cannot certainly oppose the US given their new status OR are countries trying to get into NATO.

Spain is interesting. Think hard what they might get out if it all....think south and think of a continent....SOUTH AMERICA. Right you are!!....good boy. You know the economic mess there due to countries that have elected governments the US doesn't like. Argentina, Venezuela...the oil problems there, etc. The Spanish get dibs on the investments and...you figure it out.

PEOPLE, READ CHOMSKY.....Understanding Power.....Media Control....Manufacturing Consent.

NYerRoman

02-17-2003, 02:49 AM

Branden,

It's simplistic to talk about the Kurds and "ask Clinton" when:

1. Bush Sr. renewed Saddam's trading status in 1989, after the fact.
2. He used US arms and German chemicals to do it.
3. Turkey kills more Kurds. In fact, if you speak Kurdish in public, you were arrested for terrorism. They just changed the law since they want to be in the EU. Yeah right.... But Turkey is in NATO

4. And no....we created Saddam. We can't kill more people. Enough. We refused to use diplomatic means 12 years ago even though it was offered and we are not doing it again. THAT'S what the UN is for.

We cannot be proud of this mess. Sorry. Just because things happened CANNOT be used as a justification.

Oh..and btw...how are people dying regardless of war? The embargo placed by the US for which reason the head of the UN inspectors resigned two years ago in protest of all the people, especially children, it was killing?????

And don't say it is Saddam's fault. Even if he is holding back supplies, the people would have a lot more if the embargo didn't exist. We should not be proud....

Laughing Cow

02-17-2003, 03:06 AM

Funny thing I found.

Britain, Spain & Italy are the heavy supporters of the USA at the moment.

Looking at the stats of Demonstrations over the Weekend show the following:

Rome - 1.000.000
London - 750.000
Madrid - 650.000

In the papers were the numbers for the majority of Demonstrations over the weekend.

NYerRoman

02-17-2003, 03:09 AM

Laughing cow,

I marched in Rome.
The opposition to war here is 85% with about 8% undecided.
In England it's 90%.

Crazy.
But I was counted.

cheers vacca ridente.

Laughing Cow

02-17-2003, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by NYerRoman
Laughing cow,

I marched in Rome.
The opposition to war here is 85% with about 8% undecided.
In England it's 90%.

Crazy.
But I was counted.

cheers vacca ridente.

In Japan I believe the number is also about 80%.

Looks like the numbers vary from 60%~80% worldwide.

Braden

02-17-2003, 04:14 AM

NYerRoman

Thanks for the post.

"It's simplistic to talk about the Kurds and 'ask Clinton'"

Yes, you're quite right. I felt it was mainly an entirely different (and quite involved) issue, and that Kung Lek wouldn't be that interested in a more detailed response.

"3. Turkey kills more Kurds. In fact, if you speak Kurdish in public, you were arrested for terrorism. They just changed the law since they want to be in the EU. Yeah right.... But Turkey is in NATO"

Do they kill more Kurds, or just treat them poorly? Could you offer a link or citation for the former? There's certainly a huge Kurdish problem in Turkey. Again, I feel like this is an entirely different issue; although certainly an interesting one.

What's interesting to me is that Turkey is offering remarkable support for the US recruitment of Kurdish support in Northern Iraq. One of the fears (you probably don't hear much about this in the news...) they have is that the Iraqi Kurds, now that they're armed by the US, might finish their "job" in Iraq, then turn north and start a military campaign against Turkey.

As I'm sure you know, the US is recruiting similiar support among the Shiites in the south. The complicated issue here is that it's very unlikely that either Shiite or Kurd will be put in power. Although there's alot of Shiites in Iraq, the area around Baghdad is not Shiite. Instead, we can expect another Sunni in power; just one promising to be less hostile to the Kurds and Shiites. (and especially, not a Baathist)

Given this complex state of affairs, the "interesting" thing will be to see how the Iraqi Kurds are handled when this is over. Again though, this is a whole new thread.

"And no....we created Saddam."

We didn't create Saddam. The US was certainly involved in alot of (what you and I would consider) mishandling of Saddam and Iraq in general. This is a serious issue, and one worth alot of consideration. However it doesn't excuse what Saddam is doing. Simply, because we screwed up in the past doesn't mean we should screw up again.

"We can't kill more people. Enough."

Certainly, everyone agrees we should minimize human suffering. The people supporting Bush's plan believe that it is the best way to do this.

"We refused to use diplomatic means 12 years ago..."

I don't understand your position here.

Isn't what we did 12 years ago exactly 'diplomatic means'?

"We cannot be proud of this mess. Sorry. Just because things happened CANNOT be used as a justification."

I agree completely. This is a mess. It's nothing to be proud of.

Still though, we are left with having to do something.

"Oh..and btw...how are people dying regardless of war?"

Kurds, Shiites, Kuwait, Iran, Israel... as has been pointed out, we're not worried about him having WMD, we're worried about what he might use them for. And, despite everyone's claims, the threat of him using them against the US (or Britain, etc; directly or through supporting a terrorist group) is the very least concern. The more immediate problem would be him using them against, for example, Israel. Are you familiar with the Osirak raid? It is a great historical example of how Israel feels about this.

"And don't say it is Saddam's fault. Even if he is holding back supplies, the people would have a lot more if the embargo didn't exist. We should not be proud...."

No, we shouldn't be proud. No one should ever be proud of suffering, even if it was the best option. Suffering is always bad.

Is suffering Saddam's fault? Alot of it is. He's done some terrible, terrible things. Everyone here agrees about that, I thought.

The embargos were a diplomatic effort (even though you claimed we didn't make any diplomatic efforts!) to get him to go along with the UN legislation he agreed with 12 years ago.

They're not working.

Think about what the results will be if Iraq get their way. It's a big message to the world saying: you can agree with the UN that you'll do something, then do the exact opposite. You can diplomatically stop a war (for example, agree to a surrender), then just ignore everything you promised. This is a very dangerous message to send. It undermines UN authority. It sets a precedent for other countries to follow. And it tells the UN and US that they can't trust anyone - which means the UN and US will feel more justified in the future to act unilaterally and pre-emptively. If this message is sent, it will have dramatic repercussions, not just in this one situation, but forever. It's a very serious concern.

Moreover, if indeed it's the case that the media and propaganda is chiefly responsable for altering the UN stance on the issue, what does this mean? It means the media is a greater world power than the US or the UN. The media, which is controlled by the rich, not subject to any critique, and not subject to any democratic process. Again, this is a very scary state of affairs whose repercussions would extend through history, nevermind this one event.

dezhen2001

02-17-2003, 04:20 AM

you are up far too late! :D

dawood

Braden

02-17-2003, 05:04 AM

BTW, I am not, nor have I ever been, "pro-war." I keep pointing this out, but it's ignored, largely because of people's tendancy to believe that if I disagree with what they say, I must hold the utter opposite belief.

What I believe is that Iraq must desperately be held to the promises they have to the world. Moreover, that given Saddam's fundamental untrustworthiness, he must be deposed.

Two months ago, it looked like these things could be accomplished without a war. How? By Saddam being convinced of the world's absolute willingness to go to war.

Now, this is no longer the case. Why? Because the wide-scale attacks upon Bush, the US, and their military strategy have greatly reduced this appearance of absolutely willingness.

Laughing Cow

02-17-2003, 05:32 AM

Braden.

I don't think that anyone here is truly "anti-war" either.
Simply we see War as the last resort and don't feel that the time for it has come.

Personally, I think that the War will have very negative repercusions for the World in general if done now.

Most of the worlds economies cannot afford too much upheaval at the moment and "containment" is the cheapest option.

Thus I feel the war should be about benefiting everybody and not just about deposing 1 Guy with an uncertain future to follow.

Just my thoughts naturally.

@PLUGO

02-17-2003, 01:04 PM

So many contradictions...

Personally I feel it's ludicrus to brand "protestors" on a whole for the actions of a few... to loosely quote someone from a different thred "... Anyone can be an idiot!".
Demonstraighting one's opposition to a pending war is a constitutional right that should not only be protected but encouraged, I'd be curious to see who would populate a "pro-war" rally. I'm certain there would be a huge outpouring of support if Iraqies came out to protest against Saddam... and if they torched a few cars or storefronts along the way, that would be probably overlooked.

Interesting that when the media supports a view it's offered as a link, yet when the media offers an opposing view it is met with extreme circumspection and an attitude of "don't believe everything you read."
In contrast, on more than one occasion those few who are promoting the march towards war have had their "proof" discredited. Either in the media or through the verification of historical events. These people continue to voice the same statements ignoring the continual erosion of such "credability" as well as the growing public outcry to seek out a better solution.

Still, I appriecate the growing movement towards a more respectful discourse and the presentation of sources over broadsweeping "You're a "______" because you said "_______"!!!isms.

KUDOS... all...

@PLUGO

02-17-2003, 01:17 PM

The media, which is controlled by the rich, not subject to any critique, and not subject to any democratic process. Again, this is a very scary state of affairs whose repercussions would extend through history, nevermind this one event.

I absolutely agree and offer that this very scary state of affairs is much ****her along than I, for one, am comfortable with.
Has anyone been following (http://www.iwantmedia.com/consolidation.html) the current (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_17/b3780098.htm) debate (http://news.hawaii.com/article/2003/Jan/04/bz/bz04a.html) on FCC (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june02/merging_6-25.html) regulations (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june02/merging_6-25.html) chaired (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/mergers.html) by Michael (http://www.cjr.org/year/02/3/hickey.asp) Powell (http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/38/powell.html) ?

So, "who" owns the media?
and
"What" is in "their" interests?

Braden

02-17-2003, 03:20 PM

Design Sifu

"Personally I feel it's ludicrus to brand "protestors" on a whole for the actions of a few...Demonstraighting one's opposition to a pending war is a constitutional right that should not only be protected but encouraged, I'd be curious to see who would populate a "pro-war" rally. I'm certain there would be a huge outpouring of support if Iraqies came out to protest against Saddam... and if they torched a few cars or storefronts along the way, that would be probably overlooked.

Interesting that when the media supports a view it's offered as a link, yet when the media offers an opposing view it is met with extreme sircumspection and an attitude of "don't believe everything you read."
In contrast, on more than one occasion those few who are promoting the march towards war have had their "proof" discredited. Either in the media or through the verification of historical events. These people continue to voice the same statements ignoring the continual erosion of such "credability" as well as the growing public outcry to seek out a better solution."

If any of this is intended to be directed at me or any of my comments, I'll ask that you make a specific criticism so I can reply or note my fault.

Laughing Cow

02-17-2003, 04:18 PM

Braden.

Honest question why do you feel that DS post was directed towards you.

I see it as a generic post addressing everyone here. And everyone should take from it that suits them, no need to be confrontational.

@PLUGO

02-17-2003, 04:22 PM

I'm not accusing you of anything Braden... no worries...My initial post was really a sweep accross my impressions form catching up on about 3 pages...

Actually I'll take the opportunity to thank you for some interesting links...

Braden

02-17-2003, 05:29 PM

I didn't mean it as confrontational, sorry. I realize now it probably came off that way... but I simply meant no more than what I said. I learn alot by discussion, and value disagreement, because people finding fault in what I say helps me clarify, if only to myself, my own thought processes.

What links did you like, DS?

@PLUGO

02-17-2003, 06:10 PM

After reading some of your links I've begun to think that the international criminal court should bring him up on charges of War Crimes...

...Of course this gets quite a few skeletons ratteling in various closets considering the sorded past of Mister Kissengger amongst others...

Can you believe BUSH asked Henry to head up the investigation on 9/11!?!?! That alone (IMO) is enough for a certain loss of respect for GW!!!

Anyway, these 2 charactors alone make a strong enough arguement for why the U.S. wants special treatment by the ICC....

Also: weither Clinton did or didn't establish a presidence for "preemtive strikes," (Bill reffered to them as "Police Actions" as I recall) that doesn't justify their use. More so, if GW is presenting himself as morally superior to the previous administraton then he certainly should not be counting on a presidence established by his predecessor. One wrong does not justify another and I certainly see nothing good comming from preemtive aggression...

Laughing Cow

02-17-2003, 06:17 PM

I posted this in another thread, but would like to repeat it.

Baltimore Sun article (http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3645463.html)

Draw your own conclussions as to motives for the War and what effects it might have for the world in general.

Braden

02-17-2003, 06:18 PM

Ah! Yeah, various Clinton debacles are pretty gross.

"Whether Clinton did or didn't establish a precedence for 'preemptive strikes,' that doesn't justify their use."

I agree completely. I had only brought it up to address the allegations of precedence, and certainly not to excuse preemptive nor unilateral strikes.

However, I don't see how Bush's policy for Iraq is preemptive nor unilateral.

"Bill reffered to them as 'Police Actions' as I recall"

Yeah. However, if this is true, it means that cruise missiles are a tool of the judicial system, the US judicial system applies across the world regardless of absence of extradition treaties, and the accused no longer needs to be tried to be found guilty. I think I've said this before... this interpretation, to me, seems even worse than simply calling the act a war crime.

@PLUGO

02-17-2003, 06:37 PM

Well, would this also apply to the CIA using drones to "assassinate" "terrorist leaders" ???

As Bush said..."otherwise taken care of"

However, I don't see how Bush's policy for Iraq is preemptive nor unilateral.

The term Preemptive Strike has been thrown around by the BUSH Aministration and other "hawks" for some time now, I have no recollection of it entering the public discourse elsewhen.

As for "Unilateral"... it seems that the attitude has toned down to "a collition of the willing." However, I feel that this refrane from "unilateral action" is a direct result of public pressure and bad press. BUSH seems to have been dragged to the UN kicking and Screaming. Have you noticed that the retoric has moved from "Regime Change" to "enforcing U.N. resolutions?"

Braden

02-17-2003, 06:42 PM

"Well, would this also apply to the CIA using drones to 'assassinate' 'terrorist leaders' ???"

I think they would consider those military actions.

"The term Preemptive Strike has been thrown around by the BUSH Aministration and other 'hawks' for some time now, I have no recollection of it entering the public discourse elsewhen."

Are you sure?

The grounding for military action in Iraq isn't terrorism.

"As for 'Unilateral'... it seems that the attitude has toned down to 'a collition of the willing.' However, I feel that this refrane from 'unilateral action' is a direct result of public pressure and bad press. BUSH seems to have been dragged to the UN kicking and Screaming. Have you noticed that the retoric has moved from 'Regime Change' to 'enforcing U.N. resolutions?'"

No, I haven't noticed that.

And indeed, none of that even makes any sense to me, as the very reason for military action in Iraq is a UN resolution in the first place.

@PLUGO

02-17-2003, 06:54 PM

BUSH Said:
The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." - Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

Well, calling "it" a military action" doesn't make the act any more palitable. A randome street in a random country doesn't constitute "the field of war." Both seem to run against "international law"

@PLUGO

02-17-2003, 07:04 PM

"The grounding for military action in Iraq isn't terrorism."

Well, some would strongly disagree... this seems to be a part of the problem... it seems that one week Saddam & Osima are best buddies and this war is a part of the war on terror... another week it about weapons of mass destruction... and so on...
There's obviously no actual "occurance" Iraq hasn't attacked anyone. There's still a constant scramble to determine what merrits starting a War. For a while BUSH was simply stating "the Threat of WoMD was enough to start war" Durring his State of the union he claimed the U.S. was morally bound to oust Saddam because BUSH is a friend to the Iraqi people. Before he went to the U.N. he claimed he didn't need to present a case there as "this" fell under the perview of the War on TERROR... Slipery Slope indeed.

I don't know if the last UN resolution set a deadline date... not sure if the UN knows either.

Laughing Cow

02-17-2003, 07:12 PM

FYI:

Interview (http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/048/living/_We_know_what_war_means_+.shtml)

dnc101

02-17-2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Design Sifu
"The grounding for military action in Iraq isn't terrorism."There's obviously no actual "occurance" Iraq hasn't attacked anyone.

I guess I'll have to copy and repost it, since I've seen no one answer it except the red Holstein, who failed miserably:

"Guys, this is not a preemptive strike. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The world kicked their butts out. We all signed a treaty. For 12 years, Iraq has consistently violated that treaty. Even if they have no WMD's, the fact that they've vascilated between interefering with inspectors and kicking them out entirely is reason enough to go to war. In fact, in this context, we aren't going to war at all- we're continuing the one that's already started but never resolved. Case closed. Give it a rest and support our fighting men for a change. I care less if you support Bush, but you antics aid and comfort the enemy, at the expense of those who are being sent to fight.

Braden

02-17-2003, 08:00 PM

Design Sifu

"Well, calling 'it' a military action doesn't make the act any more palitable. A randome street in a random country doesn't constitute 'the field of war.' Both seem to run against 'international law'"

I didn't claim it did. CIA assassinations surely are a whole other topic. One we can discuss if you'd like, of course.

"Well, some would strongly disagree"

Yes. 'Some' people believe just about anything imaginable. I'm not sure what this is meant to prove...

"it seems that one week Saddam & Osama are best buddies and this war is a part of the war on terror... another week it about weapons of mass destruction... and so on... "

The various things people may talk about regarding a war doesn't change what it's foundation is.

"There's obviously no actual 'occurance' Iraq hasn't attacked anyone."

Yes they have. For instance, Kuwait.

"There's still a constant scramble to determine what merrits starting a War."

No there's not. It's always been the exact same: Holding Iraq accountable to a unanimous UN agreement.

Well... dnc101 covered this topic pretty well, so I won't say more.

Radhnoti

02-17-2003, 08:28 PM

...I have a question. What is "international law", and why is the U.S., or Iraq for that matter bound to it?

Would international law be any edict handed down via the U.N., or just laws each individual country agrees to follow...making it not very "international"? I, myself, would have serious problems with any non-U.S. group "governing" the U.S.

Not trying to score points or sneak anything in, just curious and under-educated on this issue.

Laughing Cow

02-17-2003, 08:38 PM

Radhnoti.

The International Laws are governed by the U.N.

Here is the Link (http://www.un.org/law/).

They have as much impact on local affairs as do the WTO Trade laws.

Hope this helps.

yenhoi

02-18-2003, 12:12 AM

"International law" is whenever powerful nation-states agree.

When they disagree, its no longer law. There is no such thing as a Super-national body that holds political, military, and economic authority over the entire world. The UN is a very weak start and hardly constitutes a world-law governing body.

just laws each individual country agrees to follow

exactly.

I, myself, would have serious problems with any non-U.S. group "governing" the U.S.

The reason the United States has a history of brushing the UN off as just-another-talk-council. because it is. It is entirely a political body with very limted economic power and laughable military muscle.

Iraq is bound by international law because it is very low on the power-scale. It doesnt have friends in high enough places with enough international political clout to save its ass from the big dogs, namely, the United States.

:eek:

yenhoi

02-18-2003, 12:35 AM

After reading some of your links I've begun to think that the international criminal court should bring him up on charges of War Crimes...

Both President Clinton and General Clark are considered war criminals by many.

You wont see a leader or general from a western country on trial for a long time. The west dominates international politics and international political bodies, and war crimes trials are merely extensions of those political forces and controled by the same players.

Anyway, these 2 charactors alone make a strong enough arguement for why the U.S. wants special treatment by the ICC....

The US stance on this has to do mainly with not giving those types of powers over to a foreign political body. The other part is that the US supplys more then the majority of personell that make up the UN. Specially those blue helmted dudes in the field trained to be soldiers, but used as policemen.

BUSH seems to have been dragged to the UN kicking and Screaming. Have you noticed that the retoric has moved from "Regime Change" to "enforcing U.N. resolutions?"

The Bush administration is very good at politics. You think their "official" position and talk points went from extreme to much closer to the center is unwilling? I think its the other way around, bud. Give Rice, Powell, and Rove some credit, they are the players, not the board or the pieces.

If you pay attention or look closely, you will see the Bush administration almost uses the same exact political template for tackling all problems. Its great, and it almost makes them predictable.

Well, some would strongly disagree... this seems to be a part of the problem... it seems that one week Saddam & Osima are best buddies and this war is a part of the war on terror... another week it about weapons of mass destruction... and so on...

I think the Bush Admin. has been saying this all along. I havent seem their position waiver from one to the other or ever stressing links to binladen. Read Powells big address closely, note the amout of time he spends on WMD and Resolution violation as compared to links to binladen.

There's still a constant scramble to determine what merrits starting a War. For a while BUSH was simply stating "the Threat of WoMD was enough to start war" Durring his State of the union he claimed the U.S. was morally bound to oust Saddam because BUSH is a friend to the Iraqi people. Before he went to the U.N. he claimed he didn't need to present a case there as "this" fell under the perview of the War on TERROR... Slipery Slope indeed.

You are paraphrasing and not very well. The United States doesnt have to goto the UN in order to goto war with Iraq. No nation does. The United Nations is a political body, made up of politicians, and works just like all other political bodys. The US is playing politics with the world, just like the world is playing politics with the US.

I don't know if the last UN resolution set a deadline date... not sure if the UN knows either.

There were a couple dates in 1441. Your right, none are deadlines for inspections to be complete. They will be complete when the United Nations is satisfied that Iraq has proven that it is WMD free.

@PLUGO

02-18-2003, 11:28 AM

Even if they have no WMD's, the fact that they've vascilated between interefering with inspectors and kicking them out entirely is reason enough to go to war.

While I can agree that Iraq has been dragging their feet in terms of assisting or interefering with weapons inspectors... I would have to say the "kicking them out" is debatable: (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:SP57KMuVaaYC:grassrootsvoices.org/images/Iraq%2520Facts.pdf+Weapons+Inspectors+199&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
)
Timeline:
29 September 1998
U.S. passes the Iraq Liberation Act (http://www.thomas.loc.gov/home/c105bills.html) (ILA) "to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government." The president is to designate one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations to provide assistance to, not exceeding, $97 million.

30 September 1998
Director of the UN Oil-for-Food Program, Denis Halliday, resigns in protest over the inadequacy of Oil-for-Food, which he says does not even meet the minimum requirements for a healthy diet.

16-19 December 1998
-The UN pulls its staff out of Iraq, and the U.S. and U.K. begin Operation Desert Fox (http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/), a bombing campaign to destroy sites suspected of housing Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs.

The Operation Desert Fox timeline s a bit different...of course.

While on the topic (http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=61) here's another interesting (http://www.outtherenews.com/about/stories/iraqnotebook/html/unscom.html) article on weapon's inspectors...

Also worthy of note:
6 January 1999
UN Sec. Gen. Kofi
Annan expresses his suspicion that
intelligence gathered by UN arms
inspectors was used for U.S. efforts to
undermine the Iraqi regime.

8 January 1999
Clinton administration
officials admit monitoring coded radio
communications of Saddam Hussein's
security forces, using equipment secretly installed by UN arms inspectors.

13 February 2000
Second director of the UN Oil-for-Food Program, Hans Von Sponeck, resigns in protest, objecting to the impact of sanctions on Iraqi civilians.

February 2001
U.S./U.K. bombing raids try to disable Iraq's air defense network, although they have little international support. Iraq complains about ongoing raids and civilian casualties.

May 2002
UN Security Council changes sanctions by unanimously voting to replace a blanket ban on goods with "smart" sanctions. These do not allow investing in or giving cash to Iraq outside the UN escrow account.

* Data before April 2001 includes only
bombings with Iraqi casualties; data after that date includes all airstrikes, with or without casualties.
** The U.S. denies the deaths of 23 Iraqi civilians from a stray bomb hitting a soccer field.
*** As of Oct. 5 [U.S. Bombing Watch]
32553222