MikeofTulsa
Moderator
The one and Only!
well put kent
It's war time...
- Thread starter TheGrimReaperKD
- Live activity
- Replies 737
- Views 13K
- Status
MikeofTulsa
Largely I agree with you, except on a few points.. I'll only leave those in the reply..
the Al Samoud thing is moot since we know about 30 that were not gotten before the U.S. said we were going in no matter what..
So, they are still saying on CNN that we haven't found proof of WOMD as of yet... The Scuds are banned for range I believe and perhaps the ability to deliver chem/bio warheads.. but I still don't know if they found more than the potential 2 (I thought I heard that the one that broke in two parts was a Scud, not Al Samoud but I'm not sure yet..)..
Oh, and mrray, part of this was moved from the thread where LWW suggested anyone who was opposed to the war because we didn't have proof of WOMDs before going in should admit to being wrong, but he STILL has not supported their now being proof.. That's one of the big things that buggs me.. someone says they have proof and everyone else should recant their previous positions or admit being wrong, but offers (and can't as of yet, as I understand) nothing to support is suggestion.. In that link, instead of offering any proof, he kept saying the same thing over and over, 'that' was my point about useless debating skills.. *shrug*
Anyway, I think I'm done here.. I've been talking to may people at work and other such places and almost everyone I talk to understands what I'm saying right off the bat, even the people that are totally FOR the war.. This turns into such a mess on this board because people like LWW can't read or comprehend and have no ability to stick to the points or argue based on merrits.. Then I keep letting myself getting goaded into pointless arguments because I despise not being understood (I could care less if you agree, just don't twist what I say then make it seem like I said something different).. but, read my sig..
I would love to admit being wrong if someone could show me valid info (like the Clinton stuff, I was truely disappointed in our system to find out he was essentially guilty of purgery and walked from it), but I have a hard time saying someone is right when they clearly have nothing to offer to substantiate what they claim as fact *shrug*
K.. bye.. This has become just too stupid of a thread now.. It started ok, but has, as has been pointed out several times now, very redundant.. thereby there seems no need to talk anymore since nothing new is being said..
There are many different types of debates, for one. And, to adhere strictly to what you are saying, you would be implying you can't state an opinion about a negative case for can a negative case be used to support a point. However, when someone says something based on a negative case (like I did) and is perfectly willing to concede a point to someone as soon as the proof becomes available, how is that a problem? It's quite simple.. If I say there is of yet no proof (a non-provable statement in and of it's self, but disprovable) of something, all you have to do is offer ONE example to disprove that. During most of this (largely pointless) debate there was no proof.. Now, as I understand it, they have confirmed Scud missles (shouldn't have had more than 2, even those 2 were also illegal).. Other than that, I've not heard anything about chem or bio weaps (that he 'supposedly' has) or other WOMD.. Do I think going to war over 2 Scud missles and causing millions, perhaps billions of dollars of damage and loosing lives is worth it? NO.. If he as chem/bio weaps or other WOMDs, then was it worth it? Only if you can offer indisputible proof that we were not gaining ground during the last inspection push.. And you can't do that since he was in the process of destroying Al Samoud missles when we said we will invade no matter what.. To that as well, he had 30 of them left when he decided he was done even trying to comply in the slightest (based on our threats).. Those, if you ask me, can't be counted in the violation weapons since he WAS destroying them.. It was all over the news, and even LWW's link said 70 of them were destroyed..
Now, this I have to take serious issue with.. I could easily supply links to 'others' opinions as well.. but there is no point and offers nothing of substance.. LWW's foxnews.com link offered nothing of substance, why? it did NOT support his point with the proof he would have people believe he had... pointless support isn't backup if you ask me.. That's justme though.. If you really think it's important that I post links that people are against the war, I could provide hundreds, I doubt anyone would debate that.. You only have to provide 'support' if you state something as fact..
Problem is, if we start a global war (WW-III it would be), it will likely be the end of all humanity as we know it.. N. Korea is nuke capable and if they get in they could easily start the holocost.. Shame on us? no need, we will all die..
I don't know if we ever fought for conquest even in 'small wars'.. not relavant.. the only thing that is important for my position is, this is the first time we ever started a war based on 'humanitarian efforts' which makes this action unique (still have to verify Panama and Grenada), and even more suspect since 'liberals' normally are more about stopping suffereing and 'conservatives' are more about money, yet our conservative administration started a humanitarian war?.. Again, the real point is that Bush kept changing the basis (not adding to it) until he had something the American people would swallow..
Being 'non-profit' and not paying taxes is a different issue (not sure how I feel about it.. probably a good idea since, IIRC, the Vatican City is one of the richest coountries in the world.. not sure if that was percapita or in general.., not sure it's relavant either).. As far as 1st amendment, we have limits on that for various reasons (normally safety).. If (after I read over the church/state part of the constitution) the document would cause conflict, it seems the bigger precept would over-ride the lesser in context.. since we have rules about what can be said when, it would be prudent to have a clause about government officials not using 'god', 'budda', 'allah', or any other 'religious deity' while on government business.. when not acting in the public's interest, they can feel/believe/say what they will (pray before meals at home, for example)...
The proof is in the inspector's reports, and in news footage of missles being destroyed and in documents the UN has, the only proof that he wasn't is the U.S. saying it's too little too late.. then saying we were going in anyway.. There should be NO question he was in the process of actively destroying weapons (something like 8 - 10 missles a day) when we told him we didn't care.. And to keep talking about how he had 12 years so it's too late now is pathetic.. yes, he had 12 years.. is it sad noone acted on his violations with more severity sooner? yeah.. but that's not the point.. we were in like 5 months of the final resolution and he was physically complying.. if we thought it was too slow, we needed to set a deadline, not say too little too late, and go in.. Just my thought..
the Al Samoud thing is moot since we know about 30 that were not gotten before the U.S. said we were going in no matter what..
I agree totally, but that is something independant of supporting Bush or the war.. My brother is there, and he has my thoughts and good will with him as do ALL those fighting over there. Bush and his war, however, do not..
So, they are still saying on CNN that we haven't found proof of WOMD as of yet... The Scuds are banned for range I believe and perhaps the ability to deliver chem/bio warheads.. but I still don't know if they found more than the potential 2 (I thought I heard that the one that broke in two parts was a Scud, not Al Samoud but I'm not sure yet..)..
Oh, and mrray, part of this was moved from the thread where LWW suggested anyone who was opposed to the war because we didn't have proof of WOMDs before going in should admit to being wrong, but he STILL has not supported their now being proof.. That's one of the big things that buggs me.. someone says they have proof and everyone else should recant their previous positions or admit being wrong, but offers (and can't as of yet, as I understand) nothing to support is suggestion.. In that link, instead of offering any proof, he kept saying the same thing over and over, 'that' was my point about useless debating skills.. *shrug*
Anyway, I think I'm done here.. I've been talking to may people at work and other such places and almost everyone I talk to understands what I'm saying right off the bat, even the people that are totally FOR the war.. This turns into such a mess on this board because people like LWW can't read or comprehend and have no ability to stick to the points or argue based on merrits.. Then I keep letting myself getting goaded into pointless arguments because I despise not being understood (I could care less if you agree, just don't twist what I say then make it seem like I said something different).. but, read my sig..
I would love to admit being wrong if someone could show me valid info (like the Clinton stuff, I was truely disappointed in our system to find out he was essentially guilty of purgery and walked from it), but I have a hard time saying someone is right when they clearly have nothing to offer to substantiate what they claim as fact *shrug*
K.. bye.. This has become just too stupid of a thread now.. It started ok, but has, as has been pointed out several times now, very redundant.. thereby there seems no need to talk anymore since nothing new is being said..
And I would, reasonably I think, argue that you are agreeing with him because you have like stances, not because he's offering proof.. as noted, he still hasn't (and can't) offered proof of anything that he claims as fact (in the WOMD matter, that is)..
I could be wrong, but it's human nature to agree with those with like opinions and disagree with those of differing opinions, and that trend causes us to ignore flaws in the arguments/statements of those we 'like' and less likely to believe/understand/accept valid statements made by the ones we don't 'like'.. Kind of why a lot of people keep insisting (and not accepting even the possiblity of an alternative explination) we are there for the Irai people despite Bush trying to get in uder other reasons that wouldn't fly for anyone in the global community, but settled on one that is hard not to think ok even if you don't like the war..
*shrug*
As for Grenada.. Here are just a few that make direct implication that it had nothing to do with liberating the 'Grandadian people'..
http://www.historyguy.com/Grenada.html
http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/frameit.cgi?p=http%3A//www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_353.html
(bottom of page, 1983)
http://www.cc.ku.edu/cwis/organizations/las/interven.html
I'll do the panama one later, I have to get ready to go out.. You (LWW) might want to start thinking of some other 'proofs' you have of US initiated wars to liberate those people from their government..
http://www.historyguy.com/Grenada.html
http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/frameit.cgi?p=http%3A//www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_353.html
(bottom of page, 1983)
http://www.cc.ku.edu/cwis/organizations/las/interven.html
I'll do the panama one later, I have to get ready to go out.. You (LWW) might want to start thinking of some other 'proofs' you have of US initiated wars to liberate those people from their government..
OP
TheGrimReaperKD
10+ year member
Twiztid Mothaf*cka
- Thread Starter
- #200
Wow, one of our soldiers grenaded his own troop? ??
OP
TheGrimReaperKD
10+ year member
Twiztid Mothaf*cka
- Thread Starter
- #201
Good comments and everything...keep it going...200 posts. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
CarAudioAddict
10+ year member
What did I do now?
LWW would follow bush off a cliff (hmmm, sounds like a good idea). He claims that this war is justified, and needed, but refuses to offer any proof.
I have said, in agreement with others on here, that this whole ordeal could have been solved peacefully with a well placed sniper. But no, the leader of the "free" world had to go to war.
So Saddam fired a few SCUDs (it should be mentioned that the SCUDs were fired in defense from a US led Attack). Does that mean he was lying when he said he had NO WOMD. Nope. It mearly means he has illegal SCUDs. Now thqat does make it more likely that he lied about his WOMD, but that kind of evidence would NEVER hold up in any court of law.
This whole war is stupid. The US govt cannot hold to one reason for initiating the war (first it was because Saddam was tied to al-quiada, then it was because he had WOMD, now the US claims the war is for a regime change in Iraq - MAKE UP YOUR MINDS PEOPLE). To me, not having a solid reason for this war is proof that it is unjust. A "just" war (although there is no such thing), has a single reason behind it, and that reason doesn't change after it loses support.
Even after Saddam was ready to start co-operating with the UN, Bush was determined to go to war. And yes he was ready to co-operate. And contrary to popular belief, Saddam had as much fore-knowledge of the UN inspections as you do of the winner of the next election(which is none), and so was unable to hide his WOMD before the UN inspectors got there. If he does have WOMD they were hidden from the word go, and not because of the inspections.
I also believe that if Iraq has to disarm it's WOMD so does every other country in the world that has them. I mentioned this once before and one persons argument was that "the US doesn't plan to use theirs". That was partially right, The US has no plans to use theirs, YET. But what about 5 years form now, 10, 20 , 50. No one knows what kind of scum will be elected into office next.
I will NOT support an unprovoked war. If bush needs to prove himself to the world, he needs to find a way other than murdering thousands possibly millions or even billions.
and LWW - I am not "following" savant. Our positions happen to be fairly similar, and at least he isn't afraid to show proof of his side of the argument. Also, when the US finishes taking over Iraq and discovers no WOMD, will you admit that the war was unprovoked? I didn't think so.
I have said, in agreement with others on here, that this whole ordeal could have been solved peacefully with a well placed sniper. But no, the leader of the "free" world had to go to war.
So Saddam fired a few SCUDs (it should be mentioned that the SCUDs were fired in defense from a US led Attack). Does that mean he was lying when he said he had NO WOMD. Nope. It mearly means he has illegal SCUDs. Now thqat does make it more likely that he lied about his WOMD, but that kind of evidence would NEVER hold up in any court of law.
This whole war is stupid. The US govt cannot hold to one reason for initiating the war (first it was because Saddam was tied to al-quiada, then it was because he had WOMD, now the US claims the war is for a regime change in Iraq - MAKE UP YOUR MINDS PEOPLE). To me, not having a solid reason for this war is proof that it is unjust. A "just" war (although there is no such thing), has a single reason behind it, and that reason doesn't change after it loses support.
Even after Saddam was ready to start co-operating with the UN, Bush was determined to go to war. And yes he was ready to co-operate. And contrary to popular belief, Saddam had as much fore-knowledge of the UN inspections as you do of the winner of the next election(which is none), and so was unable to hide his WOMD before the UN inspectors got there. If he does have WOMD they were hidden from the word go, and not because of the inspections.
I also believe that if Iraq has to disarm it's WOMD so does every other country in the world that has them. I mentioned this once before and one persons argument was that "the US doesn't plan to use theirs". That was partially right, The US has no plans to use theirs, YET. But what about 5 years form now, 10, 20 , 50. No one knows what kind of scum will be elected into office next.
I will NOT support an unprovoked war. If bush needs to prove himself to the world, he needs to find a way other than murdering thousands possibly millions or even billions.
and LWW - I am not "following" savant. Our positions happen to be fairly similar, and at least he isn't afraid to show proof of his side of the argument. Also, when the US finishes taking over Iraq and discovers no WOMD, will you admit that the war was unprovoked? I didn't think so.
And this is a fabulous point... Yes, he had at least 2 illegal missles.. does this automatically mean he has WOMD and chem/bio weaps? if you think yes, then I pray to god (or what ever glob of goo that is out there that is bigger and better than us) that you NEVER sit on a jury for any crime I'm accused of, since you obviously have NO concept of circumstantial evidence (how many innocent people have been executed and/or jaild because the jury didnt' do it's civil duty???? TOO DAMM MANY)..l
while I'm not sure about never having a reason for war, I agree totally that if you feel you must go to war, you should have ONE valid reason, and stick to it, not change your mind at a whim to satisfy the critics.. that's just pathetic.. Like Bush..
as evidenced by his destroying over 70 Al Samoud missles in a few weeks.. he WAS disarming, however slowly or unwillingly, he WAS.. FACT.. doubt that? then don't bother reading anything from the UN that shows over 70 missles destroyed..
I'm not sure I can agree with this.. part of what maintains stability is the 'threat' of nuklear war.. China, Russia, and other major powers that are largely 'dictatorships'.. would love a chance to spread across the globe like a wild fire.. part of how they are kept in check is that there is the 'threat' of holocost.. The real issue comes in when you have someone as psycho as Saddam who would use a nuke just because he felt like it, not because he was acting as a last resort to a global issue.. While I don't like the idea of nukes being around in general, I can appriciate the need for them in a certian context..
Isn't it nice how anyone that thinks this war is pathetic now has to make a distinction to A) not admire Saddam, and B) not be a follower/friend of mine?
This, my friends, is how the shitbags that run this country manage to do it.. they obscure the facts and disrupt the basic ideas being discussed SO much that by the time it's all said and done, noone has a clue as to what the original point was.. That is the way of conservative debate.. since there is on way to dazzle anyone with brilliance, they try to baffle with bullshit..
Panama.. So, it was to liberate the people? How about busting a drug dealer..
http://www.military.com/Resources/HistorySubmittedFileView?file=history_panama.htm
then, there are a lot of links I found in general about Bush - I and panama.. not a lot on why we were there other than drugs..
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/clips/1990/XI2I.html
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gilboa.htm
Care to show any more 'wars' where the US started it for humanitarian reasons?
na, I never bother to show proof of my statments, yet you 'claim' proof over and over with NO support, and when you 'try' to cite examples of how I'm wrong, I shove PROOF down your throat.. you are SO right. I'm a fraud and a moron and intellectually bankrupt offering NO substantial information to anyone..
Fu*k off LWW.. you managed to show 2 things I was mistaken on, neither of which has any bearing on the world events TODAY.. then try to show I'm not aware of what I'm talking about from a historical perspective, yet I feed you your examples on a silver paltter.. Next time you decide to try and 'show your superiority' and debunk me as a thining individual, do it with some fact and debating skills, not a buch of smoke out of your *** to your lemmings (like dakota)..
Again, I submit.. I WILL say we were mistaken and Saddam has WOMD IF AND WHEN someone shows proof he does.. until then, shut up about 'proof'.. he had 2 illegal missles (that I can think of and probably find support for).. that's it.. If you think that warrents the dozens of American lives taken so far, then you ****.. you should be over there risking your life for a warmonger, not sitting here bitc*ing about those of us that know Bush is a moron and an *******..
http://www.military.com/Resources/HistorySubmittedFileView?file=history_panama.htm
then, there are a lot of links I found in general about Bush - I and panama.. not a lot on why we were there other than drugs..
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/clips/1990/XI2I.html
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gilboa.htm
Care to show any more 'wars' where the US started it for humanitarian reasons?
na, I never bother to show proof of my statments, yet you 'claim' proof over and over with NO support, and when you 'try' to cite examples of how I'm wrong, I shove PROOF down your throat.. you are SO right. I'm a fraud and a moron and intellectually bankrupt offering NO substantial information to anyone..
Fu*k off LWW.. you managed to show 2 things I was mistaken on, neither of which has any bearing on the world events TODAY.. then try to show I'm not aware of what I'm talking about from a historical perspective, yet I feed you your examples on a silver paltter.. Next time you decide to try and 'show your superiority' and debunk me as a thining individual, do it with some fact and debating skills, not a buch of smoke out of your *** to your lemmings (like dakota)..
Again, I submit.. I WILL say we were mistaken and Saddam has WOMD IF AND WHEN someone shows proof he does.. until then, shut up about 'proof'.. he had 2 illegal missles (that I can think of and probably find support for).. that's it.. If you think that warrents the dozens of American lives taken so far, then you ****.. you should be over there risking your life for a warmonger, not sitting here bitc*ing about those of us that know Bush is a moron and an *******..
Gauntlet
5,000+ posts
bulletproof
97dakota - you saying that war is necessary made me think...the other day me and my dad were having an argument about this. He asked me to come up with 3 reasons why we shouldn't have gone to war.....I came up with 3 - I dont necessarily agree with everything, but I played the role of devil's advocate.
1. The U.S. Middle East policy is a never-ending revolving-door of supposed "allies" turned enemies. The brutal Shah of Iran was our favorite person from 1953-1979, then Iran (not surprisingly) got rid of him, and they were suddenly the devil. Saddam Hussein was our best friend from 1980 -1991, and people like Donald Rumsfeld smiled while he gassed people and used chemical weapons against Iran. Then after we pretty much assured him that he could invade Kuwait without repercussions, he became "the Butcher of Baghdad" overnight and everyone allowed their little wooden arms to be danced by the puppeteers in the government. We are already seeing Saudi Arabia, our wonderful ally, becoming the #1 supporter of radical Islamic terrorism, and yet we do nothing about their brutally autocratic regime. Even a modicum of consistency in our foreign policy would require that we invade and "liberate" half the countries in the world. The allies we're using to murder Iraqis now will be our enemies in 20 years, if history cycles through again.
2. Saddam Hussein, while horrible, is not a direct threat to the United States at this moment in time. His brand of secular socialism is despised by the people most likely to carry out more attacks on America. And as long as inspections are going on and Saddam has to move his weapons around to keep them hidden, it's going to be very hard for him to do anything with them.
3. Continuing an imperialist project will expose the United States. After 9-11, everyone was running around saying "why do they hate us?" It might just have something to do with the American military sitting in their back yard (and their holy land) and American companies ruthlessly attempting to westernize them. More imperialism --> more terrorism.
Any thoughts?
1. The U.S. Middle East policy is a never-ending revolving-door of supposed "allies" turned enemies. The brutal Shah of Iran was our favorite person from 1953-1979, then Iran (not surprisingly) got rid of him, and they were suddenly the devil. Saddam Hussein was our best friend from 1980 -1991, and people like Donald Rumsfeld smiled while he gassed people and used chemical weapons against Iran. Then after we pretty much assured him that he could invade Kuwait without repercussions, he became "the Butcher of Baghdad" overnight and everyone allowed their little wooden arms to be danced by the puppeteers in the government. We are already seeing Saudi Arabia, our wonderful ally, becoming the #1 supporter of radical Islamic terrorism, and yet we do nothing about their brutally autocratic regime. Even a modicum of consistency in our foreign policy would require that we invade and "liberate" half the countries in the world. The allies we're using to murder Iraqis now will be our enemies in 20 years, if history cycles through again.
2. Saddam Hussein, while horrible, is not a direct threat to the United States at this moment in time. His brand of secular socialism is despised by the people most likely to carry out more attacks on America. And as long as inspections are going on and Saddam has to move his weapons around to keep them hidden, it's going to be very hard for him to do anything with them.
3. Continuing an imperialist project will expose the United States. After 9-11, everyone was running around saying "why do they hate us?" It might just have something to do with the American military sitting in their back yard (and their holy land) and American companies ruthlessly attempting to westernize them. More imperialism --> more terrorism.
Any thoughts?
CarAudioAddict
10+ year member
What did I do now?
I found this and thought it was funny.
http://www.funforwards.com/flash/september02/saddam.swf
I hope the real bush rides a bomb like that
http://www.funforwards.com/flash/september02/saddam.swf
I hope the real bush rides a bomb like that
No I am telling you that it is wrong for either side to REWRITE the constitution from the bench. Their is a legal mechanism to ammend it and the liberal side can never exercise their changes thru the system so they ********** our legal system.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html
Second SAVANT since you have not researched the constitution, which for the record the learned admits not having read or studied, let me assist in your learning:
ARTICLE 1 UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION NOR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF OR OF ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR OF THE PRESS OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
Now as to the US Civil War if you don't believe that to be a war of liberation you have graduated to idiot *** laude.
For the record with another tedious FACT Abe Lincoln was the first Republican president and one of the most conservative in history while Jefferson Davis was a Democrat. The Democratic Party in America has attempted to block Civil Rights legislation since and failing that made many minorities de facto slaves thru a welfare system which was nearly impossible to escape keeping them dependant and uneducated. Their tact is much the same as yours bait and beotch. When the truth comes out call names and talk about the intellectually correct opposition argument as cruel and foolish. GROW UP MAN.
http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/results/restable.html
PEACE
TOO ALL WITH AN INTEREST IN THIS ISSUE PLEASE READ THIS POST IN IT'S ENTIRETY. I UNDERSTAND IT IS LONG BUT SOME THINGS CAN'T BE SHORTENED AND COMMUNICATED PROPERLY. PLEASE ACCESS LINKS IF YOU WISH FURTHER INFO AS WELL.
CONQUEST: To take by force or coercion. To exert power and domination over. To acquire thru illegitimate means and hold by force what is not rightly yours.
LIBERATE: To free someone, something, or someplace from a domination inflicted by another.
A noble attempt to sustain world peace: The League of Nations was a part of the Treaty of Versailles which ended WWI and sadly led to WWII although it was never the intent. Another result of the law of unintended consequences. The League debated and harangued in a noble attempt to make nations coexist peacefully. The one mechanism it lacked was one in which a foot could be put up a non obliging nation's rectum. The League's finest moment was the passing of the Kellog-Briand Pact in 1928 which outlawed armed conflict forever. Quite noble and completely inane. It was signed in of course France. The US and Nazi Germany among others signed on.
Those who say we should NEVER fight wars should read and understand this. To use this same logic on everything we should never allow the police to arrest someone.
We shouldn't because it involves violence and possible loss of life of officers, criminals, and yes unfortuneately innocents sometimes.
Now in a perfect world nations would sign treaties and they would be adhered to flawlessly and armies would be unneeded. Laws would be passed by majority vote and no citizen would ever violate them. Sadly we do not live in a perfect world. Some nations exist only to enrich maniacal and sadistic leaders such as Iraq/Daddam. Fortuneately some nations exist, although less than perfect, to do the right thing to the highest degree that being human allows such as USA/UK et al.
Sadly some citizens are vermin which prey upon the weak and helpless and nothing short of being caged/executed will stop them. Fortuneately some citizens, although imperfect, subject themselves to ridicule and danger to do the right thing to the highest degree that being human allows such as police and fire personnel.
IMHO the analogies are quite accurate. If you condemn the good side of human nature only because it is less than perfect and condone the dark side becuase it is something less than 100% evil then these words will never sink in.
We have tried peace treaties but NEED military machines to enforce them. We have enacted laws but NEED law enforcement to ensure that they are abided by.
http://www.thisnation.com/library/kellog-briand.html
WWII: We were attacked at Pearl Harbor by Japan not Germany. We the EEEVILLL Americans assisted in the LIBERATION of Europe and returned the continent to the people of Europe. The enlightened Socialist USSR instead CONQUERED western Europe. The League of Nations, grandpappy of the UN, sat around passing resolutions and debating how finely a hair could be split.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm
http://www.unog.ch/frames/library/archives/lon/ovrvfset.html
Korean War: The enlightened socialist regime of N Korea attempted to CONQUER the freely Democracy of S Korea. The EEEVILLL Americans, under UN blessing, LIBERATED the CONQUERED portions of Korea and forced the N Koreans back to their rightful borders.
http://www.korean-war.com/
Grenada: The Cubans were building an air base which was illegal under treaties. The Grenadan people were oppressed by the new government, which CONQUERED the island via coup usurping the legitimate government, and the new government a puppet of the Cubans who were in fact puppets of the Soviets. American interests were threatened. The EEEVILLL Americans LIBERATED the island and returned it to the people of Grenada.
http://www.historyguy.com/Grenada.html
Panama: The UN ordered free elections to be held. These elections were supervised by former President Jimmy Carter. Manuel Noriega LOST the free election he had agreed to hold. The Panamanian military was sent out to enforce martial law. This made Panama a de facto CONQUERED nation. The legally elected, and recognized by the UN, new President of Panama and it's Supreme Court fled to the EEEVILLL USA. They were then flown back to Panama by the USAF to a base on sovereign Panamanian soil. The Panamanian Supreme Court swore in the legally elected Panamanian President who then immediately invoked a common defense treaty agreement with the EEEVILLL Americans at which point the EEEVILLL Americans LIBERATED Panama and returned it to the Panamanian people. The drug dealer, *********, dictator and former sweetheart of the left was returned to the US and summarily tried and sentenced. As a side note former boxing champion Roberto Duran was also returned to the USA so he could repay the millions in back taxes he owed.
http://www.panamascandal.com/today/today_right.html
Kuwait: Iraq was a very wealthy nation. Saddam squandered there oil wealth in an attempt to CONQUER Iran. Yes we did back him to some degree in a move which I consider brilliant. President Reagan had 2 piece of dung regimes destroying each other. When the oil revenue wasn't enough Saddam put his oilfields up as collateral to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia/ When they demanded repayment Saddam invaded and CONQUERED Kuwait. They were ready to CONQUER Saudi Arabia as well. The EEEVILLL Americans again came and LIBERTATED Kuwait and defended Saudi Arabia. Iraq entered into a cease fire agreement in which they agreed to totally disarm within 45 days. THIS WAS NEVER DONE. ONE SINGLE SCUD. ONE SINGLE AL-SAMOUD. ONE SINGLE SHOT AT ALLIED PLANES IN THE NO FLY ZONE. ANY of this is an abrigation of the cease fire and gives the Allies not only the right but the responsibility to resume the ORIGINAL WAR against Saddam. Meanwhile the UN sat and debated about how finely a hair could be split.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
Any and all attempts at revisionism of empirical historical facts are a complete abdication of intellectual integrity on the part of Savant and his followers. Now I'm not out to flame anyone other than Savant. My reason for going on is that many people don't read the paper or learn their history sadly and end up reading this puke and assuming that it has some veracity. I'll even give Savant a break here and concede that he probably falls into this group himself. My only gripe is he insists upon sticking his own head up his own arse and hiding from the truth because to do otherwise the learned one would have to admit to being f-f-f-full of sh-sh-sh...wr-wr-wr-wrong. Please gain an understanding of history before you debate it. As I have noted in other threads I have sufficient college hours to have a Masters Degree in history. I don't have the degree yet because I neglected taking some of the BS stuff required such as Phys Ed and other fluff. I stand on my credentials however as being at least above the norm on this area of study.
PEACE
CONQUEST: To take by force or coercion. To exert power and domination over. To acquire thru illegitimate means and hold by force what is not rightly yours.
LIBERATE: To free someone, something, or someplace from a domination inflicted by another.
A noble attempt to sustain world peace: The League of Nations was a part of the Treaty of Versailles which ended WWI and sadly led to WWII although it was never the intent. Another result of the law of unintended consequences. The League debated and harangued in a noble attempt to make nations coexist peacefully. The one mechanism it lacked was one in which a foot could be put up a non obliging nation's rectum. The League's finest moment was the passing of the Kellog-Briand Pact in 1928 which outlawed armed conflict forever. Quite noble and completely inane. It was signed in of course France. The US and Nazi Germany among others signed on.
Those who say we should NEVER fight wars should read and understand this. To use this same logic on everything we should never allow the police to arrest someone.
We shouldn't because it involves violence and possible loss of life of officers, criminals, and yes unfortuneately innocents sometimes.
Now in a perfect world nations would sign treaties and they would be adhered to flawlessly and armies would be unneeded. Laws would be passed by majority vote and no citizen would ever violate them. Sadly we do not live in a perfect world. Some nations exist only to enrich maniacal and sadistic leaders such as Iraq/Daddam. Fortuneately some nations exist, although less than perfect, to do the right thing to the highest degree that being human allows such as USA/UK et al.
Sadly some citizens are vermin which prey upon the weak and helpless and nothing short of being caged/executed will stop them. Fortuneately some citizens, although imperfect, subject themselves to ridicule and danger to do the right thing to the highest degree that being human allows such as police and fire personnel.
IMHO the analogies are quite accurate. If you condemn the good side of human nature only because it is less than perfect and condone the dark side becuase it is something less than 100% evil then these words will never sink in.
We have tried peace treaties but NEED military machines to enforce them. We have enacted laws but NEED law enforcement to ensure that they are abided by.
http://www.thisnation.com/library/kellog-briand.html
WWII: We were attacked at Pearl Harbor by Japan not Germany. We the EEEVILLL Americans assisted in the LIBERATION of Europe and returned the continent to the people of Europe. The enlightened Socialist USSR instead CONQUERED western Europe. The League of Nations, grandpappy of the UN, sat around passing resolutions and debating how finely a hair could be split.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm
http://www.unog.ch/frames/library/archives/lon/ovrvfset.html
Korean War: The enlightened socialist regime of N Korea attempted to CONQUER the freely Democracy of S Korea. The EEEVILLL Americans, under UN blessing, LIBERATED the CONQUERED portions of Korea and forced the N Koreans back to their rightful borders.
http://www.korean-war.com/
Grenada: The Cubans were building an air base which was illegal under treaties. The Grenadan people were oppressed by the new government, which CONQUERED the island via coup usurping the legitimate government, and the new government a puppet of the Cubans who were in fact puppets of the Soviets. American interests were threatened. The EEEVILLL Americans LIBERATED the island and returned it to the people of Grenada.
http://www.historyguy.com/Grenada.html
Panama: The UN ordered free elections to be held. These elections were supervised by former President Jimmy Carter. Manuel Noriega LOST the free election he had agreed to hold. The Panamanian military was sent out to enforce martial law. This made Panama a de facto CONQUERED nation. The legally elected, and recognized by the UN, new President of Panama and it's Supreme Court fled to the EEEVILLL USA. They were then flown back to Panama by the USAF to a base on sovereign Panamanian soil. The Panamanian Supreme Court swore in the legally elected Panamanian President who then immediately invoked a common defense treaty agreement with the EEEVILLL Americans at which point the EEEVILLL Americans LIBERATED Panama and returned it to the Panamanian people. The drug dealer, *********, dictator and former sweetheart of the left was returned to the US and summarily tried and sentenced. As a side note former boxing champion Roberto Duran was also returned to the USA so he could repay the millions in back taxes he owed.
http://www.panamascandal.com/today/today_right.html
Kuwait: Iraq was a very wealthy nation. Saddam squandered there oil wealth in an attempt to CONQUER Iran. Yes we did back him to some degree in a move which I consider brilliant. President Reagan had 2 piece of dung regimes destroying each other. When the oil revenue wasn't enough Saddam put his oilfields up as collateral to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia/ When they demanded repayment Saddam invaded and CONQUERED Kuwait. They were ready to CONQUER Saudi Arabia as well. The EEEVILLL Americans again came and LIBERTATED Kuwait and defended Saudi Arabia. Iraq entered into a cease fire agreement in which they agreed to totally disarm within 45 days. THIS WAS NEVER DONE. ONE SINGLE SCUD. ONE SINGLE AL-SAMOUD. ONE SINGLE SHOT AT ALLIED PLANES IN THE NO FLY ZONE. ANY of this is an abrigation of the cease fire and gives the Allies not only the right but the responsibility to resume the ORIGINAL WAR against Saddam. Meanwhile the UN sat and debated about how finely a hair could be split.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
Any and all attempts at revisionism of empirical historical facts are a complete abdication of intellectual integrity on the part of Savant and his followers. Now I'm not out to flame anyone other than Savant. My reason for going on is that many people don't read the paper or learn their history sadly and end up reading this puke and assuming that it has some veracity. I'll even give Savant a break here and concede that he probably falls into this group himself. My only gripe is he insists upon sticking his own head up his own arse and hiding from the truth because to do otherwise the learned one would have to admit to being f-f-f-full of sh-sh-sh...wr-wr-wr-wrong. Please gain an understanding of history before you debate it. As I have noted in other threads I have sufficient college hours to have a Masters Degree in history. I don't have the degree yet because I neglected taking some of the BS stuff required such as Phys Ed and other fluff. I stand on my credentials however as being at least above the norm on this area of study.
Savant as to you wanting me to commit fornication with you I doubt that our plumbing/genitalis is compatible...but in a mental metaphoric analogy I think I already have.
PEACE
WOW..this might catch " the thread"..lmao
savant..i love how u left out "certain irrelevent" parts of my quotes in your post...nonetheless...for all we have liberated, we should get paid, for it's our technology, it's our people freeing up these nations, at least in the majority. how is that irrelevent, when you and several others have made the accusation that we are in this for the oil? yeah, it might actually support your arguement...but the point is still valid and hence relevent.but oh well, such is life
to caraudioaddict...stay in canada..it is truely where you belong, or maybe france...and i don't mean to offend all canadians..but, and here we go...
the fact he had one or two illegal weapons is more then enough "probable cause" to ASSUME,(yes, i said assume) that he does indeed have womd. the fact that he has been given more then enough "deadlines" to destroy and remove these weapons and yet still have them..again goes to agreeing that he would indeed possess womd..and while he did indeed fire them in "self-defense", whatever, he shouldn't of had them to fire AT ALL! why? because 12 years ago, he agreed to destroy them, so why does he still have them? it honestly isn't that hard to dispose of weapons, if you actually mean too...do some research on the Pueblo, CO facility that destroyed and disposed of many mustard gas weapons of ours, i also believe that the disposed of certain nuclear weapons as well...it has been 13 years since i lived there..they worked around the clock, just outside a fairly large city doing this..with few, if any, accidents. why couldn't saddam accomplish this in twelve years? oh wait..he doesn't have the technology? the funding? my guess is, he only destroyed enuff to keep the UN happy..and don't forget, and i said this earlier, but people conviently left this out...that saddam had on numerous occasions prohibited the inspectors from doing there job..and had them removed at least once i can remember...not to mention denying them access to key personnel. all that again goes to agreeing that he does indeed have womd and NEVER intended to fully carry out all the UN resolutions..
but i guess all that is mute because saddam said he was disarming...whatever
is circumstancial better then actual proof? no..but in this case..it is more then enough. when there is this much circumstancial evidence, it is only going to be a matter of time till physical evidence is found, ie: the 2 scuds he wasn't suppose to have.
is the war just? that is a matter of opinion..is it necessary? yes. and while bush bounced from reason to reason for it, the fact remains, ALL reasons he stated are good and valid to persue this conflict. and isn't many good reasons better then one? i do agree that he should have lumped them all together at the get go..or stood behind one..for the bouncing around does tend to make him look uncertain and grasping at straws. but again, put them into a hat and pick one..they are all enough to go. and if you add the humanitarian part, then the war is also just...even if there is an alterier(spell?) motive.
think about this...how many of you manly men ask for help? even when needed? especially with a proverbial gun pointed at your head? probably very few..including myself. now apply this to the iraqian people...you really believe that the iraq parlimant was chanting that," our life, our blood we give to saddam",(or something really close) without some motivation? be it promise of power, payoff or death...people generally don't root for someone who will kill his own people and use them as shields at the drop of a hat..without coersion(spell?)
but your right..that ain't possible...saddam wouldn't lie, cheat or kill his own people..yet ..i finsih later..i have to run
savant..i love how u left out "certain irrelevent" parts of my quotes in your post...nonetheless...for all we have liberated, we should get paid, for it's our technology, it's our people freeing up these nations, at least in the majority. how is that irrelevent, when you and several others have made the accusation that we are in this for the oil? yeah, it might actually support your arguement...but the point is still valid and hence relevent.but oh well, such is life
to caraudioaddict...stay in canada..it is truely where you belong, or maybe france...and i don't mean to offend all canadians..but, and here we go...
the fact he had one or two illegal weapons is more then enough "probable cause" to ASSUME,(yes, i said assume) that he does indeed have womd. the fact that he has been given more then enough "deadlines" to destroy and remove these weapons and yet still have them..again goes to agreeing that he would indeed possess womd..and while he did indeed fire them in "self-defense", whatever, he shouldn't of had them to fire AT ALL! why? because 12 years ago, he agreed to destroy them, so why does he still have them? it honestly isn't that hard to dispose of weapons, if you actually mean too...do some research on the Pueblo, CO facility that destroyed and disposed of many mustard gas weapons of ours, i also believe that the disposed of certain nuclear weapons as well...it has been 13 years since i lived there..they worked around the clock, just outside a fairly large city doing this..with few, if any, accidents. why couldn't saddam accomplish this in twelve years? oh wait..he doesn't have the technology? the funding? my guess is, he only destroyed enuff to keep the UN happy..and don't forget, and i said this earlier, but people conviently left this out...that saddam had on numerous occasions prohibited the inspectors from doing there job..and had them removed at least once i can remember...not to mention denying them access to key personnel. all that again goes to agreeing that he does indeed have womd and NEVER intended to fully carry out all the UN resolutions..
but i guess all that is mute because saddam said he was disarming...whatever
is circumstancial better then actual proof? no..but in this case..it is more then enough. when there is this much circumstancial evidence, it is only going to be a matter of time till physical evidence is found, ie: the 2 scuds he wasn't suppose to have.
is the war just? that is a matter of opinion..is it necessary? yes. and while bush bounced from reason to reason for it, the fact remains, ALL reasons he stated are good and valid to persue this conflict. and isn't many good reasons better then one? i do agree that he should have lumped them all together at the get go..or stood behind one..for the bouncing around does tend to make him look uncertain and grasping at straws. but again, put them into a hat and pick one..they are all enough to go. and if you add the humanitarian part, then the war is also just...even if there is an alterier(spell?) motive.
think about this...how many of you manly men ask for help? even when needed? especially with a proverbial gun pointed at your head? probably very few..including myself. now apply this to the iraqian people...you really believe that the iraq parlimant was chanting that," our life, our blood we give to saddam",(or something really close) without some motivation? be it promise of power, payoff or death...people generally don't root for someone who will kill his own people and use them as shields at the drop of a hat..without coersion(spell?)
but your right..that ain't possible...saddam wouldn't lie, cheat or kill his own people..yet ..i finsih later..i have to run
FWIW I am listening/watching news as we go here. The Iraqi army in an obviously staged event is firing automatic weapons into the water in an attempt to kill a supposed downed pilot. If their was a pilot in the water this is a heinous violation of the Geneva Convention. Of course I have no PROOF that those are bullets...they might be shooting biscuits to the pilot in case he's hungry...right?
Also an as yet unconfirmed report of US POW's being killed by the Iraqi army, another violation, but of course no proof...they might have even died of frighty from the justice inflicted by Saddam's thugs.
Chemical weapons sensors going off...AGAIN...but since we don't have an actual unfired shell yet we have no proof...could even be the Iraqis firing aerosol penicillin to help keep them from getting diseases from raeding the bile some Saddamites have posted here.
As to admitting I was wrong if they don't find something well I would admit that part was wrong...even though it is impossible.
The PROOF is there and anyone whom wouldst dare removeth their own cranium from their own bile duct would recognize.
A COMPLETE LIST OF EVIDENCE FOR:
01-Iraqi admission of having chem/bio weapons.
02-Iraq having no evidence or witness to their destruction.
03-Allied forces being exposed to them in the first Gulf War.
04-Iraq's repeated lies about other WOMD which it turns out they did have.
05-Iraqi use of chemical weapons on the Kurds.
06-Iraqi use of chemical weapons on the Iranians.
07-Chemical weapons found by UN inspectors in the early-mid nineties.
08-Chemical weapons sensors going off in Gulf War I.
09-Chemical weapons sensors going off in Gulf War II.
10-Massive purchase of chemical weapons precursors from...FRANCE since Gulf War I.
11-Attempts to buy massive amounts of chem/bio antidotes from Turkey by Iraq.
12-Purchase of chemical weapons suits by Iraq from...FRANCE.
13-Multiple Iraqi citizens who have escaped and talked.
14-Cellphone intercepts of Iraqi personnel talking about how and where to hide items from inspectors.
15-Satellite photos and satellite analysis of Iraqi weapons plants.
16-Satellite photos of Iraqi chemical weapons decontamination vehicles.
A SHORT LIST OF EVIDENCE AGAINST:
01-Saddam said he doesn't have any.
The more evidence becomes available and the more tripe I see here the more I am convinced that some of the posters here blindly hate this country and would actually like to see our countrymen slaughtered.
PEACE (thru strength)
Also an as yet unconfirmed report of US POW's being killed by the Iraqi army, another violation, but of course no proof...they might have even died of frighty from the justice inflicted by Saddam's thugs.
Chemical weapons sensors going off...AGAIN...but since we don't have an actual unfired shell yet we have no proof...could even be the Iraqis firing aerosol penicillin to help keep them from getting diseases from raeding the bile some Saddamites have posted here.
As to admitting I was wrong if they don't find something well I would admit that part was wrong...even though it is impossible.
The PROOF is there and anyone whom wouldst dare removeth their own cranium from their own bile duct would recognize.
A COMPLETE LIST OF EVIDENCE FOR:
01-Iraqi admission of having chem/bio weapons.
02-Iraq having no evidence or witness to their destruction.
03-Allied forces being exposed to them in the first Gulf War.
04-Iraq's repeated lies about other WOMD which it turns out they did have.
05-Iraqi use of chemical weapons on the Kurds.
06-Iraqi use of chemical weapons on the Iranians.
07-Chemical weapons found by UN inspectors in the early-mid nineties.
08-Chemical weapons sensors going off in Gulf War I.
09-Chemical weapons sensors going off in Gulf War II.
10-Massive purchase of chemical weapons precursors from...FRANCE since Gulf War I.
11-Attempts to buy massive amounts of chem/bio antidotes from Turkey by Iraq.
12-Purchase of chemical weapons suits by Iraq from...FRANCE.
13-Multiple Iraqi citizens who have escaped and talked.
14-Cellphone intercepts of Iraqi personnel talking about how and where to hide items from inspectors.
15-Satellite photos and satellite analysis of Iraqi weapons plants.
16-Satellite photos of Iraqi chemical weapons decontamination vehicles.
A SHORT LIST OF EVIDENCE AGAINST:
01-Saddam said he doesn't have any.
The more evidence becomes available and the more tripe I see here the more I am convinced that some of the posters here blindly hate this country and would actually like to see our countrymen slaughtered.
PEACE (thru strength)
- Status
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
