War Protest Pictures

[diego]

http://www.geocities.com/independent0215/protesthome.htm

so bush isnt feeling the world's protest. I havent fully followed this issue, and would like to know why bush doesnt fully agree with the worlds peeps opinion, and why do the worlds peeps disagree with bush's tactics?.
This thread can be about why are peeps for and agianst war with iraq and norh korea etc...what does north korea have to do with osamas al qaeda...noone protested attacking the taliban why they protest attacking iraq and koreas north?.


also it makes me feel all buttery inside to look at these protest pics in the sense that there is still hope for the worlds peeps to unify on whatever...im thinking fuq the war, why dont peeps get together like this to remind each other to keep freeing africa from aids etc!?. :)

POST UP

[diego]

Also why the freeg didnt american press air these pics and write about these issues when the protest occured last week...it was blasted all over the canadian press that millions protested worldwide...there was like 30,000 showed up at vancouver canadas timessquare close to where i live...im told cnn and fox aired next to nothing on thses issues.

[shaolin kungfu]

Fox did air something, but it wasn't much. That's probably because they're a conservative network and wan't to downplay opposition to the war. Other news shows(local) aired more.

[red5angel]

Please tell me you don't consider this a reliable news source? Its as bad as any prowar souce you could come across. The guys facts aren't even in line with reality.
Diego, not sure where your from but I saw all sorts of video and pictures on moday and tuesday on the morning news shows. The "Alternative Press" is just playing in the typical bleeding heart fashion.
If it makes you feel any better, just think of the war as freeing north africa from Anthrax....


Also we are not going to war with N. Korea. Many people fail to point out that going to war with Korea is much much riskier becuase they are at a point where we are trying to stop Saddam from getting to. Military personnel volunteer to be put under fire, with nuclear weapons and WMD, civilians and people who didn't volunteer tend to get caught up in it.


I have been thinking about these protests for a few days now and I am still not seeing a reasonable point to be had for them? Minus all the peace love and hippy crap that is. What does the rest of the world have to loose or gain by this action? Why are americans so short sighted when it comes to things like this?

I think this is more about belonging then anything else. While I am sure there are some pro war rallies out there somewhere, people want to be seen as responsible and good human beings. They also want to belong to something bigger.

Also, something I noted that seems a little ironic. This may just be my local experience here but I noticed watching the local protests, that the majority, by far, of the people attending this protests, were college kids and people who "look" like they would be protesting a war, and did thirty some years ago...where are all the other people? Where is this vast majority everyone keeps talking about that believes this war shouldn't happen? Even 1 million people isn't a whole lot when weighed with the rest of the population of the world and I know atleast 500,000 people who are standing up for america, with more signing up everyday....

[dnc101]

Try these actual photos of anti war 'protestors'.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021903/content/from.guest.html

As you can tell from the address, this isn't for the feinght hearted among our more liberal members. I happened to catch Rushes show when this guy called in. He and his friends actually had the cojones to infiltrate this peace march with those signs. Classic!!!

[Shah]

I think your being short sighted here. Not everyone (not by a long shot) who is anti-war would show up to the protests. I mean use your common sense. It's only the ones who feel very strongly about it. Even then not everyone can make it. People have lives, things to take care of.

Again who does the US think it is? Who made your gov. the world's police? I sure didn't. What makes Bush so much better than Saddam. Okay maybe that was a bit much but anyway, Bush isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and I don't trust anything he or his bloodthirsty regime would say

[red5angel]

"Again who does the US think it is? Who made your gov. the world's police? I sure didn't. What makes Bush so much better than Saddam."

We aren't but by supporting terrorism Saddam made us the terrorist police.


Blood thirsty regime, maybe you should do a little research on what a blood thirsty regime really is. I can point you in the right rdirection though, start sith Saddams regime, thats a modern example....

[Great Sage]

President Bush’s actions have been less than inspiring lately. He seems to be acting on a personal vendetta rather rely on the discretion of the International Committee. The REAL issue here is OIL — Black Gold!!!

Had Iraq done the things North Korea has, it would not be here. The fact that no one has paid any real attention to North Korea proves that there is nothing to gain there. Iraq is a different story. If Bush succeeds in dethroning Saddam, not only does the US government get to set up a puppet government, they tap the Oil. Furthermore, the Fall of Saddam would legitimize Bush’s bid to be re-elected.

With the economy quickly faltering (now attributed to gasoline prices), I’m not surprised that Bush has turned up the heat on Saddam. We need OIL fast!!!!

[red5angel]

ahem, GS, you seem to be a little behind everyone else here so let me catch you up to speed. While the whole oil gambit is popular with those who are generally anti-war, or atleast pro-peace, there is no solid ground to stand on with it. No nation in its right mind, and believe it or not the US is still generally in its right mind, would go to war over so small a thing. Especially a nation that produces quite a bit of it's own oil. If it were the oil, then we would have gone in in 91 and have been done with it by now.

[shaolin kungfu]

Pay no attention to GS, he likes to make sweeping statements about things he as little knowledge of.:rolleyes:

[diego]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by red5angel
[B]Please tell me you don't consider this a reliable news source?

uh these are just pictures...as i said canadian press plastered all week that millions protested...im saying the globe and mail and vancouver sun..if those aint credible then fox sure as fuq aint!.

now im going to read your post as i assume you answered my questions :).

[diego]

i love how you paint people concerned about the chaos which will arise when bush starts shooting at iraq and korea as just hippy crap...so glad you arent prez!.

tho i agree that many jump the gun without knowing all the facts. but as buddy pointed out, im concrened what will happen while goergeie boy gets to play tuffguy for the next few years and i didnt go to the protests as i was busy that day.

got more questions later, gotta go.

[red5angel]

Diego, I am not talking about the pictures, I am talking about the text involved with the pictures. Did you read the article?

Chaos?! Get real what Chaos ar eyou talking about? Do you think all these people are going to suddenly rise up and throw down the government here in the US or something? Or possibly the masses might march on the UN and throw us straight out?:rolleyes:

[diego]

also can you prove america has all the oil it needs just as hippys cant prove bush is oil thirsty, red?.

[red5angel]

Also, again Diego we aren't going to be shooting at Korea.

"goergeie boy gets to play tuffguy for the next few years and i didnt go to the protests as i was busy that day."

Can you make some sense out of that statement please?

Diego, it is a fact that America "produces" enough oil to support itself if need be, however that is not the way the economy works. It is better for everyone if everyone sort of shuffles it around to people who don't have it. Someone can offer it to us cheaper then our own oil companies then we will take it from them instead. Its good for everyone involved.

Guys, I am not going to argue about the oil thing anymore, it's tired, it's weak, and it is really 3rd grade stuff. You don't go to war just because of oil, sorry, tuck it away for someone who isn't informed on the subject and the two fo you can go at it in full force over the blood thirsty, or should I say oil thirsty economies of this world....:rolleyes:

[diego]

Originally posted by red5angel
Diego, I am not talking about the pictures, I am talking about the text involved with the pictures. Did you read the article?

Chaos?! Get real what Chaos ar eyou talking about? Do you think all these people are going to suddenly rise up and throw down the government here in the US or something? Or possibly the masses might march on the UN and throw us straight out?:rolleyes:

as i said no i havent fully been following this issue...hence my reason for this thread...chaos as in in one aspect last week n korea was talking about they into pre emptive striking and if bush wants to fuq they got missiles that will reach the west coast....think how many extremist religious fuqs may go crazy once america starts bombing iraq...i mean fuq if i wanted to cause terror i'd start pillaging safeways and shiat...wich im surprised they havent done yet...they knocked down the towers, im sure they could do alot in groups of two-four men strapped with arnolds arsenal in his commando movie...what if they decided to run through a mall for about 5 minutes...im saying bush doesnt act right usa may turn into palestine and isreal...which im amazed the alqeada havent got into those tactics yet.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by dnc101
Try these actual photos of anti war 'protestors'.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021903/content/from.guest.html

As you can tell from the address, this isn't for the feinght hearted among our more liberal members.

Any liberal who is upset by anything that transparent tard does is an idiot. The guy's fans call themselves dittoheads. It's a non-threat if ever there was one.

[diego]

Originally posted by red5angel
Also, again Diego we aren't going to be shooting at Korea.

"goergeie boy gets to play tuffguy for the next few years and i didnt go to the protests as i was busy that day."

Can you make some sense out of that statement please?

Diego, it is a fact that America "produces" enough oil to support itself if need be, however that is not the way the economy works. It is better for everyone if everyone sort of shuffles it around to people who don't have it. Someone can offer it to us cheaper then our own oil companies then we will take it from them instead. Its good for everyone involved.

Guys, I am not going to argue about the oil thing anymore, it's tired, it's weak, and it is really 3rd grade stuff. You don't go to war just because of oil, sorry, tuck it away for someone who isn't informed on the subject and the two fo you can go at it in full force over the blood thirsty, or should I say oil thirsty economies of this world....:rolleyes:


"goergeie boy gets to play tuffguy for the next few years and i didnt go to the protests as i was busy that day." disregard this, i had to run for a bus but i missed it so i wasnt thinking fully when i typed that.

whats funny red what you rolled your eyes at is the exact reason america was founded they found land and gold...so when did rich americans change that philosophy?...you dont have to answer that i just found it funny.

[diego]

red i thought korea was next on the list after iraq...what you mean you wont be shooting at them?.

[red5angel]

"think how many extremist religious fuqs may go crazy once america starts bombing iraq"

You mean like last time we bombed Iraq and all those people came out of the woodwork and stated bombing americas malls and airplanes?


"whats funny red what you rolled your eyes at is the exact reason america was founded they found land and gold...so when did rich americans change that philosophy?...you dont have to answer that i just found it funny."


America wasn't just founded on land and gold Diego, including Canada, it was founded for a myriad reasons, land, gold (in south america) religious freedom, freedom from a tyrannical government, or so it was percieved at the time. Just like that war is not always about one thing. I already said in one thread that I am sure the economic benefit of attacking Iraq has been weighed and found to be acceptable, what I am saying is that you have to be a fool to think we are going to go to WAR for oil.


No Korea is not on our list. The President has said time and time again that they would like to talk this through with Korea. Korea does have the means to reach the wesdt coast, or so it is believed, and that makes the situation a little more delicate then Iraq. however Korea is also not related to the terrorism that has struck this country over the last couple of decades. Korea is very real and very serious but more likely they just want to be taken seriously by the rest of the world and their neighbors.

[diego]

Originally posted by red5angel
"think how many extremist religious fuqs may go crazy once america starts bombing iraq"

You mean like last time we bombed Iraq and all those people came out of the woodwork and stated bombing americas malls and airplanes?


"whats funny red what you rolled your eyes at is the exact reason america was founded they found land and gold...so when did rich americans change that philosophy?...you dont have to answer that i just found it funny."


America wasn't just founded on land and gold Diego, including Canada, it was founded for a myriad reasons, land, gold (in south america) religious freedom, freedom from a tyrannical government, or so it was percieved at the time. Just like that war is not always about one thing. I already said in one thread that I am sure the economic benefit of attacking Iraq has been weighed and found to be acceptable, what I am saying is that you have to be a fool to think we are going to go to WAR for oil.


No Korea is not on our list. The President has said time and time again that they would like to talk this through with Korea. Korea does have the means to reach the wesdt coast, or so it is believed, and that makes the situation a little more delicate then Iraq. however Korea is also not related to the terrorism that has struck this country over the last couple of decades. Korea is very real and very serious but more likely they just want to be taken seriously by the rest of the world and their neighbors.


You mean like last time we bombed Iraq and all those people came out of the woodwork and stated bombing americas malls and airplanes?

wow arent you cute when you get defensive...uh ever thought osama wasnt set up then?....i mean they did knock out two big towers aided by freekin boxcutters!.


America wasn't just founded on land and gold Diego, including Canada, it was founded for a myriad reasons, land, gold (in south america) religious freedom, freedom from a tyrannical government, or so it was percieved at the time....from a perspective anyways...in reality america was founded by criminal actions!.


No Korea is not on our list. The President has said time and time again that they would like to talk this through with Korea. Korea does have the means to reach the wesdt coast, or so it is believed, and that makes the situation a little more delicate then Iraq. however Korea is also not related to the terrorism that has struck this country over the last couple of decades. Korea is very real and very serious but more likely they just want to be taken seriously by the rest of the world and their neighbors.

i'll take your word on this and i hope your right, but i did read many articles in the last few weeks specifically from bbc type websites saying korea is getting ready...we'll see
peace red...........HOPEFULLY:cool:

[dnc101]

Originally posted by eulerfan
Any liberal who is upset by anything that transparent tard does is an idiot. The guy's fans call themselves dittoheads. It's a non-threat if ever there was one.

Lookin' for more finger, babe?

Your opinion of Rush doesn't bother me, nor of those who listen to him. What these guys did was classic. And most of the 'tards' in that march didn't even get what they were doing!

"Protect Iraqui Property Rights (with a drawing of an Iraqui woman chained to a stake)... , Say NO to War"


"Except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Communism and Naziism, War Has Never Accomplished Anything"

But you don't see the humor in that. So you spit and sputter at Rush. Frankly, I doubt he cares what you think, either. He's probably more ammused by your antics than I am. Or, am I being 'obtuse'?

[red5angel]

"wow arent you cute when you get defensive...uh ever thought osama wasnt set up then?....i mean they did knock out two big towers aided by freekin boxcutters!."


that was only a matter of time diego. there is a lot more behind then then you must think.

I am not saying Korea isn't a hot spot, and a dangerous situation, but it has to be treated with kid gloves. However, if it comes down to it, I don't believe Korea would be the problem, because I think we could take them, its china that we would have to be concerned with.

[David Jamieson]

The Bushes supported both Saddam and the Bin Laden family through the 70's and 80's.

Therefore, Bush supports terrorism.

Ergo, Bush should begin bombing the Nuclear and chemical arsenals of the United states immediately. Followed by his own immediate suicide.

Do you see the logic here?

How many homeless people die in the streets of the US everyday?
How american citizens many die from gun wounds? (hint: 40,000 a year).

I'm sure that Saddam is a real threat to the US. I see his Navy just of the coast of New York and his armies marching across Utah.

You few people who still support the monkey boy are looking more and more like breakfast what with all that egg on your face!

Now retort and retort quickly so you can have the last word on why people should die in some place halfway around the world so the Bushes and their ilk can richer and richer from the saps who need to suck on the great oily teat of their super mega corporations that guide the laws that rule you.

A greater state of myopia I have not witnessed. Ever wonder why the war hasn't started yet? You think it's because nobody is buying the flimsy evidence Bush is selling?

Enjoy your recession by the way. :rolleyes:

For the rest of my American cousins who see the reality of what is happening in their backyard and are making their voices heard regarding the inequities of King George and his henchmen, I salute you. It is you who are the red white and blue.

Let the war pigs fade away in the sounds of your mighty peace.
Let Iraq sort itself out. Saddam can't live forever.

cheers

[dnc101]

Well, guys... much as I like Rush, I also listen to NPR and other les than conservative sources. Just heard on NPR news that the inspectors are complaining that the recent worldwide anti war protests have emboldened the Iraquis and it is making their job more difficult. Seems Saddam is taking the protests to mean that world opinion is on his side, so he need not coperate fully. Good job, libs.

KL, everything you said in that last post you've said elsewhere, and it was answered. But you keep on posting the same old tired drivel. Come on, telling the lie often enough is now a recognizable tactic. There's no egg on anyones face- that will happen when we go in, kick @ass, and find the WMD's and documents. Then you can wear your egg with pride to the march protesting our involvement in the next phase of the war on terror.

[David Jamieson]

KL, everything you said in that last post you've said elsewhere, and it was answered. But you keep on posting the same old tired drivel. Come on, telling the lie often enough is now a recognizable tactic. There's no egg on anyones face- that will happen when we go in, kick @ass, and find the WMD's and documents. Then you can wear your egg with pride to the march protesting our involvement in the next phase of the war on terror.

yup, I'm a proponent of peace. I do not support war with Iraq.
And like yourself, I reiterate myself as you and others have done (ad nauseum).
I do not supprt the Bush position on the matter and I do not support those who would support war for anything other than a defensive and last resort.

Mighty peace will defeat war and hate. It always does.

cheers

[dnc101]

KL, glad to hear I made you nauseous! Logic and good sense don't work with you guys, so I've decided to become 'obtuse'!:p

Peace comes with VICTORY!

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by dnc101
There's no egg on anyones face- that will happen when we go in, kick @ass, and find the WMD's and documents. Then you can wear your egg with pride to the march protesting our involvement in the next phase of the war on terror.

True the eggs are still in the air.

But UNLESS you got it from a very reliable source that the WMD and documents exists I would say your comment to Kung Lek is very premature.

You Guys seem to accept 100% the existence of WMD and similar, wonder what evidence and proof was shown to YOU guys that nobody else has seen.

Like was said, if the USA has that conclusive proof why has it not been made public yet.

The next test for Saddam will be if he lets Blix and his team destroy the Rockets, Molds and Rocket Motors.

BTW, one thing that struck me as odd:
The Molds were destroyed, but IRAQ repaired them and used them to cast new stuff.

Hmmm, I though destruction ment to damage soemthing beyond repair, etc.

[dnc101]

LC, I'm coming to the conclusion that, at this point, arguing is pointless. The war is going to happen, and then we'll know. Untill then we are both (all) pretty well entrenched in our positions. Let's wait and see where the eggs fall.

[Laughing Cow]

dnc101.

Not arguing, just pointing out a flaw in your statement.

At the moment NOBODY knows if IRAQ got them or not, insisting that they do is rehashing propaganda.

That's all.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by dnc101


Lookin' for more finger, babe?

Your opinion of Rush doesn't bother me, nor of those who listen to him. What these guys did was classic. And most of the 'tards' in that march didn't even get what they were doing!

"Protect Iraqui Property Rights (with a drawing of an Iraqui woman chained to a stake)... , Say NO to War"


"Except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Communism and Naziism, War Has Never Accomplished Anything"

But you don't see the humor in that. So you spit and sputter at Rush. Frankly, I doubt he cares what you think, either. He's probably more ammused by your antics than I am. Or, am I being 'obtuse'?

I was responding to your comment about how Rush can't be handled by feinght hearted liberals. I was saying that liberals who get wound up about him are idiots.

Jeezus Christ.

Deep breath, please.

My opinion of Rush shouldn't bother you. I'm certain that Rush doesn't care what I think. What antics? Cr@p I spout on a message board? Did I call you obtuse or did somebody else? I'm a bit lost.

[dezhen2001]

r u sure youre not Scottish Eulerfan? :D

dawood

[eulerfan]

What was scottish about that?

I did spend two years as a young lass in Newton Hill. Perhaps it made a lasting impression.:)

[dezhen2001]

not anytyhing u said, just the way you said it... :)

dawood

[Radhnoti]

I used to listen to Rush quite a bit back in the early '90s. Actually, the term "dittohead" is an in-joke that early listeners/Rush put together...plus it really ticked off Rush haters.

Kung Lek, I believe your gun statistics are...leading, since they probably include instances a firearm were legitimately used for self-defense. The number of ACCIDENTAL firearm deaths in 2000 were 600.
By comparison, 43,000 were killed in automobiles...16,200 in falls...3,900 from drowning...3,600 from fires/burns...

Just another U.S. misconception a lot of people have, fed by the "fair and impartial" media.

;)

[WinterPalm]

Those pictures were beautiful. It amounts to people raising their consciousness to a higher level. I spoke to an old high school teacher today. He was scared about Osama Bin Saddam Hussein having the abilities, from Iraq, to kill everybody in the world. He didn't just say maybe the Iraqi people and some neighbors but everybody! Then I told him that the weapon inspectors were working in Iraq, sometimes seven days a week, from 1991 to 1998 and they certainly destroyed a lot including every factory for producing any sort of illegal weapon. He said he hadn't seen any of that before!

What the hell is the media doing to the people?
It's taking intelligent people and turning them into idiots.

[yenhoi]

The "media's" target audience is not intelligent people.

[Braden]

Kung Lek

"The Bushes supported both Saddam and the Bin Laden family through the 70's and 80's.

Therefore, Bush supports terrorism.

Ergo, Bush should begin bombing the Nuclear and chemical arsenals of the United states immediately. Followed by his own immediate suicide.

Do you see the logic here?

...

I'm sure that Saddam is a real threat to the US. I see his Navy just of the coast of New York and his armies marching across Utah."

What on earth does any of this have to do with foreign policy in Iraq? All you've done is describe the content of your own fantasies.

"You few people who still support the monkey boy are looking more and more like breakfast what with all that egg on your face!"

I certainly hope you've got more than an ad hominem and a schoolboy remark to back that up.

"Now retort and retort quickly so you can have the last word..."

Yes I'll retort. I will explain and defend; I will cite examples, and I will answer criticisms.

It reflects very poorly on your position that you would try to make people believe this is a fault. Why are you afraid of people replying to you?

"why people should die in some place halfway around the world so the Bushes and their ilk can richer"

People shouldn't and no one thinks they should. Like your opening diatribe, the position you critique here exists only in your fantasies.

"A greater state of myopia I have not witnessed."

My feelings exactly.

"Ever wonder why the war hasn't started yet?"

Because troop movements won't be complete for another week? Because the threat of war has forced Saddam to begin to cooperate, which was exactly it's intention?

Those are two pretty excellent reasons. Why don't you suggest a better one if you disagree?

"You think it's because nobody is buying the flimsy evidence Bush is selling?"

Again, this is a position which exists only in your fantasies. As I (and a few others) have explained to you elsewhere (several times), the idea that Bush is looking for evidence of WMD is an invention of the media. The UN mandate was for disarmament. The UN inspectors are not inspecting for weapons, they are inspecting to find disarmament.

"Enjoy your recession by the way."

The one Clinton's regime handed us? The one Bush is replying to exactly according to Keynesian economic policy to end as quickly as possible? This too has been pointed out to you and you have not even offered up a reply.

Are you willfully ignorant, or purposefully lying here?

"Let the war pigs fade away."

Why are you incapable of posting on this topic without throwing around insults? Don't you think this reflects poorly on your position?

"yup, I'm a proponent of peace."

Everyone is a proponent of peace.

The only thing in question is who is willing to do something about it.

Summary: Every single remark you made was either an ad hominem or a description of your own delusions with no relation to anyone's actual argument on this issue. And you do it all while feigning the moral high ground. Amazing.

[Kristoffer]

They say jump you say 'How high?'

I wanna be a brainwashed puppet too! Nuke the world!

[rogue]

Most of Iraqs combat aircraft are older Russian and French jets, including Russian MiG-21s, MiG-23s, MiG-29s, Su-20s, Su-22s, Su-24s and Su-25s, as well as the French Mirage F-1.

Here's a little ditty about Jaques and Sadaam. (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/toptease_4.html)

[jun_erh]

I think the protests are about Bush's lack of intelligence. I think the problem was the last election. Both majr candidates sucked. You ask Al Gore a question and he answers every other question but the one you asked. and did anyne hear the "Tysn vs Bush" game on Stern? They said a quote then you had to ask which moron said it. It was impossible to tell. People feel Bush shouldn't lead a war because he's so dumb he'll screw it up. I think it IS time for this war, but it 's hard because Bush is such a tard. hahahah that rhymes. If we had a more articulate president no one would be protesting this war. We need to find a new way of picking candidates

[Great Sage]

Originally posted by red5angel
No nation in its right mind, and believe it or not the US is still generally in its right mind, would go to war over so small a thing. Especially a nation that produces quite a bit of it's own oil. If it were the oil, then we would have gone in in 91 and have been done with it by now.


Originally posted by red5angel
Guys, I am not going to argue about the oil thing anymore, it's tired, it's weak, and it is really 3rd grade stuff. You don't go to war just because of oil, sorry, tuck it away for someone who isn't informed on the subject and the two fo you can go at it in full force over the blood thirsty, or should I say oil thirsty economies of this world....:rolleyes:

You’d be surprised at the reasons nations go to war. We (the US) got involved in Vietnam simply because of Cold War tensions. Some nations go to war simply because they don’t like their neighbors. OIL IS AN EXPENSIVE ASSET AND WELL WORTH FIGHTING FOR...

You say the US produces its own oil... That it does, but at a very slow rate and high cost. Hence, most of the major gas stations: Citgo, Speedway, Mobil etc... ALL BUY THEIR OIL FROM THE MIDDLE EAST. I’ll bet you anything that if we invade Iraq, gasoline prices will start to fall very soon afterwards.

[txwingchun]

How come all these war protestors only have signs against bush and the U.S where are the protestors asking sadaam to back down and disarm?

[Kuen]

While the whole oil gambit is popular with those who are generally anti-war, or atleast pro-peace, there is no solid ground to stand on with it. No nation in its right mind, and believe it or not the US is still generally in its right mind, would go to war over so small a thing. Especially a nation that produces quite a bit of it's own oil.

Totally uninformed poppy **** like this is why this country is headed down the shi!!er. If it's not about oil why have they already sold the rights to Iraqi oil? Why have they promised Russia 10% of the profits? Why have they ignored horrible human rights abuses in Africa, Sri Lanka, Burma but not Iraq? Only a fool thinks this war is about the safety of the American people. Even Evil Chimp admits terrorism will increase if Iraq is attacked. If you want to sell out the country for the greed of others be my guest just don't insult me with half truths and Neo Con propaganda.

[Losttrak]

Those pictures should be a study of "Bandwagon Jumping" Most of those people are sheep or are drug along by their friends who didnt want to go alone, I'll wager.

Two kinds of people, sheep and wolves. Sheep want to chew their grass and be happy ignoring whats around them. "Dont rock the boat" they say. Eventually a shepherd will come along and save them.
Wolves can see the writing on the wall and arent afraid to take a pre-emptive chunk out of someones a$$. Wolves typically have no problem with the accountability of their actions and are willing to deal with the repurcussions whether good or bad.

[Souljah]

Bah, only just saw this thread


How come all these war protestors only have signs against bush and the U.S where are the protestors asking sadaam to back down and disarm?

Saddam hasnt really shown that he's one to listen to the people has he? What would a protest against him do?
Though I dont really think that the worldwide marches will achieve anything in the end. There no harm in people showing thier opinions.....the only thing that will really come out of the protests are if leaders like Blair decide to go against the general populations view i dont think you'll be seeing them being re-elected. Which is generally good because how can you have a democracy with no regard for public opinion?

As for the view that the oil theory is out of the question, tired and weak.....I disagree, I think it is entirely possible. And I dont think I've heard or seen a really convincing arguement for it being invalid.
But at the same time I dont think it is the only reason for the advances. There are alot of things to gain with the attack for the US and UK. As well as the obvious assertion of power.

The morality issues are always there for the western parties to fall back on - 1 million people have died through Saddams torure practices, Etc etc....
But then the reasons, as well as the liberation arguement I think could be varied, we arent told enough to know for certain the full extent of the reasons for war. (apart from being told the obvious ones)
But then the US and UK cannot be considered innocent in this, I mean, Like Ken Livingston mentioned on the british march -'Where did Saddam' (and for that matter all of the nuclear threats) 'get his weapons?'. Or at least the basic weapons package....

You could probably look at Iraqi missiles and see a faded US flag on them...lol

Just like Pol Pot, Pinochet and Musharav before him, Saddam 'talked' with the US underwraps until he became a liability - IE when he developed his own agenda.
I mean, who dealt with the iranians for the US?

I'm in two minds on this one I think....For one I dont want the world to be plunged into a war because of the simple principle and danger it brings...but then I do think that threats like Saddam should be taken out before they develop. And perhaps this is the best chance (blah blah blah, dont want to make another mistake like not taking out hitler in the rhineland in '36 blah blah blah)

greg

[red5angel]

"Therefore, Bush supports terrorism."

That was a good try Kung Lek, no really. We have supported in the past plenty of people we have later gone to war with, inclufding but not limited to, Russia, Iraq and Iran. However, things change, people show their true colors. Saddam has shown his, now he is our enemy.



"Do you see the logic here?"


Yes, however it is false.

"How many homeless people die in the streets of the US everyday?
How american citizens many die from gun wounds? (hint: 40,000 a year)."

Your point is?

"I'm sure that Saddam is a real threat to the US. I see his Navy just of the coast of New York and his armies marching across Utah."

I saw the World Trade Center fall to the ground, 80 some floors packed with 3000 people after two jetliners crashed into them. Saddam supports those who flew those planes.

"You few people who still support the monkey boy are looking more and more like breakfast what with all that egg on your face!"

Still waiting for your supporting evidence on this, other then your opinion because so far it has proved weak and ill-informed.

"Now retort and retort quickly so you can have the last word on why people should die in some place halfway around the world so the Bushes and their ilk can richer and richer from the saps who need to suck on the great oily teat of their super mega corporations that guide the laws that rule you."


You really need to get out of Canada KL and see the rest of the world. You will find the world situation much more complicated then "its all about oil".

"A greater state of myopia I have not witnessed. Ever wonder why the war hasn't started yet? You think it's because nobody is buying the flimsy evidence Bush is selling?"

I know it's because the US is stalling for time for two reasons, in the hope of getting some backing from the UN, in the slim hope of a peaceful resolution although lets be real about it. The big reason however is that it takes time to move troops, equipment and build bases enough to support them. But no wait! It must be because Bush and his cronies haven't finished dividing up the oil fields in Iraq on their map of world domination!:eek:


"For the rest of my American cousins who see the reality of what is happening in their backyard and are making their voices heard regarding the inequities of King George and his henchmen, I salute you. It is you who are the red white and blue."

Can this statment get any more emotional and irational? An you try to apply logic to your argument?

"Let the war pigs fade away in the sounds of your mighty peace.
Let Iraq sort itself out. Saddam can't live forever. "

moron, of course while he does live thousands and thousands of people will die in his country alone, due to his cruelty and inhumanity, not too mention what will happen if he gets a peice of nuclear material or can hand over more biological agents to terrorist. Of course you live in Canada so why worry right? The level of the ignorance that went into that last sentence appalls me Kung Lek. While the rest of your crap is probably based on pamphlets and books put out at your local Protest Are Us shop, that last sentence reveals the very ignorance you have steeped yourself in. Hitler would have died at some point to, do you think the Nazis would have just gone away then? And what about all those people between the time you lay down and take it like a little girl and he dies? what do you say to those relatives and survivors who manage to live through a regime like that? "Gee I'm sorry, better you die then we send soldiers voluntarily to help free you and yours. Really, here is some money and food to make up for it while you stand on the piles of the dead loved ones around you..."

[red5angel]

winterpalm, I am not buying what your selling, if the guy lives in the US or any where else where he can get television broadcast he would know that by now.


"Most of Iraqs combat aircraft .."

were destroyed in Desert Storm...

GS - In vietnam, just like with teh cuban missile crisis it was a very political move. To allow communism to spread would have threatened the free world at the time. I am not saying it ws the best choice but I understand why. There are only so many reasons to go to war....

"Saddam hasnt really shown that he's one to listen to the people has he? What would a protest against him do? "

Depends on if you live in Iraq or not. If you do, it will get you tortured an dprobably killed for your trouble.

"And I dont think I've heard or seen a really convincing arguement for it being invalid"

Souljah, it is not invalid, the boost in the economy is I am sure part o fthe reason we will go to war with Iraq, however, when an argument lies mostly or wholey on the oil issue then it is beyond ridiclous, you don't go to war for oil.


Kuen, I am guessing you come from the same neck of the woods Kung Lek comes from?

"Totally uninformed poppy **** like this is why this country is headed down the shi!!er. If it's not about oil why have they already sold the rights to Iraqi oil? Why have they promised Russia 10% of the profits? "

Business as usual, you still have to think about what happens when its all over.


"Why have they ignored horrible human rights abuses in Africa, Sri Lanka, Burma but not Iraq?"

Who says they are being ignored? Are these places also capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction or supporting terrorist? Of course let me remind you that America has stepped up to the plate more then once on these issue while most others have stood by and let this crap go on, Bosnia, Somalia to name a few.

"Only a fool thinks this war is about the safety of the American people."

No, only a fool believes this has nothing to do with it."


"Even Evil Chimp admits terrorism will increase if Iraq is attacked."

Without the financial support they get from Iraq terrorism will suffer but will not disappear. however, the stream of money and support begins to run dry....

" If you want to sell out the country for the greed of others be my guest just don't insult me with half truths and Neo Con propaganda."


Ah yeas, oil again, of course, it has ot be about the oil.:rolleyes:

[ewallace]

I have a growing suspicion that Laughing Cow is really Kung Lek, when KL is not high.

[txwingchun]

I just find it funny that no one protests against sadaam therefore sending him the message that what he does is fine. And that the U.S is the only bad guy in this hence fueling whatever politcal proganda he's force feeding his people that he's is right in supporting terrorism against the evil U.S empire. :rolleyes:

[red5angel]

tx, you are not the only one who sees the irony...

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
I used to listen to Rush quite a bit back in the early '90s. Actually, the term "dittohead" is an in-joke that early listeners/Rush put together...plus it really ticked off Rush haters.


To be perfectly honest with you, to me, Rush is the political right's answer to Jack Chick. It's like their whole raison d'etre is to prevent their readers/listeners from listening to the other side of the debate.

They don't seem to understand that it's not a debate if the other person is not there to respond.

There are liberal pundits who do that same thing. Don't get me wrong.

I think they are all little more than absurdity incarnate.

[dnc101]

Originally posted by Braden
Why are you incapable of posting on this topic without throwing around insults? (Question directed to Kung Lek)

Braden, some of the libs have asked me what antics, or anti(cs), I keep refering to in some of my 'obtuse' posts. Your question to KL is a good opportunity to answer them.

What you have to understand about the liberal position is that this is not about our pending war with Iraq. The libs aren't anti war, they are anti conservative. They fear anything that goes well under a Republican president, because that reflects well on conservative principles. This argument isn't about what is best for our country or the world. It's about positioning for the next election. Their motivation is political, not compassion.

Don't believe me? Consider this, there were no protests from these same liberals when Bill Clinton was indiscrimanantly launching cruise missals and blowing up aspirin factories. He killed innocent people, against the advise of the 'evil' military, for the sole purpose of diverting public attention from his indescretions. What was the peace loving response of the libs? Blame the 'evil' conservatives. Why, if we had left Bill alone, he wouldn't have had to resort to killing innocent people around the world!

The libs are so afraid something is going to go right for this country under a conservative 'regime' that they invent any excuse to try to derail our country's policies. They are in a blind panic. They know the WMDs are there. They know we'll win the war. They know the world is not going to condemn us for ousting a madman. And they are paniced. Panic is born of fear, and that same fear leads to hate- a blind hatred of anything and any one conservative. And when their lame arguments are called, they resort to personal attacks, out of fear and hatred.

From my observations, there are basically three types of liberals:
1. those who tend to lean to the left, but still act with reason and often allign with conservatives when they recognize a particular position as correct. My wife is in this category.
2. those who, unwilling or unable to think for themselves, parrot what they are told and take their orders from their ultra liberal leadership. Victoms of the public fool system, their heads are basically filled with mush. They are the statistics you read about when the teaachers union wants more pay for less performance.
3. the ultra liberal. This person hates conservatism with an insane passion. This is the paranoid who thinks the world will end because conservatives exist. This is the zealot who cannot resist reposting gibberish over and over untill you get tired of debunking it. The reactionary who, without thought or reason, automatically takes the opposite view if a conservative agrees with a point. The same ones who resort to name calling when they don't get their way.

What antics? You category 2 and 3 guys, your whole life is a serries of antics, there to be viewed for ammusement purposes by any one who understands you!

Now, sit back and observe a 'typical liberal tactic'- the "you too". In fact, since they're spitting and sputtering about now, I'll assist them by starting their argument for them: "Your whole post is a good example of..."

[eulerfan]

...inaccuracy. On this board, I personally expressed the wish that Colin Powell, a conservative were president. I'd feel safer if he were our leader. Wouldn't that put me in your first category? Why do I have 'antics', then?

I'm not protesting war. I think war is wrong. Always have. I will continue to say that. I know we're going to war. I know we're not ready to give it up. But that is not because war is the only answer. War is not the only answer. I want all of us to come to a consensus on that. Until we do that, I will understand that war is inevitable. However, I will not support it. Because I think it's wrong.

The 'you too' argument is called 'ad hominem, tu quoque'.

If you tell me A is wrong, a response of, 'that is incorrect because you do A' is a logical fallacy. It's a tu quoque. Your choice to do something doesn't make it right.

However, if you tell me that you are better than me because I do A, a response of, 'that is incorrect because you do A' is an entirely valid argument. Do you see the difference? If you say you are better, a response of 'you're no better' is ON TOPIC.

[dnc101]

(relax, guys- I'm not calling names)

Eulerfan, you almost got an A in logic there, but you missed the point. There was no argument, implied or otherwise, that I am better than anyone. I just said I understand and am ammused by type 2&3 liberals. I'll go an A- because I can see how you could infer that, though. But, tell me I'm wrong- is it about the war, or the 'regime' going to war?

[eulerfan]

dnc101,

I did not say that you claimed you were better. You said that a typical liberal response was "you too". So, I explained that there are times when a response of "you too" is a perfectly valid response.

You said my antics were amusing. I asked what antics of mine you referred to.

From your next post after I asked that question-"What antics? You category 2 and 3 guys, your whole life is a serries of antics, there to be viewed for ammusement purposes by any one who understands you!"

Explain how that was not directed at me. Because I still don't see it.

And you are wrong. I will refer you to my last post. It's not about the regime. It is about war. One of my favorite anti-war, political pundits is Noam Chomsky and he spoken at great length about what an @ss Clinton was for bombing factories in Africa.

I am actually against war.

[eulerfan]

"Bill Clinton was indiscrimanantly launching cruise missals and blowing up aspirin factories. He killed innocent people, against the advise of the 'evil' military, for the sole purpose of diverting public attention from his indescretions."

BTW, I think he actually did that under the VEIL of the Lewinski scandal. I think that's a little less palatable.

[Braden]

eulerfan

"I think war is wrong. Always have. I will continue to say that. I know we're going to war. I know we're not ready to give it up. But that is not because war is the only answer. War is not the only answer. I want all of us to come to a consensus on that. Until we do that, I will understand that war is inevitable. However, I will not support it. Because I think it's wrong."

One of the confounds you are making here, and it's one that is regularly made, is between 'being in war' and 'showing an absolute willingness to go to war.'

The mandate put before Saddam is a) to disarm, and b) to be deposed as leader of Iraq. This must happen; there are no alternatives. The only thing in question is how this will happen.

For a dozen years we have done every thing we can within the scope of polite indignation and diplomatic sanctions. None of it worked - at all.

The next step, to which there is no alternative, is to 'show an absolute willingness to go to war.' Note: do not make the confound here previously discussed.

Essentially this is a bluff game between Saddam and the UN/US. Saddan says, "Screw you, I'll do what I want. You don't have the balls to force me to your will." UN/US says "Oh yes we do!"

So what's going to happen? The more Saddam thinks that US/UN is not bluffing, the more cooperative he will be. That is why, after a dozen years of no progress, we suddenly have some progress (because there are sincere preparations for war; note again, do not make the previously discussed confound).

The confusion people make is that they take this progress to mean we should lay off the pressure of military enforcement. Once you understand why the progress has been made, this belief becomes untenable.

What the anti-war/anti-US/anti-Bush lobby is doing is solidifying Saddam's stance. The more powerful they get, the less scared Saddam is of US/UN attacking; the more he thinks they're only bluffing. This means the less he'll cooperate; the less progress we'll get in the Iraqi problem.

If you believe the US/UN isn't bluffing (ie. will go to war if it comes to that), then by fortifying Saddam's position (with anti-war/anti-US/anti-Bush power) will increase the chances of war happening. That's why people need to inform themselves and think about an issue instead of just doing whatever 'seems right.' Because the world isn't simple.

But it's worse, much worse, than this. If there is an actual war (as opposed to 'absolute willingness to go to war'), the big problem is fighting in Baghdad. The US/UN cannot take Baghdad from the Republican Guard without unthinkable loss of human life and property (including alot of loss of american life; but notably, an awful lot of Iraqi civilian losses). Everyone knows this. This is another 'bluff game' which gets played. So long as the Republican Guard/Saddam believe UN/US will not do this, they can sit tight in Baghdad and be untouchable. If they're convinced about US/UN (Bush's) utter dedication to winning this war, then the Republican Guard will collapse and Baghdad can be taken without these terrible losses.

So not only does bolstering Saddam's position (and don't get confused by euphemistic labels; that's what the 'anti-war' movement is doing) increase the chance of war, it increases the chance that the war will be as terrible as possible.

But no one even needs to know all of this... if they simply thought long enough to realize 'being in war' and 'being absolutely willing and ready to go to war' are not the same thing, then they'd come to the same conclusion just from this.

[rogue]

I can't this picture a Cirac and Sadaam didn't get mentioned. (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/toptease_4.html)

[ewallace]

Yesterday on the news they showed a heated debate at the university of texas san antonio, and at the very end, when the teacher who was on the pro-war side decided it was time to turn around and leave, the teacher who was heavily arguing peace slapped the pro-war guy on the back of the head, and the pro-war teacher just kept walking.

I thought that was pretty amusing.

[red5angel]

LOL! alot of protestors are extreme people so it doesn't surprise me when protestors or active pr peace people get upset and loose it like that!


Braden - "The US/UN cannot take Baghdad from the Republican Guard without unthinkable loss of human life and property (including alot of loss of american life; but notably, an awful lot of Iraqi civilian losses). "


Braden, this has been played up a lot in the media but looking at past experience I am inclined to believe that once the battle really gets to Baghdad, it is almost over. Once american forces hit the city I think we will find that the Republican Guard will fold pretty quickly. Most of the city fighting will be clean up type actions. Remember, they said fighting in the mountains against the Taliban and Al Quaeda would be bloody and difficult too. I am not trying to down play the loss of life by any means however, juts trying to inject a little non-sensationalist views here.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by Braden
One of the confounds you are making here, and it's one that is regularly made, is between 'being in war' and 'showing an absolute willingness to go to war.'

I see what you are saying. But this is guessing at motives and requires a certain amount of trust.

You are asking me to have a lot of trust in people I find to be inherently untrustworthy. I see no reason to believe it's just a bluff. Were Powell our president, I might have an easier time swallowing it. He's got the track record. He's familiar with war.

I might be able to trust it if the UN had a track record of demonstrating a modicum of influence on the US.

But I just don't trust that. I see no reason to.

[Braden]

"But this is guessing at motives and requires a certain amount of trust."

Yes, it requires the assumption that reality follows a certain amount of consistency and is ascertainable based upon informed observation.

This is a required assumption for any sort of logical thought.

The alternative is to believe in any old thing you please.

I don't consider this to be a viable alternative.

[eulerfan]

Right. Didn't I make it clear that I find it inconsistent with reality? That's what I meant when I spoke of 'track records'.

[Braden]

Aside from the problem of an (un)lawful world, you didn't make an argument at all. Perhaps you would like to make one?

[Braden]

red5angel

"Remember, they said fighting in the mountains against the Taliban and Al Quaeda would be bloody and difficult too."

And it probably would have been if we did the fighting. Instead we got the NA to march through, and every time they had problems from a mountaintop, we bombed the crap out of it.

The tactical situation here is much different. Notably, with respect to the absence of a NA-type faction within Baghdad, the absence of mountains, and our inability to bomb the crap out of things.

[eulerfan]

I am saying that I don't trust that it is a bluff. We do tend to go fight and war in other countries. I'm talking about what I feel I can trust. There's no argument to be made.

You want an argument?

If we express a total willingness to go to war when we aren't totally willing to go to war, we are putting ourselves in a very dangerous position.

If the bluff is called, and we don't go to war, we lose the ability to again express a total willingness to go to war. A large amount of power is lost.

Do you really think we would risk that? Do you really think we would express a total willingness to go to war when NOT totally willing to go to war?

[Braden]

I didn't say it's a bluff.

But you're still confounding 'being in war' with 'an absolute willingness to go to war.'

If the latter is all it takes to get the job done, then that's the ideal; that's the goal. It doesn't make it a bluff.

BTW, none of this is 'guessing at motivation', all of this has been right up front since day one.

[dnc101]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by eulerfan
dnc101,You said my antics were amusing. I asked what antics of mine you referred to.

The panic and knee jerk reactions of the liberal mindset.

From your next post after I asked that question-"What antics? You category 2 and 3 guys, your whole life is a serries of antics, there to be viewed for ammusement purposes by any one who understands you!"Explain how that was not directed at me. Because I still don't see it.

It was directed at you, as a member of a group that has asked. Even those who are not ultra or radical can sometimes wander a little too far left (or right, for that matter).

It's not about the regime. It is about war. One of my favorite anti-war, political pundits is Noam Chomsky and he spoken at great length about what an @ss Clinton was for bombing factories in Africa. I am actually against war.

That makes you and Chomsky a verry small minority on the liberal side. You put yourself in the cat 1 camp there. But most of the cat 1s were silent, along with a whole lot of conservatives, during that time. Kudos if you spoke up for what is right. But the point I made was clearly directed at the cat 3 libs and their cat 2 followers. If they are truly anti war, where are the protests against Saddam? Where were the protests when Clinton got us involved in Bosnia if the libs are so angry at us meddling around the globe? I'm sure a few spoke out. But, like the pics I linked to of the "anti war" (pro)testors, their voice of reason was unnoticed by most, burried in the mass hysteria that is ultra liberalism.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by Braden
I didn't say it's a bluff.


Originally posted by Braden
Essentially this is a bluff game between Saddam and the UN/US.

This subject is very close to my heart. I absolutely refuse to do a tango exercise with you on this subject. We are talking about lives.

I am officially leaving this argument. I will not return to this thread.

[Braden]

Eulerfan - I'll try to explain again. Although I wish you had taken a moment to try and understand what I am saying instead of getting offended.

Saddam must be disarmed and deposed. He will not do this if we only ask him. He will not do this from international pressure and sanctions. He will only do this under threat of military action.

No one wants to go to war. No one.

If Saddam thinks no one will go to war, he has no reason to fear, and will not comply. If he thinks they will go to war, he has alot to fear, so then will comply.

When you are playing poker, and you play a bluff game, this does not mean you or your opponent are bluffing. It describes the state of mind.

US/UN say they will go to war. Saddam hears this. He thinks to himself - are they bluffing? (After all, they told him twelve years ago what to do, and haven't enforced it yet!) So, we have the bluff game I described.

Note again, this does not mean I am claiming US/UN is bluffing. I'm not sure how to make this more clear.

If Saddam thinks they are bluffing (AGAIN - REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE OR NOT), then he will not comply with their demands. If Saddam thinks they are not bluffing (AGAIN - REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE OR NOT), then he will comply with their demands.

Thus, because no one wants to go war, but Saddam must comply with these demands, the ideal solution is to put Saddam in a position where he truly feels threatened (ie. where he doesn't think people are bluffing). In such a situation, he will comply, no war is necessary.

This is the goal of the Bush administration. Does this mean they are bluffing? No, that's not what I'm claiming. I don't know how to explain it more clearly.

When you undermine this US/UN effort, you solidify Saddam's position, he no longer feels threatened, and does not comply.

In other words, he has called US/UN's bluff. Once again, does this mean the are bluffing? NO! When you call someone's bluff, they can be bluffing or not; what's mattered is you called it.

When he calls their bluff, we get pulled into a war. So - we don't want him to call their bluff. So, we should not solidify Saddam's position.

This is exactly what I said previously. I'm sorry that you did not understand it. You seemed more interested in taking offense than trying to understand though. This is too bad.

Like you say, lives are at stake. Lives are worth the effort of trying to understand what's going on.

[diego]

Originally posted by txwingchun
How come all these war protestors only have signs against bush and the U.S where are the protestors asking sadaam to back down and disarm?

bushs crones already be doing that with they christian axis of evil speech...the protests were to point out to saddam and them that not everyone is a frantic christian out for oil like bush...or so it seems anywho!. :)

[diego]

Originally posted by Losttrak
Those pictures should be a study of "Bandwagon Jumping" Most of those people are sheep or are drug along by their friends who didnt want to go alone, I'll wager.

Two kinds of people, sheep and wolves. Sheep want to chew their grass and be happy ignoring whats around them. "Dont rock the boat" they say. Eventually a shepherd will come along and save them.
Wolves can see the writing on the wall and arent afraid to take a pre-emptive chunk out of someones a$$. Wolves typically have no problem with the accountability of their actions and are willing to deal with the repurcussions whether good or bad.


"I'll wager." thanks for YOUR OPINION it was quite enlightening i think siddartha may had wanted to study your shiat before he kicked his famous discourses!. :)

[dnc101]

Braden, you have some good points here. Believe me, they understand this. As I pointed out, the real issue in their mind is to deny the US, and therefore Bush, and therefore conservatives, any victory. If we could depose the current Iraqui regime peacefully, that would be a major victory for all but the liberal ideology. So it is preferable to these hypocrits to support Saddam and force us to a showdown and possible war. If we back down, the libs win. If we go to war and it is costly or horrific, they'll rant on that and ignore what ever we find there to justify our cause. If we win easily, then we'll be imperialists imposing our will on a weaker country. The loss of life is only relevant to them as an issue they can demigogue- so they set the stage for war while blaming conservatives and crying crocodile tears. And, they call us 'evil'!

[red5angel]

Braden, it is supposition on my part but I believe that even under threat of military action Saddam will not give up. His republican guard was under the impression in Desert Storm that we were going all the way to Bagdhad. Towards the end they even began to pull back in that direction in anticipation of that push.

[Braden]

He allready took further steps towards cooperation a month ago when he was scared.

If you mean once the war starts that he will retreat with the RG to Baghdad and try to hold it - of course he will, the RG is a moment's notice away from scrambling to Baghdad right now. The question isn't whether or not he will stand ground there, it's whether or not the RG will.

The answer depends on the combination of how afraid the RG is and how organized anti-Saddam resistance within Baghdad is.

[diego]

Don't believe me? Consider this, there were no protests from these same liberals when Bill Clinton was indiscrimanantly launching cruise missals and blowing up aspirin factories. He killed innocent people, against the advise of the 'evil' military, for the sole purpose of diverting public attention from his indescretions. What was the peace loving response of the libs? Blame the 'evil' conservatives. Why, if we had left Bill alone, he wouldn't have had to resort to killing innocent people around the world!

thats crap because clinton wasnt fiending to get rid of axis's of evil...and monkeyboy is not a intelligence that many feel comfortable watching him run around with his little slingshot telling the big bullys they stupid!. oh is there really blacks in brazil....these are the axis of evil that all christians should unite to fight agianst...how intelligent and wise is the latter statement, coming from the same mind that spit the former question!. :)

[diego]

to add to that at least clinton wasnt stupid...shady yes but not stupid...monkeyboy doesnt even know his spellingbees, clinton pimped his way through impeachment and came out of it comfy all set up for future bookdeals etc as a american icon.

[Braden]

What did I tell you about that BC weed, man?

[yenhoi]

Quote ewallace:

I have a growing suspicion that Laughing Cow is really Kung Lek, when KL is not high.

--

A couple days ago I started thinking the very same thing.

:eek:

[ewallace]

to add to that at least clinton wasnt stupid
That is certainly one possible opinion.

[diego]

Originally posted by Braden
What did I tell you about that BC weed, man?

your not my father :).

what do you disagree with?.

[diego]

Originally posted by ewallace

That is certainly one possible opinion.

sorry....compared to yall prez now; no clinton was fucqn einstien, compared to curious george:D

[dnc101]

Diego, if you are going to quote me, please put it in quotation marks and give me credit. And your post is illustrative of the fearful reactionary mindset I've been talking about. Feel free to rant, you are a shining example of a discredited ideology.

[ewallace]

sorry....compared to yall prez now; no clinton was fucqn einstien, compared to curious george
Stop comparing yourself with Wild Bill at once!

[red5angel]

diego, I think I have to go with Braden, I am pretty sure you more often drunk then GDA when posting on this forum.

[dezhen2001]

diego: for some reason i always thought u were from some grimy street 'hood n the west coast usa... didnt know u were from vancouver :D

dawood

[diego]

Originally posted by dnc101
Diego, if you are going to quote me, please put it in quotation marks and give me credit. And your post is illustrative of the fearful reactionary mindset I've been talking about. Feel free to rant, you are a shining example of a discredited ideology.

fearfull ideology what are you so spooked about?..all i said is your prez is a rascist retard and i dont trust him.

was that loud enough?.

[diego]

Originally posted by ewallace

Stop comparing yourself with Wild Bill at once!

i didnt compare myself to anyone, what are you going on about?.

[diego]

Originally posted by red5angel
diego, I think I have to go with Braden, I am pretty sure you more often drunk then GDA when posting on this forum.

why because i trust bill more then chimp?.

[ewallace]

Nevermind bro, you totally missed that one.

[dnc101]

Most of you are too young to remember this. But, let me tell you of an anti war 'heroen' who went to Hanoi a little over 30 yrs ago. Her name was Jane Fonda. She went as part of a propoganda campaign to support the communists and discredit the US. A group of POWs were cleaned up and paraded in front of her to be photographed so she could tell the world how good they were being treated, and how sorry they were for being part of an American imperialist plott against the compassionate, peace loving communists. The POWs, thinking this must be some kind of trick to get out information on their plight, wrote their names on small slips of paper and passed them to 'Hanoi Jane' as she went down the line and shook their hands. She took the slips without comment, then walked straight over to the commie commander and handed them over. Later, these men were beaten and tortured for their efforts. Some died. This is the way that those radical liberals think, it is their 'morality', the way they operate. This is their 'compassion' in action. And they havn't changed since then. This is the type people you follow blindly when you march for their brand of 'peace'.

I never advocate blind obedience to any political force or ideology. To protest the war is a good thing. But an honest war protest would necessarily target the one man who can stop it- Saddam Hussein. An honest war protest would denounce France and Germany as villains instead of heroes. It would demand the UN enforce its agreements and back up its ultimatums. If we stood unified against Saddam, we could accomplish his dissarmament and removal without bloodshed. But as long as the majority of liberals are willing to follow their rabid, hate filled mongers of death and destruction, we'll have death and destruction. And blaming Bush won't bring back your relatives, friends, and neighbors. And, deep down, it won't assuage your guilt.

[diego]

dnc thats curious about fonda...least the bit*h has nice legs :) never heard tdhat about her.

me im into bhuddist ideology so i feel most peeps are going to hell anyways wether right or left. but im not feeling george at all he should have said axis of harsh criminality and not axis of evil etc...one all that did was make the koreans say fuq you we will get our missiles ready then, two bushes speach did absolutely nothing to dissuade his haters from looking at him as a kkk supporter...just the term evil and bieng he is a white christian...mix all that with his retarded borderline rascist comments in the worlds media...i really see a man that reminds me of david duke...so if i went to the war protest i would be there in support that true god would curse these evil fuqs like bush and saddam...bush has no legal dirt on him or would be tried...but he does rep a part of humanity that caused much of the worlds red-watered dirt.

he shouldnt have said evil and god in his axis speach and he shouldnt be so dense talking about spelling b's and shiat...peeps only see a idiot...tho i understand and agree what you mentioned about liberal peeps jumping the gun...i just felt annoyed about your eluding me into they partys when really im just onsome human shiat and bush is a boy that has given me absolutely no reason to regard him as a man...according to and based on my understanding in how history went down. :)

[red5angel]

diego, type in "Hanoi Jane" in your search engine....

[Braden]

dnc101

"This is the way that those radical liberals think, it is their 'morality', the way they operate. This is their 'compassion' in action."

Are you familiar with the Greenpeace/Zambia/GE-Food debacle? I've alluded to it a few times here... dunno how well known it is though.

Really blew my mind when I first heard about it.

[red5angel]

and that is braden?

[dnc101]

Braden, I missed that one. Fill us in?

[dnc101]

Diego, about all I got out of that last rant is that you worship a fat statue, you hate Christians, you hate Bush, you're apparently willing to overlook Jane Fondas' murderous indescretions because she has nice gamms- did I miss anything? Hard to say for sure. I get a little dizzy trying to follow your posts.

[Braden]

There's a serious famine in Zambia. A bunch of groups, primarily the American government, sent them food relief (15,000 tonnes of maize, for example). Greenpeace convinced the Zambian government that this "genetically engineered" food was a poison and cultural imperialism, so they refused to accept it. Estimates of starvation are as high as 10 million people there now.

The Greenpeace call their campaign "Eat this or die." It's supposed to be a criticism of the food donor's position, but it strikes me as kind of ironic.

[red5angel]

reeeealllyyyyyy.... Thats insane but goes to show that just because you protest it don't make you right. ;)

[KC Elbows]

"But as long as the majority of liberals are willing to follow their rabid, hate filled mongers of death and destruction, we'll have death and destruction."

Good to see the discussion has remained rational.:p

You know who's behind the liberal commie plot? The round eyes. That's right, it's totally a round eye liberal plot to take over oil and kill the Irish, it's a total skull and crossbones thing, you would have totally seen it coming years ago if you had studied up on the city layout of Crested Butte, it's completely designed as an instruction manual for a freemason guided, Bilderberg funded, liberal round eye take over of Canada.

You can believe me, because I'm a round eye liberal, and right now, I'm sitting with a map of Ontario, just planning.

[Braden]

From http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/310802a.htm

"What is sad is not that we are letting people starve - we are not," he said. "What is sad is people taking advantage of the desperate situation and forcing people to eat what they don't want to eat," Mwananyanda Lewonika said.

...An estimated 13 million people face the threat of famine in southern Africa, and 300,000 people could die of starvation in the next six months, the United Nations says.

And this is from a site who agrees with Greenpeace on the issue! :eek:

[KC Elbows]

BTW, there has been some evidence of crops from food programs to africa destroying the agricultural base of said countries, not on purpose, but as a side effect. This creates an environment where the countries are forced into food programs even longer, by damaging the economy of the recipient. I don't know if that's what's happening in Zambia, but it is a valid concern for said countries if they ever want to rise up from poverty and feed their own.

[dnc101]

Dang, Diego, you started a trend. Now even elbows is quoting and not giving me credit! And, KC, it was the epitomie of rational posting when taken in context.

Braden, thanks. Outstanding link which supports my point. These radical libs are willing to starve tens of thousands in order to deny the US any claim to compassion. But the type 2s, and even 1s, still donate to "Green Strife." I've tried to talk with many othewise decent people about what they are supporting with their donations to these extremists, but they don't want to hear. They just want to be left alone to donate so they can feel good about themselves. They are as responsible as the evil they blindly follow.

[jun_erh]

Eulerfan- www.chick.com


I'm way into the one about the band and the masons. There's a site that parodies that's funny. and a fanzine called "The Imp" that has an AMAZING issue dedicated to Chick done in the form f a tract.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0034/0034_01.asp

[@PLUGO]

wow... the broken records still play on...:rolleyes: :p

[Souljah]

They just want to be left alone to donate so they can feel good about themselves. They are as responsible as the evil they blindly follow.

I do agree with you guys about this point, but there have been instances in the past where western 'aid' has done more bad than good.
I know you all know about the whole thing with Nestle in India.
Now I'm not agreeing with the Greenpeace-Zambia stance but I do feel this needs to be pointed out also...

greg

[dnc101]

Originally posted by Design Sifu
wow... the broken records still play on...:rolleyes: :p

Actually, most of the libs have cut and run. Or, found clever ways to dodge a response!:) You all left Diego to represent your case.:D

That's ok, though. I have to get back to work myself. Workout, then play practice tonight, Tai Chi class tomorrow morning, and I'm at work the rest of the weekend. Later.

[Braden]

Glad you dropped in for a meaningless snipe. Good job. :rolleyes: :p

[diego]

Originally posted by dnc101
Diego, about all I got out of that last rant is that you worship a fat statue, you hate Christians, you hate Bush, you're apparently willing to overlook Jane Fondas' murderous indescretions because she has nice gamms- did I miss anything? Hard to say for sure. I get a little dizzy trying to follow your posts.

im sorry if you have troubles reading, i tend to type quickly in issues i dont really care about:)

yes you missed everything, i dont worship sh*t, and bush is a careless idiot in my opinion...so what you up to this weekend, any good plans?:D

[diego]

Originally posted by dnc101


Actually, most of the libs have cut and run. Or, found clever ways to dodge a response!:) You all left Diego to represent your case.:D

That's ok, though. I have to get back to work myself. Workout, then play practice tonight, Tai Chi class tomorrow morning, and I'm at work the rest of the weekend. Later.

your first paragraph made me lol and think fu** u...funny in para2 you answered my last post with the weekend joke :)

[KC Elbows]

"But as long as the majority of liberals are willing to follow their rabid, hate filled mongers of death and destruction, we'll have death and destruction."

"And, KC, it was the epitomie of rational posting when taken in context."

No, sorry, it wasn't. Perhaps you're confusing epitomie with epillepsy. That seems quite likely.

So, how many conservative forum members does it take to bully Diego into submission?

It's amazing, some conservatives on the forum seem to have their own thoughts, and some just repeat each other, like parrots, but less colorful.:p :D ;)

[dezhen2001]

i dont think diego can be bullied in to submission - good job son! stay grimy! :D:cool:

dawood

[ewallace]

It's amazing, some conservatives on the forum seem to have their own thoughts, and some just repeat each other, like parrots, but less colorful.

We have our own thoughts.


We don't just repeat each other.

We are not like parrots.

We are not less colorful.

[ZIM]

but then, no one listens to anyone else anyhow...

wow... the broken records still play on...


On February 26th, every Senate office will receive a call every minute from a constituent, as they receive a simultaneous flood of faxes and e-mail.

I hope they lock these Spammin' slime up! (http://www.moveon.org/winwithoutwar/) :rolleyes: Repeating each other, indeed! Flaunt it if you got it is their motto, I guess...

[note please: if you like this sort of nonsense...it applies to constituents, not foreign nationals]

[dnc101]

Quick check in at noon.


Originally posted by diego
...funny in para2 you answered my last post with the weekend joke :)
It's like I been tellin' ya, Diego, I know what yer a thinkin!:D

KC, I repeated some points because:
They bear repeating.
No one has successfully refuted them, so they are still valid.
You libs have a habbit of ignoring them, so it's necessary.
They are relevant to the topic I'm discussing or the point I'm making.

I'll put my thoughts here up against yours any day. Side by side comparison of all our posts. Judge them for content, clarity, logic, technical proficiency, you name it. All anyone has to do is a random search on both of us. Put up or shut up.

[diego]

so to sample the records sound as it skips, lets break down the reasons for and agianst war.

im agianst it because of the obvious peace issue of innocent casualtys will die, and war is childish. also im worried about it as i feel bush is incompetent going up agianst psycopathic serial killers alla saddam...which really i dont know how one in my perspect could feel pleasant about the situation.

so im outside the playing field. all you jane fonda loving libs and all yall hick mahfuqn con's :) just kidding........sorta

lib's why you agianst the war. con's why you for it or why do you not feel worry or whatever with bush as your leader
































fucqing drones:p


seriously, keep it to one paragraph no more then ten sentences...treat this question as a poll :)

['MegaPoint]

These are the facts. Nothing in "civilized" society has changed for 10,000 years. Yes technology gets better, but the way the "e-lite" control things is based on polytricks older than any political system. The media is one of the many acts of prestidigitation. Pharaohs will be Kings and Queens, who will be Presidants and Prime Ministers. Viziers, High Priests and Generals will be Lords, Counts, Barons and Generals who will be CEOs, Senators and big business billionaires. Very simple, yet quite elaborate. Too easy to see for some, impossible to visualize (ever) for most. That's why they do it like that PEEPS!

As for the liberal vs. conservative media, that isht is ridiculous. Liberal and conservative are terms the system made up to confuse the fact that they are both proponents of the beast- Cannibalis-, I mean, CAPITALIZing CAPITALISm! Don't think capitalism can be permanent. Something so selfish could never benfit the majority of human beings. We are in a transition. The "civil war" has begun. It's on the D-L and folks refuse to believe it, but oh well. Get fair, change for the reals or get taken out- not literally you savages. You old models are OTD. You are just in denial. You Egypt lovers love de-Nile so much, hahaha (sorry bad joke)!

There is a reason they say "the revolution WON'T be televised"! The media ain't got a clue or a say because they're in on the "quickening". The True World Order has enterd the fray.... Good Day!!!

[diego]

^ WORD?.

[ZIM]

Dude, Jello Biafra's been saying that for years! ;)

Hey, I found this so all of you can just get it out of your system! (http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent1/?file=gc_index) :D

[Sho]

Lord of the Oil (http://www.flabber.nl/img/lord.of.the.oil.jpg)

[dezhen2001]

LMAO at those orc pictures!

dawood

[diego]

Originally posted by ZIM
Dude, Jello Biafra's been saying that for years! ;)

Hey, I found this so all of you can just get it out of your system! (http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent1/?file=gc_index) :D
ZIM, whos jello biafra?.:)

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Sho
Lord of the Oil (http://www.flabber.nl/img/lord.of.the.oil.jpg)

Hey, they forgot Tony Blair as Gollum.

:D :D

['MegaPoint]

Originally posted by ZIM
Dude, Jello Biafra's been saying that for years! ;)

Hey, I found this so all of you can just get it out of your system! (http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent1/?file=gc_index) :D

If you listen and look around, the "signs" have been there for decades. Steely Dan talked about it (listen to "The Fez"), countless 60s and 70s folk singers/rockers, modern hip hop acts like Freestyle Fellowship, the Roots and Common. Sociopaths like to rub the fact in that you will never catch them. See G. Bush Sr's. use of the term New World Order. That just gives it away.

Look around. The greatest skill a MA can have is awareness. This is not entirely based on the senses, but common sense. Cue and clues are everywhere. The status quo will try to adapt, dopplegang or integrate/ infiltrate. Uh-uh, not gonna happen this time. The "knowing" can smell the dirty beasts 33 miles away.

Research and learn the truth. Don't get mad or discouraged- get even. See you in the fray, as we give up our souls everyday. This system is built to be flexible. Their "Grand Experiment" will be dethroned and retooled. The best laid plans of tyrants and leaders often morph into that which they were trying to avoid. God is smart like that. Trick the faux-tricksters. Pax....

[ZIM]

diego-
Jello Biafra is/was the lead singer for the Dead Kennedys, a punkrock band popular in the 80s...he ran for mayor of San Fran, too, and there was a draft to get him into the presidency [green party]. Some of his ideas were pretty cool...

"End Police Brutality:
Make police officers stand for election every four years, voted on by the districts they patrol."

"Enact a maximum wage:
Great idea. When I got it aired on Politically Incorrect I was roundly booed by audience and guests alike. The host told the viewers I was crazy before he even said my name. People assume they are the ones who will be hurt when the big bad government hits the middle class with another evil tax.

So let’s be generous: No taxes up to $100,000; after that it’s payback time. And emphasize the payback--free health care, free education (including amnesty on student loans), free transportation (including air travel), and more....

...We don’t need a flat tax, but a flattening tax, to truly level the playing field. After all, what causes more damage to the planet, drug addiction or wealth addiction? Hopefully the maximum wage will raise enough money to fill the cups of everyone who makes less than $100,000 so weíll all be even. And can we please find a clearer, sexier term than single-payer health care next time it’s a ballot initiative?"

"As it stands now, we are being farmed. " <- his coolest slogan

link (http://www.angelfire.com/punk/jello2000/platform.html)

[Black Jack]

"War Pigs......"

Does anybody say that anymore?? If that is still cool lib lingo is "down with the man" good to use or "one...two...three...four...we don't want your f@cking war."

Rogue,

Yeah, the Frence love to hold Iraqi jocks, cheese eating surrender monkies.

[KC Elbows]

Hey, I just said some of the conservative members on here were being parrots, I didn't say specifically who.

Now, I haven't noticed eWallace being particularly parrotish, though I've not read the whole of this argument across all of the threads, whereas dnc goes from thread to thread talking about all of these wonderful arguments he's put forward, and how all liberals have run from these supposed ironclad arguments, but the bulk of his posts have been liberals are sent by the debbil to tempt my momma into public fornication silliness, so, in the ever popular game of Spot the Parrot, those of you who guessed dnc and the small group of members who faithfully follow him from thread to thread in an attempt to dictate content and direction for the forum they do not run, and then see it as some sort of victory when their opponents don't care to waste their time arguing against comments like dem liberals want you to worship the debbil, those members who recognized this have won in this episode of Spot the Parrot.

This is not to say that some conservatives have not made excellent contributions to this discussion, but that the ones who think they are the members who made such contributions aren't actually the members who have. In fact, as far as I can tell, the conservative members who made most of the good points left, as did I, because there is nothing to be gained intellectually from listening to two opposing branches of propaganda.

So, since I can only take "put up or shut up" to mean "put out your propaganda, so we can put out ours some more", I'd say I've got better things to do, and actual discussions to benefit from.

BTW, dnc, convenient that you took the time I was away from KFO completely doing more important things to say that I ran from your arguments. Very lame. Like some of your fellow parrots, it appears that winning an argument is more important to you than actually being right, or being a good person.

To date, Merry is the only one I've seen give a compelling and fairly complete argument for the war on here, with some other outstanding contributors. However, to date, there's still a number who have done nothing to advance what Merry put forward, yet act like they've actually put forward something other than a unified front to dictate discussion regardless of circumstance or ability to do so.

And, while I can agree with Merry's assessment, dnc's is just a few facts smeered thin over a vast surface of anti-liberal hyperbole. Merry recognizes the fumbles that made the present situation and resistance inevitable, dnc fails to recognize it, or the inevitable effects it has. Key leaders created the seeds for the anti-war movement by their fumbles. There is no escaping this fact. While I have repeatedly said that I feel for these people, because they are in a tough spot, I did not make the circumstances. They did, and they must like it or lump it, because that's how the cards were dealt them.

It has been said by better than me that a good leader does not give an order than his people will not follow. Time will tell which side of that line Bush falls on, but I cannot think of another time where the decisions, and not just the character, of an American President have been more questioned before action took place. Like I said, I feel very sorry for George W. Bush. He's inheritted some bad circumstances. The parties have been heavily at odds since the Clinton witch hunts, he won by what is popularly thought of as a questionable margin, and thus was denied clear mandate, he will always have the stigma of oil on him as he is seen taking action in the middle east, he is not generally thought of as the most brilliant president ever, and yet he is on a course from which action must result. His oppostition feels unrepresented by their party, the only opposition leader who might have had enough clout to make life easier on him, the former president, was so besmirched throughout the witch hunt of his presidency that he is not allowed to be seen as influential, even if he was the last american president since Reagan to have the people behind him. Bush's only options are to follow the present course, or to do what he wants and be forced to stop all serious opposition, and thus be seen, ultimately, as a tyrant. He lives in a political climate where all failures will be perceived to be his fault. I feel for him, especially since he seems to me like a bit of a regular guy, for an elitist. But that's the reality of his situation.

Anyway, I've got to go. I might stop in later. Take care.

[ZIM]

THIS parrot wouldn't go VRRPPT! if you put 50,000 volts though him!

Hah, beat ya to it, punk! :p

Really, all of this is quite old...

[KC Elbows]

Darnit Vim, you're clearly a ****atil, not a parrot.:D

[ewallace]

I am not being particularly parrotish.

You have not read the whole of this argument across all of the threads.

[KC Elbows]

Nope, you're not a parrot, you're just trolling. I refuse to give you parrot status.

[red5angel]

I think ew may have a point here KC. Those of us who have stuck with the discussion have sort of been arguing over several threads and so some of it may seem like it is being parroted due to some crossed lines, etc...

[KC Elbows]

"I think ew may have a point here KC. Those of us who have stuck with the discussion have sort of been arguing over several threads and so some of it may seem like it is being parroted due to some crossed lines, etc..."

I don't buy this. While I've seen some articles from some members, I've seen whole threads where dnc's only contribution is that all the world's problems are liberal this and that. It's hogwash. Then he likes to put forward how the liberals don't counter his good points, yet he makes no points, meanwhile members who agree with him on what needs to be done, therefore agree with him reflexively on all points, which is why the parroting monicker. I think people are agreeing because other people are on 'their side', and they're agreeing to absolute malarky. Let me put it to you this way: I have personally seen you a bunch of times call out people for buying into conspiracy theories, be it Bilderberg stories, or oil theories, whatever. Yet never once have I seen you call out dnc for the liberal conspiracies he likes to paint, even while you as a group are trying to undermine another poster's position, and thus taking advantage of his rhetoric.

Again, it's not the conservative viewpoint I'm disagreeing with, but the uneducated conservative viewpoint that I'm supposed to be wasting my time countering, according to dnc, and the acceptance of it by those who are working together to 'keep the forum from the liberals'.

You see, the group of you are arguing against the liberal platform that you want this discussion to be framed in, not the liberal platform that the people you are speaking to may hold. You are generally unwilling to face the fact that the anti-war movement could not have any momentum without the fumbles of our leaders. You create a conspiracy theory, yet avoid the obvious truth that this is all the logical conclusion of american politics over the last twenty years, not some liberal led commie plan.

Hell, I'm not even arguing about whether we should go or not, I'm pointing out that you are arguing with each and every liberal as though they were the same person with the same views under the aegis of some universally consistent liberal plan, and I'm saying that at least you, r5, are more intelligent than that.

I'm saying that I find it annoying to be spoken to as though I were suggesting that Hitler were behind the mess in Iraq when I say much more mundane things, and I find it more annoying when I know the speaker is ordinarily more aware of themselves than that.

This has absolutely nothing to do with cross posts. There is no confusion on my part. I am not new to forums, I put no merit in that argument. Some members have taken sides, and everyone on the other side of that line is treated as only as intelligent as the dumbest person on their side. On another forum, there was a self proclaimed conservative who stated

"It's all the fault of the f*&$ing jews."

Before you decide to speak to me as though I am subject to the illusions of the dumbest in my group, or allow others to do the same, think about whether you will approve of being looked at as a brother to that poster, and treated as such, as he is definitely the dumbest of your group I've run into. However, on THAT forum, his brothers did not support him one bit, even before that racist stuff. Unfortunately, I do not see much of that happening on this forum. I see a bunch of guys working very hard to use any edge they can, whether it is pertinent or not, to undermine anyone who disagrees. Which has crap to do with cross posts.

[red5angel]

I see your points, and hopefully I have made it clear that a.) I do not look at it from conservative /liberal - those labels funnel people into categories they may switch back and forth on in other issues. b.) I try to address each and every person and their arguments sperately, although on both sides many of the arguments are redundant, and I am starting to think a few of our canadian posters are the same person....

[KC Elbows]

"I am starting to think a few of our canadian posters are the same person...."

Which is precisely why I left this argument- people I had conversed many times with before gave up their personal approach in order to benefit from ganging up on all opposition in order to win a stupid argument, when people just wanted to shout out because they aren't happy with world events today, to vent. After all, as much as you don't want to see anti war websites, do you honestly think all people want to watch people being machine gunned from an aerial view? Yet no one disputes your right to post that, so long as you post on kung fu here and there and contribute to the community.

Frankly, this team approach you guys are using is rediculous. It gives the impression that everyone is your buddy unless they disagree with you, and then the team gets sicked on them. As people, some of you are cool. As a team, you're not. You want individual canadians, be an individual american. You want to believe you've acted towards me as though you're just speaking to me, that's fine. You haven't, but believe what you like. Until Merry said the same thing I was saying(leadership fumbles would need to be accounted for before action would even be possible), you couldn't even hear it. I don't mind, there's things others said that I may not have been hearing as well as I could have. Which was why I walked away for a bit, and did other stuff. Meanwhile, your camp took advantage of me walking away in order to chalk up another victory, and you seemed to have no problem with this, as long as the team was winning.

Seeing as how I'm not even posting on the war at this point, but my annoyance with the team, I'll just leave this thread, and dnc can talk all the smack he wants. Seeing as how you're the only team member who I think isn't a total wank, I'll just leave it at that and limit our discussions to martial arts.

[red5angel]

KC, I think the "team" approach you are seeing is just like minded people agreeing. I am not trying to slight you here brother I just know from my own point of view that while I don't feel like I am on any "team" it sometimes starts to feel like it since there are those that generally agree with me and those that don't. I have agreed and disagree with comments on both sides of the line, and I have seen a few others do it as well.
I think your letting dnc get to you man! There have been some prettygood arguments for both sides, and some pretty embarrassing ones as well.
The thing I notice is that most people have this impression that those participating are trying to sway others in their thinking. All I know is that while you are not going to convince me that we shouldn't go to war with Iraq I have learned quite a bit, about the issue itself, about human nature, and about a few of my forum freinds. As long as I walk away having leanred something then I consider it a success.

[KC Elbows]

Then why is it that it is endlessly you, dnc, eWallace, and Braden on each of these threads, never just one of you, and why is it that each dnc post is addressed to Braden to give a condascending viewpoint of the opposition(his points on this thread don't actually deal with the war, but each one demonizes the liberals for non-cooperation, as though liberals introduced non-cooperation into US politics in the last twenty years), and why have I twice now seen Braden drive off people from this discussion, the second time one of the most level headed people on the forum, because he doesn't get the point that it is not his god given right to harrangue members with endless scrutinies of their posts on any topic, all the while failing to note inconsistencies in his own poists, condascendingly lecturing while driving members away from the discussion, while dnc speaks to him like he's a padawan learner about the liberals leaving because they can't argue the point, and yet you have no problem whatsoever with this?


Frankly, I'm sick of it. I don't agree with much of what Laughing Cow has said, but then, I don't follow him everywhere and debate lone members in identical groups of threes, how about you? I came back, and there you are debating Diego with the same group, and there you are debating Eulerfan with the same group. If you don't want to be seen as part of the team, then get out of phalanx for one minute and take into consideration the people you are talking to.

And Braden, join a debate club and get it out of your system. This is also a conversation forum.

[KC Elbows]

The point is, if you let good members get rolled over because the person doing the rolling is on your side, then what good are you as a member to this forum?

[red5angel]

KC, first of all, I odn't follow any of those posters around, and I have a feeling they don't follow each other or myself around either. However we all seemed to be attracted to similar posts, woudl you agree that that might just be why we all appear in the same posts?
I can't speak for any of those others, but I see these political posts that almost always turn anti-american in some way or another and I feel I have to stand up for what I believe in. I imagine that is probably what goes through their heads as well.
I can say that Bradens posts tend to be some of the most clear on this forum, you may not agree but whether we have agreed or not, I generaly find his posts well written and thought out.


"If you don't want to be seen as part of the team, then get out of phalanx for one minute and take into consideration the people you are talking to."

Think about what you are saying for a minute? You are implying that I am posting in tandem with these other posters for what? I am only posting where I see a place I feel the need to express myself thats all. Although oft times many of the same people, on both sides of the discussion, end up being involved, it doesn't bother me at all. Obviously they believe in or atleast feel like trolling consistantly, for what they believe in. So do I and it doesn't matter who else is posting on a thread, on either side in my opinion, if you say somehting I feel like I have something to say for one side or another I might just do that. If a few others jump on and express my views as well, ok, so what? It is possible that Braden, DNC and I might just hold similar thoughst and feelings. I can assure that it is not a conspircay on my part to beat anyone down or to gang up on anyone.

As for your point, good members is a subjective term. while there are some members we might all agree generally have good posts, there are some we can all take our leave, and not all of those match up. For example I happen to enjoy Bradens posts, not because we always agree, because we don't, but because his posts are generally clear and well thought out. You however, seem to feel differently, so you see where the issue is?

[KC Elbows]

It doesn't matter if it is a concentrated effort. If the end effect of your actions is that people get ganged up on, what good is your intentions?

As for Braden, yes, he is intelligent, but he has no idea when to converse and when to debate, and I have been here long enough to see him occassionaly be wrong, but I have not been here long enough to see him admit it. I don't care for that much, and I've mentioned it before. He's more about winning the argument than anything else. Not this argument, any argument. In this case, he lectures that the anti war movement is at fault for lending support to sadam, failing to note that there is a substantial anti war movement because the president has failed to inspire the people while asking the world of them in the form of a series of wars. That failure is not necessarily just the president's fault, but it is the circumstances that exist.

R5, As for yours and dnc's feelings, you just said they might be similar, yet they are not at all. EVERY dnc post on here has been about liberals. On this entire thread. You said you didn't work on such arguments. How are they similar? And how are you not reflexively falling into a 'unit' when you say you have similar views to someone whose views are entirely different to yours?

My point is, the rest of us(except for Diego) regulars take a break. You four don't. All four of you. Together.

Give it a break.

[diego]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
"I am starting to think a few of our canadian posters are the same person...."

Which is precisely why I left this argument- people I had conversed many times with before gave up their personal approach in order to benefit from ganging up on all opposition in order to win a stupid argument, when people just wanted to shout out because they aren't happy with world events today, to vent. After all, as much as you don't want to see anti war websites, do you honestly think all people want to watch people being machine gunned from an aerial view? Yet no one disputes your right to post that, so long as you post on kung fu here and there and contribute to the community.

Frankly, this team approach you guys are using is rediculous. It gives the impression that everyone is your buddy unless they disagree with you, and then the team gets sicked on them. As people, some of you are cool. As a team, you're not. You want individual canadians, be an individual american. You want to believe you've acted towards me as though you're just speaking to me, that's fine. You haven't, but believe what you like. Until Merry said the same thing I was saying(leadership fumbles would need to be accounted for before action would even be possible), you couldn't even hear it. I don't mind, there's things others said that I may not have been hearing as well as I could have. Which was why I walked away for a bit, and did other stuff.


Meanwhile, your camp took advantage of me walking away in order to chalk up another victory, and you seemed to have no problem with this, as long as the team was winning.



wow doesnt superman have a ego about him :D :p

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by diego


wow doesnt superman have a ego about him :D :p

****it Diego, you're standing on my table cloth...er... cape.

[Braden]

I don't have any interest whatsoever in conversations about who around here is better or worse than everyone else. Please don't include me in them.

I don't know red5angel, dnc101, MerryPrankster, Serpent, rogue, yenhoi, or anyone else who may espouse conservative views here, aside from our contact in this forum, nor do I identify with any of them as part of some kind of secret, subversive group.

If I have 'driven people off', it has only been by replying to things they say.

If you're about to make a post on this forum, and the only point of the post is an autocratic declaration that certain individuals are inferior to you: stop, think, then don't make that post. Thanks.

[KC Elbows]

"I don't know red5angel, dnc101, MerryPrankster, Serpent, rogue, yenhoi, or anyone else who may espouse conservative views here"

No one mentioned MerryPrankster, Yenhoi, or Serpent. Sorry, I used MerryPrankster as an example of someone who DIDN'T gang up up on other members, my mistake.

"nor do I identify with any of them as part of some kind of secret, subversive group."

Sorry, didn't call you guys a subversive group, first I called you parrots, then a team, though I inferred that this was by effect, if not intention.

"If I have 'driven people off', it has only been by replying to things they say."

Yeah, in your unmistakable 'Oh look, another debate, I can't get debate out of my system, oh, your momma's dead, well, can you prove that?" sort of way.

"If you're about to make a post on this forum, and the only point of the post is an autocratic declaration that certain individuals are inferior to you: stop, think, then don't make that post. Thanks."

Sorry, while I listen to your knowledge, I don't follow your rules of communication. I never said that you were inferior to anyone, I said you were ganging up on other members because you didn't agree with their views, and to stop it. You have every right to continue, while I have every right to point out that four of you are following the topic and focussing on individual members, whether inadvertantly or not. In the end, it doesn't matter, ganging up is still ganging up, whether you mean to or not.

Don't want to see such posts? Click ignore or stop running in gaggles. Just because I'm a-hole enough to point this out doesn't mean you're not an a-hole too.

[dezhen2001]

KC you a-hole :) and hey, even if diego is right and you are superman - you still duck when a gun gets thrown at ya :p

dawood

[Braden]

"No one mentioned MerryPrankster, Yenhoi, or Serpent. Sorry, I used MerryPrankster as an example of someone who DIDN'T gang up up on other members, my mistake... Sorry, didn't call you guys a subversive group, first I called you parrots, then a team, though I inferred that this was by effect, if not intention."

I don't care what clever name you've made up for people you're trying to insult. If I happen to agree with some things people say, and if people happen to agree with some things I say, fine. Both of these happen all the time. I don't know why you have to invent some wierd conspiracy surrounding it.

"Yeah, in your unmistakable 'Oh look, another debate, I can't get debate out of my system, oh, your momma's dead, well, can you prove that?" sort of way."

Maybe if you could comment on something which actually happened, I could offer a reply. I respond to topics of interest and am willing to debate them. I'm not sure what about that irritates you; indeed, I thought it was a large point of having a discussion group in the first place.

"I don't follow your rules of communication."

Clearly.

"I said you were ganging up on other members because you didn't agree with their views, and to stop it."

I'm not ganging up on anyone. I'm debating things I'm interested in. Some people agree with me, some people disagree. What else do you expect?

When it was just me replying to you, Kung Lek, Design Sifu, and Laughing Cow, I didn't ***** that you guys were ganging up on me in some conspiracy. I just figured you all disagreed with me. No big deal, right? So why is this different?

It seems like dnc101 has said some things which ****ed you off. Fine with me. He's said things I disagree with too. Don't hold me accountable to what he says; I don't hold you accountable to what diego says. It all seems straight-forward to me.

[KC Elbows]

When it was just me replying to you, Kung Lek, Design Sifu, and Laughing Cow, I didn't ***** that you guys were ganging up on me in some conspiracy. I just figured you all disagreed with me. No big deal, right? So why is this different?

Bad example. I wasn't arguing about the war there. Not one bit. You based an argument on a misquote of your own, and wouldn't admit it, and it annoyed me, because you've done that to me like fifty times. Frankly, your political views, imo, are more informed than Kung Lek's(no offence KL), but that does not excuse you from common courtesy. I let you slide a bunch of times, and had enough. I don't know how old you are, but you're clearly old enough to take it well when you make a mistake, and admit it.


I don't know why you have to invent some wierd conspiracy surrounding it.

Already clarified this. While it is weird, it is not a conspiracy. Perhaps pack mentality?

dnc is not a concern of mine. He's just some troll. When I see one group of members ganging up on other members I happen to like, one time, I figure it's just bad timing. When it happens for three weeks, then I think I'll be an a-hole.


Dezhen,
Well, obviously you have to duck. Thrown weapons are dangerous.

[Braden]

"You based an argument on a misquote of your own, and wouldn't admit it, and it annoyed me, because you've done that to me like fifty times."

Maybe you should go back and read that thread more carefully. You were misreading my posts. I prefixed a quote with "Me:" to indicate this was something I had said, and you skipped the prefix and took it to mean I was claiming Kung Lek said it.

"that does not excuse you from common courtesy"

I agree completely. Which is why I have never spoken a word of anger here, and my posts are laced with apologies even when I'm not sure what I did wrong. That thread is no exception; barely a post of mine went by without repeated apologies in response to offensive remarks directed at me whose only source was a misunderstanding.

"Perhaps pack mentality?"

Or perhaps people reading the same threads with views which are somewhat similar - as happens constantly all over these forums. What's different here that requires the unique explanation? Maybe the only difference is your emotional involvement.

"...then I think I'll be an a-hole."

And when you're wrong about people ganging up, it turns out that this is all that remains. Maybe you should rethink the position.

[dezhen2001]

LOL! no one said superman didnt have any common sense :D

dawood

[@PLUGO]

From what I've read, KC doesn't seem to be implying a Conspiracy... More so, he seems to object to a cumulative effect created by comunication styles, posting habits or personalities of a handful of posters.

Taken individually they can & should be measured on their own merrits (or lack there of)...whatever they may be. Cumulatively they are creating an effect that is either intended or not.

If the effect is intentional that's one thing (the intention could simply be a carryover of a running joke from a previous thred) and could be considered a "conspiracy" in the strictest sence of that word.

If the effect is unintentional, as seems to be expressed... than a point worth considering is the level of one's consciousness present in creating the effect:
Are you (retorical you here) aware that this effect is being created?
KC is making the effort to point it out, and based on previous experience he's not one to [i]pull $#!T out of his @ss.

Are you interested in becoming aware of said effect?

Once aware, is this effect something you find worth creating?

If not; then here is the opportunity to explore a change in tactic and the potential for a deeper understanding of "cause & effect?"

If So; than how is it that you are not conspiring to create said effect? And why would you?
If so why?

Similar questions could be applied to descerning weither a Martial technique is being learned properly Yes? no?

[KC Elbows]

"Maybe you should go back and read that thread more carefully. You were misreading my posts. I prefixed a quote with "Me:" to indicate this was something I had said, and you skipped the prefix and took it to mean I was claiming Kung Lek said it."

Nope. You just didn't understand how what you did say was putting words into KL's mouth. You said it, but it inferred that KL was meaning it. You were purposefully playing obtuse to bait KL. Need we cover that again?

"barely a post of mine went by without repeated apologies in response to offensive remarks directed at me whose only source was a misunderstanding."

Not a misunderstanding, as I've pointed out above. And that you presented an apology based on someone else misunderstanding, as opposed to one based off of putting words in someone else's mouth, only supports my comments on your ability to accept being occassionally wrong, though I really didn't wish to go here again.

"And when you're wrong about people ganging up, it turns out that this is all that remains. Maybe you should rethink the position."

I'm sorry, but you put far to much merit into intent, and far too little responsibility into actual effect. As I said before, just because I'm a-hole enough to point this out doesn't mean you're not an a-hole too.


Design Sifu,
Exactly.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by Braden
"that does not excuse you from common courtesy"

I agree completely. Which is why I have never spoken a word of anger here, and my posts are laced with apologies even when I'm not sure what I did wrong.

I've made an argument to red5angel on this topic. He got very emotional and my argument got lost in that. So, I realized that we were talking about some very emotional things and did my best to talk him down without being insulting or making him feel stupid. Becasue I don't think that about him at all.

I would have liked to have enjoyed the same courtesy.

But I got:
"I'll try to explain again. Although I wish you had taken a moment to try and understand what I am saying instead of getting offended...This is exactly what I said previously. I'm sorry that you did not understand it. You seemed more interested in taking offense than trying to understand though. This is too bad."

Just really condescending and petty and nasty. You apologise, but for what I did.

You were right. I wasn't really listening to your argument. I did let my emotions get the better of me. That's why I stayed out. But I also stayed out because I knew you would only feed that fire.

And you egged me into the debate with you in the first place.

You don't owe me the courtesy I am claiming you didn't give me. But don't start talking about how courteous you are. Please.

[Braden]

"You just didn't understand how what you did say..."

That could very well be. I've been both mistaken and wrong lots of times before, and will be again. This isn't the same as lying about what someone says, nor 'playing obtuse to bait.'

"only supports my comments on your ability to accept being occassionally wrong"

If apologizing for being wrong doesn't cut it, I'm not sure what you expect.

"though I really didn't wish to go here again."

Then don't bring it up.

"As I said before, just because I'm a-hole enough to point this out doesn't mean you're not an a-hole too."

Nor does it mean I am an a-hole. Although I'd be alot happier if people around here just stuck to topic instead of debating who is or isn't an a-hole; this is all I have ever asked for, all I said then, and all I'm saying now.

What amazes me is that people disagree.

What Design Sifu describes is the pot calling the kettle black. He (or 'you guys' if you'd prefer we arbitrarily turn this into a group thing) has done everything he's complaining about (I would claim more so), but was perfectly fine with it so long as the status quo was going his way. This is hypocrisy. Or at least it would be if there was any substance to it to begin with.

[Braden]

Eulerfan - Excuse me?

The snottiest thing I said to you was: "Although I wish you had taken a moment to try and understand what I am saying instead of getting offended...You seemed more interested in taking offense than trying to understand though. This is too bad." and even this was laced in apologies.

And this was in response to you claiming I was overtly lying for the sake of excusing murder. This was in response to you being extraordinarily offensive.

And yet I apologized to you in response, and somehow that's me being a *****?

I mean, the snottiest thing I said you are admitting now was actually true. And the snottiest thing you said to me was that I purposefully lie to excuse killing people. And I'm being rude!? Dear god, that's truly incredible.

Sorry, that **** isn't floating.

I "egged you into a debate" and "fanned your flames"? How, exactly, by responding politely to a post that you made? What, exactly, were you expecting different?

[dezhen2001]

man i hate those "them" vs. "us" arguments - what a way to split up a community :(

dawood

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by eulerfan




This subject is very close to my heart. I absolutely refuse to do a tango exercise with you on this subject. We are talking about lives.

I am officially leaving this argument. I will not return to this thread.

I'm sorry Braden, this quote DOES NOT say that you are 'overtly lying for the sake of excusing murder' in any way, shape, or form. It says that Eulerfan moved away from an argument because it was ****ing her off, and she didn't feel like the aggravation at the time. At worst, it says you reflexively debate.

Your assessment of that quote?


originally posted by Braden
The snottiest thing I said to you was: "Although I wish you had taken a moment to try and understand what I am saying instead of getting offended...You seemed more interested in taking offense than trying to understand though. This is too bad." and even this was laced in apologies.

And this was in response to you claiming I was overtly lying for the sake of excusing murder. This was in response to you being extraordinarily offensive.

Now since she WASN'T being extraordinarily offensive, wouldn't you agree that you owe her an apology for being extraordinarily offensive through your condascending response? In otherwords, an apology that isn't rife with self justification and full of clauses that actually place blame on the other person, such as:

"I mean, the snottiest thing I said you are admitting now was actually true. And the snottiest thing you said to me was that I purposefully lie to excuse killing people"

when she said no such thing, or

"How, exactly, by responding politely to a post that you made?"

When you already admitted you were condascending in the key segment she was referring to, or

"I'm sorry that you did not understand it. "

Which isn't really an apology now, is it?



"only supports my comments on your ability to accept being occassionally wrong"

If apologizing for being wrong doesn't cut it, I'm not sure what you expect.

Please, point out where you admitted you were wrong for the actual reason you were wrong, without then inserting justification for your error. The only example you cited was you apologizing for someone else not understanding, a cheesy apology at best, and missing the point that you had taken a condascending and unnneccesary tone with them. Even on the argument with KL, you apologized for everyone else not understanding, but you were the one who did not understand that you were leading a question in such a way as could only be said to be putting words into KL's mouth, which was totally unneccesary, considering that, in debate, you need no such cheap tools to deal with Kung Lek, because you are the debate king, and he is not.



"As I said before, just because I'm a-hole enough to point this out doesn't mean you're not an a-hole too."

Nor does it mean I am an a-hole.

If you wish to take a literal approach to that sentence, go right ahead. Subtext and underlying meaning might yield more accurate results over your 'post dissection' method.

I believe it says clearly enough "Stop being an a-hole". Apologize to Eulerfan. She made the incorrect conclusion from the info you gave, that you thought the US was bluffing, and was mislead by your wording. She became frustrated and withdrew from the discussion, and you took the time she was away to get pretty high and mighty, or condascending, if you will. Don't you think that's cause enough for you to apologize? Not because she misunderstood you, but because you were wrong to speak to someone that way?

I just want to actually see you apologize to someone, a genuine apology, free of justifications and clauses. If you can't do that, you're gonna have quite a time ahead of you in life, and that would be an incredible waste, because you're an amazingly educated individual in all other respects.

Take that for what it is. If you wish to think I'm just being an a-hole, fine.

[dezhen2001]

KC: o/t coz i know u will read this, but are you still writing your book? im really impressed with a lot of your posts recently... now try posting like above but in rhyme :eek::D

dawood

[KC Elbows]

Actually, my wife broke out a box of poems I wrote for her over the course of our marraige. I can honestly say that I am the worst love poet in all the world. Really, the worst. She loves it, but it's painful for me to look at. However, apparently I'm pretty good at naughty poems.:eek:

Actually, the book is in development mode, which means I've got short stories I'm working on and am having difficulty finding time for the book. Plus, I'm at the point in my training where it is taking a lot of my time.

However, there's a research piece I'm working on that is really interesting me, and one of the short stories ties in to the book, so I am making headway in one sense, and I'm totally slacking in another.

"now try posting like above but in rhyme"

You are possibly the most evil man alive.:D

[red5angel]

KC, I understand your point, what I am saying is that what you propose is not an option I would consider. I am not conciously trying to gang up on anyone. The pack mentality does not exist here, it is by happenstance and common thought that a few of us might argue along the same vane. Point taken about dnc, and I was actually going to say something myself along those lines but I figured you were talking about the discussion in general and not specifics.
I am the type of person who enjoys discussion and I will continue to discuss my views with those who chose to engage me on them. This is a forum, and you have the right to choose whether or not you participate in a discussion.
That said I apologize if you feel ganged up on or feel disrespected, specifically because I have always had plenty of respect for your posts and your thoughts, however, I gotta be me.

Eulerfan - hopefully I apologized to you? I sometimes get emotionaly involved in a discussion and try not to. When I fel I am I usually make an apology to those I have been unfair, a few of you more then once!

KC - I have to echo what eulerfan said, this subject is very close to my heart, for different reasons and that is why I choose to fight so vehemently about it.

[KC Elbows]

"That said I apologize if you feel ganged up on or feel disrespected, specifically..."

No, not me in particular, and you're cool.

I disagree with your belief that the pack mentality has no bearing here. Group dynamics exist in all human communication, consciously or, more often than not, unconsciously. Note that each dnc post, with very few exceptions, is actually addressed to Braden. That alludes to a group dynamic at work, even if Braden did not consciously make the connection to dnc, dnc has made clear that this discussion is about an 'us', by solely addressing an 'us' that he has created. Now, when that 'us' comes to include others, and those others make no distinction, odds are they are involved in a group dynamic.

Because of THAT group dynamic, those on the opposite side of the field might feel loathe to undermine those on their own side who they don't agree with, because they face a unified front, not individuals discussing a topic.

And so, we end up not with people discussing the issue, but people attacking the ideas of those most different, and giving shelter to the ideas of those most similar, no matter the quality or lack thereof of those ideas. As an example, I again cite your relating your own thoughts to dnc's, when I can find hardly a single common thought between the two of you. To be fair, that process has been happening on both sides of the issue, which is why it is so entirely enjoyable to have walked away from the actual topic of this discussion. I do not have to agree with any of you. I can sit in smug arrogance and pronounce you all ninnies.:D

So, here's a series of questions for both sides.

Do you agree with dnc's argument, and what is it?

Do you agree with Braden's argument, and what is it?

Do you agree with Red5's argument, and what is it?

Do you agree with Eulerfan's argument, and what is it?

Do you agree with Laughing Cow's argument, and what is it?

Do you agree with my argument, and what was it?

[KC Elbows]

And please, don't reiterate your own arguments, or approve other's assessment's of yourselves. Let everyone else judge whether the statements are accurate.

[red5angel]

I don't necessarily agree iwth dnc's arguments because I dont like to break it down into categories like that. for instance, while it seems I am being put in a "conservative" group, if questiond you would probably find I am more liberal in my views.

Bradens seem to be going along the same lines as mine, he is just more detailed then I am, and more fact specific.

Red5angel however is waaaaay out of line...

As for "the other side" I understand why peace should be given a chance, I just feel that it has and at some point a stand has to be made. While peace is optimal it isn't always realistic.

[KC Elbows]

Do you agree with dnc's argument, and what is it?

First, you'd have to find an argument. He wants what the leaders want. That's not really an argument, but that's what he's given us.

dnc seems to think that all anti war sentiment is just sour grapes from the liberals, in some sweeping conspiracy. He was making unsubstantiated connections a given in his early discussion, re the taliban and Iraq, and only later had his keister pulled out of the fire by press releases of the Iraqi village that may have served as a terrorist training camp, though the connection is tenuous, it is a possible connection: this does not change the fact that when dnc first posted, he was making big assumptions, which is fairly indicative of his reasoning.

In addition, he is prone to dependence on conspiracy theories, usually about liberals. He likes to use inflammatory language to replace content, and also likes to claim that the liberals fear him. Generally, he's just a troll.

Do you agree with Braden's argument, and what is it?

I think, as usual, his argument is sound. It is a functional argument for going to war. He is behind the government on this, and believes there is sufficient evidence, though his belief is still merely belief, just like everyone else's. He is just more capable of articulating his belief, in the end, he has no inside info.

He is correct in saying that the anti war movement may slow military progress. He seems to place blame squarely on the shoulders of the anti war movement for hitches along the way, though he does recognize certain leadership flubs as having occured. In effect, he seems to believe that there should be no anti war progress, that it is a propagandized event and not largely related to people's actual feelings and beliefs on the matter(again, beliefs of people with little to no inside info, much like Braden himself).


I have not seen anything substantial about what is to be done afterwards from Braden. His posts are centered around getting to war and getting it over with. Post war, he does not have a functional argument that I am aware of.

Do you agree with Red5's argument, and what is it?

No, it relies largely on trust in leaders I don't trust. However, it is still a functional argument for going to war, if you trust your leaders.

Red5 also believes the evidence is sufficient. I have not seen him be so dogmatic towards the opposition, though I still see a certain grey area to what exactly the term anti-american means, since americans exist who do not believe in the war.

However, Red5's argument, if I understand it, is simple. Action must be done, it must be done now, because he believes, based on what little information he has and his past experiences in the field, that this is an enemy that must be fought in a major land war now.

I have not seen anything in relation to what is to be done afterwards from Red5. He trusts the leaders to make the right decision. There is no clear functional argument for the post war process.


Do you agree with Eulerfan's argument, and what is it?

I agree with hers on principle, but in functionality, no. Not saying it's not possible, just that I don't think it's possible to get the barbarians in leadership to follow her ideas.

Eulerfan wants peace, and believes that war is not a necessary offshoot of civilization, but more a point where cultures have not found the most efficient way to coexist.

While in theory I like her idea, I think the military view of it on her part is not as advanced. If this is an enemy, then how to stop it? I would imagine the answer within this framework would be to not make them an enemy. However, that would require the US relinquishing some power, and that is not likely to happen.

She does not trust the leaders involved on all sides, and thus does not see a solution in one questionable leader taking over the other's territory.

Do you agree with Laughing Cow's argument, and what is it?

Nope.

Laughing Cow, like dnc, likes conspiracy theories. However, LC covers many conspiracy theories in one post. In this discussion, I don't necessarily buy LC's argument, because it buys into too many hard to pull off, high risk, conspiracies.

[KC Elbows]

red5, you cheated. You responded as though everyone in your camp was an individual, and we are just a collective. Sure you're not falling into some sort of pack mentality?:p

Again, approach as individuals.

[KC Elbows]

Are you saying:

Eulerfan:

Yes on principle, no on execution and her argument is 'give peace a chance'

LC:

Yes on principle, no on execution, and it's argument is 'give peace a chance'

KC:
Yes on principle, no on execution and his argument is 'give peace a chance'

?




:D

[red5angel]

DNC's argument seems to rely more on the idea of the conservative/liberal split, which I don't agree with because I think to label yourself one way or the other is not accurate. Like I had said before while it seem sI am coming across as a "conservative" I am normally not and don't consider my view to be conservative at all. If we wanted to argue that I would have to say that giving peace a chance, again, is conservative. It would also appear to me as if his posts are border line conspiracy theory implying that the liberals are moving against the conservatives, just because.

Bradens argument is much like mine. He has pointed out several reasons for why we should go to war, for instance Saddams history as a leader and his history when it comes to toeing the line with UN sanctions, or outright denying to follow those sanctions. I can also agree that the anti-war faction, not protestors so much as France, Germany and Russia have slowed down our ability to take action and I heavily agree that the antiwar movement is mostly fed with propoganda through the media and a misguided attamept to "recreate" the 60's hippy movements. Standing up against what the US wants to do seems to be the "thing" to do as of late, for no better reason then it is the US (Why not France has been doing this in the UN for years).

My argument does not rely wholly on the trust of our leaders, however at some point you have to give trust whether you like it or not because for another couple of years, Bush will be in charge. You don't have to like him but you also have to understand that Bush is not the only one who determines if we go to war. The President is usually the highly publicized 'figurehead' of these types of movements and there is much more behind him pushing for this.
My biggest issue with this whole thing is that fact that I feel the protesting of this action is misguided. It seems to be a popularity movement more then an educated and informed decision on the part o fthe masses, mostly driven by the media and those who stand for the peace movement and can yell the loudest. In just about every way we have a real reason to go to war with Iraq and at the bottom of it all lies Saddam Hussein. If we could oust him "peacefully" Then I would be all for it, but to be realistic, that isn't going to happen and people seem to have forgotten the very recent past. We tried all of those "non-war" tricks the first time around and where did it get us? Right back where we started. You can only give peace so many chances before it is time to look at the other options.
As for the post war, I have heard plenty of talk about what the government plans are for Iraq, nothing be specific in this sort of situation because you have no idea how things are going to turn out and you must focus on the task at hand. I hope that the US an dthe UN will pull in their resources and help get Iraq on its feet. I believe that this issue will be addressed and I think it is naive that some of the other posters here have expressed ythe beliefe that we are just going to abandon the people of Iraq. Even next to the argument that we are after their oil! Where does that make sense? If the government wants Iraqs oil you have to make sure th country can produce it and that means it still has to be raised up to a healthy economy and happy people.
What I have seen consistantly across the board from most, but not all of those on the "other side" of the argument, are almost nonsensical arguments, based on feeling and not on the facts about what has been, is, and will be going on, if something is't done.
I won't discuss LC's argument.

I haven't had much oppurtunity to discuss with eulerfan since she sort of pops in and out, but I have mostly got the impression that her argument is not necessarily realistic in its view. Like many other protestors I have come across, she seems to be putting for peace for the sake of peace in an idealistic way not for a realistic way. Peace is not always an option and osmetimes you have to make a stand.

KC - same as eulerfan you have popped in from time to time but generally I haven't got an overall impression from your posts except that much like Eulerfan you feel that peace should be given a chance for the sake of keeping the peace. You also obviously do not trust the leadership over you who are making these decisions.

I should point out as well that I generally do not discuss for very long with those who seem to be atleast thinking it out. I can enjoy and appreciate a well thought out belief statement, and even though I may not agree, I don't feel it necessary to argue it. For example, while I may not agree with you or eulerfan, yo both generally seem to have atleast come to some reasonable conclusions for your own part. I mostly choose to argue with those who are making some pretty out there and uneducated statements on what is and what shall be. Others pop in from time to time as well.

[dezhen2001]

However, apparently I'm pretty good at naughty poems. ive been told that as well, due to my metaphoric and similie skills :cool::D


You are possibly the most evil man alive. im muslim after all right? ;)

ok back to the regularly scheduled thread... im not gonna try and lighten it up anymore as its not wokring lol

dawood

[eulerfan]

red5,

Yeah, you apologised. I knew you were getting emotional at the time. You can totally tell when intelligent, reasonable people are starting to feel boxed in and getting defensive. It's totally understandable and, as I said, I fell prey to the same thing on this thread. I entered the debate because I saw you doing that and I didn't want to sit back and watch you get worked up into a frothy lather. So, it was my choice. The important thing is not to take advantage of it when that happens.

Which brings me to my next point.

KC, I appreciate you taking up for me but what I just did to Braden in my last post was petty revenge, pure and simple.

I've been talking about being against war for quite some time now. While I am, for the first time in all these debates, being personally attacked and insulted, Braden just happens to decide to debate me on the topic. And I kind of lost it.

Not even a day later, he's being personally attacked.

I couldn't help myself. He was just sitting there, right on the edge. All I had to do was give him a little shove. It was too much to resist. Somebody handed me a platter and asked, "Would you care to serve some just desserts?"

It was kind of petty. But I don't feel bad or anything.

Funny, that.:D

[red5angel]

sounds like you are just being a human being to me eulerfan! ;)

[KC Elbows]

Eulerfan,
You're almost as evil as Dezhen.

Fair enough. I was hard on Braden, but it started before I was even debating the war, and it has nothing to do with this debate. I was not wrong, but I was wrong to do so in this format. I'll just go back to civilly avoiding him, as I've done for half the time I've been on this forum. And he can do the same.

EDIT: I'm not gonna delete that, but I am presently thinking it is not my shining moment or anything. I won't apologize to someone who I have regretted apologizing to before, so I find myself in the quandary of being in the wrong and not knowing a good response. I guess I'm just an a-hole. Typical.

[red5angel]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/25/sprj.irq.after/index.html


For those of you who still insist the US government doesn't have a plan....

[eulerfan]

KC,

I feel the same way. You're doing what I did, I think.

I admitted that my behavior was petty because, to be fair, it really was. But I won't apologise. Because I'm not sorry. See no reason to be.

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by eulerfan
KC,

I feel the same way. You're doing what I did, I think.

I admitted that my behavior was petty because, to be fair, it really was. But I won't apologise. Because I'm not sorry. See no reason to be.

Thanks. :)

Red5,
"For those of you who still insist the US government doesn't have a plan...."

I'm not talking a humanitarian aid plan, we already have one of those. I'm meaning a political plan for the 'new' Iraq.

[red5angel]

KC - most of the posts have been about humanitarian aid. You can bet that America has a political plan in place after all is said and done. They may or may not know what choices they have until it's over but I have heard them talk about occupying Iraq to keep order until its government can be put in place. Most likely it will be a democratic government of some sort that will be monitored for a time before it is left to its own devices. Even more likely is that those put in power will have ties to the west.

[@PLUGO]

I thought I heard that "post war" Iraq was going to have a Year of U.S. Military occupation followed by a "government" run by U.S. non-military that would remain in place until "stability" was established then handed over to the Iraqi people...

[red5angel]

Everything I have heard so far hasn't established time lines for anything in stone. This seems reasonable to me since you have to establish who is stable enough to be in power in Iraq before you hand it over.

[@PLUGO]

I'll see if I can dig up something more specific in terms of timelines...

[firepalm]

Yen Hoi’s comment on page three; The "media's" target audience is not intelligent people.
Bravo

As to Lostracks comment on the bottom of page three re sheeps & wolves – yes true & sometimes they are played without even knowing it!

What a little foresight can do! Try to wrap your mind around it

Scenario; I’m in a position of authority, I want to put something in place (a law, control over another nation’s governing powers, access to oil or something), that will serve my purpose perhaps simply greater control (I may even rationalize that it is for the greater good). What I want might not be popular, perhaps when viewed in the light of a common day as down right 'evil'. Knowing something of human nature & the manner in which people will respond, I stage something or create a ‘surface’ scenario that causes the people to respond in such a way so that I can justify my (ultimately intended) actions (invasion of a country, changing of civil rights, privacy laws, access to oil, etc…). Meanwhile I exercise my influence / authority over the media (manipulating it to my own ends to serve my purpose) to further reinforce my ‘surface’ cause. For the most part people are pacified & more interested in the outcome of ‘Survivor’ or ‘Bachelor / ette’ type shows then the real issues facing the world today, and will ultimately buy into what ever is spoon feed to them on my CNN. In summation what has happened is I created a ‘surface’ problem (of my own doing), (knowing the) reaction, I put in play the solution (which ultimately serves my own hidden agenda). Problem, reaction, solution.

Now if I (a simple common person) can conceive this think what someone with so much more wealth, resources, connections, international experience etc… can come up with? Dismiss this as the comments of a simple conspiracy whacko if you wish but I believe there is a lot more a play here then what is being spoon fed to the general public on the good old reliable TV. Just food for thought!

[red5angel]

firepalm, I am not sure I follow you but are you saying all the protesting is in the "big plan"?

[@PLUGO]

Noooo...

He's obviously saying Invading Iraq is about Oil!!! :p

[KC Elbows]

No, he's saying that leader's take what they desire, under any justification necessary. It's not really that far fetched. Most of the conquests in history have been about taking what the conqueror wants, and the political justifications are generally not given undo relevance in history books, though they certainly play into it.

[@PLUGO]

WHATAMINUTE!!!!

whose sider are YOU on KC!!?!?! ;)

[firepalm]

R5A The protests are just one of the outcomes of the 'surface' scenario & predictable (but at least they are doing what they feel is right & taking action, unlike the others that tune out to 'reality' programming like 'Survivor' dumbing down scenario as I like to think of it). There will always be the element that will not fall into line with 'authorities' way of thinking. But that is not the gist of what I am pointing to, which most of this is the 'wool that's being pulled over our eyes to blind us from what's really going on' (ie; terrorism is not the true issue).

Scenario again; I created the 'Black Knight' so I as the 'White Knight' can save the day & ultimately expand my empire / further my hidden agendas. ;)

[red5angel]

Ok, now I see where you are getting at. Basically if I understand correctly you are proposing that America has 'created' an evil empire out of Saddams regime so that those at the top can get their oil?

[firepalm]

R5A Personally I think it encompasses much more then that, but in part that is correct. I think they are also after something more fundamental; control. Oust the guy that doesn't think like you, paint him to be whatever you like; tyrancial ruler, terrorist supporter, potential nuclear threat, etc... so I am justified in sweeping in & destroying him & his support system (Saddam may well be all those things but is he really the threat that he is being protrayed to be or is he being painted to be much more then he really is so I have justification to do what I like).

In the end I remain the guy with the biggest guns, controlling things and after all my way of thinking is the right way, God's way. Something like that.

;)

[red5angel]

firepalm I think there is some truth in what you say and some paranoia as well. Saddam is all those things, no doubt in my mind. He should be removed from power, no doubt in my mind. However I have always maintained that while these things are on the agenda as to why he should be removed, there are other motivations as well that make it 'convenient' for us to do so. I do not believe that this situation was created or made by our government. The middleeast has been a hot area for along time and without someone to police it, it could eventually be the downfall of our civilization. Too many extremists and too much potential for power mad warmongers to get in control.
Basically, I think 9/11 put a bug up the US governments butt. Now they realize they can't just sit back and let it do its own thing anymore they have to step in. Saddam gave us a good excuse to go ahead an step in.

[dnc101]

KC, you also posted at a time when I'm out most of the time. And I said as much when I left. But, instead of whining and accusing you of intentionally posting while I'm otherwise occupied (we havn't exchanged itineraries, so this is unlikely on either of our parts), I'm going to reply when I have time. This is just a note to say I havn't forgot. Later.

['MegaPoint]

You fools are funny! Where is the trace of one inkling of an iota of a truth, clue?

I have the most compelling argument, Period!

[ZIM]

Wow, firepalm said something that really resonated:

America is just playing 'Survivor' with the planet! "I vote Saddam off the planet!" Who's next?? Tune in next week! [now THAT'LL make NASA pay off! I was wondering what we were gonna do with that space station! yay its a game]

Now it all makes sense...whew! and here I was thinking it was a war or something..

...personally, I'd rather see "Survivor: Monster Island" with a lot of japanese kids running around yelling "GODZILLAAAHHH!!!" but that's me...

[dnc101]

KC, your serries of posts on this thread are a good example of the paranoid, fearful mindset I was talking about. They were one long whine that 'I don't wike dnc, not won widdle bit!' Fine. I really don't care. So I'm not going to respond to all the personal attacks. But there were several allegations that need answered.

"...dnc and the small group of members who faithfully follow him from thread to thread in an attempt to dictate content and direction for the forum they do not run,...

This is a blatant lie, as anyone here can verify. There were several threads running at that time which members of this 'group' were defending the conservative position on that I did not get involved in. Easily verified by anyone interested. But a good bit of paranoia on yur part.
It did put a couple of the named posters on the defensive, though, and I have to give you credit- you siezed the opportunity to try to divide and conquer.

Quotes from KC posts:

Then why is it that it is endlessly you, dnc, eWallace, and Braden on each of these threads, never just one of you, and why is it that each dnc post is addressed to Braden to give a condascending viewpoint of the opposition...

The point is, if you let good members get rolled over because the person doing the rolling is on your side, then what good are you as a member to this forum?

R5, As for yours and dnc's feelings, you just said they might be similar, yet they are not at all. EVERY dnc post on here has been about liberals. On this entire thread. You said you didn't work on such arguments. How are they similar? And how are you not reflexively falling into a 'unit' when you say you have similar views to someone whose views are entirely different to yours?

Note that each dnc post, with very few exceptions, is actually addressed to Braden. That alludes to a group dynamic at work, even if Braden did not consciously make the connection to dnc, dnc has made clear that this discussion is about an 'us', by solely addressing an 'us' that he has created. Now, when that 'us' comes to include others, and those others make no distinction, odds are they are involved in a group dynamic.

The common thread in those examples is that we should be disagreeing with or arguing with ourselves. Particularly, they shouldn't agree with me. You attempt to create dissention within our ranks. It won't work. One, it assumes some conspiracy on our part. There is none. There is no common strategy. You assume some unity, where none exists. We do disagree sometimes on some things. We all know that, and I don't think any of us feels threatened by that fact.

dnc seems to think that all anti war sentiment is just sour grapes from the liberals, in some sweeping conspiracy. He was making unsubstantiated connections a given in his early discussion, re the taliban and Iraq, and only later had his keister pulled out of the fire by press releases of the Iraqi village that may have served as a terrorist training camp,...

I'm not the one talking about conspiracies on this thread, KC. And, as for me making an assumption that there was a connection with the terrorists and Saddam, that was old news long before I posted it. Bush had said it, among others. This little whine should read "dnc was wrong, but unfortunately we found out he was right, but we all know he should have been wrong, so he must have been wrong...".

You accuse me, several times, of speaking against liberals. Who do you suggest I speak against? These anti US sentiments are not being splattered all over this forum by conservatives. It is the liberal side of the discussion that is verbally attacking the US and conservatives. So they are the object of my comments.

While we are talking about my dealing with liberals, Where do you get the idea I lump all liberals into one group? I clearly divided them into three broad groups on this thread alone. And you could obviously sub divide that as many times as you want.

Your posts accuse me hating liberals, blaming them for all the worlds problems, etc. You also accuse me of simply wanting what the govt. wants. Let me point out that in the past, and not too long ago at that, it was me that tried to organize a cooperative effort on this forum concerning opposition to the Patriot Act. This was to be a bipartisan letter of protest. I responded to a liberal post and a liberal poster, using a liberal source, and asked if we could work together on this one. If you are interested, check it out:

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=19839

That ocured a week or so before your posts here, and sort of puts the lie to your rant, wouldn't you say? (Of course, you wouldn't. But most reasonable readers would.)

I might also point out that I didn't ask any one to change their views, or go against their principles. I did ask that they consider the direction their leadership is taking them and the consequences of their actions. I also suggested that if their was some unity against Saddam we might be able to resolve the situation without a war.

Well, I am about out of time here. I'd have prefered to have spent this time perusing some of the more interesting looking threads that were recently started. But, this was fun too. I do want to end by thanking you for validating my point that the radical libs are runnin scared. Your posts were a wonderful illustration of this. And, if you don't like me, it's ok. Listen, if you need the approval of a bunch of annonymous posters on a forum to validate your existance, that is a pretty pathetic state. I asure you, I don't. So post your attacks. I don't usually get into an exchange of ad hominems. But I'll be more than happy to point out your petty improprieties if you choose to do so.

I have to go, as I have a life and it has recently gotten busy.

[eulerfan]

dnc101,

Put down the club. The horse is dead already!

[dnc101]

Eulerfan,

I'd told kc I'd reply, and as soon as I got (could make) time, I did. KC did not answer, so I left it. Last time I checked this thread was 2 pages back, I believe near the end of page two. And I wasn't the last poster then. You brought it back up. So, if the horse is really dead, quit trying to ride it!