Some things that no one seems to acknowledge

I almost never speak political IRL or on-line, being that I dislike arguments and debates (reduce anger in all aspects of life, methinks). HOWEVER, in light of current events and the discussions I have been hearing out and about, I feel that some facts must be addressed that seem to be tragically ignored by the naïve.

Note that I am not making any potshots or disrespect towards anyone’s opinions. I am also not looking to participate in an argument.


Some facts that few seem to acknowledge:


1) The UN has been trying to get Hussein to disarm for more than 10 years. Nearly 20 resolutions have been made to get him to comply. He still has not complied with any of these resolutions.

2) Saddam Hussein’s government is known throughout all nations to be tyrannical. He is not the benevolent ruler that some groups try to make him out to be. Thousands of his people have been tortured and killed by this totalitarian dictatorship.

3) If the first gulf war was fought to take control of Iraq’s oil, then why didn’t the US keep the oil fields then? If it was for oil, why does the US have sanctions against Iraq to NOT buy their oil?

4) France and Russia have OIL and ECONOMIC INTERESTS in Iraq. Russia is owed billions in debt money by Iraq, which is being paid with oil. France has been doing close business with Iraq since the 70’s. J. Shorrock and S. Hussein are personal friends from back in the 70-80’s. The nuclear reactors that Iraq acquired were built in France. Hussein even went on a personal visit to France to see them under construction.

5) Two of the largest political groups in France are a Communist party and an anti-Semitic/racist faction. A large Muslim population also lives there. In recent years, anti-Semitic crimes there have been on the rise.

6) UN Resolution 1441, passed unanimously, stated that if Iraq did not FULLY comply and cooperate, they would face grave consequences, NOT ANOTHER CHANCE.

7) France was OPPOSED to the implementation of weapons inspectors IN THE FIRST PLACE- they even abstained from votes concerning them in the past.

8) In 1996, France pushed to get the UN to announce that Iraq was in full compliance.

9) The anti-war rallies in the US and elsewhere are largely funded by Communist, Socialist, and/or Islamic groups.






In my considered opinion, it seems to me that the anti-war crowd is largely made up of those who are bitter over the outcome of the last presidential election. That is perfectly fine, and I sincerely hope that those who are upset will vote in large droves against Mr. Bush in the next election.

However, I do hope that you make sure that you know all the facts about the matter at hand and try to better understand WHY you feel the way you do.

I am not afraid to admit that I am against the war not because of my feelings about Iraq and its compliance problems, but because I don’t personally like the president. I know why I feel the way I feel, and hence am free of a LOT of stress.


*goes back to playing videogames, reading books, and other things that enrich life*


:)

I thought it was Jacques Chirac?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zerodash
*goes back to playing videogames, reading books, and other things that enrich life*


:)

---

Wish I could. Bloody homework.

Good man, Zero. Nice to know some people realize that we can't wave a magic wand and create peace.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zerodash
5) Two of the largest political groups in France are a Communist party and an anti-Semitic/racist faction. A large Muslim population also lives there. In recent years, anti-Semitic crimes there have been on the rise.

---

That anti-Semetic faction you're talking about is the National Socialist Party. In German, it's "nationaler Sozialist." Abbreviated, "nationaler Sozialist" looks like this: NAZI.

This past election, the French people nearly voted in the Nazi representative for presedent (41% of them voted in his favor). His primary speaking platform? He promised to expell all Jews upon his electoral victory.

Just a bit more insight into the minds of the French.

Oops. I made a mistake. 48% of the French polulous voted for him. I apologize for any inconvience my error may have caused. ;)

Beautiful post, Zerodash, thanks. The lack of posts equivalent to Zerodash's was what I was ranting about with Almaci.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
That anti-Semetic faction you're talking about is the National Socialist Party. In German, it's "nationaler Sozialist." Abbreviated, "nationaler Sozialist" looks like this: NAZI.

This past election, the French people nearly voted in the Nazi representative for presedent (41% of them voted in his favor). His primary speaking platform? He promised to expell all Jews upon his electoral victory.

Just a bit more insight into the minds of the French.

---

Sheesh, what a bunch of bigoted ass-heads. In light of this, freedom toast doesn't sound so stupid anymore. Though I'm still just gonna keep calling them "fries".

**likes this thread so far**

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
That anti-Semetic faction you're talking about is the National Socialist Party. In German, it's "nationaler Sozialist." Abbreviated, "nationaler Sozialist" looks like this: NAZI.

This past election, the French people nearly voted in the Nazi representative for presedent (41% of them voted in his favor). His primary speaking platform? He promised to expell all Jews upon his electoral victory.

Just a bit more insight into the minds of the French.

---

What a load of bulshit.
A vocal minority voted in the primaries for Le Pen after wich he was absolutely crushed in the actual elections.
One of le Pen´s favourite targets BTW are Muslims.
Now go and find me a link for youre bulshit claims that he promised to expel all Jews if voted in, go on I dare you.
Frankly youre rascism shocks me, go on find me some links.

As for the comunists and socialist paying for organising peace rallies.
Of course they do, theyre organised groups with limited funds who use their funds to promote these peace marches.
On the other hand we have people like Rumsfeld(who shook saddam´s hand and called him a great friend and ally) Cheney(50 Million from halliburton baby) Powell(Uncle Tom) etcetera who have profited from and will further profit from the war industry.
If peace is achieved the people investing in peace rallies wont get any richer by doing so, the opposite is true for those calling loudest for war.

Just something to think about.

Of course you like it.
Mind you where are you peoples proof?
You always blast me for not providing enough credible links, yet when I do you complain im being annoying.
i dont see a single fucking source here, just blatant rascism and bulshit claims.

http://french.about.com/library/weekly/bl-lepen3.htm

Jacques Chirac soundly defeated Jean-Marie Le Pen in yesterday's second round of presidential elections, final score 82.05% to 17.95%, with an abstention rate of 19.25% (compared to 28.40 in the first round).

http://www.politicallinks.co.uk/poli...FrancePres.asp

French presidential election second round results
Jacques Chirac has been re-elected as the President of France in the second round of the vote, which took place on Sunday 5 May 2002. The two candidates, who had qualified as a result of topping the first round poll, were Jacques Chirac and Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Jacques Chirac received 25,316,647 votes (82.14%) and Jean-Marie Le Pen received 5,502,314 (17.85%). Around 4% of votes were spoilt in protest and 20% of the electorate did not vote.

The results of the first round of the French Presidential Election are listed below.

The full results are as follows:

Jacques Chirac Rally for France (RPF) 19.83%
Jean-Marie Le Pen National Front (FN) 16.91%
Lionel Jospin Socialist Party (PS) 16.14%
François Bayrou Union for French Democracy (UDF) 6.84%
Arlette Laguiller Workers' Struggle (LO) 5.73%
Jean-Pierre Chevènement Citizens' Movement (MC) 5.33%
Noël Mamère Greens (Vert) 5.24%
Olivier Besancenot Revolutionary Communist League (LCR) 4.26%
Jean Saint-Josse Hunting, Fishing, Nature and Traditions (CPNT) 4.25%
Alain Madelin Liberal Democracy (DL) 3.92%
Robert Hue Communist Party (PCF) 3.38%
Bruno Mégret National Republican Movement (MNR) 2.35%
Christiane Taubira Radical Left Party 2.32%
Corinne Lepage Citizenship, Action, Participation Movement (MCAP) 1.88%
Christine Boutin Social Republican Forum (FRS) 1.19%
Daniel Gluckstein Workers' Party (PT) 0.47%
ELECTORATE: 40,320,334
TURNOUT: 29,149,143

And it doesnt end as in the last elections the Far right fascistoid party of LePen has been SLIPPING downwards.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/2035507.stm

But results declared so far give the far-right party just 11.3% of the vote, a fall of five points from the presidential poll, and also down from the nearly 15% garnered in 1997 legislative polls.

If these preliminary results are confirmed, correspondents say that the FN can hope to win no more than four places in the 577-seat house after the run-off next Sunday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2049364.stm

The victory marks a significant blow for the French president's opponents on the left and sends Jean-Marie Le Pen's far-right National Front back to the political margins.

The National Front failed to take a single seat.

I don't think you are in a position to call Powell an Uncle Tom.

Though I respect your opinion nonetheless.

**doesn't lile this thread anymore**:(

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1969895.stm

The UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, congratulated Mr Chirac on his re-election and called the result "a victory for democracy and a defeat for extremism".

World leaders have greeted the crushing election defeat of France's far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said he was "pleased" to see Mr Le Pen "overwhelmingly marginalised and defeated".


Official reaction in Middle Eastern states with strong links to France through history and immigration has been one of delight.

"I do not need to tell you with how much satisfaction I welcome your re-election," said Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika in a message to Mr Chirac.

France had regained "the glory and the prestige which have characterised the country throughout its long history", he added.

In Lebanon Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri commended the French winner on his "brilliant victory".

"France has chosen Jacques Chirac to continue working for peace in the Middle East," he said.


Gee all Arab countries are extremely pleased that LePen was so soundly crushed, something doesnt add up here with regards to you peoples rascist claims and hate filled propaganda.


Stone I can understand it from weak minds like the Frostwolf and Vegetable here, I however assumed you were smarter then that.
Seems I was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Scourge
**doesn't lile this thread anymore**:(

---

Oh shoo, why not?
Was it becouse I actually make sense compared to people who have build a wll of hatred around themselves?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
Oh shoo, why not?
Was it becouse I actually make sense compared to people who have build a wll of hatred around themselves?

---

I haven't said anything hateful. You are full of hate.

--Scourge .

passion=/hate, though sometimes it borders on it

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Scourge
I haven't said anything hateful. You are full of hate.

--Scourge .

---

I wasnt talking about you.

Its pretty obvious that im talking about vegetable(he surely seems to posses the brain of one)and Frostwolf etcetera.

They question everything I bring on regardles of the amount of independently verifyable sources I bring into the equation.

Yet vegetable here makes bulshit claims that have absolutely no basis in reality and he is cheered on by a horde of like minded racists.

I dunno, you diodnt seem to be questioning a thing they said, you just sai you liked the thread?

Why did you like it?
Becouse the baseles rascism was against the French?

Almaci, you're a cool person. But how can you call someone racist then turn around and call Colin Powell and 'Uncle Tom'. That's not very nice.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Almaci, you're a cool person. But how can you call someone racist then turn around and call Colin Powell and 'Uncle Tom'. That's not very nice.

SC

---

I know its not verry nice, I used to kinda like the guy up until recently.
The guy was against a war without a mandate, was for talks with North korea, tought the US should have a more hands on approach and not be so singleminded with regards to the Israeli/Palestine conflict etcetera.
He lost on all grounds and nothing he stood for he was able to push trough in this administration so instead of doing the honorouble thing and resigning since the administration is just using him for the black vote and to give legitimacy to the ultra hawks he concedes defeat and like a good soldier follows orders he does not believe in.
A popular older black entertainer called him an uncle Tom and since the lies Powell willfully spread before the UN just over a month ago I happen to agree with that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
Yet vegetable here makes bulshit claims that have absolutely no basis in reality and he is cheered on by a horde of like minded racists.

I dunno, you diodnt seem to be questioning a thing they said, you just sai you liked the thread?

Why did you like it?
Becouse the baseles rascism was against the French?

---

a) I liked it because I knew the civility would be shortlived and stopped liking it when I knew it would turn into one of the 20 other threads where "debate" is a word loosely used to describe people yelling at each other.

b) Calling people racists because they disagree with the predominant views of a group of people or a person is the equivalent of me calling you a racist.

--Scourge .

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Scourge
a) I liked it because I knew the civility would be shortlived and stopped liking it when I knew it would turn into one of the 20 other threads where "debate" is a word loosely used to describe people yelling at each other.

b) Calling people racists because they disagree with the predominant views of a group of people or a person is the equivalent of me calling you a racist.

--Scourge .

---

This is not about predominant VIEWS, this is about LYING and blatant rascism.
Saying 48% of the French voted for a fascist and saying his platform consisted of ousting all Jews from France(actually he does want to do that, not with Jews tough but with Muslims) is a LIE, others started cheering vegetables LIES, when someone LIES to make a country and its people look bad that DOES constitute as rascism and yes the rascism is quite apparent with the other people as well.
Not a single person doubted Vegetables word despite the fact that his claims were pretty wild, that alone speaks volumes.

Everyone immediatly assumed Vegetables words were undeniable fact while in reality it consisted of nothing more then lies.

Tell me what should I do Scourge, let people get away with blatant rascism and not utter a word so the thread can have youre stamp of civility?

I wasn't talking about Vegetable's Nazi claims as the predominant view of the French. I was saying that just because people disagree with the French doesn't make them racist. Last time I checked, racism meant you hated someone because of their race, not disagreed with someone because of their point of view. Stop lumping everyone under the racist label. According to your definition, I'm fairly certain that you are a racist.

As far as civility is concerned I just have to wonder why we need SO MANY threads about the same thing? Even if they don't start out being quite the same thing, they quickly turn into the exact same arguments that are going on in several other threads and by the same people. Why not just put them all in under one topic header: American Racists vs. Citizens of the World.

--Scourge .

Well then you guys should stop lumping all the French together as Anti-American and Nazi's. And Americans aren't a race so being Anti-American isn't being racist. I'm not sure if that was a point, but I thought I'd say it anyways. :D

SC

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Scourge
I wasn't talking about Vegetable's Nazi claims as the predominant view of the French. I was saying that just because people disagree with the French doesn't make them racist. Last time I checked, racism meant you hated someone because of their race, not disagreed with someone because of their point of view. Stop lumping everyone under the racist label. According to your definition, I'm fairly certain that you are a racist.

As far as civility is concerned I just have to wonder why we need SO MANY threads about the same thing? Even if they don't start out being quite the same thing, they quickly turn into the exact same arguments that are going on in several other threads and by the same people. Why not just put them all in under one topic header: American Racists vs. Citizens of the World.

--Scourge .

---

This isnt about disagreeing, everyone is entitled to disagree with the French.
I myself do it all the time.
Thing is this was a case of using LIES to nullify French positions with regards to the current situation.
Everybody without any proof whatsoever was ready to jump on those LIES and take em as truth becouse it would vindicate their own personal oppinions.
They call that blinded by hatred.

Ok...speaking of some things that no one seems to acknowledge..

1. The US helped Train Osama Bin ladin
2. The US was the one that Armed Saddam with "weapons of Mass Distruction" in the first Place
3. There are documents that Rumsfeld met with Saddam in the 80's (I think this was discussed earlier)
4. Why is it that the US media never said anything about the Resolutions that were vetod by the US pertaining to the killing of all the refugees in Jenin by the Israelies last year?
5. Getting Rid of Saddam will not bring peace to the Middle East
6. If the US really wanted peace, they would invade Palistine/Isreal and fix the issue.
7. If Iran is a part of the "Axis of Evil" they why is the US secretly meeting striking deals with them?
8. Why is it that the US media did not cover all the things demonstrations in Iran against the government recently. If they are one of the "Axis of Evil" countries..you would think this would be a big deal.
9. Is the US going to help "rebuild" Iraq, just like they helped "Rebuild" Afghanistan?

Just my two cents...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Well then you guys should stop lumping all the French together as Anti-American and Nazi's. And Americans aren't a race so being Anti-American isn't being racist. I'm not sure if that was a point, but I thought I'd say it anyways. :D

SC

---

Right, and it's not possible to hate a nationality's predominant views and not hate their race? (ie: Anti-American AND Anti-French terms, such as for example, "I am Anti-French because I disagree with their predominant stance as Anti-American." French is a nationality and a race while American is just a nationality. No one here is against the genetics of a French person, so stop calling them racists.) And are you claiming the French majority are not anti-American?

Also, not everyone who feels most French are Anti-American are trying to link them all to Nazi's. And yet if one or two people claim a portion of them are, we're all guilty of claiming they all are? And it's because we're racist? Wait, someone links a notoriously racist regime with a group of people because the poster is racist? How does trying to point out a portion of a group's racism translate to that person being a racist? You can be wrong about a 'fact' and not be a racist because of it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
They call that blinded by hatred.

---

Some would claim you are just as guilty of this.

--Scourge .

Saddam is a madman, he needs to die or sit in a very small cramped room for the rest of his time on earth. We (America) should do everything in our power to see this through since we happen to be the most dominant military force on the Earth at this point. Unfortunately innocent people will die before this happens, it's a sad reality of the world. The people of the Earth are a very very very long way away from world peace. As long as people see "Race" when it comes to humans there will not be peace because we are all identical other than the pigment of out skin (which means absolutely nothing).

The only way I see world peace happening is if some other species alien to the earth has hostile intentions toward us and the world populace knows about it. And even then it will take one hell of a travesty to get everyone's attention.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xeno Gigas
The only way I see world peace happening is if some other species alien to the earth has hostile intentions toward us and the world populace knows about it. And even then it will take one hell of a travesty to get everyone's attention.

---

That's what we need! Independence Day baby! Then we can all unite against the aliens and stuff. Sucks to be the aliens though. We should elect Bill Pullman to be President.

On the French, I haven't been there since like 10th grade so I don't what they think. But they do tend to dislike us for some reason. They always seem to think they were the Revolutionaries before we were and they set up our government before we did. It's confusing but I don't hate them and I don't believe they are truly anti-American. I have a lot of French friends and they all seem pretty cool to me.

SC

spacecowboy, I like your new avatar better than your old one.

--Scourge .

Thanks! :D

SC

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xeno Gigas
Saddam is a madman, he needs to die or sit in a very small cramped room for the rest of his time on earth. We (America) should do everything in our power to see this through since we happen to be the most dominant military force on the Earth at this point.

---

The US government also did everyting in it's power to support this very same madman in the 1980s.

Go figure. :confused:


The US gov't should keep it's self-interest out of the region once and for all and stop creating problems and human misery.

Scourge, im against the US scorched earth policy, im against the US behaviour with regards to venezuela, im against the US one sided approach to the Israeli/Palestine conflict, im against so many foreign policies of the US, does that make me Anti-american.
Damn no, I love the US and its people.
I love visiting the US as often as I can, I love NYc and Chicago and gosh darnit I even love Iowa.

I went to ground zero and prayed and cried and felt a great saddnes standing there looking at the void the two buildings had left.

Do you always agree with al of youre friends?
Are al youre friends so perfect that you will blindly believe that everything they do and say is just?
Dont you ever have quarrels with any of youre friends?

Think about it.

Almaci,

My brain works fine without you, thanks. Just for grins, how do you feel about Turkey and their bid to become part of the EU?

--Scourge .

About the Osama thing: I for one would like to know more about this. It has the workings for a great story. Dude was armed to the teeth by the US to fight against the Soviet Union. Was "left" (so he claims) by the US, and became disenheartened with the country that was arming him. Years later he emerges as an extremist.

I wanna see someone connect the dots- if it hasn't been done already.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zerodash
1) The UN has been trying to get Hussein to disarm for more than 10 years. Nearly 20 resolutions have been made to get him to comply. He still has not complied with any of these resolutions.

---

He has complied, but he has not fully disarmed.

Quote:

---

2) Saddam Hussein’s government is known throughout all nations to be tyrannical. He is not the benevolent ruler that some groups try to make him out to be. Thousands of his people have been tortured and killed by this totalitarian dictatorship.

---

I have never, ever, ever read anything from anyone anywhere saying Hussein is benevolent.

Quote:

---

3) If the first gulf war was fought to take control of Iraq’s oil, then why didn’t the US keep the oil fields then? If it was for oil, why does the US have sanctions against Iraq to NOT buy their oil?

---

I don't believe it has ever been satisfactorily explained why the coalition forces left Hussein in power, so I can't offer one. Ostensibly, it was to maintain stability in the region.

Quote:

---

4) France and Russia have OIL and ECONOMIC INTERESTS in Iraq. Russia is owed billions in debt money by Iraq, which is being paid with oil. France has been doing close business with Iraq since the 70’s. J. Shorrock

---

Chirac ;)

Quote:

---

and S. Hussein are personal friends from back in the 70-80’s. The nuclear reactors that Iraq acquired were built in France. Hussein even went on a personal visit to France to see them under construction.

---

The US has no oil or economic interests in the country with the Earth's 2nd largest oil supply, which is exactly why red flags go up everywhere when an oil baron president suddenly wants a regime change after 10 years of Iraqi peace. And to be honest, Americans have no business pointing fingers at the French for supplying Hussein's regime with anything. Bush Sr. and Hussein were even closer back when. To steal a line from the new Beastie Boys track:

You and Saddam should kick it like back in the day
With the cocaine and Courvoisier

Quote:

---

5) Two of the largest political groups in France are a Communist party and an anti-Semitic/racist faction. A large Muslim population also lives there. In recent years, anti-Semitic crimes there have been on the rise.

---

I have no idea what you're getting at here. Are you saying this is all part of some pro-arab anti-Israeli French plot, or just that a good deal of the French are knobs?

Quote:

---

6) UN Resolution 1441, passed unanimously, stated that if Iraq did not FULLY comply and cooperate, they would face grave consequences, NOT ANOTHER CHANCE.

---

The wording was strong, but ultimately vague. The real question is, is the possibility of Iraq having very few of the same chemical weapons western countries have been testing for decades worth bombing every civilian between Kuwait and Baghdad for?

Quote:

---

7) France was OPPOSED to the implementation of weapons inspectors IN THE FIRST PLACE- they even abstained from votes concerning them in the past.

---

That means that political jockeying was involved, not that they are inherently bad people who think anthrax is rad.

Quote:

---

8) In 1996, France pushed to get the UN to announce that Iraq was in full compliance.

---

And the US vetoed sending UN troops to stop genocide in Rwanda, and sending UN troops to protect Palestinian civilians in 2001. OMG, US= NATION OF EVIL!!

Quote:

---

9) The anti-war rallies in the US and elsewhere are largely funded by Communist, Socialist, and/or Islamic groups.

---

I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but I sincerely hope you're not trying to imply that there's something bad about being Islamic (which Saddam barely qualifies as), or even socialist. And no one or two or even three groups are behind the anti-war rallies, which are already in the US larger than anything seen during the Vietnam war. I don't want anybody's family having 20 000 pound petrol-spraying bombs dropped on their heads in the name of "freedom"; I hardly think that makes me a de facto Trotskyite.

Quote:

---

In my considered opinion, it seems to me that the anti-war crowd is largely made up of those who are bitter over the outcome of the last presidential election. That is perfectly fine, and I sincerely hope that those who are upset will vote in large droves against Mr. Bush in the next election.

However, I do hope that you make sure that you know all the facts about the matter at hand and try to better understand WHY you feel the way you do.

---

I don't agree. 5 million people demonstrated against the war in Spain yesterday, and I can pretty much guarantee most of them aren't doing it because they're huge Al Gore fans.

It comes down to civilian lives, no more, no less. The standard plan of attack is missiles -> bombs -> tanks -> troops, and it's going to happen all the way up the road to Baghdad. Unless they manage to evacuate half the country, thousands will die.

You're perfectly right in pointing out that the French, Chinese and Russians have a vested political interest in maintaining the current regime in Iraq. It shouldn't suprise anybody when politicians act cynically. But don't think American, British, or even Canadian politicians are cut from a radically different cloth. Nobody practical and canny enough to outsmart all the other ambitious would-bes to become a member of multiple corporate boards (hello, Enron!) and eventually president is willing to put his country 3 trillion into deficit and sacrifice his own troops' lives simply in the name of "justice". Think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brisco Bold
About the Osama thing: I for one would like to know more about this. It has the workings for a great story. Dude was armed to the teeth by the US to fight against the Soviet Union. Was "left" (so he claims) by the US, and became disenheartened with the country that was arming him. Years later he emerges as an extremist.

I wanna see someone connect the dots- if it hasn't been done already.

---

Actually, his politics have been pretty much the same all along. The US just didn't care about supporting him back in the 1980s because he was fighting a greater enemy at the time, the USSR. The same goes for Saddam and his war with Iran.

The US has no moral requirements for who they support. In fact, it's actually quite the opposite since their only motivation is greed and self-interest and thus they support repressive regimes all over the world. From Saudi Arabia to Central America to Africa to South America to Asia....

Bin-laden wants the US influence and support out of Saudi Arabia, his home country, because it is one of the most repressive, brutal, and unjust governments in the entire world. That's not something new and it's very well known.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sggg
Bin-laden wants the US influence and support out of Saudi Arabia, his home country, because it is one of the most repressive, brutal, and unjust governments in the entire world. That's not something new and it's very well known.

---

Wow, thats so nice of him! What a fucking great guy. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Abobo
4. Why is it that the US media never said anything about the Resolutions that were vetod by the US pertaining to the killing of all the refugees in Jenin by the Israelies last year?

---

Because there was no massacre - http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020501-5587072.htm. 56 Palestinians died, 33 Israelis died. The idea of a massacre was propaganda made up by the Palestinians and promulgated by European newspapers. US media didn't say anything about it because, hm, they generally avoid publishing obviously fake news spawned in the minds of terrorists.

A better question - why didn't the European media say much about the falsehood of the Jenin "massacre", once the facts came out?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Because there was no massacre - http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020501-5587072.htm. 56 Palestinians died, 33 Israelis died. The idea of a massacre was propaganda made up by the Palestinians and promulgated by European newspapers. US media didn't say anything about it because, hm, they generally avoid publishing obviously fake news spawned in the minds of terrorists.

A better question - why didn't the European media say much about the falsehood of the Jenin "massacre", once the facts came out?

---

This outa be good.
Stone wich facts?
Care to explain to us and provide links to acurate death figures.
And while youre at it do a search for IDF and itchy trigger fingers, this time they accidentaly killed two of their own.
How many have been killed in recent weeks on both sides?
How many have been killed the last decade?
How many need to be killed before it actually is a massacre?
How about the blatant rascism earlier in this thread?

Lotsa questions, few answers.

Its alright to call me anti american, its alright to call me anti semite, its alright to ignore simple facts becouse they dont fit into the beliefs of people on this board.
Its sad really, millions of uninformed americans out there actually believe crap like what vegetable was spouting, we live in an age of soundbites and headlines, the true stories are not important, people want black and white, good and evil, if youre not with us youre against us, they disagree so they are a bunch of rascist fuckwits.

World doesnt work that way, sadly people dont want complexity, its OK when the US sponsors the IRA or Armenian terrorist squads against Turkey, hey lets support a coup in Venezuela its been a while since we last supported a coup in South America becouse hey the causes of those people might not be entirely just but its in oure intrest and we do sympathise with them, but watch out those who dont agree with the US line becouse then you are a terrorist supporter, you should at least be boycotted and preferably bombed.

Sick, sick world we live in.
Buncha sick people leading a world where the general populace has an attention span that seems to be getting shorter and shorter, long term solutions for complex problems are not perceived as important anymore, instant gratification is what we demand, blood blood BLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD.

________________________________________________________

And despite al those things I keep believing in the goodnes of mankind, I keep believing there is hope for us all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
This outa be good.
Stone wich facts?
Care to explain to us and provide links to acurate death figures.

---

I'm just going to respond to one part of your response - I'm heading out.

What do you mean, "wich facts?"

Did you click on the link? It's the Washington Times, writing that Palestinian officials set the official death toll of the Jenin "massacre" at 56 Palestinians, 33 Israelis. That information could be found at the link provided, in the post.

You don't really read the posts you respond to, right? ("Personal aAttacks!!!")

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zerodash
1) The UN has been trying to get Hussein to disarm for more than 10 years. Nearly 20 resolutions have been made to get him to comply. He still has not complied with any of these resolutions.

2) Saddam Hussein’s government is known throughout all nations to be tyrannical. He is not the benevolent ruler that some groups try to make him out to be. Thousands of his people have been tortured and killed by this totalitarian dictatorship.

---

I agree on all these points. However, I do not feel it justifies removing Saddam and his regime. We have punished Saddam on many occassions since Desert Storm with many missile and bomb attacks when he and his soldiers stepped out of line. Its not like we have been sitting on our thumbs doing nothing at all. We also have very strict trade and oil sanctions on the country even now as punishment from 1991. And since when is it the U.S.'s job to take out evil dictators?

Quote:

---

3) If the first gulf war was fought to take control of Iraq’s oil, then why didn’t the US keep the oil fields then? If it was for oil, why does the US have sanctions against Iraq to NOT buy their oil?

---

Firstly. It would have been way too costly and too much hassle to take over the entire country of Iraq just to get the oil fields they have. Which was exactly the reason given by Powell after Desert Storm in regards to why we didn't do so. The other reason I feel is on the following link.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Quote:

---

4) France and Russia have OIL and ECONOMIC INTERESTS in Iraq. Russia is owed billions in debt money by Iraq, which is being paid with oil. France has been doing close business with Iraq since the 70’s. J. Shorrock and S. Hussein are personal friends from back in the 70-80’s. The nuclear reactors that Iraq acquired were built in France. Hussein even went on a personal visit to France to see them under construction.

5) Two of the largest political groups in France are a Communist party and an anti-Semitic/racist faction. A large Muslim population also lives there. In recent years, anti-Semitic crimes there have been on the rise.

6) UN Resolution 1441, passed unanimously, stated that if Iraq did not FULLY comply and cooperate, they would face grave consequences, NOT ANOTHER CHANCE.

7) France was OPPOSED to the implementation of weapons inspectors IN THE FIRST PLACE- they even abstained from votes concerning them in the past.

8) In 1996, France pushed to get the UN to announce that Iraq was in full compliance.

9) The anti-war rallies in the US and elsewhere are largely funded by Communist, Socialist, and/or Islamic groups.

---

I fail to see how any of this factors into invading a country. These points hold no water for use of military force. Big deal if France or other counries are opposed to it for monentary reasons. The U.S. is apparently ready and willing to attack without U.N. approval, so all these points are moot and conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
I'm just going to respond to one part of your response - I'm heading out.

What do you mean, "wich facts?"

Did you click on the link? It's the Washington Times, writing that Palestinian officials set the official death toll of the Jenin "massacre" at 56 Palestinians, 33 Israelis. That information could be found at the link provided, in the post.

You don't really read the posts you respond to, right? ("Personal aAttacks!!!")

---

56 Palestinian NAMES acounted for by the palestine Authority.
The PA doesnt count people from some terrorist fractions, outside of those before the PA could conduct any investigation and start digging for the names of those killed 2 weeks had past, Israel didnt allow anyone in the camp, no press no observers NO ONE, even while fighting was going on Israeli generals said there were around 200 casualties, Jenin is a huge refugee camp with a lot of unregistered people.
The final tally is likely to be much higher, sadly we will never know as Israel sealed the area of, kept journalists out and had the US Veto a UN fact finding mission.

http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart/polit...agandaWar.html

Yes i clicked on the link.
Youve readily dismissed dozens upon dozens of links I provided, getting pissed becouse I dare dismiss a single one from you?

I have a feeling this is not unlike country representatives bickering.

And people wonder why nothing ever gets done by them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sggg
Actually, his politics have been pretty much the same all along. The US just didn't care about supporting him back in the 1980s because he was fighting a greater enemy at the time, the USSR. The same goes for Saddam and his war with Iran.

The US has no moral requirements for who they support. In fact, it's actually quite the opposite since their only motivation is greed and self-interest and thus they support repressive regimes all over the world. From Saudi Arabia to Central America to Africa to South America to Asia....

Bin-laden wants the US influence and support out of Saudi Arabia, his home country, because it is one of the most repressive, brutal, and unjust governments in the entire world. That's not something new and it's very well known.

---

Very true, sggg.

Bin Laden and his crew, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.

According to MSNBC:

Quote:

---

At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow.

---

We played a big part in training Bin Laden & his cronies, through the CIA and Pakistani intelligence. He didn't just pop up on his own. The fact that he had Saudi credentials led the CIA to give him free regin in Afghansitan.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
They question everything I bring on regardles of the amount of independently verifyable sources I bring into the equation.

---

Hold the phone there, pal. They? THEY?! I've never said anything against you, your views, or your take on other peoples' views. Most I can remember doing is poping my head into a thread you were heavily involved in and saying what an interesting thread it has been. For the most part, Almaci, I think you have an amazing intellect with an impossible amount of well applied, well organized information floating around in it. I never, never questioned what you had to say, and in spite of my comments in this thread, I still don't. Know why? Here:

Quote:

---

Yet vegetable here makes bulshit claims that have absolutely no basis in reality and he is cheered on by a horde of like minded racists.

---

Here's why. When I spoke that bit of, forthwith, mis-information, I spoke it as a third party. That means the information I had given to me was second hand, at least, and probably full of biases. For this, I apologize. I got my information from a Frenchman who I have been friends with for years now. He told me of the situation in France, and I believed him without questioning him as I am unaware of the particulars concerning the political climate in France. As a matter of fact, I'm glad I was mis-informed. Thinking that the French were, by and large, a group of anti-Semites would have destroyed my credibility had I gone so far to express that opinion (case in point).

I'm no racist, Almaci, and I take great offence at you lumping me in with a group of detestibles without even getting a handle on who I am first.

Seems to me you get too involved in your "debates" and start lashing out and forming opinions conserning others without actually getting to know them. That's called "prejudice," and is a precursor to "racism."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
...conspiracy theory bullshit...
http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart/polit...agandaWar.html

Yes i clicked on the link.
Youve readily dismissed dozens upon dozens of links I provided, getting pissed becouse I dare dismiss a single one from you?

---

Heheh. Look:

-I provide a link to an article by a writer for Washington Times
-You provide a link to some webpage that has a text file supposedly from some magazine called "Dissident Voice"

My source is worthy, viable - yours isn't. What the fuck is Dissident Voice, what have they done that gives that article any air of viability, so on? I haven't dismissed any of the links that you've provided that have come from worthy, viable sources, like Haaretz - I dismiss links like the one you've given above.

When it comes to those swarms of Haaretz links you posted, I wasn't dismissing the links - I was dismissing your weird misinterpretations of the articles' contents.

Haaretz would write an article about how a couple of extremist right-wing Israeli politicians were thinking about trying to write a bill that would keep Palestinians from buying land. You would then reinterpret that content into a link and a description looking something like this:

www.haaretzdaily.com/5325325h3/blahblah - "Israel Denies Basic Rights to Palestinians!!"

In those cases, I would dismiss your description, sure.

You understand the difference betweeen The Washington Times and some online internet magazine called Dissident Voice, right? You know that information from one source will and should hold more water than information from the other?

Just to educate you on this point a bit more, since you obviously haven't been able to figure it out for yourself, watch:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1957862.stm
The BBC sending in a military expert who says that there's no evidence of a massacre in Jenin. = VALID

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...7/134029.shtmlSomething from some place called NewsMax.com no one's ever heard of, that intersperses a screed about how the Jenin massacre was faked between stuff like "Click here for the Social Democratic Party's SECRET PLAN for America after the elections!" and "If liberals hated homicidal Muslim fanatics half as much as they hate anti-communist Cubans, all of America would finally be behind the war on terrorism" = NOT VALID

You see the difference? You either provide misinterpreted real news, or fanatical bullshit that's lower in quality than the NewsMax.com link I posted.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Melf
Very true, sggg.

Bin Laden and his crew, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.

We played a big part in training Bin Laden & his cronies, through the CIA and Pakistani intelligence. He didn't just pop up on his own. The fact that he had Saudi credentials led the CIA to give him free regin in Afghansitan.

---

Here's a hypothetical:

The police department arrests Gangster #1, this fuckup that has beaten people up, stolen maybe $50k in goods, so on. However, Gangster #1 works for Mr. Big, a particularly evil bastard who deals in drugs, whatever. Mr. Big easily harms 100 times as many people as Gangster #1.

Now, we've got Gangster #1 in custody, and he deserves to go to jail for 20 years. Yet, we think that if we can get Gangster #1 to inform on Mr. Big, we can capture Mr. Big, and take Mr. Big out of action permanently.

To get Gangster #1 to cooperate, we need to give him a reduced sentence - say 1 year - 19 years less than he deserves.

Gangster #1 cooperates, goes to jail for one year. His testimony helps us arrest Mr. Big, and Mr. Big can't hurt hundreds of people anymore.

One year later, Gangster #1 goes out and robs and kills Jane Smith.

So, what should we do?

1.) Go out and arrest Gangster #1 again. Regret that we gave him that reduced sentence, and probably inadvertently helped him kill Jane Smith. Take comfort in the fact that we got Mr. Big out of the way, and tell ourselves it was worth it.

2.) Travel backwards in time 1 year. Not have compromised with Gangster #1. Send Gangster #1 to jail for life. Save Jane Doe from getting eventually killed. Watch as Mr. Big hurts hundreds of times as many people as Gangster #1 ever could have.

3.) Bitch about the fact that our law system "has no moral requirements for who it supports", that our law system "is motivated only by greed." Call our law system hypocrites for wanting to go out and re-arrest Gangster #1. Participate in endless protest marches trying to defend Gangster #1. Write up "No Blood For Arrests!" signs. Tell our law system that it is merely "reaping what it sowed" for dealing to take out Mr. Big.

------------

Another thing: THE USSR WAS REALLY, REALLY EVIL. That's sort of a fundamental sticking point when it comes to understanding this sort of stuff - all of the "Blowback" inspiring actions that keep liberals up whining at night. If you think the USSR was a not-so-bad place, and you think Stalin was an okay guy who was just a bit overenthusiastic, then, sure, you won't understand why the US would go to such lengths as dealing with bastards like Bin Laden or Hussein, or Gangster #1.

The US Government doesn't have the luxury of just not making hard choices - sometimes we've had to support a lesser evil to take out a greater evil. And, then, hell, sometimes that lesser evil spends 20 years becoming the next greater evil.

What the fuck are we going to do? Not beat the first greater evil? Not take out the lesser evil later, if we have to?

This is world politics.

Please spare me the "lesser of two evils speech!" This is a nice and neat justification to past political mistakes by those who made them.

The US, supposedly the world leader in freedom, liberty, and human rights has no right to be helping dictators despots, or potential terrorsts of any kind. If you say that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" then you have no credibility when your new friend decides he doesn't like you, especially if you sold him chemical and biological weapons.

The world does not necessarily have to play by US rules. We'll sell Gangster #1 all the weapons he need to take out Gangster #2 but then ask him to hand over all the weapons when he's done? Remember the saying "if you give a mouse a cookie..."

Our leaders should be more responsible than aid someone they know will be an enemy later on, regardless of how little a threat he is at the present.

We took out Mr. Big but ended up with two new Mr. Bigs that are just as dangerous, if not more. I'd say we fucked up, plain and simple.

Stick to talking about videogames, Zerodash, because you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.\]

EDIT: And that goes double for you, Captain Vegetable.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Melf
The US, supposedly the world leader in freedom, liberty, and human rights has no right to be helping dictators despots, or potential terrorsts of any kind. If you say that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" then you have no credibility when your new friend decides he doesn't like you, especially if you sold him chemical and biological weapons.

---

Don't we say that all the time, though? Do you disagree with the policy of compromising with potential informants?

Quote:

---

The world does not necessarily have to play by US rules. We'll sell Gangster #1 all the weapons he need to take out Gangster #2 but then ask him to hand over all the weapons when he's done? Remember the saying "if you give a mouse a cookie..."
Our leaders should be more responsible than aid someone they know will be an enemy later on, regardless of how little a threat he is at the present.

---

Responsibility is one thing, but, I mean, are we comparing 80s Iraq with 80s Russia? The Cold War was admittedly fucked up, and loads of mistakes were made...to me, what matters is that we won. Beyond that, I think it insignificant if we supported these regimes in the past, as long as we were trying to accomplish some greater good. All that matters, right now, is doing our best to protect our country.

Iraq and Iran are not as dangerous as the USSR. That's crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
And despite al those things I keep believing in the goodnes of mankind, I keep believing there is hope for us all.

---

Then you hope deeply in vain my friend. Man is an inherently evil beast that seeks only to fulfill the desires of the flesh. It is his nature to do evil, it is his nature to seek out evil. Nothing good ever came from the flesh of man.

This world is lost and mankind has no hope. Just keep praying for this planet's firey demise because that's all that's left.

I don't believe that mankind is evil. I actually believe that most people on Earth are good hearted people who want to get along well with one another. I truly believe this in my heart.

The problem is that human history is mostly dominated by groups of elite greedy evil people subjucating, using, and manipulating the masses - Millions of other people who would live happy lives not hurting anyone if they didn't have to or were not trained or forced to.

That is quite depressing when you think about it. Sometimes it seems like there is no hope for human kind, because of this.... and because of the state of the world and it's unprecedented evil right now. But the things I take solace in and truly have confidence in (especially as a student of history) are that evil empires always fall. People have overcome evil - even against all odds. Evil regimes are often replaced by far more just governments too, and the transition has an effect on people, such as in Germany. This is why people must not ever forget the horrors of war....

I guess I'll sum up my feelings with a quote:

"When I despair... I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been murderers and tyrants, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it ... always." - Mahatma Gandhi.

This was a nice thread til Almaci started posting in it. Kudos to Zero, Kyo and Stone.

Although well presented one of the comments made by Zero bothers me. Who cares that Communists are a party in France? Some people might look at Democrats or Republicans and see, attached to it, the same stigma in them that we have placed upon Communism. Democracy was fairly new territory as a form of government in the U.S., and it took our forefathers quite some time to hammer out all of the kinks in that system - It still has some. If we weren't in the face of every Communist nation placing trade embargo’s and so on, because of a 50 year old bias, maybe Communism will be given a chance to thrive, prosper, and eventually find the proper formula for success.

Kyo: I thought you were Canadian? Either way you did an excellent job of pointing out that the U.S., like every other nation, votes at the U.N. based on thier own agenda's.

Stone: About your similie camparing the U.S. to the polices and Bin Laden with a gangster - If I'm not mistaken Bin Laden was funded and trained by the U.S. to fught Communist Russia at the time. Look back at the top of my post to see why we were in the wrong to begin with.

Like any fallible human I could be wrong, so please I invite you to prove such a case and I'll correct my self in the face of compelling evidence.

~Shine

sigh

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sleeveboy
EDIT: And that goes double for you, Captain Vegetable.

---

I already apologised and commented on my information source. Yet, you still found this necessary.

I hope you feel better about yourself, because if not, then this statement really did accomplish nothing.

Also, simply because I've been horribly misinformed concerning a single issue does not mean all of my political views are distorted so. I carry myself very intelligently concerning politics, but I'm also not very vocal about it. I am a Christian, and I have expressed concervative views in the past, however, I'm sure I'd blow your liberal mind if you heard some of the other things I have to say, should the need in me arise.

To say I don't know anything, or to suppose that you know more than me, which then negates my own views, without knowing the first thing concerning my personal political affiliation, nor making an attempt to enguage me in a conversation to get a better handle on me is in bad form, friend.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...7/134029.shtmlSomething from some place called NewsMax.com no one's ever heard of, that intersperses a screed about how the Jenin massacre was faked between stuff like "Click here for the Social Democratic Party's SECRET PLAN for America after the elections!" and "If liberals hated homicidal Muslim fanatics half as much as they hate anti-communist Cubans, all of America would finally be behind the war on terrorism" = NOT VALID

---

:lol:

Some of the kids in my school (seniors) write stories for them. :)

Quote:

---

I'm no racist, Almaci, and I take great offence at you lumping me in with a group of detestibles without even getting a handle on who I am first.

Seems to me you get too involved in your "debates" and start lashing out and forming opinions conserning others without actually getting to know them. That's called "prejudice," and is a precursor to "racism."

---

I've been reading all these political threads, and it seems to me when Almaci gets in over his head, he resorts to name calling.
:D

And by the way, Almaci, it's spelled "your," not "youre."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Don't we say that all the time, though? Do you disagree with the policy of compromising with potential informants?

---

The analogy is incorrect, because you're forgetting that in this case, we trained and funded the informants who then turned out to be just as dangerous as the enemy against whom they were helping!

Quote:

---

Responsibility is one thing, but, I mean, are we comparing 80s Iraq with 80s Russia? The Cold War was admittedly fucked up, and loads of mistakes were made...to me, what matters is that we won. Beyond that, I think it insignificant if we supported these regimes in the past, as long as we were trying to accomplish some greater good. All that matters, right now, is doing our best to protect our country.

---

The ends doesn't justify the means. We may have beaten Russia but the world is still just as fucked up.

Quote:

---

Iraq and Iran are not as dangerous as the USSR. That's crazy.

---

Are you sure? It's not just those two countries. It's who they aid and fund. Back in the cold war, you knew where the enemy was, and what he was capable of. Today, he could be sitting next to you on a bus, with a chemical, biological, perhaps even a nuclear weapon in his backpack and you wouldn't know it until it was too late.

In the cold war there were clear sides. You were with the US or with the USSR. Today, we're the only superpower and the world wants to take potshots at us from just about everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Master of 7s
Then you hope deeply in vain my friend. Man is an inherently evil beast that seeks only to fulfill the desires of the flesh. It is his nature to do evil, it is his nature to seek out evil. Nothing good ever came from the flesh of man.

This world is lost and mankind has no hope. Just keep praying for this planet's firey demise because that's all that's left.

---

W00t! you actually said something worth while.:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich
:lol:

Some of the kids in my school (seniors) write stories for them. :)




I've been reading all these political threads, and it seems to me when Almaci gets in over his head, he resorts to name calling.
:D

And by the way, Almaci, it's spelled "your," not "youre."

---

Huh, I shouted rascism in my verry first post in this thread and stoog by my line.
For good reason as the instigator of my fulmination assesed himself later on in the thread and admitted that the information was wrong.
The fact that people were al too eager to accept such bulshit claims proves that rascism towards the french is a verry real factor.

Except that "French" isn't a race. It's a nationality.

And just to get things straight, I didn't "admit it was wrong" in that I knew it was wrong and made an attempt to defame and deface the French, only to admit my folly after you "found me out," as that's what it looks like you're communicating.

What I did admit is that I wasn't in any position to make such a claim, as misinformed as I was. I didn't know that the info was bad, which is why I spoke so authoritativly concerning the matter. I had been convinced of it's authenticity, and didn't look into it any further (I know, I know. Shame on me. :p ).

I know apology accepted :) .

Great Almaci. Now apologize to him for calling him a racist because you've used it over and over and over and been wrong everytime because I don't think you know the definition of racism, otherwise you might take a good long look at yourself.

--Scourge .

I most certainly do, rascism would be if I say that youre stupid becouse youre an american.
I wont say that tough, you might be stupid I dont know but that has nothing to do with being an american.
yet same things were happening in this thread, the French were blasted becouse hey theyre fascist, despite the fact that they quite obviously are not.
everyone was ready to jump on em on the basis of a few bulshit claims without even a care of the lack of credentials for those outlandish claims.
It was exactly the same as dimwit in europe saying americans are loudmouth fat gun toting hicks.
Its not true, those are just a minority and if someone over here says something stupid like that il jump on him/her just as fast and hard in defense of americans as i did in this thread in defense of the French.

I hate French people and Commies. And I really don't have a very good reason either.

Then youre a rascist :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by xS
W00t! you actually said something worth while.:)

---

Ass.:p

Almaci: Please take notes.

Racism

noun:__ discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race

noun:__ the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races

What you are talking about is not racism, it's xenophobia and nationalism.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by frostwolf
sadly this quote is more hopefulness than reality, i look at this world a far different way, force and power have shaped nations and decided who thrives and who thrives. The only time that any peaceful notions have survived is when they have caught the fancy of those who had the power to support them and protect them. i wish i had your rosey view of history, but i can only accept what i see, that life is "nasty brutish,and short" without governments and law to control it, to paraphrase my co-thinker thomas hobbes. Tyrants may fall, but only by the swords of those with the power to unseat them.:kirby:

---

Amen and amen.

There are some good French people, like that hot French chick that was in my Art History video I saw in class the other day. I don't hate French people, I just hate the French. See? It's so easy to understand.

But there are no good commies. God damned reds.

Geez, you guys act like you need a reason to hate someone.

:jest: .......... :sneak:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Master of 7s
Amen and amen.

---

x3

Quote:

---

Powell(Uncle Tom)

---

Some of the first words you typed were to call them racist, and then you use this racist remark.

Sleep well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
Oh shoo, why not?
Was it becouse I actually make sense compared to people who have build a wll of hatred around themselves?

---

For someone who claims in post to not presume to 'know' anything about a person, you sure stereotype with the most extreme, hateful, remarks. Do you do it because you actually swing that far from mood to mood (open-minded and unassuming the first, generalizing and stereotyping the next), or is because you feel that labeling someone in such a horrific fashion will automatically null all their arguements? At least for you; irrationalize the opposition and you can sleep well at night, right?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
when someone LIES to make a country and its people look bad that DOES constitute as rascism and yes the rascism is quite apparent with the other people as well.

Tell me what should I do Scourge, let people get away with blatant rascism and not utter a word so the thread can have youre stamp of civility?

---

By your own definition, you're being racist as well. I prefer the dictionary termonology, but if we're following your logic (which is what I assume you want EVERY open-minded individual to do - otherwise they're just building walls of hate) then you too, are racist.

You've said you don't stereotype Americans, but you have. You LIE when you say people who don't agree with you build walls of hatred. You LIE when you say the American people are just 'ignorant.' You LIE every time you stereotype, generalize, and push your own damnations on those who aren't good-ol' carbon copies of YOU.

So by your own logic of racism (which sounds kinda flawed), YOU ARE RACIST AS WELL.

Hey Pot?

Yeah, Kettle?

Dude...you're black.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Scourge
Right, and it's not possible to hate a nationality's predominant views and not hate their race? (ie: Anti-American AND Anti-French terms, such as for example, "I am Anti-French because I disagree with their predominant stance as Anti-American." French is a nationality and a race while American is just a nationality. No one here is against the genetics of a French person, so stop calling them racists.) And are you claiming the French majority are not anti-American?

Also, not everyone who feels most French are Anti-American are trying to link them all to Nazi's. And yet if one or two people claim a portion of them are, we're all guilty of claiming they all are? And it's because we're racist? Wait, someone links a notoriously racist regime with a group of people because the poster is racist? How does trying to point out a portion of a group's racism translate to that person being a racist? You can be wrong about a 'fact' and not be a racist because of it.



Some would claim you are just as guilty of this.

--Scourge .

---

It's called a slippery slope arguement. All you do is take one fact, and then jump to the conclusion on every resultant of the fact.

Ali's 'fact' is that the Cv's numbers were inaccurate. Why were they inaccurate? Well, why try to ACTUALLY FIND OUT THE TRUTH AND INVESTIGATE the matter, when it's oh-so much more fun to jump to conclusions based on his own personal biases (and less effort, to boot)?

If I were Ali (thank goodness I'm not - I can still think critically), I'd ask CV to link the article where he found those numbers. Then read the article. Then see the credibility of the news site (checking affiliatiuons, links, awards, etc.). Then I'd have what I'd need to know to know whether or not I truly believe those numbers.

Then again, me being me, I already give CV a good amount of trust, being that he's a nice, decent, a-ok guy. Does that mean I'll follow everything he says or agree? No, but his personality and attitude makes it impossible for me to believe he's racist.

See? That's thinking for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sggg
The US has no moral requirements for who they support. In fact, it's actually quite the opposite since their only motivation is greed and self-interest and thus they support repressive regimes all over the world. From Saudi Arabia to Central America to Africa to South America to Asia....

---

The only way to embrace this is to realize every country does this. Don't tell me otherwise, because I don't believe one nation could be such an evil, greedy, sumbitch, whereas the rest of the world just cares about everyone, and wants to help everyone out. They all hold hands and sing around campfires too.

Believe it fully - every country watches its back first. Germany and France can posture for peace as much as they want, but the reality is they're playing the role every bit for what's in stake for THEM. You have to acknowledge that if you want to talk about US personal interests.

The whole world would be better off if everyone left everyone else alone. I even mean that on a person to person level...but how possible is that?

Dude no point in doing any of that becouse no matter how hard he would try he would be unable to come up with anything supporting the claims he made.
I made an observation in this thread within my verry first post and that was that assuming CV´s post to be true without any sort of critical note was a rascist act, I stand by that wholehartedly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Heheh. Look:

-I provide a link to an article by a writer for Washington Times
-You provide a link to some webpage that has a text file supposedly from some magazine called "Dissident Voice"

My source is worthy, viable - yours isn't. What the fuck is Dissident Voice, what have they done that gives that article any air of viability, so on? I haven't dismissed any of the links that you've provided that have come from worthy, viable sources, like Haaretz - I dismiss links like the one you've given above.

When it comes to those swarms of Haaretz links you posted, I wasn't dismissing the links - I was dismissing your weird misinterpretations of the articles' contents.

Haaretz would write an article about how a couple of extremist right-wing Israeli politicians were thinking about trying to write a bill that would keep Palestinians from buying land. You would then reinterpret that content into a link and a description looking something like this:

www.haaretzdaily.com/5325325h3/blahblah - "Israel Denies Basic Rights to Palestinians!!"

In those cases, I would dismiss your description, sure.

You understand the difference betweeen The Washington Times and some online internet magazine called Dissident Voice, right? You know that information from one source will and should hold more water than information from the other?

Just to educate you on this point a bit more, since you obviously haven't been able to figure it out for yourself, watch:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1957862.stm
The BBC sending in a military expert who says that there's no evidence of a massacre in Jenin. = VALID

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...7/134029.shtmlSomething from some place called NewsMax.com no one's ever heard of, that intersperses a screed about how the Jenin massacre was faked between stuff like "Click here for the Social Democratic Party's SECRET PLAN for America after the elections!" and "If liberals hated homicidal Muslim fanatics half as much as they hate anti-communist Cubans, all of America would finally be behind the war on terrorism" = NOT VALID

You see the difference? You either provide misinterpreted real news, or fanatical bullshit that's lower in quality than the NewsMax.com link I posted.



Here's a hypothetical:

The police department arrests Gangster #1, this fuckup that has beaten people up, stolen maybe $50k in goods, so on. However, Gangster #1 works for Mr. Big, a particularly evil bastard who deals in drugs, whatever. Mr. Big easily harms 100 times as many people as Gangster #1.

Now, we've got Gangster #1 in custody, and he deserves to go to jail for 20 years. Yet, we think that if we can get Gangster #1 to inform on Mr. Big, we can capture Mr. Big, and take Mr. Big out of action permanently.

To get Gangster #1 to cooperate, we need to give him a reduced sentence - say 1 year - 19 years less than he deserves.

Gangster #1 cooperates, goes to jail for one year. His testimony helps us arrest Mr. Big, and Mr. Big can't hurt hundreds of people anymore.

One year later, Gangster #1 goes out and robs and kills Jane Smith.

So, what should we do?

1.) Go out and arrest Gangster #1 again. Regret that we gave him that reduced sentence, and probably inadvertently helped him kill Jane Smith. Take comfort in the fact that we got Mr. Big out of the way, and tell ourselves it was worth it.

2.) Travel backwards in time 1 year. Not have compromised with Gangster #1. Send Gangster #1 to jail for life. Save Jane Doe from getting eventually killed. Watch as Mr. Big hurts hundreds of times as many people as Gangster #1 ever could have.

3.) Bitch about the fact that our law system "has no moral requirements for who it supports", that our law system "is motivated only by greed." Call our law system hypocrites for wanting to go out and re-arrest Gangster #1. Participate in endless protest marches trying to defend Gangster #1. Write up "No Blood For Arrests!" signs. Tell our law system that it is merely "reaping what it sowed" for dealing to take out Mr. Big.

------------

Another thing: THE USSR WAS REALLY, REALLY EVIL. That's sort of a fundamental sticking point when it comes to understanding this sort of stuff - all of the "Blowback" inspiring actions that keep liberals up whining at night. If you think the USSR was a not-so-bad place, and you think Stalin was an okay guy who was just a bit overenthusiastic, then, sure, you won't understand why the US would go to such lengths as dealing with bastards like Bin Laden or Hussein, or Gangster #1.

The US Government doesn't have the luxury of just not making hard choices - sometimes we've had to support a lesser evil to take out a greater evil. And, then, hell, sometimes that lesser evil spends 20 years becoming the next greater evil.

What the fuck are we going to do? Not beat the first greater evil? Not take out the lesser evil later, if we have to?

This is world politics.

---

You write the best, most thought-through arguements around here. You take what you say from a logical step to the next, illustrate it with hypothetical situations that might make more sense to someone not 'in the know' on politics, and you back it all up with reputable sources.

Thought I'd just say. ^^

If Ali could argue like this...well, I may or may not still agree with him, but at least I wouldn't be annoyed with his attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
Dude no point in doing any of that becouse no matter how hard he would try he would be unable to come up with anything supporting the claims he made.
I made an observation in this thread within my verry first post and that was that assuming CV´s post to be true without any sort of critical note was a rascist act, I stand by that wholehartedly.

---

So when are you gonna stop selectively answering what I asked and answer all of it?

Then we have you, who refuses to believe facts becouse they dont fit within youre own personal biases(the amount of Palestine and Israeli deaths since January remember).

Dont come here taking the high moral ground and lecture me about rascism when you yourself have proven an unwillingnes to accept simple facts becouse they dont fit youre believes, same thing in this thread, others here have chosen to believe an unsubstantiated lie becouse it fit their own personal biases.

"All around the mullberry bush
The monkey chased the weasel..."

That's what all these arguments are starting to remind me of.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero

So when are you gonna stop selectively answering what I asked and answer all of it?

---

So when will any of you (including Stone) start fully answering the questions I pose instead of selectively picking those wich they believe they have half a chance of being right at?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
Then we have you, who refuses to believe facts becouse they dont fit within youre own personal biases(the amount of Palestine and Israeli deaths since January remember).

Dont come here taking the high moral ground and lecture me about rascism when you yourself have proven an unwillingnes to accept simple facts becouse they dont fit youre believes, same thing in this thread, others here have chosen to believe an unsubstantiated lie becouse it fit their own personal biases.

---

Have you ever looked at the amount of questions I've been asking lately? As of right now, I have no belief one way or the other. Nor do I claim to take a high moral ground. Not to mention I'm only using what you say, IN THIS THREAD, as fodder against you. Don't dig up how I used to act as your excuse for avoiding me now. Because I'm doing the same with you.

But whatever - ignore me, avoid me, belittle and berate me. Think my questions 'invalid' just because I haven't agreed with you before. I'm not railing your ass for some kind of kick.

Thanks, Hero. ;)

Hero I answered you in this thread on the basis of this thread.
If you disregard my second post replying to you I did just that.
There is no slippery slope here, nor did I start using the word rascism becouse I was losing an argument like someone alse here claimed.
i used it in my very first post and I stand by what I said so how am I ignoring youre other points or whatever?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
So when will any of you (including Stone) start fully answering the questions I pose instead of selectively picking those wich they believe they have half a chance of being right at?

---

Because I have nothing against the articles you post. Stone doesn't selectively omit either. Or, if he does, it's because he tackles the most relevent articles related to what you own main arguement is. Just because you pull 10 articles from who knows where and Stone debates the most reputable, doesn't mean 'OHOHOHOHOHOHOHO!!!! I win!! I linked the most stuff, even if it's all tangent-based and bipolar!!! OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO!!!!' Stone knows what to look for in your articles as having the most merit (or coversely, the most flaws to point out). He isn't trying to show you "ALL HAIL THE ANGELIC RIGHT!!! WE WILL OWN YOUR SOULS!!!" He's trying to show you what's wrong with sources YOU YOURSELF POST, so maybe that way you'll do as you demand of others, and ACTUALLY BE CRITICAL OF YOUR OWN INFORMATION.

As for me, I think the same thing. For one, crazy shining instant, I thought 'hey, he says he's open minded. Let's open him to himself.' I don't do it with articles (or against those you post) because I can't. Period. But I can analyze and disect your general attitude and behaviour to all those you talk to here. So far, all you do is praise anyone who agrees with you, and blanket-stereotype those who don't. Then you throw around a few articles, believing that since it's from you, ALL MUST BOW, FOR IT IS THE GOSPEL TRUTH.

Verily.

You behave in the same manner of those you accuse and admonish. Two ways we can swing it. Either you do so because those who you claim do the same are on the right of the issue, or they don't agree. So it's easy for you to say they don't keep an open mind or think for themselves. It's easy to throw around jargon (especially hateful lingo) on those who don't submit to your views. You wouldn't accuse yourself or, say, sggg of the same. Perish the thought - only those who need to be open and critical are those who don't agree with you, right?

Or the second solution I can come up with is you have a personal complex, where you're so socially and psychologically 'afraid' of facing your own beliefs that you take that aspect and fear, magnify it, and project it on others so you can feel validated about being closed-up. It's really a fault of a lot of a people, and not without understanding. Afterall, why question your faith in your own belief, when you can question compleyte strangers? Then you don't suffer the uncomfortable nature of facing yourself in the mirror, and get rid of whatever inkling of doubt your may have about yourself by projecting that doubt onto others.

So are you just bull-headed biased, or too afraid to face yourself?

Almaci, you are quite arrogant to think that everybody must respond to all of the points you attempt to make.

Hero whatever, I made it a point to post from a single Stone approved source, believe whatever you want(not like you wont anyway seeing as how you previously decided that independantly veriyable acts are wrong since they dont fit youre believes)its not my concern.
It becomes my concern however when you decide to lecture me after showing how biased and illogical you can be.

diffusionx please read the previous posts in this thread again and come back and tell me who was demanding from who to respond to all points raised.

For the record I never demanded anyone in any of the threads I participated in to addres every single point I made.

i would like to add some points, people may not agree with me, but thats ok, I would just like to add somethings

I have been reading the other threads and seem to agree with almaci, and space cowboy, and Stryder Kyo, and SGGG on some points they make

i will just take some things posted and put in my counter argument, you can argue back if you feel inclined

from the first post in this thread

Quote:

---

posted by Zerodash
1) The UN has been trying to get Hussein to disarm for more than 10 years. Nearly 20 resolutions have been made to get him to comply. He still has not complied with any of these resolutions.

---

See i feel the UN is a joke. For the UN to work all Nations have to take part and abide by their decisions. Yet the US doesnt have to listen to them ?? Bush's camp has been saying they will go to war even with out a UN resolution. There has been other times the US has gone against the UN. If anybody wants sources, just ask. So right there if one country doesnt have to listen, why do other countries ?? Also why is the US the country that vetoes the most, when every other country votes the same ??
which one such veto was pointed out by Strider Kyo here

Quote:

---

And the US vetoed sending UN troops to stop genocide in Rwanda, and sending UN troops to protect Palestinian civilians in 2001. OMG, US= NATION OF EVIL!!

---

backed up by this link, i would like to see someone call this link into question
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/press.html

Quote:

---

originally posted by Zerodash
2) Saddam Hussein’s government is known throughout all nations to be tyrannical. He is not the benevolent ruler that some groups try to make him out to be. Thousands of his people have been tortured and killed by this totalitarian dictatorship.

---

The same can be said about tons of other leaders around the world. Why not go after them, why Saddam ?? which that question would lead to this ..

Quote:

---

posted by Zerodash
6) UN Resolution 1441, passed unanimously, stated that if Iraq did not FULLY comply and cooperate, they would face grave consequences, NOT ANOTHER CHANCE.

---

OK UN resolution is a mute point. How come when I watch the press conference with Bush or Ari Fliescher (sp??), I always hear this Iraq is a threat to the world, they are dangerous, then later oh ya they violated the UN resolution, if the resolution was a concern wouldnt they say that at first, instead of making claims such as Iraq is a threat to the world

I have yet to see Iraq being a threat to the world. Can anyone give me links me some sources on how they are threat ?? They werent even a threat to the world back in 91, when they had much more power than they do now. Seriously someone show me how they are a threat to the world.

Quote:

---

posted by Zerodash
9) The anti-war rallies in the US and elsewhere are largely funded by Communist, Socialist, and/or Islamic groups.

---

whats wrong with communism or socialism ?? just becuase Lenin and Stalin, and Castro and others have perverted and twisted the writings and ideas of Karl Marx and other begiinning communist, does not mean that communism is a bad. I may be wrong i havent read alot of Marx just parts. So if anybody knows more about the writings of Marx or other begginning communist coorect me please. Capatilism is just as bad as communism. I am not communist or capitalist, i would like to see things from capatilism and things from communist work together.

Quote:

---

posted by abobo
6. If the US really wanted peace, they would invade Palistine/Isreal and fix the issue.

---

I agree, but it will never happen since Isreal is basically kind of are control in the middle east, and they do basically what we tell them to do

Quote:

---

posted by Abobo
9. Is the US going to help "rebuild" Iraq, just like they helped "Rebuild" Afghanistan?

---

lol your sarcasm is great, god thing afghanistan is getting "rebuilt" :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2759789.stm

[quote]posted by Xeno Gigas
Saddam is a madman, he needs to die or sit in a very small cramped room for the rest of his time on earth. We (America) should do everything in our power to see this through since we happen to be the most dominant military force on the Earth at this point. Unfortunately innocent people will die before this happens, it's a sad reality of the world. The people of the Earth are a very very very long way away from world peace. As long as people see "Race" when it comes to humans there will not be peace because we are all identical other than the pigment of out skin (which means absolutely nothing).[quote]

yes but there are tons of other "madman" around the world, why doesnt the US get rid of all of them ?? and Saddam has been a "madman" for years, why now, why are we acting now ??

Also I feel you have flawed point. Thousands of innocent people should die just because their leader is a "madman"?? That is not good by any means. Lets reverse roles what if the US was a poor country with a "madman". And Iraq was the dominant country, and they were like sorry citizens of the US your leader is a "madman", we are going to attack your country to get rid of him. Thousands of you are going to die. Sorry killing thousands of you is worth getting one man. Then you had tanks rolling down your neighborhood, had planes bombing your houses, seeing your family and friends die. I think you would sing a different tune, and if not you have problems in your thinking.

Quote:

---

posted by Stone
-I provide a link to an article by a writer for Washington Times
-You provide a link to some webpage that has a text file supposedly from some magazine called "Dissident Voice"

My source is worthy, viable - yours isn't. What the fuck is Dissident Voice, what have they done that gives that article any air of viability, so on? I haven't dismissed any of the links that you've provided that have come from worthy, viable sources, like Haaretz - I dismiss links like the one you've given above.

---

well I dont know much about the dissident voice so i cant defend them, and I agree that a source such as the washington times or ny times and such could by a viable source, but at the same time the US media has a tendency to either not report something or downplay the events, which abobo kindly pointed out

Quote:

---

posted by Abobo
4. Why is it that the US media never said anything about the Resolutions that were vetod by the US pertaining to the killing of all the refugees in Jenin by the Israelies last year?

---

Quote:

---

posted by Abobo
8. Why is it that the US media did not cover all the things demonstrations in Iran against the government recently. If they are one of the "Axis of Evil" countries..you would think this would be a big deal.

---

Stone,I hope you dont dismiss all sources from the left, cause sources like zmag, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Micheal Moore the Guardian, are respected sources in the left, just as the washington post and ny time are respected in the right, I am not saying you are, I am just wondering if you are. I am also not left or right.

Quote:

---

posted by Stone
Another thing: THE USSR WAS REALLY, REALLY EVIL. That's sort of a fundamental sticking point when it comes to understanding this sort of stuff - all of the "Blowback" inspiring actions that keep liberals up whining at night. If you think the USSR was a not-so-bad place, and you think Stalin was an okay guy who was just a bit overenthusiastic, then, sure, you won't understand why the US would go to such lengths as dealing with bastards like Bin Laden or Hussein, or Gangster #1.

---

Evil could you explain that more please ??? And the US wasnt against the USSR cause they were "evil". They were against it because of communism, the capitalist were afraid communism would spread, and then they would lose their money. The capitalist were against communism pure and simple because of greed. They were afraid that they would lose their money and power if communism caught on. They didnt care about the fact that USSR was evil. The people in power dont care about people or what happens to them, all they care about is that they are in power and that they stay there. Thats why they spreaded their propaganda through stuff like the Red Scare, and that bullshit Mcarthism. They dont put sanctions on cuba cause cuba is evil, they put the sanctions ( which i hear are illegal ) there because they are agianst communism, and what it can do to their power if it spread. We did not acknowledge mainland China as part of the UN, not because they are eveil, but because they are communist. People in power dont care if other countries torture their citizens or do ethnic cleansing, just as long as they can spread their propagand and make everyone feel communism is evil, so that they dont lose their power and hold on the people.



um ya i guess back onto point, anyways i will do a little summary, i may repat stuff that other may have already said please forgive me

Iraq a threat to the world ??? No he wasnt even a threat back before the Gulf War, His army is weaker now than it was then

so why does Bush and his people keep pushing this point ?? when Kuwait, and Iran arent even scared of Saddam, when he is more a threat to those two countries than the US or Britian

Saddam is "evil" he kills his own people, and we need to save his people ?? Since when does the goverment care about the suffering of people in other countries?? never

Saddam terrrorists ties ??? I still have seen no credible proof of this, if anybody has some please show me

Now lets look at the timing, 2003, post 911, next year is an election year, so when it comes time to vote, using scare tactics, like issuing lame terror alerts, telling people to buy duct tape, cmon , "hey Bush saved us from the great evil Saddam, lets vote for him " , hmmm ...

Hey North Korea has a nuclear reactor, and can probably build nuclear weapons, shadows our spy planes, fires missiles into the ocean, but we will take the diplomatic route with them, cause you know Saddam is a huge threat, hmm

Quote:

---

posted by Stryder Kyo
The US has no oil or economic interests in the country with the Earth's 2nd largest oil supply, which is exactly why red flags go up everywhere when an oil baron president suddenly wants a regime change after 10 years of Iraqi peace. And to be honest, Americans have no business pointing fingers at the French for supplying Hussein's regime with anything. Bush Sr. and Hussein were even closer back when.

---

I agree, i see a ton of red flags

or about this hey or economy is shit, where is a our universal healthcare??

None of that matters, "lets just distract them from this issues, with the evil that is Iraq"

100 billion for this war is what I hear ??
yay cause that money be spent on better things than a war, lets go into more debt so that the rich people can get more money from Iraq and the non rich people can pay for it through taxes, yay go wasting money on a nonsense war

nah that money couldnt go to opening homeless shelters, fixing up inner city schools, opening drug rehab centers, paying teachers more so that they care about their job, give more people a chance to go to college, give inner city youths and adults something to look foward to so that they dont have to resort to crime to support themselves

this money can be used for so much usefulness, yet this war is capitalism at its best

last point remember no matter how bad the Govt and News try to show Saddam as being the US is the only country convicted of terrorism by the world court

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c04-s03.html
http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview...,754972,00.html

USA all the way, yay :)

Quote:

---

i would like to add some points, people may not agree with me, but thats ok, I would just like to add somethings

---

A harmless disclaimer like this, followed by articles with nice quips, insults, and sarcasm nestled inside. Obviously it's not okay for someone to not agree with you...

Ali ~ You still haven't answered me, and all you do is use my own words (saying you're being biased) against me.

"NO!!! YOU ARE BIASED!!! OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO!!!! I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I'M ME!!! ALI!!!"

This hasn't got crap to do with right or left, one view or another; it has to do with how bull-headed you believe you are in whatever you say, and how avoiding you are at anyone who wants you to explain YOU, not your sources, quotes, or general political ideology. Hell, if you had this attitude and agreed with everything I said, then I'd just be embarrassed that we're on the 'same side'. And you'd still be just as annoying.

Thank you, coming from you thats a compliment.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
You write the best, most thought-through arguements around here. You take what you say from a logical step to the next, illustrate it with hypothetical situations that might make more sense to someone not 'in the know' on politics, and you back it all up with reputable sources.

---

Heheh, thanks a lot Hero, I appreciate that - for that matter, I think you do an excellent job of presenting your statements too, and you definitely seem better than me at being evan-handed and respectful during these sorts of discussion.

I wrote another long response to this thread, and included this long passage on why deficits aren't any worse than surpluses, and then the board seemed to shut down. I still want to talk about that, because I think most people misunderstand deficits, and seem to have complete faith that a surplus is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Strawberry Shortcake
Stone,I hope you dont dismiss all sources from the left, cause sources like zmag, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Micheal Moore the Guardian, are respected sources in the left, just as the washington post and ny time are respected in the right, I am not saying you are, I am just wondering if you are. I am also not left or right.

---

I definitely wouldn't dismiss all left-wing sources. In this thread, I've used a news post from the Guardian as back-up for one of the statements I've made. I'm re-reading "People's History of the United States", that Zinn book, right now. I still read the Nation regularly. I think Michael Moore is a hack and an asshole...I'd say the same things about Chomsky in a slightly nicer way.

The Washington Post and the NY Times are left-wing media sources. Sure, they're not as left as The Guardian or Le Monde, but there's no way in hell that they're anything more mild than left-center. Maybe you meant the Washington Times and the NY Post - I don't really like either of those newspapers in general. The Wall Street Journal and the FT are the only mainstream newspapers with a conservative editorial board that I respect.

Quote:

---

Evil could you explain that more please ??? And the US wasnt against the USSR cause they were "evil". They were against it because of communism, the capitalist were afraid communism would spread, and then they would lose their money. The capitalist were against communism pure and simple because of greed...Thats why they spreaded their propaganda through stuff like the Red Scare, and that bullshit Mcarthism. They dont put sanctions on cuba cause cuba is evil, they put the sanctions ( which i hear are illegal ) there because they are agianst communism, and what it can do to their power if it spread. We did not acknowledge mainland China as part of the UN, not because they are eveil, but because they are communist.

---

Tell that to the millions of people who died in Stalin's gulags, the millions upon millions of Soviet citizens who spent 50 years in poverty, enslaved to some communist ideal. Tell that to the people starving to death in North Korea. Tell that to the millions of Chinese just now clawing their way out from under the spectre of communism. (excuse the demagoguery, I'm about to leave and I can't really go out and find links)

These people, these victims, were the CITIZENS of these communist governments, by the way. I agree that the US Government, the Anglosphere, Capitalism in general, has hurt some people, done some nasty things to civilians in other countries. However, the lives of American/Anglosphere/Capitalist society citizens have been protected unbelievably well.

How many people do you know that have snuck out of Florida, and floated onto Cuban shores, clinging on to a pool toy?

Were the people climbing over the Berlin Wall heading East or West?

Is there anyone reading this post (Soviet Politburo chieftains excused) who would rather have lived in the USSR than in the US in 1980? Anyone want to move to Cuba or North Korea, or China, now?

------

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Strawberry Shortcake
...Other stuff...

---

You're making more interesting, or at least better thought out statements than most of your political compatriots on this board.

As far as the Iraq vs. North Korea thing goes, I'd look at it like this:

We've got two cancer patients. Who are we going to treat first?

Pretend North Korea is Stage 3 Cancer. Stage 3 Cancer is terminal - there's virtually nothing we can do for the patient.

Pretend Iraq is Stage 1 Cancer. Easily treatable, not that bad, not really effecting the patient's life yet. If the cancer goes untreated, it'll get worse - it'll move up to Stage 2, or even Stage 3, and then we'll have two patients with terminal diseases.

The reason we can't "treat" North Korea is because they threaten South Korea, our troops in South Korea, China, and Japan. We contained North Korea for so long after the Korean War that they became more dangerous, the cancer grew in size. We can't go after North Korea in the same expedient way as we could go after Iraq, because North Korea is MORE dangerous.

The reason we're going to "treat" Iraq now is because they don't have nukes yet, because they're not as dangerous. We can deal with Iraq, a Stage 1 cancer, and we can change the regime BEFORE they turn into a Stage 3 cancer that will require entirely different methods.

Why would we wait until Iraq became an impossibly looming threat to deal with them, if we know that they're on their way, if we know that Hussein wants to do everything he can to become that impossibly looming threat?

As far as I can see, containment works with nuclear enabled states, and it only works because there is no other choice. The USSR was a Stage 214 Cancer, because of nukes, so we had to smoke them out using Cold War-style containment tactics. With other non-nuclear countries, countries like Iraq (and even Iran and North Korea, although those will be harder), direct engagement simply makes more sense. It's less expensive, less dangerous for US, and simply necessary.

Quote:

---

I definitely wouldn't dismiss all left-wing sources. In this thread, I've used a news post from the Guardian as back-up for one of the statements I've made. I'm re-reading "People's History of the United States", that Zinn book, right now. I still read the Nation regularly. I think Michael Moore is a hack and an asshole...I'd say the same things about Chomsky in a slightly nicer way.

---

Damn stone why you always dogging Anthropology. Chomosky is a genius, in both ends, obliviously you have never read Generative grammar, and his theory for language acquisition. But people always hate us because we spill out the truth; we tell the affects of colonialism, and now imperialism. And try to explain to people, that people where never born poor, they became poor because of what happened in the past.. On how these "1st world", created these "3rd world countries". We are killed, and always threatened, we are expelled from countries, yet they allow new organizations like Fox, and CNN to enter and tell their bias views.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
Then we have you, who refuses to believe facts becouse they dont fit within youre own personal biases(the amount of Palestine and Israeli deaths since January remember).

Dont come here taking the high moral ground and lecture me about rascism when you yourself have proven an unwillingnes to accept simple facts becouse they dont fit youre believes, same thing in this thread, others here have chosen to believe an unsubstantiated lie becouse it fit their own personal biases.

---

Every ounce of respect I might of had for your opinion is lost with your bad grammar and poor sentence structure.

Oh boohoo, youre breaking my hart.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by maruchan
Damn stone why you always dogging Anthropology. Chomosky is a genius, in both ends, obliviously you have never read Generative grammar, and his theory for language acquisition. But people always hate us because we spill out the truth; we tell the affects of colonialism, and now imperialism. And try to explain to people, that people where never born poor, they became poor because of what happened in the past.. On how these "1st world", created these "3rd world countries". We are killed, and always threatened, we are expelled from countries, yet they allow new organizations like Fox, and CNN to enter and tell their bias views.

---

Re: the first two sentences of your post - I spent about two years studying linguistics. I read a ton of Chomsky, and I had another half-ton or so more shoved down my throat: Generative Grammar, Language and Politics, Language and Thought, Language and Stupid Socialist Bullshit, Language and Why The Khmer Rouge Really Is Okay.

Re: the rest of your post - hahahahaha.

Almaci, how can you even consider yourself a good debater, or intellectually higher in intelligence than other posters you are conversing with?

You constantly make spelling mistakes, you keep insulting people you are trying to debate with and your posts constantly contradict each other.

Get it together, man! I find this topic amusing to read but if you are going to start something to make yourself and your views look intelligent at least do it with proper fucking English!

Quote:

---

A harmless disclaimer like this, followed by articles with nice quips, insults, and sarcasm nestled inside. Obviously it's not okay for someone to not agree with you...

---

um Hero i dont remember insulting anyone, could you show me where i insulted someone??, there is nothing wrong with sarcasm, and i dont remember using any "nice quips", can you show me where?? and it is ok to disagree with me like Stone just did, but at the same time i am going to counter his arguments with some more of my own, i think you are looking for things that arent there ...

Quote:

---

You're making more interesting, or at least better thought out statements than most of your political compatriots on this board.

---

I will take that as a compliment :)

Quote:

---

I definitely wouldn't dismiss all left-wing sources.

---

Alright cool, thats all i was wondering

Quote:

---

The Washington Post and the NY Times are left-wing media sources. Sure, they're not as left as The Guardian or Le Monde, but there's no way in hell that they're anything more mild than left-center.

---

thanks for clarifying, i always thought that they were right wing

Quote:

---

I'd say the same things about Chomsky in a slightly nicer way.

---

I would like to hear your criticisms of him or if anybody else has any, Im always curious as to criticisms of him


[quote]Tell that to the millions of people who died in Stalin's gulags, the millions upon millions of Soviet citizens who spent 50 years in poverty, enslaved to some communist ideal. Tell that to the people starving to death in North Korea ... [quote]

ok now i can see your perspective of why you called USSR evil, and i agree it wasnt a good place, but I was arguing that the US wasnt fighting the USSR cause they were evil, they were fighting them because they were scared that communism would spread and they would lose their wealth and power

Quote:

---

Pretend Iraq is Stage 1 Cancer. Easily treatable, not that bad, not really effecting the patient's life yet. If the cancer goes untreated, it'll get worse - it'll move up to Stage 2, or even Stage 3, and then we'll have two patients with terminal diseases.

---

Im not seeing it, I havent seen any evidence of Iraq being a threat to the world, and I cant see how it could ever move up to be a threat

Preemptive strike is not good at all, how would you like it if i punched you in the face, before you even did anything, just because I felt that in the future you would be a threat and punch me in the face, would you like that ??

So we should kill Iraqi civillians just because Iraq may or may not become a threat??

Quote:

---

Why would we wait until Iraq became an impossibly looming threat to deal with them, if we know that they're on their way, if we know that Hussein wants to do everything he can to become that impossibly looming threat?

---

see i dont know how people know that he is trying to become a looming threat ?? I havent seen to much evidence of this

Quote:

---

As far as I can see, containment works with nuclear enabled states, and it only works because there is no other choice.

---

than why dont we contain Pakistan or India who last i knew had nukes, or some of the places in the former Soviet Union, where the threat of nukes getting into the wrong hands is greater than in Iraq ??

I am also questioning the timing of this war. No one else wonders why now, why not before ??

Why not fix the economy ?? Why not give universal healthcare ?? Why not fix our international policy, so that other countries dont hate us so much ??

People can disagree with me, but i still see no reason for this war, other than distraction, oil, and being re-elected

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Re: the first two sentences of your post - I spent about two years studying linguistics. I read a ton of Chomsky, and I had another half-ton or so more shoved down my throat: Generative Grammar, Language and Politics, Language and Thought, Language and Stupid Socialist Bullshit, Language and Why The Khmer Rouge Really Is Okay.

Re: the rest of your post - hahahahaha.

---

exactly what some one from the ruling elite would say.. I CHING... Nothing last forever..

Quote:

---

um Hero i dont remember insulting anyone, could you show me where i insulted someone??, there is nothing wrong with sarcasm, and i dont remember using any "nice quips", can you show me where?? and it is ok to disagree with me like Stone just did, but at the same time i am going to counter his arguments with some more of my own, i think you are looking for things that arent there ...

---

Sorry, was jumping the gun. Some of the stuff points your brought up were given with what felt like a touch of sarcasm, but I'm reading everything again and really don't see it that way. Sorry.

no problem man it happens

its the way i type :)

Lay off Almaci's spelling and grammar. English isn't his first language. We don't want to go down that road again.:rolleyes:

--Scourge .

Hehehehe

Hero, you are such a tool. You don't have to defend Stone anymore. We all know you'll agree with anything he says. Oh and if haven't read my other post, go read Dreaming War by Gore Vidal.

SC

No use man, Vidal Gore thinks his nephew Al is too conservative so Hero, Stone etcetera will dismiss whatever Vidal says regardles of merit on the basis that they declare him a left wing loony.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
No use man, Vidal Gore thinks his nephew Al is too conservative so Hero, Stone etcetera will dismiss whatever Vidal says regardles of merit on the basis that they declare him a left wing loony.

---

So again you imprint your own behaviours on me?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Hero, you are such a tool.

---

So automatically I am because you label it so?

No its becouse you are.

wow, so since YOU say it's so, makes it so?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
So automatically I am because you label it so?

---

In my eyes, yes.

SC