Printable View
As 88mph would say:Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBVila
"So has everything. Welcome to the internet."
I see you're incapable of arguing even your own points of view. Tough luck. I've offered up plenty to discuss, you just don't seem to be able to do so in a collected manner. Even when I present information with a level of quasi-respect, which is more than you deserve right now, you don't want to explain yourself. Come on, be like your hero Carter and argue. That's what makes this fun.
SC
Which says what about the fact that you're offering nothing new? Do you want a cookie for rehashing old information or something? yippee for you?
Are we going to close this thread soon?
SC
"I've offered up plenty to discuss"
No, you haven't. I suggest you take some debate/speech classes. Please point to this post of yours so I can tear it (or you) apart.
How old are you? I really want to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBVila
SC
I see he left. Heh. No, a debate does not consist of an article you can find on Google. You have to make an ARGUMENT. So far, all I have seen is why you think Sharon is worse and posted information, to which I had already said I don't think so based on what is happening now. We won't see eye to eye here, so what is your problem, SC?
Eegads man, debate is arguing one viewpoint against another by using factual information as background. Hence, the history lesson. I've explained, in full detail with historical precedence, for why I think Sharon is worse than Arafat. You have not. So you're right, this isn't debate. It requires two people and looking back, only one of us has made any significant attempt to discuss this. And explain to me how the info I posted isn't relevant? I thought the topic was about Sharon vs. Arafat as a terrorist. My post points out all the stuff relating Sharon to terrorism so how is it not relevant? I know we won't see eye to eye, but that's what makes TNL debates enjoyable.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBVila
SC
"Eegads man, debate is arguing one viewpoint against another by using factual information as background. Hence, the history lesson. I've explained, in full detail with historical precedence, for why I think Sharon is worse than Arafat."
Yes, that is debate. And I have explained why I think Arafat is worse.
"And explain to me how the info I posted isn't relevant? I thought the topic was about Sharon vs. Arafat as a terrorist. My post points out all the stuff relating Sharon to terrorism so how is it not relevant?"
I didn't dismiss it as irrelevant. Maybe you need some comprehension skills?
We've both said our piece on why we think so and so is worse. THEREFORE, THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO DISCUSS ON THAT MATTER...yet you keep saying "bring something useful to the discussion"
No you haven't and I want to know why. Pretend I just popped in on this and explain why so I can understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBVila
Ok my bad. I thought you had posted that all that was in the past and didn't apply to what's happening now. Perhaps I misunderstood.Quote:
I didn't dismiss it as irrelevant. Maybe you need some comprehension skills?
SC
"As for me, Israel seems to have a better idea of where violent Hamas members are than Arafat does. Do you actually believe that? If you're in power and aren't taking action, that makes you guilty. That's the way this world works."
Furthermore, you're the one wanting to claim things as irrelevant.("Whether Arafat has terrorists connections is irrelevant. He's not the one with nuclear weapons and U.S. backing.") Anyone deliberately not taking action against terrorists under their "control" qualifies as a terrorist in MY book (maybe not yours). The fact that someone DOES have nukes doesn't bother me as much as the person behind it. No, I don't think Sharon is a good guy, but I trust him with nukes more than I trust Arafat with his current methods. Easy for me to say halfway around the world, but you're no different.
Ok I still don't understand where you are coming from. How does that explain why Arafat is a terrorist?Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBVila
You must be 13 right? Picking inane comments out of an entire speech, but I digress, it needs clarification. It's irrelevant as it pertains to the ability to commit mass genocide, which is what Sharon is doing. Sorry for not making that clear. I certainly didn't mean that terrorist connections are nothing to worry about.
SC
I edited my post.
Sharon is committing mass genocide? You're hellbent on showming me why he CAN...but that is far different. If I had what he has at his disposal, I'd certainly be doing a better job of this "genocide".
Look Arafat isn't the leader of a country since there is no Palestine and if there was he certainly wouldn't be in charge. If you knew anything about Arafat, you'd know he is just a figurehead in all of this. He has no real power over anything and even if he did, I doubt he could do anything about it. Just because someone has connections to a terrorist group doesn't mean they have control. So where you get the idea that Arafat is in control, I have no idea. Have you ever been to that region of the world? I have, so yeah I'd say I am a little different.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBVila
SC
It doesn't matter. He is doing nothing about it. As much as you disagree, I think there's a lot he could be doing. Note that control is in quotes.
I don't care if you've BEEN there...try living there for the rest of your life. Util then, yeah, you're no different.
Read some news or some first-hand accounts of what is going on over there. I hate discussing things with people who don't know anything about what they're saying. I'm done with this thread.
SC
hahahhahahaa
"I'm done with this thread."
Indeed you are....indeed you are. Oh yeah, I hate discussing things with people who don't know anything about what they're saying. "Read some news"
"Dude, you spit in my Big Mac"
"Oh please, read some news, newb"
And there never was a Palestine. Palestine only existed because the Romans wanted erase the Jews from the area (didn't work, though). The Romans came in, took the place over, and named it Palestine.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
And Bush is just a figurehead, too, I suppose.Quote:
If you knew anything about Arafat, you'd know he is just a figurehead in all of this.
You know as well as I do that Arafat isn't simply an innocent bystander in this situation. He can easily control the actions of Hamas and Islamic Jihad; he had the Palestinian police at his disposal, he knows where Hamas/Islamic Jihad operate, so why doesn't he do anything? Hamas is recognized worldwide as being a terrorist organization and, despite having the resources available, Arafat does nothing.
Urm comunist influences 50s, gassing of Irani soldiers and Kurds 80s.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Over 30 years between them.
Urm no its not, the military wing of Hamas is regarded as a terrorist organisation.
Hamas is way more then that tough.
Just like the IRA had a legit political arm called Sin Fein if im correct Hamas consists of several parts, many of wich have nothing to do with terrorist actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
The Soviet Union was providing low level military weapons to Iran and training. The US(Reagan) counter-balanced that by training the Iraqi soldiers .
During Operation Desert Storm, Saddam dropped scud missiles(Loaded with chemical gases) on the Kurds, killing about 180,000 people.
I don't attack sources because the only place I get my news from is the NY Times. I don't read Reuters or the Washington Post or anything else - just the Times. So for me to insult someone's use of many sources, to me, sounds silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
I fashion myself a liberal - I just happened to support the war. I also don't think Israel is the bad guy here. It bothers me when I see anyone, liberal or conservative, taking sides, especially with Arafat. I think it's terrible that people are dieing no matter where it is, and I think we need to step in and do something about it. Both Israel and Palestine are to blame here. It's just that Israel is only attacking Palestine while there is speculation as to Palestinian involvement in terrorist activities. Sharon isn't a terrorist now. What he did in the past was pretty bad, and it isn't irrelevant, but he's not currently a terrorist or a supporter of them. Arafat's continued association with Hamas and whatnot is pretty bad. It doesn't necessarily make him a terrorist, but if he didn't support them, he would cut them off. The bottom line is, we can't take sides here. We need to help the PEOPLE of both Israel and Palestine, because ultimately they're the ones who are suffering. Palestinian suicide bombers kill Israelis - but it's not just Israelis dieing there. Israel responds and more people die. The cycle needs to stop, and no matter who is in charge out there, it isn't going to. "Roadmap to Peace" won't work - action needs to be taken.
I think BoBVila is really EThugg. :)
And Stone, aside from being my buddy in real life, is a cool guy. Don't insult him anymore. He just gets a little heated at times and is liable to call you stupid if you don't see things like he does.
Exactly. Though, that doesn't mean that Palestine is the bad guy, either, in my opinion. To me, that just means we need to act like the parents here and lay down the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
You know, I was only in like fifth or sixth grade during Desert Storm, but I still remember that. How could he do that? It'd be like us dropping missiles on the South or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Thanks, Calliander, but I don't need to be defended against stupid motherfuckers who live in some sort of fanciful Revisionisthistoryland. Good, bad, real, not real, the chasm's too wide for discussion on issues like these. I wouldn't debate about the existence of magic with wiccans, about how much the Raiders suck with Raiders fans, so on. They're not individual actors - witting or not, they're proselytes to Wahhabism, and are no longer thinking on the same level you or I are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Honestly, all that matters to me right now is that I believe in my own convictions, that I will continue listening, and that my side is the one with more guns.
We're right and we've got the advantage - we don't have to lower ourselves, debase ourselves, by justifying ourselves to them. It's beneficial to me to know what people like Spacecowboy and Almaci think, but it's not beneficial to me to let them know what I, we, think. My beliefs can be no further refined through discussion with them, so, hey, I'm done.
If for some reason our side loses the numerical advantage, the material advantage, then maybe I'll feel obligated to battle for hearts and minds - until then, fuck them.
This isn't to say that I'm uninterested in talk about the subject - simply that I've realized it's a waste of time to try to engage everyone.
(God, why am I doing this: Spacecowboy mentions Jenin, something about "untold thousands" and "bloody scythes" and so on (it sounds like you've got a promising career ahead of you as a terrorist speechwriter). Look, I don't think the liars working for the Palestinians even had gall significant enough to claim more than 500 deaths - this was something trumped up by the BBC that was later repudiated by almost everyone involved. I know that, you know that, Spacecowboy knows that - hell, we had a long discussion back when the shit happened that ended in the subject being essentially dropped for a complete, obvious lack of support for the "Jenin was a massacre" side. Give it a year, forget about the facts, and the little fantasy lives again as another terrible justification for new terrorist horrors.)
However, I do have to say - what the Israeli terrorist gangs of the late 40s did (yes, there were gangs of Israeli terrorists back then) was inexcusable. The situation has been perverted - the Arab combatants at Deir Yassin have been forgotten, the Arab 'non-combatants' with guns who fired on Israelis have been forgotten, the casualty figures have been trumped up - but none of that matters: the Israelis did some despicable things, then, and there's not much to say about it. I think the contrast between what happened with Deir Yassin, the Stern Gang, and the way that the IDF acts now is striking, and important. No one, Jews particularly, should forget about stuff like that, though, forget that Israelis are capable of the same horrible acts that Palestinians are, and that a vigilant faith in democracy is the only thing that keeps Israelis from all descending to that level.
And the US provided weapons to Iran as well, do youre homework.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
180k Kurds during gulf war 1?
Find me some info on that since I cant find any.
..and providing intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed against them.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
..and also by helicopters sold to him by the U.S. We basically gave Saddam the means and the excuse to do it too. In 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein.Quote:
During Operation Desert Storm, Saddam dropped scud missiles(Loaded with chemical gases) on the Kurds, killing about 180,000 people.
What terrorists? You mean the local 15 year olds who dont like American tanks on their streets? HAHAHA!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
I thought we were going there to free the Iraqis, wait...before that we were going to find the weapons of mass destruction, wait...i guess...now since there are no wmds and the average Iraqi citizen now has less rights and protection than under Saddam....all of a sudden we are fighting terrorism, even though the Baathist party and Al Queda have absolutely no connections. Hahaha, what a fuckin joke, 20,000 dead Iraqi civilians, busted pipelines, haliburton contracts and scared American troops who remain clueless. With 78 billion we can repair every public shcool in this country, buy computers, new textbooks, pay teachers more, start public construction projects, get people working again. Invest in Americas future, not this bullshit.
In retrospect I think Israel bitchslapped the US into invading Iraq. And the administration figured, why not, we can test our new weapons, up the military industrial complex (give Bush's lobbyist's more money), and grab the oil while were at it.
They aren't kids, they're adult terrorists blowing people up.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
Read your history. We had to tool about in Japan and Germany for years after WWII, and we're going to have to do the same in Iraq. Otherwise, we'll get another WWII on our hands.Quote:
I thought we were going there to free the Iraqis, wait...before that we were going to find the weapons of mass destruction, wait...i guess
That hasn't been proven yet.Quote:
...now since there are no wmds
Not even remotely true. Only an idiot would say such things. They have much more freedom at the moment and if you read just a bit of real news, instead of being a mouthpiece for the liberal establishment/Baathist Party/etc., you'd hear about it.Quote:
and the average Iraqi citizen now has less rights and protection than under Saddam....
All of a sudden? We've been doing it since 9/11/01Quote:
all of a sudden we are fighting terrorism,
Al Queda training camps existed in Iraq and Iraqi officials met with Bin Laden. The Baathists as a rule were terrorists who ruled over an oppressed people.Quote:
even though the Baathist party and Al Queda have absolutely no connections.
You have no proof of those numbers.Quote:
Hahaha, what a fuckin joke, 20,000 dead Iraqi civilians,
The work of terrorists, mind you. Terrorists acting against our reconstruction efforts.Quote:
busted pipelines,
Oh boy, one of the biggest oil companies gets a oil contract! Imagine that?Quote:
haliburton contracts
Scared? Where are you getting this crap from?Quote:
and scared American troops who remain clueless.
Not true. Money will not fix the school system; it's nothing but piling dollars onto a fire. It may put the flames out for a bit, but a few minutes later, it turns into a bigger fire.Quote:
With 78 billion we can repair every public shcool in this country, buy computers, new textbooks, pay teachers more, start public construction projects, get people working again.
Destroying terrorism is ensuring America's future.Quote:
Invest in Americas future, not this bullshit.
There you have it, folks. The absolute epitomy of an intellectual black hole. I highly doubt Israel has any control over US policies; as it is, we're the ones holding them back from taking action.Quote:
In retrospect I think Israel bitchslapped the US into invading Iraq. And the administration figured, why not, we can test our new weapons, up the military industrial complex (give Bush's lobbyist's more money), and grab the oil while were at it.
Jimmy,
Iraq was in no way connected to international terrorism. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia are, why dont we invade their countries and take their spoils?
Bottom line is, you cannot invade a country and take whatever you want, that is agaisnt international law, regardless if you dont like the leader.....there are no ties between Iraq and Al-Queada, the evidence powell provided at the UN was proved to be false many times over,the Iraqis firing RPGs at US tropps ARE NOT terrorists, they want their country back, Middle Eastern people are very proud and are no interested in being a colony like say the Phillipines, the US is not interested in rebuilding Iraq that is bullshit, Iraq will be in a constant state of occupation and general choas for the next twenty years, we are truly in a quagmire.
What are you, 15? You sound like you take in whatever Al Jazeera tells you and then spit it back out on everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
Iraq had Al Queda training camps in its borders. Saddam paid the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. They've had plenty of documented behavior dedicated to fostering terrorism.
And as for "taking" anyone's "spoils"; we haven't "taken" any "spoils" yet. You were the one just bitching about spending money on reconstruction, and now you are insinuating our "taking" of "spoils". Make up your mind, which is it? Spending or taking?
We're spending $87 billion to take care of countries that we had to bust up due to the harboring of terrorists/weapons. We spent over $100 pervious to the $87 billion just making war. We're not taking anything.
Speaking, though, of Saudi Arabia, you and I are in agreement. We should give them the rundown.
Again, what's with taking? We will have spent almost, or over, $200 billion dollars in this effort. Money that we aren't going to make back because we're spending so much rebuilding countries and establishing economies.Quote:
Bottom line is, you cannot invade a country and take whatever you want,
International law also establishes certain rights for humans that were not being enforced in Iraq, but those people beaing tortured should have just been left that way because you feel woozy about making the world mad at us.Quote:
that is agaisnt international law, regardless if you dont like the leader
As it is, a country has the right to defend itself and no international law has the right to deny anyone that right.
Yeah there are. Camps found post-conflict.Quote:
.....there are no ties between Iraq and Al-Queada,
When did this happen? I'd like to know. Some of it was questionable, but I haven't seen any headlines about "POWELL PROVEN 100% FALSE".Quote:
the evidence powell provided at the UN was proved to be false many times over,
Wow, what a complete and total tool. Saddam would be proud of you. You bought into every piece of propaganda coming out of the region without even thinking. These men are not people wanting a country for the good of their people, they're wanting the Baathists back in charge. They want Saddam in charge. When Saddam was in charge, the Iraqis didn't have a country. They were slaves under an evil master, and your inability to see that is frightening.Quote:
the Iraqis firing RPGs at US tropps ARE NOT terrorists, they want their country back,
We were in Japan for years after WWII. Look at them now. Nice, eh?Quote:
Middle Eastern people are very proud and are no interested in being a colony like say the Phillipines,
How do you know this?Quote:
the US is not interested in rebuilding Iraq that is bullshit,
500,000 in WWII.Quote:
Iraq will be in a constant state of occupation and general choas for the next twenty years, we are truly in a quagmire.
50,000 in Vietnam.
300 in Gulf War II.
No quagmire yet.
You'd better call Miss Cleo and get your five bucks back.
That is an invalid argument, Iraq can in no way be compared to post war Germany or Japan countries with strong historical unity, strong pre war economies and militaries, etc....Iraq's borders do not reflect the varied ethnicities and religious sects which are present there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
I could easily call you a mouthpiece for the Right Wing Fundametalists, but I dont know you personally, please show the same respect for me.Quote:
Not even remotely true. Only an idiot would say such things. They have much more freedom at the moment and if you read just a bit of real news, instead of being a mouthpiece for the liberal establishment/Baathist Party/etc., you'd hear about it.
Really, didnt ABC news just slip depleted uranium into the US with no problems, so much for homeland security. And if you think invading Iraq equates to fighting terrorism you my friend have pulled the wool over your own eyes. Invading Iraq will only fuel the flames of Islamic Fundametalism and Arab unity against the US/Israel.Quote:
All of a sudden? We've been doing it since 9/11/01
You can only fight terrorism by changing your foreign policy.
Proof?Quote:
Al Queda training camps existed in Iraq and Iraqi officials met with Bin Laden.
One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, perhaps if we showed the iraqi people we have their interests at hand, we would not have pipelines being bombed.Quote:
The work of terrorists, mind you. Terrorists acting against our reconstruction efforts.
What will fix the schools then, magic?Quote:
Not true. Money will not fix the school system; it's nothing but piling dollars onto a fire. It may put the flames out for a bit, but a few minutes later, it turns into a bigger fire.
America has greater problems on the horizon than terrorism. You sound like a scared little pussycat who watches to much Fox news.Quote:
Destroying terrorism is ensuring America's future.
What's the point of that? We're trying to rebuild Iraq, what's your problem with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
You could. But I'm not reciting garbage that even the people on my side would disagree with.Quote:
I could easily call you a mouthpiece for the Right Wing Fundametalists, but I dont know you personally, please show the same respect for me.
Oh my word... so... the people who hate America and want Americans to die ... just might begin to hate America and want Americans to die?!?!Quote:
Really, didnt ABC news just slip depleted uranium into the US with no problems, so much for homeland security. And if you think invading Iraq equates to fighting terrorism you my friend have pulled the wool over your own eyes. Invading Iraq will only fuel the flames of Islamic Fundametalism and Arab unity against the US/Israel.
Appease terrorists?Quote:
You can only fight terrorism by changing your foreign policy.
It's called "News".Quote:
Proof?
Wow. What a steaming pile of ignorance. So, killing national income is a way to "keep the Iraqi interests at hand"?Quote:
One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, perhaps if we showed the iraqi people we have their interests at hand, we would not have pipelines being bombed.
Standards, competition.Quote:
What will fix the schools then, magic?
Like what?Quote:
America has greater problems on the horizon than terrorism. You sound like a scared little pussycat who watches to much Fox news.
Um yeah....Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
Where are you getting this training camp nonsense, just because Arabs all speak the same language and have brown hair does not mean they are all in cohorts....on suicide bombers...yes he did pay the families, what does that have to do with the United States, this is not Israel.Quote:
Iraq had Al Queda training camps in its borders. Saddam paid the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. They've had plenty of documented behavior dedicated to fostering terrorism.
We are spending that money so Iraq can become America's little base of operations in the Middle East. We are getting thrown out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait aint big enough, part of the neo-con agenda is to establish the US in every corner of the world, empire building by old world standards. Its all laid down in Paul Wolfowitz's Project for the New American Century reader, written in 1998, executed right after 9/11.Quote:
Again, what's with taking? We will have spent almost, or over, $200 billion dollars in this effort. Money that we aren't going to make back because we're spending so much rebuilding countries and establishing economies.
If you think the US administration gives a fuck about human rights being enforced you are a fool. North Korea, Tanzinia, the Congo, Tibet....why Iraq then???Quote:
International law also establishes certain rights for humans that were not being enforced in Iraq, but those people beaing tortured should have just been left that way because you feel woozy about making the world mad at us.
As it is, a country has the right to defend itself and no international law has the right to deny anyone that right.
And we werent defending ourselves, hence the term premptive.
The BBC reported that Powell plagarized the documents presented at the UN from a British graduate student, the documents were from 1992.Quote:
When did this happen? I'd like to know. Some of it was questionable, but I haven't seen any headlines about "POWELL PROVEN 100% FALSE".
Trying looking at some interanational material.
How many Iraqis have you spoken to? At least under the Baathist they had running water and hospitals, I would want the Baathist back as well if I were Iraqi, you know Jimmy sometimes you gotta put yourself in other peoples shoes to truly understand a situation. You stuck in some sort of dreamworld where everything is black and white, we are good, they are bad, the world is much more colorful than that my friend, perhaps if you traveled outside of your Minnesota confines you would see that, I feel bad for people like you.Quote:
Wow, what a complete and total tool. Saddam would be proud of you. You bought into every piece of propaganda coming out of the region without even thinking. These men are not people wanting a country for the good of their people, they're wanting the Baathists back in charge. They want Saddam in charge. When Saddam was in charge, the Iraqis didn't have a country.
What are they now then? Happy people under a good empire? They were bombed, killed, maimed during the US invasion. And you expect them not to resent US forces, violence breeds more violence, none of the current events suprise me one bit. I predicted this pre war and I was right, I dont need Miss Cleo, you pompous smart ass.Quote:
They were slaves under an evil master, and your inability to see that is frightening.
[/QUOTE]
Where are they coming from?
I wonder if people were this fanatical back in the early days of the U.S. Did we have ultra-liberals back then?
Statesman #1: "You know what I was thinking, Sir William?"
Statesman #2: "What's that, Jebediah?"
#1: "Perhaps we should allow women to vote. I was thinking that maybe they weren't inferior to us."
#2: "Blasphemy!"
Statesman #3: "J00 R A11 F0oLzz! W0myN R w4Y b3tteR tHaN M3N! L3ZBO PR1DE, B1aTch!!!!"
#1 & 2: "What the hell was that about?"
Hehe.
He did have a point, Jimmy - "mouthpiece" isn't nice. Play nice, now. :)
How am I a liberal.....because I think the invasion of Iraq was a total farce, I happen to be pro life, and go to a Christian Church every Sunday, WOW!!!! But guess what, I dont like Bush and think he is a man who has done nothing but taken advantage of 9/11 to push his own agenda....cheapenig the tragedy.....sickening really.....once again the world isnt black and white people. Despite what your television says.
In all fairness Jimmy, Ansar al Islam a terrorist group backed by al-Queda was operating in the tribal Kurd territory untouched by Saddam in northern Iraq, does give the US a reason to take over Iraq and kill 10,000 civilians and maim 20,000 more (according to Christian Science Monitor) of course not.
I didn't say all Arabs are operating together in terrorism. I said that Iraq and Al-Queda were linked; terror camps existed in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/09/26/us.iraq.alqaeda/
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...653833092.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in523963.shtml
http://www.intellnet.org/news/2003/02/12/16726-1.html
You said Iraq had no connections to international terrorism, so by saying that he [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,553746,00.html]funded terrorists in Israel, you admit that you were wrong.
Exactly. And you poor libs aren't gonna get even a piece of the action! We're going to dominate you and force you to perform bizarre, cruel acts of sexual perversion.Quote:
We are spending that money so Iraq can become America's little base of operations in the Middle East. We are getting thrown out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait aint big enough, part of the neo-con agenda is to establish the US in every corner of the world, empire building by old world standards. Its all laid down in Paul Wolfowitz's Project for the New American Century reader, written in 1998, executed right after 9/11.
I said that Iraq was breaking rules. And that's true. Is it not?Quote:
If you think the US administration gives a fuck about human rights being enforced you are a fool. North Korea, Tanzinia, the Congo, Tibet....why Iraq then???
Retaliation is not an option with terrorism.Quote:
And we werent defending ourselves, hence the term premptive.
Some, not all. Key word. You haven't proven him 100% incorrect.Quote:
The BBC reported that Powell plagarized the documents presented at the UN from a British graduate student, the documents were from 1992.
Trying looking at some interanational material.
All hospitals are up and running. Water is, by and large, functioning.Quote:
How many Iraqis have you spoken to? At least under the Baathist they had running water and hospitals,
Sure you would. Sure you would. Would you also like not having a freedom to speak whatever you want? You wouldn't have that freedom. Forget voting, because you're not able to really vote under the Baathists.Quote:
I would want the Baathist back as well if I were Iraqi,
The war against terror is black and white.Quote:
you know Jimmy sometimes you gotta put yourself in other peoples shoes to truly understand a situation. You stuck in some sort of dreamworld where everything is black and white,
True, true.Quote:
we are good, they are bad,
I'm not your friend. Don't even try using that old standby to seduce me into your odd logic.Quote:
the world is much more colorful than that my friend,
Ha ha ha... oh wow. You know me?Quote:
perhaps if you traveled outside of your Minnesota confines you would see that, I feel bad for people like you.
Iraqis?Quote:
What are they now then?
We're not an empire, but if that's what you think, sure.Quote:
Happy people under a good empire?
True.Quote:
They were bombed, killed, maimed during the US invasion.
We liberated them. That's something. Of course they aren't going to be perfectly happy, but they have freedom now.Quote:
And you expect them not to resent US forces,
No it doesn't, not when you kill your enemies.Quote:
violence breeds more violence,
Did you now?Quote:
none of the current events suprise me one bit. I predicted this pre war and I was right, I dont need Miss Cleo, you pompous smart ass.
No more wasting time. bye bye.
If he weren't comparing the terrorists sabotaging Iraqi oil lines and killing US troops to freedom fighters (i.e. the French Undergound in WWII or the Revolutionary War heroes of the US), I wouldn't get so bent out of shape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
First of all, calm down my brother. This is only an internet messageboard, we have nothing to prove. Nobody needs to be insulted or hurt. This goes for that "mouthpiece" comment, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
This may not be Israel, but it's still terrorism. For all we know, it could lead here in the future. And isn't the bolded part above a bit racist? I don't know personally, but I'm pretty sure that it's been proven that there were Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq. (I could be wrong.) Whether or not they were funded to encouraged by the Iraqi government is another issue which will probably never be resolved.
Uh oh, you said "neo-con". I agree that the PNAC stuff is scary. It sounds way too much like "Manifest Destiny" to me, just disguised. I know that stopping terrorism and helping oppressed people are noble causes, but I'm still wary about the whole thing.Quote:
We are spending that money so Iraq can become America's little base of operations in the Middle East. We are getting thrown out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait aint big enough, part of the neo-con agenda is to establish the US in every corner of the world, empire building by old world standards. Its all laid down in Paul Wolfowitz's Project for the New American Century reader, written in 1998, executed right after 9/11.
I believed that what happened was Powell was lead to believe that the information was accurate and true. There's no way to prove otherwise, though. However, I don't ever remember seeing anything about the info being plagiarized. I'd like to see some sources for that, from actual news sites, not opinion columns and unheard of newspapers produced in Turkey.Quote:
The BBC reported that Powell plagarized the documents presented at the UN from a British graduate student, the documents were from 1992.
Trying looking at some interanational material.
Watch it with the insults there. Treat in kind, man.Quote:
How many Iraqis have you spoken to? At least under the Baathist they had running water and hospitals, I would want the Baathist back as well if I were Iraqi, you know Jimmy sometimes you gotta put yourself in other peoples shoes to truly understand a situation. You stuck in some sort of dreamworld where everything is black and white, we are good, they are bad, the world is much more colorful than that my friend, perhaps if you traveled outside of your Minnesota confines you would see that, I feel bad for people like you.
First of all, look: I'm a liberal. I dislike Bush just as much as the next liberal/Democrat/whoever isn't conservative. From what you say, you sound to me like someone with liberal leanings. So here's a question to you: Why do we have to disagree when it comes to matters of humanity just because a certain person whose views opposed of ours is running things? The people in Iraq were suffering. I would like to see evidence of otherwise. There is no reason NOT to go in and help them. Okay, maybe we went about it the wrong way. Maybe we should have had help from the rest of the world. I don't know. The point is, we did it, and now we're dealing with it, and I'm fucking happy to pay whatever to help these people.
No, but eventually we will get them happy again.Quote:
What are they now then? Happy people under a good empire?
Nobody said that they don't resent us. But that doesn't mean we give up, pack it in, and move on. We have to help them now, no matter what happened in the past. Do you want us to pull out and give up like we did after Desert Storm?Quote:
They were bombed, killed, maimed during the US invasion. And you expect them not to resent US forces, violence breeds more violence, none of the current events suprise me one bit.
Two strikes. We can have an intelligent discourse on here without insults. We've done it before. Let's keep it civil.Quote:
I predicted this pre war and I was right, I dont need Miss Cleo, you pompous smart ass.
Why do they back out when someone presents good evidence and say that they are wasting their time? What time? The time spent posting on a video game messageboard?Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
Jimmy, I'd respond to your stuff except I'm not smart enough and I also don't have any sources. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
Try Vietnam.... or are they still telling you all you won that war? Moron. :P
Hehe. What a reliable source. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
Well, we see he's not a liberal, at least. That always makes me feel better. Seemed like he had some sort of, "We shouldn't be out doing things in the world, we should take care of our problems ONLY!" type of attitude. Tsk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
Say can you give ANY credible sources for youre outlandish claims?
Oh just one more thing.
The training camps were in the North in Kurd teritory, teritory that has been out of Saddamīs rule since 1992 and was protected by the US trough the air by jets lifting of from Turkey and destroying Iraqi forces if they dared come close enough to the no fly zones.
Man if you're liberal then what am I? ;) A dislike of Bush doesn't automatically mean you're a liberal. But anyways, I don't think this is a question about humanity. Of course, if it were then I'm sure everyone would be happy to help these people. But it isn't the job of the U.S. or any other country to police the world and make sure that everything is going the way we want it to. And if you love America so much, why don't you stand up like this to help pay whatever to help Americans? Oh yeah, because in this country it's everyone for themselves. If you can't make it then your lazy. I wonder why we don't have that attitude towards Iraq. "Well, they let themselves get taken over by Saddam." I'd rather see Americans getting help, because contrary to what Bush is telling everyone, our country isn't doing so well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
And Jimmy, why is every liberal a tool of the Baathist party or something equally absurd? :p
SC
Not everyone. Only people equating terrorists killing our troops, stationed in Iraq to help, to American Revolution heroes.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
I would have thought that you could at least stand up for that as you're often worrying about the safety of the soldiers. I mean, here is a guy saying that terrorists killing our troops to forward a sadistic agenda are freedom fighters. Even you can't tell me that Saddam was good for Iraq.
You're right, I can't say Saddam was good for Iraq, but, in my opinion, neither is the United States. But the soldiers are scared. I've talked to several and most have told me that it was one of the most stressfully frightening times in their lives. These aren't the soldiers from Universal Soldier, they're people just like everyone else, people who would rather be home than in some foreign country where people hate them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
SC
But that's the same attitude as, "Let's focus on America's problems only, then we can worry about the world." To me, that's a conservative view. And despite becoming more moderate nowadays, I've ALWAYS felt that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
And YES! It is our job (our, meaning the world) to make sure that people are not suffering. We're doing a lousy job because of attitudes like that. I don't care if I have to live on the street in a cardboard box or work double shifts at a fast food restaurant as long as I know my country is out there helping people. While I don't necessarily believe that means going and pushing Democracy on everyone in manifest destiny style, I do believe that the world should be united, if not under a (good) world government.
No, our country is shitty right now. I've yet to see anything pointing to this so-called recovery we're supposed to be having. The stock market is no indication because the people who matter (the ones needing the jobs) probably aren't holding stocks. I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's obvious that nothing that the current administration does will help the economy. This is a long-term recovery we have to dig our way through. But that doesn't mean we draw inward and ignore the plights of the rest of the people on this planet. And a bad economy doesn't mean that Americans are suffering. I don't know the stat, but even poor Americans are richer than people from other countries. But since you mentioned it, I think welfare should remain intact (albeit with tighter monitoring) to help people who can't get a job.
And the Iraqis didn't let themselves get taken over by Saddam - we helped.
Note that what I say now is to illustrate a point. Anything following here can be (and has been) debated elsewhere.
I'm a liberal because I'd like to see proof that Affirmative Action doesn't work. People always say it doesn't work, but then they just point out stories from whiny white kids who didn't get into their first-choice college (like the story of that girl who only applied to that one school and didn't get in, purportedly because of Affirmative Action). I don't care about stories from whiny white kids.
I'm a liberal because I'd like to see proof of a child having any sort of sentient brain activity before they have been out of the womb for five months. A beating heart in something that has no sentient thoughts, only instincts, is no better than an animal to me. However, killing something that has sentient thought is murder to me, no matter what the circumstances. All the money we spend on killing incarcerated criminals (more than it costs to keep them in prison), could be spent on providing shelters for transients and other people down on their luck, among other things.
I'm a liberal because, despite my support of our operation in Iraq, I think war is wrong and should be avoided at all costs. I think taxes should not be lower. They don't need to go higher, but look at where lower taxes have gotten us now. You can say all you want about our taxes, but my parents, who have made the same amount each year (with raises), paid less taxes three years ago than they do today. So I don't know who got the tax cut. Wow, they each got a check for $300.
Sorry, didn't mean to rant. Please forgive my leanings. I just didn't want to be seen as a conservative just because, for the sake of a good argument, I defend someone with views different from mine. I should add that I like everyone on here participating in these debates; Jimmy, Almaci, Stone, SC, whoever. And it bothers me to see people calling names when we're all good people and can carry on a decent conversation. Those issues I mentioned above take the back seat compared to my desire to help people. :confused:
All right, all right, you're a liberal. sheesh. I was just playing with you anyways. :p But I think you're confusing what I meant. I am all for world unity and the prosperity of human beings in general. However at the same time I don't want everything to be like it is in the U.S. There has been too much deculturization thanks to the U.S. If our government is going to be the pinnacle of a world political community then I don't want any part of it because I don't feel that our government is doing things the way it should be. And as a liberal I hope you can understand that. We had a world political body that functioned relatively well until political and commercial interests circumvented the idea of actually helping people. Yes, I'm talking about the U.N. It's unfair that countries like the U.S. hold so much power over everyone else that we feel our ideas are more important and valid than anyone else's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
In my opinion, that's dumb, to want to live in squalor so that Bush can invade some country. Just my opinion. And perhaps poor Americans are richer than a lot of other people around the world. But it's also relative to where one lives.
And with those programs and such that you mentioned, aren't you helping people that way too? Or is it just people outside the U.S. who you want to help? So take it easy, I didn't mean to offend you. :D
SC
The U.S. has the oldest possession in the Americas and has refused to resolve its status issue once and for all. 4 million American citizens who can be sent to war but can't even vote for president. That's what happens when you don't have oil or a strategic military location to be exploited (I meant "to offer."). ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
Hey I wish it werent happening, the killing of American soldiers, people I went to high school with are out there, but the bottom line is that the Iraqi citizens picking up arms against our troops are not terrorsits. Are they freedom fighters, I never said they were. They are people who want the US military the fuck out of their country. And I dont think our military, good men and women deserve that kind of treatment, with an administration who doesnt give a damn about their welfare in power, no clean underwear, no water, no rotating tours, indefinite goals, no jobs or healthcare to come home to. I am not the one you should be angry with....so then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
1. There are no wmds there, you were lied to, but that doesnt seem to bother you. Bush said there could be a nuclear cloud in NYC if we didnt invade immediately, this is not a game Mr.Bush, how about a little discretion next time.
2. The US foreign policy is dictated by self interest, money and power, not liberating the 3rd world, you again were lied to again.
3. Who are we to dictate what a totally foreign culture needs by our lofty standards?
4. Were is this 87 billion going to come from??? The middle class, you and I. Bush seems to believe money grows on trees, seeing as he is a spoiled little rich boy, I cant blame him personally. Cheney is also on record saying that the oil in Iraq is not going to fund the rebuilding and that the 87 billlion is just a down payment, again where is this money coming from Carter???
5. Why are we there, no one seems to know, so why should I let Bush take this money out of my pockets. Once agian we have been repeatedly lied to and our soldiers are dying for what????
6. Was Saddam a terrible man, yes, does that justify the killing of average iraqi citizens who happened to get in the way of our dislike for Saddam, no. If that were the case we would be obligated to invade half of the world.
7. The Iraqi government was never linked to al-queda. No one remebers the story of the CIA saying they were blackballed by a Cheney to come up with evidence.... http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...700335400.html
8. Your links in regards to Iraq/terrorism connection all have headlines that end with question marks. Get it?
No offense taken. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
I do understand that, and I also worry about it, to some extent. That's why you'll constantly see the two words "manifest" and "destiny" come from me a lot and you'll see that I make sure to say that "we" means "the world", not just the U.S.Quote:
But I think you're confusing what I meant. I am all for world unity and the prosperity of human beings in general. However at the same time I don't want everything to be like it is in the U.S. There has been too much deculturization thanks to the U.S. If our government is going to be the pinnacle of a world political community then I don't want any part of it because I don't feel that our government is doing things the way it should be. And as a liberal I hope you can understand that.
True. I like the U.N. Always have. They're not really "the gov'ment", but it is very close to a united world force. What Bush did hurt them severely, but we're going to have to concede at some point to allow them to help us, which will put them right back where they were. :)Quote:
We had a world political body that functioned relatively well until political and commercial interests circumvented the idea of actually helping people. Yes, I'm talking about the U.N. It's unfair that countries like the U.S. hold so much power over everyone else that we feel our ideas are more important and valid than anyone else's.
I probably should have elaborated on that one. I wouldn't care if I lived in the U.S., the U.K., Italy, France, wherever. It's not so that we can invade, just so that the world can help out.Quote:
In my opinion, that's dumb, to want to live in squalor so that Bush can invade some country. Just my opinion.
You know, I was just thinking - we gave Hussein that ultimatum to leave Iraq or war. He probably did leave, didn't he? So technically, he fulfilled the ultimatum. ;) Just a little joke to lighten the mood.
Both. I know it's tough, but like I was saying: I've lived my life pretty much in splendor. I don't mind a little squalor so that someone who has been living a crappy life can have a chance to pick things up.Quote:
And with those programs and such that you mentioned, aren't you helping people that way too? Or is it just people outside the U.S. who you want to help? So take it easy, I didn't mean to offend you. :D
Good post. But look at it this way: Right now, Iraq is the most ideal place for terrorists to be to strike at us. We have a large bulk of our army there and undermining our efforts helps 1) further their cause AND 2) make us look bad on the world front. I know your opinion is that the Iraqi people are solely resonsible (and it's likely that some are), but give my suggestion some thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
WMDs haven't been found yet. Much like the weapons inspectors, if they were there to begin with, difficulty in locating them is being experienced. Personally, I think there probably were WMDs there and I think they were probably moved somewhere or hidden extremely well.Quote:
1. There are no wmds there, you were lied to, but that doesnt seem to bother you. Bush said there could be a nuclear cloud in NYC if we didnt invade immediately, this is not a game Mr.Bush, how about a little discretion next time.
You won't hear me argue against our leaders not believing in their stated convictions, but that's just me.Quote:
2. The US foreign policy is dictated by self interest, money and power, not liberating the 3rd world, you again were lied to again.
So totally foreign cultures need to have oppressive dictators who mercilessly kill them for trivial issues? Totally foreign cultures don't need to have free people who can speak for themselves without fear of retribution? Totally foreign cultures don't need a supportive environment for their children to grow up in? Those are lofty standards?Quote:
3. Who are we to dictate what a totally foreign culture needs by our lofty standards?
Another point you won't hear me argue about. WOO CLASS WARFARE! BOO YAH!Quote:
4. Were is this 87 billion going to come from??? The middle class, you and I. Bush seems to believe money grows on trees, seeing as he is a spoiled little rich boy, I cant blame him personally. Cheney is also on record saying that the oil in Iraq is not going to fund the rebuilding and that the 87 billlion is just a down payment, again where is this money coming from Carter???
We are there now to clean up the mess we made. Our soldiers are dieing to protect the good people of Iraq. Does it matter if it's the good people of Iraq or the good people of Ireland as long as they're good people? Do you want us to leave Iraq, half-finished and poverty-stricken?Quote:
5. Why are we there, no one seems to know, so why should I let Bush take this money out of my pockets. Once agian we have been repeatedly lied to and our soldiers are dying for what????
Is inaction justified when innocent people are being oppressed and killed by a madman? Yes, we are obliged. Not to "invade" half of the world, but to HELP.Quote:
6. Was Saddam a terrible man, yes, does that justify the killing of average iraqi citizens who happened to get in the way of our dislike for Saddam, no. If that were the case we would be obligated to invade half of the world.
Do you live in Australia? There's got to be a better news source than that. I doubt that article was in the Washington Post.Quote:
7. The Iraqi government was never linked to al-queda. No one remebers the story of the CIA saying they were blackballed by a Cheney to come up with evidence.... http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003...4700335400.html
There are a lot of questions to be asked with regards to this war.Quote:
8. Your links in regards to Iraq/terrorism connection all have headlines that end with question marks. Get it?
And Carter of course has not delivered a single source for his outlandish claims.
Oh wel, he cant deliver what does not exist I guess :P
I don't understand what is outlandish about what he said. Maybe I'm missing something? Nothing in that text you quoted in your prior post was anything that requires any factual backup because it's either well-known or opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
What does he need to deliver a source for?
Likewise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Quote:
But look at it this way: Right now, Iraq is the most ideal place for terrorists to be to strike at us.
Agreed, but whose fault is that, ours. We did not NEED to go there. Thats another one of the things I find so ironic about "fighting terrorism" in Iraq, if anything this has increased the chance of terrorist attacks aimed at Americans. It makes no sense.
Thats an invalid argument, because we had Iraq under satellite surveillance months before the invasion, and any suspicious movement or explosions/smoke would have clearly been visible and would have been presented to the UN, the photos we did present were proven to be duds.Quote:
WMDs haven't been found yet. Much like the weapons inspectors, if they were there to begin with, difficulty in locating them is being experienced. Personally, I think there probably were WMDs there and I think they were probably moved somewhere or hidden extremely well.
Thats the problem they have no convictions, I just finished watching the Rumsfeld press conference, he clearly stated "I havent seen any inditication that Saddam was linked to 9/11."Quote:
You won't hear me argue against our leaders not believing in their stated convictions, but that's just me.
In regards to the other tough questions from the press, he spent most of the time dancing around them then giving clear cut answers, I especially liked the way he gave a long laundry list of where the 87billion was going to come from and threw in the "American taxpayers" really quickly, he also went on state that the oil money is not there, where is it going then, hmmmm......
And how are we going to give all those "things" to the Iraqis. Again they dont want Christian overlords, they dont want a US appointed leader to dictate the law, look whats happening in Afghanistan, the Taliban has taken over the southern part of the country, Karzai called it quits, and the opium trade is greater than ever....wheres the plan???Quote:
So totally foreign cultures need to have oppressive dictators who mercilessly kill them for trivial issues? Totally foreign cultures don't need to have free people who can speak for themselves without fear of retribution? Totally foreign cultures don't need a supportive environment for their children to grow up in? Those are lofty standards?
If we cant do it in Afghanistan how are we going to bring them our brand of freedom in Iraq. Freedom doent come in the form of bombs, tanks, and soldiers knocking down your doors.
Get real, it wont work.
Unfortunatley, thats the problem and thats why the Bush administration rushed us in there, because they knew there was no exit strategy all along, and once we were there, all the American idiots would be like, well once were there we gotta clean up, what a bunch of bullshit.Quote:
We are there now to clean up the mess we made. Our soldiers are dieing to protect the good people of Iraq. Does it matter if it's the good people of Iraq or the good people of Ireland as long as they're good people? Do you want us to leave Iraq, half-finished and poverty-stricken?
How about the US makes an internatioanl apology and turns over the situation to the UN, we can leave some of troops there under the UN has a good measure.
But you know why that wont happen...the oil.
So you calling bombing innocent people, killing mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters helping....wow. We killed more Iraqis in 2 months than Saddam during his whole career.Quote:
Is inaction justified when innocent people are being oppressed and killed by a madman? Yes, we are obliged. Not to "invade" half of the world, but to HELP.
The article on the web page was reprinted from the post, smh is a legitiamte news source. I remeber the story being leaked out for about a day on US television and the net, unsurprisingly it was yanked from the archives of all major US media.Quote:
Do you live in Australia? There's got to be a better news source than that. I doubt that article was in the Washington Post.
edit: I have the original article bookmarked, as you can see it has been yanked....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jun4.html?
Wow... just... WOW!! :eek: That's.... not right...Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
Firstly, the Christian Science Monitor said between 5000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians were killed. That was the number two researchers provided them, but asked to remain unnamed because the numbers are unsubstantiated. iraqibodycount.com estimates the number between 6000 and 8000.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html
Secondly, as for that "we killed more Iraqis in 2 months than Saddam during his whole career" thing, oy:
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm
Tho I'm sure that will be dismissed as lie and propaganda.
Thank you. I was going to say that, myself, but lunch break beckoned and I wanted some food.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scourge
Yeah, this was on all the news networks, I think the exact number of Iraqi deaths was close to 6200, and that includes the bad guys. (Could be wrong.)
Actually, I believe we gave up on Afghanistan, which is why things are like they are. If we don't give up on Iraq, we can succeed. We're not trying to be Christian overlords, or at least I hope we aren't. I've heard speculation as to these sorts of things, but I've never seen any evidence about it. Also, you didn't say whether you thought those were lofty ideals or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
How do we know what they want and do not want? Was there an official poll of Iraqis released? You can't judge them by their actions, a lot of Iraqi citizens were around for Desert Storm, and there's a lot of anti-US propaganda out there that is easy to believe. You can't expect them to all of a sudden be like, "Well, we're freed, so all of that stuff I learned from those history books is wrong and America is great! Yippie!" Are we purposely and maliciously killing Iraqis? No. Was Hussein? Yes. Which is better? It doesn't matter how many people we killed, even in comparison to Hussein, because we are not going to do any more killing; whereas who knows how many more people Hussein would have killed?
Ouch! :eek: Burned!Quote:
The article on the web page was reprinted from the post, smh is a legitiamte news source. I remeber the story being leaked out for about a day on US television and the net, unsurprisingly it was yanked from the archives of all major US media.
edit: I have the original article bookmarked, as you can see it has been yanked....
I can't believe there is an actual iraqibodycount.com. How sick is that? I think both DOVESKI and Calliander make good points, but I believe that the underlying theme is that there is alot of uncertainty around this whole situation. I agree that it would be extremely unwise to pull out of Iraq now, but it pisses me off that we're there in the first place. Thank goodness BoBVila isn't here to ruin what has been a pretty fun discussion and debate.
SC
I know I always say to say "no" to insults, but...Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
Amen to that.
Question (semi-on topic): When was the last time America was actively involved in a military conflict during an election? And I'm talking large # of troops committed near the November election-time.
I'm rough on my US history (studied English and medieval history for fun in college). I think it was Nam, but I could be wrong.
That is a good question and I believe that you are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
Here's some conspiracy theory stuff for ya - JFK was beginning to pull troops out and then like a month or so later, Grassy Knoll. Scary stuff. *nods head in conspiratorial sort of manner*
You may be more right than you think. I was talking to a man named Robert Groden once, who is one of the foremost authorities on the JFK assassination, and he told me that his decision to pull out of Vietnam could have been related to his death. His ideology is that LBJ didn't want out of Vietnam cuz he and his friends had a lot of money in military contracts. So he believes that Johnson played a significant role in JFK's assassination. It's some really frightening stuff, especially since Mr. Groden has been imprisoned and had attempts on his on life for reporting what he has. He's at Dealey Plaza every weekend if anyone wants to see him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
SC
I actually thought that was common knowledge? Or, at least, an accurate assumption?
Not really a good example- denied having WMD's, they weren't threatening us with them. Besides, the guy in your example with the empty gun chose to bluff an armed opponent, and he paid the price. If a guy pointed a gun at me, I'd blow his head off. It wouldn't matter to me if the gun ended up being unloaded or not, how would I know beforehand? I wouln't be willing to take that risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Best post in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint of Killers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
A) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26849
It's called the balance of power and if we let the former Soviet Union have their way in the Middle East, there would be no Iran or Iraq to speak of. Those scud missiles Iraq was letting lose on Isreal and the Kurd were Soviet designed in the 60's.
BTW, its "your homework".
B) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep15.html
It was 5,000 Kurds killed, another 10,000 injured. Right before the second Gulf War, CNBC, CNN and countless other news sources talked about him killing approximately 180,000 Kurds, through imprisonment, torture and fighting. 5,000 is nothing to sneeze at either.
Saddamīs links with al Queda for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
The terorist training camps and meeting of officials.
Her made more unsubstantiated, unproven and disproven claims in this thread and spouts them as if they are fact.
Probably why he never gives a source for anything.
Maybe so, but just a simple, "Source please?" for that will do. I asked DOVESKI to prove me wrong about the Washington Post thing and he did. Nice and easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
You have to remember though, that for every article someone can post regarding how weak the link to Al Qaeda through Ansar al-Islam is, someone else can post an article about how strong the link is. (For the record, neither of those someones is me.)
So who's right? It depends on how you decide to interpret the information. It doesn't make someone wrong if they decide to look at it from the opposite direction as you.
Take from this what you will.
Blix: Iraq Destroyed WMD 10 Years Ago
Seems like Bush's worst fears may be coming to pass. I dunno. :|
SC
I guess we all saw this coming.
U.S. Vetos U.N. Resolution
:|
SC
Already posted a few posts back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Can you show, its kinda lost in all youre drivel.
I mean, its not like youre four links most of wich are like almost a year old wich talk about CLAIMS by the US and British governments wich since then have mostly been disproven right?
I mean surely, even YOU cant be stupid enough to see that as proof positive of definite links between Saddam(who hated Bin Ladin and had a price on Bin Ladinīs head) and Bin ladin(who hated Saddam and had offered the US and saudi governments before gulf war1 to kill him and later maintained he would have his ass on a platter) and proof that they were in the terorism bussuines together are you?
Almaci Filter: Can you point them out? I must have skimmed over them.
I mean, you aren't referring to your four links (most of which are like almost a year old) which talk about CLAIMS by the US and British governments which since then have mostly been disproven, right?
There is no proof positive of definite links between Saddam (who hated Bin Laden and had a price on Bin Laden's head) and Bin Laden (who hated Saddam and had offered the US and Saudi governments before Gulf War 1 to kill him and later maintained he would have his ass on a platter) and proof that they were in the terrorism business together.
There we go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci Filter
He does have a point about the sources, Jimmy, looking on them now. But, you know, insults and all.
As for Mr. Almaci, I'm gonna need to see some proof about:
Hussein's price on Bin Laden's head
Bin Laden offering to kill/hating Hussein
Don't get me wrong, I'm not being mean, I'm actually curious about those two things since I've never seen anything about it.
Amen my brother. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
Welcome back. Yeah, "iraqibodycount.com". What a terrible thing to keep track of. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
Thanks dude. Cowboy pretty muched summed up my feelings, Carter's logic just makes me go super radical.
Yeah, that was a good post he made; very reserved and logical.
I just hope everyone likes my brand-new, patented Almaci Filter (tm), which filters out the excess and gets right to the point. ;)
Caliander, im lazy.
Search for some transcripts of Osama Bin Ladinīs tapes, do a search for his offer to oust and kill Saddam before Gulf war1, do a search on the historical animosity between the two men.
Ah, that's okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
I'm lazy, too. Fuck it, I don't need to know. :)
edit: Oh yeah, there's this really cool quote in the book I'm reading right now:
A cunning man considers him a fool who acts against his own best interests.
An upright man considers him a fool who acts against the interests of the whole of mankind.
Therefore, all men are fools.
And since I must live in the company of fools, I'll stake my lot then with upright fools.
Throw that damned cunning fool to the bears!
Good stuff. :)
You asked for links, I gave you links. Now that you have links, you want new links. You are never satisfied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Disproven? Who disproved them?
So typical. You cannot make one post without lacing it with some sort of insult, can you?Quote:
I mean surely, even YOU cant be stupid enough
I gave links between Al Queda and Iraq, and between Saddam and international terrorism. That's what was asked for, that's what I gave. Al Queda agents received training in Iraq, and Saddam paid the families of Palestinian homicide bombers (bombers who walk into crowded pizzarias and blow themselves up).Quote:
to see that as proof positive of definite links between Saddam(who hated Bin Ladin and had a price on Bin Ladinīs head) and Bin ladin(who hated Saddam and had offered the US and saudi governments before gulf war1 to kill him and later maintained he would have his ass on a platter) and proof that they were in the terorism bussuines together are you?
I was asked, I gave. Just because Saddam and bin Laden supposedly hated each other, it doesn't mean that their organizations didn't help one another. I know a Democrat who voted for Republican, I gave money to a Green Party candidate. Ed Gillenspie and Terry McAuliffe, however, dislike each other. The point is, the leaders don't have to like each other, but it doesn't mean that their groups don't aid each other.
Then history books would be largely unacceptable as well, wouldn't they? They're taking their information from accounts that're hundreds and sometimes thousands of years old. How do we know that the Revolutionary War wasn't really a ruse; a story forced on us by the British to keep us friendly to them, and sucker later generations into believing we're independent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Awesome. Nothing says, "Job well done", like driving a hyper-liberal nuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
Ah revisionist history, ya gotta love it.
Keep it up Carter.
What did I revise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Well we have these from youre very first post in this thread: The schools are functioning, hospitals functioning, water/electricity largely functioning, local government functioning
Functioning is a big exageration and none of em function as well as under Saddam for the last decade.
Too lazy to do more.
No it isn't. Functioning is functioning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Well, two things. One, a war has just happened on their soil. And two, how would you know this?Quote:
and none of em function as well as under Saddam for the last decade.
The liberal biased media :D