<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nazruth:
One important step from childhood to adulthood is to realize things are not black and white. The world is not black and white. The problems the world faces today are not solved by using the arguments of a six year old.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True, however I suggest you go back and also rethink some of your postings, as it appears that all of your arguments are also one-sided against the US.
I also find it rather ironic that you say the problems are not solved by using arguments of a six year old.. however the thinking of the terrorists and extreme islamic groups is exactly that.. kill all those who don't follow their religion. Its simplistic thinking as from a mind of a child who can't accept not getting their way, and you expect us to try to reason with that? If we were dealing with other 'adults' who were open to rational thought and compromise (e.g. allowing others to have their own views and not wanting to kill them because they differ), then we could use more advanced arguments. However a child sometimes needs to be put in his place to learn how to play nice with the class.
Iraq . . . Decisions
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sok:
<B>is it true that most islamic country dont allow religion freedom? are there religious persecution in christian country by the government, their citizens, etc. did you know in countries being islamicize, if a woman is raped because she isn't worth a man, she must fine 4 islamic males to testify or else she would be guilty of having intercourse outside married. testimony of anyone but islam are worth 1/2 or can't even be used.
[This message has been edited by sok (edited 09-12-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not all Islamic countries are like that, some are quite tolerant of other religions. The law that you mentioned is a syariah law, if I am not mistaken. If I am also not mistaken, that law is barely used in the more developed Muslim countries. I think the only reason why these laws exist is due to lack of education.
To my opinion, most religions have been used over and over again for political gains. Islam is actually a very peaceful religion. Its name itself means 'peace'. Sadly, like everything else, it has been exploited and misinterpreted for political gains. However, if you read the Quran, which is their equillevent to a Bible, you will note that there are many similarities between Islam and Christianity.
<B>is it true that most islamic country dont allow religion freedom? are there religious persecution in christian country by the government, their citizens, etc. did you know in countries being islamicize, if a woman is raped because she isn't worth a man, she must fine 4 islamic males to testify or else she would be guilty of having intercourse outside married. testimony of anyone but islam are worth 1/2 or can't even be used.
[This message has been edited by sok (edited 09-12-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not all Islamic countries are like that, some are quite tolerant of other religions. The law that you mentioned is a syariah law, if I am not mistaken. If I am also not mistaken, that law is barely used in the more developed Muslim countries. I think the only reason why these laws exist is due to lack of education.
To my opinion, most religions have been used over and over again for political gains. Islam is actually a very peaceful religion. Its name itself means 'peace'. Sadly, like everything else, it has been exploited and misinterpreted for political gains. However, if you read the Quran, which is their equillevent to a Bible, you will note that there are many similarities between Islam and Christianity.
Quite frankly, nobody in the middle east knows how to get along, and I dont think they are going to anytime soon.
Some of my friends say "Nuke the whole place, blow them off the map entirely. The world is not a better place because of the middle east, and we can get oil through the giant glass parking lot."
I am a tad less extreme, but I agree in the way that the place needs to be invaded and, like other contries in the past that refused to get along and sucked mightily, the leaders of government killed, and the constituion re-written. It is about that simple. Warlords, murderers and thugs are all of the same breed of those who lie to and starve their people and oppress women. Im sorry, but if your going to do things that are just plain wrong and nasty, your going to pay.
My taxes pay to police your backyard.
Celara
------------------
Just as soon as I belong/Then its time I disappear
Some of my friends say "Nuke the whole place, blow them off the map entirely. The world is not a better place because of the middle east, and we can get oil through the giant glass parking lot."
I am a tad less extreme, but I agree in the way that the place needs to be invaded and, like other contries in the past that refused to get along and sucked mightily, the leaders of government killed, and the constituion re-written. It is about that simple. Warlords, murderers and thugs are all of the same breed of those who lie to and starve their people and oppress women. Im sorry, but if your going to do things that are just plain wrong and nasty, your going to pay.
My taxes pay to police your backyard.
Celara
------------------
Just as soon as I belong/Then its time I disappear
I'm of the "sovereign country" camp.
Not your country, stay out.
However, if Iraq has "declared war" on the USA or one or more of the USA's allies, go have a ball. If Saddam doesn't like being beatten down for declaring war, that's his problem.
But if he hasn't declared war, let the guy rebuild.
Note, I consider sheltering groups known to be terrorists launching attacks on the USA or their allies and not taking measures to arrest them when asked to do so (as the US asked Afghanistan to do to Al-Quaeda) to be grounds for the USA to declare war.
However, objections to some arbitrary country obtaining nuclear capabilities are spurious at best. There are already four or more countries with nuclear WEAPONS capabilities, not to mention nuclear power. Just because you don't like the chap who is in control isn't a justification for war (note, this isn't to say that terms for Iraq's surrender for the gulf war shouldn't be enforced, forcibly if need be, but a minimum force policy should be followed).
Similar thoughts apply to biological weapons capabilities. That stuff's everywhere. Do what is allowed by terms of surrender, but interference with sovereign nations is bad.
I also abhorr some of Bush's decisions regarding long-standing international law relating to all this. Declaring essentially arbitrary people to be persona-non-grata for indeterminate periods with no accountability is unacceptable. That the international community took it lying down bothers me even more, though, as I have come to fully expect USA policy to be self-serving in the extreme.
As to the USA's position on the UN human rights tribunal? I think the USA's repeated threats of and/or use of veto power as well as "vote how you want, we won't participate in any action" statements during the Rwandan genocides justifies any loss of power there.
But hey, just my opinion from over here north of the border.
Note, no slur is intended to any USA citizens. I think people the world over are much the same. I just think there is something with the US's power structure or international politics lately (the past few decades I guess? *shrug*) that causes very arrogant actions from leaders there.
Regards,
Jorus
Not your country, stay out.
However, if Iraq has "declared war" on the USA or one or more of the USA's allies, go have a ball. If Saddam doesn't like being beatten down for declaring war, that's his problem.
But if he hasn't declared war, let the guy rebuild.
Note, I consider sheltering groups known to be terrorists launching attacks on the USA or their allies and not taking measures to arrest them when asked to do so (as the US asked Afghanistan to do to Al-Quaeda) to be grounds for the USA to declare war.
However, objections to some arbitrary country obtaining nuclear capabilities are spurious at best. There are already four or more countries with nuclear WEAPONS capabilities, not to mention nuclear power. Just because you don't like the chap who is in control isn't a justification for war (note, this isn't to say that terms for Iraq's surrender for the gulf war shouldn't be enforced, forcibly if need be, but a minimum force policy should be followed).
Similar thoughts apply to biological weapons capabilities. That stuff's everywhere. Do what is allowed by terms of surrender, but interference with sovereign nations is bad.
I also abhorr some of Bush's decisions regarding long-standing international law relating to all this. Declaring essentially arbitrary people to be persona-non-grata for indeterminate periods with no accountability is unacceptable. That the international community took it lying down bothers me even more, though, as I have come to fully expect USA policy to be self-serving in the extreme.
As to the USA's position on the UN human rights tribunal? I think the USA's repeated threats of and/or use of veto power as well as "vote how you want, we won't participate in any action" statements during the Rwandan genocides justifies any loss of power there.
But hey, just my opinion from over here north of the border.
Note, no slur is intended to any USA citizens. I think people the world over are much the same. I just think there is something with the US's power structure or international politics lately (the past few decades I guess? *shrug*) that causes very arrogant actions from leaders there.
Regards,
Jorus
You wonder what causes our arrogance? How about the rest of the world taking our money, with no intention of ever repaying what they take. They cry for us to babysit their world, and the moment they are done - they throw a tantrum about our 'unwanted presence.'
I've said it before, I'll say it again. I don't like those damn countries either, and I fully support any attempts to blow the whole damn region up.
My little brother got called up from Army reserves to stand-by for active duty status, and they are doing war training excercises. If we DO go to war, I actually think I may enlist, so that I can go first hand over there with a gun and 'express myself.'
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
I've said it before, I'll say it again. I don't like those damn countries either, and I fully support any attempts to blow the whole damn region up.
My little brother got called up from Army reserves to stand-by for active duty status, and they are doing war training excercises. If we DO go to war, I actually think I may enlist, so that I can go first hand over there with a gun and 'express myself.'
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
I for one am tired of large oil companies having the leaders of my country in there pocket books. I for one am tired of corperate America dictating how my country is run. They do not have my best interest in there heart. All they care about is calling me to sell me shit while I am sitting down to eat dinner. FUCK THEM!!! Ohh... FUCK YOU if you think that I really give a shit about what other people around the world think of me. My country has leaders that don't represent me but that of big money but dam... if you come over with the intent to hurt me, my friends and family over it expect to meet my small cache of weapons. I am guessing that is about how a few of those Arabs feel sitting in there little sand dunes eating cactus soup. I think that going about taking Iraq unilateral is setting a very dangerous precedent. Not because I think that the situation doesn't warrent this kind of action nor because I don't think the US couldn't do it. I think it has a lot more to do with other senareos. How about India. They attack Pakistan with every thing they got because they feel like Pakistan might send a couple of terrorists over again. How about the Arab league attacking Isreal because they feel threatened by them? Sure the rest of the world wouldn't agree with those two situations but is a real possibility. Note that my two examples are just that. This could apply to many other countries and situations. Ohh ya... and one last thing. I DONT GIVE A FUCK IF YOU THINK I AM ARREGANT. I just want to be left alone. You can say well then don't push your values on other people on the otherside of the world. FUCK YOU AGAIN! There is nothing I can do about it. The only difference between the USA system of government and a communist system of government is we have one more choice. That is it. You either get asshole A or asshole B. Niether of which represent my views. Neither of which even give a shit what I need or want out of them. You either get some asshole who is extremely on the left side of the spectrum or some asshole way on the right. All they want is my tax money they plan on increasing so they can run there private agenda of big business and big money. Some times they make more laws that make it harder for me to do my normal daily routine. Those new laws cost more money so they tax me more. I actually think the rest of the world is arregant by accusing me of arregance. Again I say Think what you want of me I dont care. Just dont come to my back yard.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nazruth:
One important step from childhood to adulthood is to realize things are not black and white. The world is not black and white. The problems the world faces today are not solved by using the arguments of a six year old.
/Naz
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You talk an awful good game. You can really rip into people. However, it doesn't win you a debate. See, all you are doing is ripping apart people's comments. That is all fine and good. I can do that with the same precision if you want. For every point there is a counter. We can go all day. The fact is you're shredding opinions while offering none of your own.
What should be done?
What happens if Hussein exercises his nuclear weapons (if he has them) upon the USA or any other country while the USA stood idle to placate the international community?
Everything is pure conjecture because none of us know what specific capabilities he has. Everyone complains about the USA. That is how it is. Some of it is justified and some of it is not. Everyone always finds reasons to dislike the top gun, be it in sports, politics, the mud or international relations.
The USA is held to a standard it can never possibly achieve. It sits atop the mountain, clawing its way higher and higher while those below it heckle and jeer at every miscue. However, they remain suspiciously silent for each achievement. It is the way of the beast. Every good deed goes unnoticed while every mistake is magnified and publicized ad nauseum.
U.S. media is bias towards Americans. International media is bias towards whichever country it favors. To think otherwise is simply foolish.
Dornax
Jurdex
------------------
The Raven of Wisdom
Est Sularus Oth Mithas
"My Honor is My Life"
One important step from childhood to adulthood is to realize things are not black and white. The world is not black and white. The problems the world faces today are not solved by using the arguments of a six year old.
/Naz
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You talk an awful good game. You can really rip into people. However, it doesn't win you a debate. See, all you are doing is ripping apart people's comments. That is all fine and good. I can do that with the same precision if you want. For every point there is a counter. We can go all day. The fact is you're shredding opinions while offering none of your own.
What should be done?
What happens if Hussein exercises his nuclear weapons (if he has them) upon the USA or any other country while the USA stood idle to placate the international community?
Everything is pure conjecture because none of us know what specific capabilities he has. Everyone complains about the USA. That is how it is. Some of it is justified and some of it is not. Everyone always finds reasons to dislike the top gun, be it in sports, politics, the mud or international relations.
The USA is held to a standard it can never possibly achieve. It sits atop the mountain, clawing its way higher and higher while those below it heckle and jeer at every miscue. However, they remain suspiciously silent for each achievement. It is the way of the beast. Every good deed goes unnoticed while every mistake is magnified and publicized ad nauseum.
U.S. media is bias towards Americans. International media is bias towards whichever country it favors. To think otherwise is simply foolish.
Dornax
Jurdex
------------------
The Raven of Wisdom
Est Sularus Oth Mithas
"My Honor is My Life"
Iraq is a sovereign state... so what if he is developing nuclear weapons? Aren't other countries? I agree that I would rather not see him with these capabilities, but does that mean you should just barge on in, killing thousands of Iraqis in the process (and probably hundreds of your own soldiers if you want to actually get into Baghdad)?
You don't invade other countries just because you don't like their leadership. Iraq has NO proven connections with Al-Qaida and he certainly had nothing to do with September the 11th.
Who's next on your list? Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, are you going to invade them next? What makes you any better than Saddam when he invaded Kuwait? Who appointed you policeman of the world, who said you and only you shall be the judge of whether someone is worthy of having (nuclear) weapons?
What if Russia declared war on you, because you obviously care nothing for the rest of the world, ignore laws and agreements that don't suit your tastes, and you have been and still are developing nuclear weapons? See the similarity between that and what retard Bush jr. is doing?
Until you can come up with complete proof that Saddam is a psycho who is going to blow up the whole world, instead of just being another murdering dictator of who there are dozens around the world (all of whom the US could care less about), then you should respect Iraq's borders. This looks like some personal vendetta of Bush, and it has a purulent stink to it.
You don't invade other countries just because you don't like their leadership. Iraq has NO proven connections with Al-Qaida and he certainly had nothing to do with September the 11th.
Who's next on your list? Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, are you going to invade them next? What makes you any better than Saddam when he invaded Kuwait? Who appointed you policeman of the world, who said you and only you shall be the judge of whether someone is worthy of having (nuclear) weapons?
What if Russia declared war on you, because you obviously care nothing for the rest of the world, ignore laws and agreements that don't suit your tastes, and you have been and still are developing nuclear weapons? See the similarity between that and what retard Bush jr. is doing?
Until you can come up with complete proof that Saddam is a psycho who is going to blow up the whole world, instead of just being another murdering dictator of who there are dozens around the world (all of whom the US could care less about), then you should respect Iraq's borders. This looks like some personal vendetta of Bush, and it has a purulent stink to it.
"Iraq is a sovereign state... so what if he is developing nuclear weapons? Aren't other countries? I agree that I would rather not see him with these capabilities, but does that mean you should just barge on in..."
Its not the issue of just another country developing nuclear weapons. The issue is a country that invades other countries, encourages terrorists, uses chemical weapons on it's own citizens, and diverting aid from it's citizens and watching them starve developing nuclear weapons.
"You don't invade other countries just because you don't like their leadership. Iraq has NO proven connections with Al-Qaida and he certainly had nothing to do with September the 11th."
I am not advocating an 'invasion' of Iraq to conquer and plunder. I am advocating an enforcement of the terms of surrender from a decade ago. This 'War on Terrorism' is not just against Al-Qaida, or just about 9/11. It is against any and all terrorist, and those who aid them. Maybe there is not hard proof that Iraq supports Al-Qaida, but that doesn't matter because Iraq IS known to support terrorists.
"Who's next on your list? Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, are you going to invade them next? What makes you any better than Saddam when he invaded Kuwait? Who appointed you policeman of the world, who said you and only you shall be the judge of whether someone is worthy of having (nuclear) weapons? "
Its not about having nuclear weapons. Its about a willingness to use nuclear weapons in an offensive capability. What makes us better is that we are NOT invading Iraq to conquer and plunder. What makes us better is we are putting our case to the world and asking for their support. What makes us better is we are trying to help people and save lives. This is not about policing the world. This is about self protection, not who can have nuclear weapons.
"What if Russia declared war on you, because you obviously care nothing for the rest of the world, ignore laws and agreements that don't suit your tastes, and you have been and still are developing nuclear weapons? See the similarity between that and what retard Bush jr. is doing?"
I would see the similarity if the US had invaded Canada and claimed its hockey players for ourselves, then decided to murder everyone in the states of Texas and California, then after we were pushed out of Canada by the coalition led by the mighty Dutch, we stopped trucks of food and medical supplies bound for Texas and California and diverted them to Maine and let the people in Texas and California starve to death all the while flipping off the UN. Yeah then I could see the similarity.
"Until you can come up with complete proof that Saddam is a psycho who is going to blow up the whole world, instead of just being another murdering dictator of who there are dozens around the world (all of whom the US could care less about), then you should respect Iraq's borders. This looks like some personal vendetta of Bush, and it has a purulent stink to it."
One paragraph you ask: "Who appointed you policeman of the world..." and in another you complain about there being murdering dictators in the world(dozens of them no less) whom the US is not taking care of. What has the Dutch done about these dozens of murderous dictators? We would have respected Iraq's borders if Iraq had respected Iraq's borders. It hasn't; we won't.
I still have yet to hear anything constructive out of Nazruth.
[This message has been edited by Rausrh (edited 09-13-2002).]
Its not the issue of just another country developing nuclear weapons. The issue is a country that invades other countries, encourages terrorists, uses chemical weapons on it's own citizens, and diverting aid from it's citizens and watching them starve developing nuclear weapons.
"You don't invade other countries just because you don't like their leadership. Iraq has NO proven connections with Al-Qaida and he certainly had nothing to do with September the 11th."
I am not advocating an 'invasion' of Iraq to conquer and plunder. I am advocating an enforcement of the terms of surrender from a decade ago. This 'War on Terrorism' is not just against Al-Qaida, or just about 9/11. It is against any and all terrorist, and those who aid them. Maybe there is not hard proof that Iraq supports Al-Qaida, but that doesn't matter because Iraq IS known to support terrorists.
"Who's next on your list? Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, are you going to invade them next? What makes you any better than Saddam when he invaded Kuwait? Who appointed you policeman of the world, who said you and only you shall be the judge of whether someone is worthy of having (nuclear) weapons? "
Its not about having nuclear weapons. Its about a willingness to use nuclear weapons in an offensive capability. What makes us better is that we are NOT invading Iraq to conquer and plunder. What makes us better is we are putting our case to the world and asking for their support. What makes us better is we are trying to help people and save lives. This is not about policing the world. This is about self protection, not who can have nuclear weapons.
"What if Russia declared war on you, because you obviously care nothing for the rest of the world, ignore laws and agreements that don't suit your tastes, and you have been and still are developing nuclear weapons? See the similarity between that and what retard Bush jr. is doing?"
I would see the similarity if the US had invaded Canada and claimed its hockey players for ourselves, then decided to murder everyone in the states of Texas and California, then after we were pushed out of Canada by the coalition led by the mighty Dutch, we stopped trucks of food and medical supplies bound for Texas and California and diverted them to Maine and let the people in Texas and California starve to death all the while flipping off the UN. Yeah then I could see the similarity.
"Until you can come up with complete proof that Saddam is a psycho who is going to blow up the whole world, instead of just being another murdering dictator of who there are dozens around the world (all of whom the US could care less about), then you should respect Iraq's borders. This looks like some personal vendetta of Bush, and it has a purulent stink to it."
One paragraph you ask: "Who appointed you policeman of the world..." and in another you complain about there being murdering dictators in the world(dozens of them no less) whom the US is not taking care of. What has the Dutch done about these dozens of murderous dictators? We would have respected Iraq's borders if Iraq had respected Iraq's borders. It hasn't; we won't.
I still have yet to hear anything constructive out of Nazruth.
[This message has been edited by Rausrh (edited 09-13-2002).]
Yeah, that's right. Read right past what I wrote, ignore it, after all you're American -without flaw- and everyone else is a retard neanderthal. You're a mere spic on the timeline, have only really been around for 50 years, and I personally don't think you'll last another 50. Cheers. Now go and attack Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Lybia and any other states you don't like.
Cherzra: Iraq is a sovereign state... so what if he is developing nuclear weapons?
I cant wait until one of iraqs nukes hits wherever you live.
Iraq has proven in the past that they cannot be trusted with weapons of mass destruction.
Why should we trust them now?
Celara
------------------
Just as soon as I belong/Then its time I disappear
I cant wait until one of iraqs nukes hits wherever you live.
Iraq has proven in the past that they cannot be trusted with weapons of mass destruction.
Why should we trust them now?
Celara
------------------
Just as soon as I belong/Then its time I disappear
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by celara:
<B>I cant wait until one of iraqs nukes hits wherever you live.
Iraq has proven in the past that they cannot be trusted with weapons of mass destruction.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
...which were given and sold to your then-friend Saddam by YOURSELVES. Oh the hypcrisy, how it stinks. Guess your censored news doesn't tell you that.
It's ok if he uses them against the Iranians, right? Just for convenience, you provided him with satellite images of the Iranian positions. Maximum efficiency, bingo!
You armed him, you helped him, you funded him and didn't give a shit that he used these weapons against Iran. It's alright when others are gassed and killed right? Just part of your foreign policy, securing influence in the region, so you can have your precious oil regardless of any human rights issues.
Even when Saddam did in fact "use chemical weapons against his own
people", he did so on the afternoon of 17 March 1988, against the Kurdish
city of Halabja. <B>The United States provided diplomatic cover by initially
blaming Iran for the attack. The Reagan Administration tried to prevent
criticism of the atrocity. The Bush (senior) administration authorised new
loans to Saddam in order to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and
put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights
record". </B>
http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/whoarmediraq.pdf
http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/isafp/2002/msg00148.html
Please, spare me your rhetoric. You created the guy, just like you created dictators everywhere. Your foreign policy is so hypocritical and stinks so bad, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
<B>I cant wait until one of iraqs nukes hits wherever you live.
Iraq has proven in the past that they cannot be trusted with weapons of mass destruction.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
...which were given and sold to your then-friend Saddam by YOURSELVES. Oh the hypcrisy, how it stinks. Guess your censored news doesn't tell you that.
It's ok if he uses them against the Iranians, right? Just for convenience, you provided him with satellite images of the Iranian positions. Maximum efficiency, bingo!
You armed him, you helped him, you funded him and didn't give a shit that he used these weapons against Iran. It's alright when others are gassed and killed right? Just part of your foreign policy, securing influence in the region, so you can have your precious oil regardless of any human rights issues.
Even when Saddam did in fact "use chemical weapons against his own
people", he did so on the afternoon of 17 March 1988, against the Kurdish
city of Halabja. <B>The United States provided diplomatic cover by initially
blaming Iran for the attack. The Reagan Administration tried to prevent
criticism of the atrocity. The Bush (senior) administration authorised new
loans to Saddam in order to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and
put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights
record". </B>
http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/whoarmediraq.pdf
http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/isafp/2002/msg00148.html
Please, spare me your rhetoric. You created the guy, just like you created dictators everywhere. Your foreign policy is so hypocritical and stinks so bad, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
<B> Wait, I have a better idea! You can stop paying them, yet still be a member. Then you can exercize your veto against everything you don't like, and it will cost you nothing!
Oh, darn I forgot, you're already doing that.
Just like you don't give a shit about Kyoto, the international criminal court and many other things.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But he's not bitter.
------------------
Muma tells you 'schpank?'
<B> Wait, I have a better idea! You can stop paying them, yet still be a member. Then you can exercize your veto against everything you don't like, and it will cost you nothing!
Oh, darn I forgot, you're already doing that.
Just like you don't give a shit about Kyoto, the international criminal court and many other things.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But he's not bitter.
------------------
Muma tells you 'schpank?'
Cherzra,
I get the impression that you would actually enjoy seeing the US turned into a raging inferno. Maybe I am wrong but thats the impression I get.
So here is my question for you, and I am being serious here. Notwithstanding all the past hypocrisy of the US government that you have pointed out, what would you now do if you were president of the USA? Your country has been attacked by islamic militants. Thousands of people died and a symbol of your country's wealth and power was destroyed. Theres a crazed lunatic in power in Iraq who is trying as hard as he can to get ahold of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and you don't doubt that either himself, or his al qaeda cronies would be happy to use it against your country. You command a military of unheard of power, capable of taking strong action against the people that want to do your people harm, and yet you are told that it is not in your discretion to use it without permission from the rest of the world. What is your move, Cherzra?
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
I get the impression that you would actually enjoy seeing the US turned into a raging inferno. Maybe I am wrong but thats the impression I get.
So here is my question for you, and I am being serious here. Notwithstanding all the past hypocrisy of the US government that you have pointed out, what would you now do if you were president of the USA? Your country has been attacked by islamic militants. Thousands of people died and a symbol of your country's wealth and power was destroyed. Theres a crazed lunatic in power in Iraq who is trying as hard as he can to get ahold of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and you don't doubt that either himself, or his al qaeda cronies would be happy to use it against your country. You command a military of unheard of power, capable of taking strong action against the people that want to do your people harm, and yet you are told that it is not in your discretion to use it without permission from the rest of the world. What is your move, Cherzra?
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Ahhh politics and war and economics...lions and tigers and bears... oh my.
Has the US made mistakes in the past?
Yes.
Will we make mistakes in the future?
Yes.
Have we put people in power in other countries?
We've certainly helped.
Have we deposed people ruling other countries?
Again, we've certainly helped.
Is Saddam Hussein a threat to the world?
Yes, see past behavior w/ Kurds and Kuwait (maybee he just doesn't like K's)
Should we remove him from power?
Perhaps....
Should we enforce the terms of the Surrender from the Gulf War?
Definately, though we should have been doing it all along rather than waiting 10 years.
Why hadn't we?
Hussein provided a reliable distraction in the event of sticky domestic situations. Every time Bill Clinton was in hot water here (see Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky et al.) suddenly Hussein chirps up, and we decide to drop some bombs and put him center stage in the media.
Will Hussein's removal destabilize the Middle East?
You can't destabilize something that's not stable in the first place. There will be repercussions, but any change or actions has repercussions.
Is the US the "world's police force"?
We at least act like it, and are often asked to be.
Should the US be the "world's police force"?
No, alas there is a long history of it dating back to the Monroe Doctrine on December 2, 1823 where the US declared our hemisphere under our protectorate from European powers exerting the very influence that we now exert. Post WWII, the US went from a regional power to a global power, and the sphere of our influence (protectorate) expanded from our hemisphere to a much more global level.
One important thing to keep in mind, the world runs on currency, be it gold, oil, hemp, or wheat. Business will continue, wars are good for business, and always have been.
Religions, while they are often started with altruistic aims, are quickly perverted by human nature, the thirst for power, and wealth. They have been used as the excuse for waging war for thousands of years.
Is the US political system flawed?
Ayup, it is largely a giant popularity contest for the very rich.
Does the President really "run" the country?
Nope, he's a figurehead largely who typically does as is advisors suggest. The good ones have picked good advisors, the bad ones have exercised poor judgement in many facets.
No-one is perfect, and the more of us you get together, the less perfect we seem to become. I just hope we survive our cultural evolution or manage to remove ourselves as a species without screwing up the rest of the planet.
Luck to us all.
Toplack
*This is a fine mess you've gotten us into Ollie*
Frostbear
------------------
Has the US made mistakes in the past?
Yes.
Will we make mistakes in the future?
Yes.
Have we put people in power in other countries?
We've certainly helped.
Have we deposed people ruling other countries?
Again, we've certainly helped.
Is Saddam Hussein a threat to the world?
Yes, see past behavior w/ Kurds and Kuwait (maybee he just doesn't like K's)
Should we remove him from power?
Perhaps....
Should we enforce the terms of the Surrender from the Gulf War?
Definately, though we should have been doing it all along rather than waiting 10 years.
Why hadn't we?
Hussein provided a reliable distraction in the event of sticky domestic situations. Every time Bill Clinton was in hot water here (see Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky et al.) suddenly Hussein chirps up, and we decide to drop some bombs and put him center stage in the media.
Will Hussein's removal destabilize the Middle East?
You can't destabilize something that's not stable in the first place. There will be repercussions, but any change or actions has repercussions.
Is the US the "world's police force"?
We at least act like it, and are often asked to be.
Should the US be the "world's police force"?
No, alas there is a long history of it dating back to the Monroe Doctrine on December 2, 1823 where the US declared our hemisphere under our protectorate from European powers exerting the very influence that we now exert. Post WWII, the US went from a regional power to a global power, and the sphere of our influence (protectorate) expanded from our hemisphere to a much more global level.
One important thing to keep in mind, the world runs on currency, be it gold, oil, hemp, or wheat. Business will continue, wars are good for business, and always have been.
Religions, while they are often started with altruistic aims, are quickly perverted by human nature, the thirst for power, and wealth. They have been used as the excuse for waging war for thousands of years.
Is the US political system flawed?
Ayup, it is largely a giant popularity contest for the very rich.
Does the President really "run" the country?
Nope, he's a figurehead largely who typically does as is advisors suggest. The good ones have picked good advisors, the bad ones have exercised poor judgement in many facets.
No-one is perfect, and the more of us you get together, the less perfect we seem to become. I just hope we survive our cultural evolution or manage to remove ourselves as a species without screwing up the rest of the planet.
Luck to us all.
Toplack
*This is a fine mess you've gotten us into Ollie*
Frostbear
------------------
Exactly like you said. Attacked by Islamic militants, which means Osama and consorts. I would go find that beardo like I promised and leave Saddam to his own devices.
Chimp jr. and brownnoser Blair haven't come up with a single shred of evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 11/9, nor have they come up with evidence that he is making nukes to fry the whole western world. If they had any proof, they would have long since shared it to get others on their side for an attack. Thus, I can only conclude that it is either a vendetta for Chimp jr, or he has lost what little mind he had and is going to invade everyone he doesn't like, effectively making him as bad as those supposedly megalomaniac tyrants.
Then again, I may just use that bottomless hole you call a military budget to do some GOOD in the world instead of using as a corporate playground there to be sucked dry. Of all the good things you can do with those hundreds of billions, you choose to throw it away. Hell you could decrease it by tenfold and you would still comfortably spend more than the rest of the world combined.
Chimp jr. and brownnoser Blair haven't come up with a single shred of evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 11/9, nor have they come up with evidence that he is making nukes to fry the whole western world. If they had any proof, they would have long since shared it to get others on their side for an attack. Thus, I can only conclude that it is either a vendetta for Chimp jr, or he has lost what little mind he had and is going to invade everyone he doesn't like, effectively making him as bad as those supposedly megalomaniac tyrants.
Then again, I may just use that bottomless hole you call a military budget to do some GOOD in the world instead of using as a corporate playground there to be sucked dry. Of all the good things you can do with those hundreds of billions, you choose to throw it away. Hell you could decrease it by tenfold and you would still comfortably spend more than the rest of the world combined.
Cherzra, you haven't addressed the situation that scares most americans. Hussein wants weapons of mass destruction. I don't think that you disagree. Americans fear that he will use them against us, either on his own, or through a terrorist organization such as al qaeda. You are suggesting that we do nothing to alleviate this fear. Do you feel that there is nothing for america to worry about, or do you feel that america should simply not act? I understand that you don't believe Hussein was linked in any way with 9/11, and I agree its arguable whether or not he was. For arguments sake, lets assume that he wasn't.
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 09-13-2002).]
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 09-13-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jurdex:
<B>What should be done?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What should be done is to use the formal procedure of the United Nations to reinstate weapons inspectors to Iraq. This is the position of the United Nations, it is the position of the European Union. United States has not up to this date provided any evidence that would support any kind of military action against Iraq.
There is so far absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein is currently a threat to any other nation. If you believe such evidence exists, let's see it.
I don't believe such evidence can be gathered without weapon's inspectors going back to Iraq. Therefore, any military action against Iraq before we have fully exhausted every other option is not acceptable. It is not acceptable, because it risks the lives of thousands of innocent people.
"Let's keep in mind that the reason why inspectors are out of Iraq isn't because Iraq kicked them out, but rather they were ordered out by the United States after the United States manipulated the inspection process to create a confrontation that led to Operation Desert Fox and then used intelligence information gathered by inspectors to target Iraqi government sites, including the security of Saddam Hussein. So it's going to take awhile to convince Iraqis that they should once again trust inspectors. But frankly, they have no choice. " -- Scott Ritter
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
What happens if Hussein exercises his nuclear weapons (if he has them) </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Reports from IISS, US Defense Department, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and CSIS all indicate that he does not have a nuclear weapon. If you have evidence to show otherwise, let's see it.
Furthermore, Saddam Hussein has never used weapons of mass destruction against the US. He certainly had a chance to do so, during the Desert Storm, but he did not. If you believe his pattern of behavior has changed during the last 10 years, let's see the evidence that supports this claim.
Saddam Hussein is no doubt a murderer, a dictator, and a human being of the most unpleasant kind. However, he is not a 'psycho terrorist', he does not believe he is a martyr. Saddam Hussein is very much of a man who wants to stay in power, at all cost, but does not have a death wish. He does not believe in the 40 virgins waiting for him in the paradise.
This is most likely the reason he did not use weapons of mass destruction against the US during the Desert Storm.
If you believe the above is not correct, let's see the evidence that shows otherwise.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
The USA is held to a standard it can never possibly achieve.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, the USA is held to a standard expected out of any other civilized nation. No one expects anything more out of you.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
However, they remain suspiciously silent for each achievement. It is the way of the beast. Every good deed goes unnoticed while every mistake is magnified and publicized ad nauseum.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe they stay silent, I don't know? But I am positive they would not keep these achievements a secret. So maybe you will now go out and find this information, and show us what good deeds the United States has done in the Middle East region? What have they done in the Middle East that made the lives of the people there better? What have you done there that did not revolve around the US economic interests but were done purely for humanitarian reasons? What have you done in the Middle East region to help people to educate themselves, to help them to gain a meaningful purpose in life.
I'm curious to hear your opinion of the good deeds the United States did to the people living in the Middle East when you were busy climbing and clawing your way to the mountain top. Why don't we have a list of those good deeds as part of this thread, right here and right now?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
See, all you are doing is ripping apart people's comments. That is all fine and good. I can do that with the same precision if you want.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please, go ahead. Let's get some fucking facts into this discussion. How do YOU justify murdering of other people? What evidence do YOU have that warrants the murder of other people? Let's see some facts from your side of the argument because, frankly, the emotion filled propaganda that fills this thread reeks like a pile of bullshit from a mile away. All I've seen so far is the argument of "we're scared, therefore we are allowed to indiscriminately kill other people".
/Naz
<B>What should be done?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What should be done is to use the formal procedure of the United Nations to reinstate weapons inspectors to Iraq. This is the position of the United Nations, it is the position of the European Union. United States has not up to this date provided any evidence that would support any kind of military action against Iraq.
There is so far absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein is currently a threat to any other nation. If you believe such evidence exists, let's see it.
I don't believe such evidence can be gathered without weapon's inspectors going back to Iraq. Therefore, any military action against Iraq before we have fully exhausted every other option is not acceptable. It is not acceptable, because it risks the lives of thousands of innocent people.
"Let's keep in mind that the reason why inspectors are out of Iraq isn't because Iraq kicked them out, but rather they were ordered out by the United States after the United States manipulated the inspection process to create a confrontation that led to Operation Desert Fox and then used intelligence information gathered by inspectors to target Iraqi government sites, including the security of Saddam Hussein. So it's going to take awhile to convince Iraqis that they should once again trust inspectors. But frankly, they have no choice. " -- Scott Ritter
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
What happens if Hussein exercises his nuclear weapons (if he has them) </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Reports from IISS, US Defense Department, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and CSIS all indicate that he does not have a nuclear weapon. If you have evidence to show otherwise, let's see it.
Furthermore, Saddam Hussein has never used weapons of mass destruction against the US. He certainly had a chance to do so, during the Desert Storm, but he did not. If you believe his pattern of behavior has changed during the last 10 years, let's see the evidence that supports this claim.
Saddam Hussein is no doubt a murderer, a dictator, and a human being of the most unpleasant kind. However, he is not a 'psycho terrorist', he does not believe he is a martyr. Saddam Hussein is very much of a man who wants to stay in power, at all cost, but does not have a death wish. He does not believe in the 40 virgins waiting for him in the paradise.
This is most likely the reason he did not use weapons of mass destruction against the US during the Desert Storm.
If you believe the above is not correct, let's see the evidence that shows otherwise.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
The USA is held to a standard it can never possibly achieve.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, the USA is held to a standard expected out of any other civilized nation. No one expects anything more out of you.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
However, they remain suspiciously silent for each achievement. It is the way of the beast. Every good deed goes unnoticed while every mistake is magnified and publicized ad nauseum.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe they stay silent, I don't know? But I am positive they would not keep these achievements a secret. So maybe you will now go out and find this information, and show us what good deeds the United States has done in the Middle East region? What have they done in the Middle East that made the lives of the people there better? What have you done there that did not revolve around the US economic interests but were done purely for humanitarian reasons? What have you done in the Middle East region to help people to educate themselves, to help them to gain a meaningful purpose in life.
I'm curious to hear your opinion of the good deeds the United States did to the people living in the Middle East when you were busy climbing and clawing your way to the mountain top. Why don't we have a list of those good deeds as part of this thread, right here and right now?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
See, all you are doing is ripping apart people's comments. That is all fine and good. I can do that with the same precision if you want.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please, go ahead. Let's get some fucking facts into this discussion. How do YOU justify murdering of other people? What evidence do YOU have that warrants the murder of other people? Let's see some facts from your side of the argument because, frankly, the emotion filled propaganda that fills this thread reeks like a pile of bullshit from a mile away. All I've seen so far is the argument of "we're scared, therefore we are allowed to indiscriminately kill other people".
/Naz
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
<B>
Then again, I may just use that bottomless hole you call a military budget to do some GOOD in the world instead of using as a corporate playground there to be sucked dry. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Btw, as of 2000, according to the CIA factbook, the US spent 3.2% of their GDP on the military. Not exactly a 'bottomless hole'. Many European countries fall in the 2-2.5% range, with Greece as high as 4.9%. No doubt the US spends more actual money on defense than any other country, but this reflects more on the overall strength of the US economy, not on its spending priorities.
Your suggestion that the US spend its money to "do some GOOD" reflects the jealousy that I keep pointing out among you people that constantly criticize the US. My impression is that you feel it was simply luck that America became so wealthy and powerful. What you do not understand is that America has become rich and powerful by adhering, generally, to a set of values that have allowed for its economic success. Our country was established as one for individuals, where fortunes are determined by a free market and not central planners. Anything else is a recipe for disaster. This has been demonstrated time and time again by all the poor countries out there with their failed economic experiments who you would have us 'do some good' for. In fact America could 'do some good' by merely existing so that other countries could model their own economies after ours. But if you want a more practical example of America 'doing some good', it should just be repeated again that we are the most generous country in the world when it comes to foreign aid. Perhaps we should get rid of that 'bottomless hole' as well?
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
<B>
Then again, I may just use that bottomless hole you call a military budget to do some GOOD in the world instead of using as a corporate playground there to be sucked dry. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Btw, as of 2000, according to the CIA factbook, the US spent 3.2% of their GDP on the military. Not exactly a 'bottomless hole'. Many European countries fall in the 2-2.5% range, with Greece as high as 4.9%. No doubt the US spends more actual money on defense than any other country, but this reflects more on the overall strength of the US economy, not on its spending priorities.
Your suggestion that the US spend its money to "do some GOOD" reflects the jealousy that I keep pointing out among you people that constantly criticize the US. My impression is that you feel it was simply luck that America became so wealthy and powerful. What you do not understand is that America has become rich and powerful by adhering, generally, to a set of values that have allowed for its economic success. Our country was established as one for individuals, where fortunes are determined by a free market and not central planners. Anything else is a recipe for disaster. This has been demonstrated time and time again by all the poor countries out there with their failed economic experiments who you would have us 'do some good' for. In fact America could 'do some good' by merely existing so that other countries could model their own economies after ours. But if you want a more practical example of America 'doing some good', it should just be repeated again that we are the most generous country in the world when it comes to foreign aid. Perhaps we should get rid of that 'bottomless hole' as well?
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Dude, I'm from a country with 15 million citizens, and we put you to shame in foreign aid. Maybe you spend a lot literally, but when seen as a percentage of your GDP or per capita, it's nothing.
Also, I never told you to just hand your money to other countries. There are more ways to spend it wisely than on big spiffy tanks and bombs, you kow, and they don't all involve giving it to African countries which are a sinkhole anyway.
Lastly, yes, I do believe you are very lucky to have no real neighbors. If, for example, you'd bordered on Germany in 1940 you would all have been speaking German. Yes, you have a great economy, free market system and such, but that's largely because you have a lot of resources and no countries right next to you who kicked your ass over them the past 200 years. That doesn't automatically mean I'm 'jealous' like you seem to think, however, I would prefer to live in northern Europe over America anytime. All in all, a little less boasting and hypocritical foreign policy would get you a long way to being much more liked in the rest of the world.
Also, I never told you to just hand your money to other countries. There are more ways to spend it wisely than on big spiffy tanks and bombs, you kow, and they don't all involve giving it to African countries which are a sinkhole anyway.
Lastly, yes, I do believe you are very lucky to have no real neighbors. If, for example, you'd bordered on Germany in 1940 you would all have been speaking German. Yes, you have a great economy, free market system and such, but that's largely because you have a lot of resources and no countries right next to you who kicked your ass over them the past 200 years. That doesn't automatically mean I'm 'jealous' like you seem to think, however, I would prefer to live in northern Europe over America anytime. All in all, a little less boasting and hypocritical foreign policy would get you a long way to being much more liked in the rest of the world.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>Cherzra, you haven't addressed the situation that scares most americans. Hussein wants weapons of mass destruction. I don't think that you disagree. Americans fear that he will use them against us, either on his own, or through a terrorist organization such as al qaeda. You are suggesting that we do nothing to alleviate this fear. Do you feel that there is nothing for america to worry about, or do you feel that america should simply not act? I understand that you don't believe Hussein was linked in any way with 9/11, and I agree its arguable whether or not he was. For arguments sake, lets assume that he wasn't.
Corth
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Corth,
That's the crux. Being AFRAID of someone isn't justification for killing them.
More than just a fear of some unpleasant outcome is required.
It's one thing to kill them "just in case" and another to go out there and kill them because they've promised to kill you.
Now, with Saddam, I'm pretty sure he's said he will kill the USA (or something similar) if he can.
I think that is sufficient to declare war. But the reasons you have stated (fear of nuclear/biological attack) are not.
Declare war on people who have declared war on you. Defend yourself against credible threats. But fear alone can justify too much.
Regards,
Jorus
<B>Cherzra, you haven't addressed the situation that scares most americans. Hussein wants weapons of mass destruction. I don't think that you disagree. Americans fear that he will use them against us, either on his own, or through a terrorist organization such as al qaeda. You are suggesting that we do nothing to alleviate this fear. Do you feel that there is nothing for america to worry about, or do you feel that america should simply not act? I understand that you don't believe Hussein was linked in any way with 9/11, and I agree its arguable whether or not he was. For arguments sake, lets assume that he wasn't.
Corth
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Corth,
That's the crux. Being AFRAID of someone isn't justification for killing them.
More than just a fear of some unpleasant outcome is required.
It's one thing to kill them "just in case" and another to go out there and kill them because they've promised to kill you.
Now, with Saddam, I'm pretty sure he's said he will kill the USA (or something similar) if he can.
I think that is sufficient to declare war. But the reasons you have stated (fear of nuclear/biological attack) are not.
Declare war on people who have declared war on you. Defend yourself against credible threats. But fear alone can justify too much.
Regards,
Jorus
Jorus:
I understand your point. But when a fear of the magnitude we're talking about is justified by experience, credible evidence. and common sense, then I submit that a pre-emptive strike is the appropriate response. The fear isn't that Hussein won't like us. The fear is that he will kill millions of people. Apparently the rest of the world is ready to go along with a strike against iraq assuming he does not allow the inspectors back. They must also be scared that he has WoMD and is willing to use them.
Corth
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
I understand your point. But when a fear of the magnitude we're talking about is justified by experience, credible evidence. and common sense, then I submit that a pre-emptive strike is the appropriate response. The fear isn't that Hussein won't like us. The fear is that he will kill millions of people. Apparently the rest of the world is ready to go along with a strike against iraq assuming he does not allow the inspectors back. They must also be scared that he has WoMD and is willing to use them.
Corth
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Rausrh:
<B>
Its not the issue of just another country developing nuclear weapons. The issue is a country that invades other countries,
</B>
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But that issue was dealth with. Are you now saying that you are allowed to attack Iraq again over the same reason? Has Iraq invaded another country but we were just not told about it? Are you going to go and attack all other countries in the region that have in the past shown a behaviour of invading other countries as well? Are you going to attack Israel too?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
encourages terrorists
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you are planning on attacking Saudi-Arabia too, then? Pakistan, the home of Taleban?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
uses chemical weapons on it's own citizens,
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That you gave to him with the full expectation that he is going to use them. I don't see anyone in YOUR country trying to get the criminals who committed these acts in front of justice. In fact they're living fat lives on the money they made on these deaths.
Oh, but that doesn't matter, because you are not basing your opinion on fact, you are just spouting meaningless propaganda without a single meaningful thought of your own.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
and diverting aid from it's citizens and watching them starve
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yet you don't give a flying fuck about a dictator in the Africa doing exactly the same. Don't you find it at least a little bit odd that you single out countries like this? You don't think that the fact that this one dictator happens to be in the Middle East sitting on top of source of natural richnesses bears any significance to the equation? And he just happens to be one of many dictators in the region, but coincidentally the only one that is giving the US a finger?
You do not seem to be bothered by the fact that there are dictators running many of these countries, and that they do violate human rights on a daily basis. No, because the rest of the dictators smile and bow to your general direction. So who gives a fuck, right?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
developing nuclear weapons.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ahh, so you're going after Pakistan too. My my, you're getting busy.
Double standards are bad, mmmkay?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Its about a willingness to use nuclear weapons in an offensive capability.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then show the evidence of that willingness. Right now it would be alot easier to show the willingness of Pakistan using nukes than it would be to show Iraq using them (who doesn't even have them).
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
What makes us better is we are putting our case to the world and asking for their support.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And we are asking you to show the evidence. So please stop the bullshit propaganda, and give the real evidence that justifies the killing of other people.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
What makes us better is we are trying to help people and save lives.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This certainly is not supported by your past behavior. What reason do we have to believe that this is the case now? United States making military moves in the Middle East for humanitarian reasons? Excuse me if I find that a tad difficult to swallow.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
this is about self protection
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This does not exempt you from showing the evidence that support the said "self protection". Where is the evidence? It is all talk, but as soon as anyone asks for hard facts, they're hit with a barrage of propaganda and speeches filled with emotion and devoid of facts.
So you say you need to protect yourselves? Show us why are so threatened by Iraq that you need to protect yourself even at a cost of human life. Or shut the fuck up.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
I still have yet to hear anything constructive out of Nazruth.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on YOU and YOUR government to show that the threat you claim even exists. The burden of proof is for your government to show that no other possibility than a military action risking the lives of thousands is required.
It is YOU who need to provide this evidence. If you want something constructive from me, show that there is a real threat.
I hope you can come up with something more than these pathetic excuses to kill other people. I hope you have some solid facts on your side before you go and kill others.
/Naz
<B>
Its not the issue of just another country developing nuclear weapons. The issue is a country that invades other countries,
</B>
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But that issue was dealth with. Are you now saying that you are allowed to attack Iraq again over the same reason? Has Iraq invaded another country but we were just not told about it? Are you going to go and attack all other countries in the region that have in the past shown a behaviour of invading other countries as well? Are you going to attack Israel too?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
encourages terrorists
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you are planning on attacking Saudi-Arabia too, then? Pakistan, the home of Taleban?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
uses chemical weapons on it's own citizens,
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That you gave to him with the full expectation that he is going to use them. I don't see anyone in YOUR country trying to get the criminals who committed these acts in front of justice. In fact they're living fat lives on the money they made on these deaths.
Oh, but that doesn't matter, because you are not basing your opinion on fact, you are just spouting meaningless propaganda without a single meaningful thought of your own.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
and diverting aid from it's citizens and watching them starve
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yet you don't give a flying fuck about a dictator in the Africa doing exactly the same. Don't you find it at least a little bit odd that you single out countries like this? You don't think that the fact that this one dictator happens to be in the Middle East sitting on top of source of natural richnesses bears any significance to the equation? And he just happens to be one of many dictators in the region, but coincidentally the only one that is giving the US a finger?
You do not seem to be bothered by the fact that there are dictators running many of these countries, and that they do violate human rights on a daily basis. No, because the rest of the dictators smile and bow to your general direction. So who gives a fuck, right?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
developing nuclear weapons.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ahh, so you're going after Pakistan too. My my, you're getting busy.
Double standards are bad, mmmkay?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Its about a willingness to use nuclear weapons in an offensive capability.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then show the evidence of that willingness. Right now it would be alot easier to show the willingness of Pakistan using nukes than it would be to show Iraq using them (who doesn't even have them).
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
What makes us better is we are putting our case to the world and asking for their support.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And we are asking you to show the evidence. So please stop the bullshit propaganda, and give the real evidence that justifies the killing of other people.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
What makes us better is we are trying to help people and save lives.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This certainly is not supported by your past behavior. What reason do we have to believe that this is the case now? United States making military moves in the Middle East for humanitarian reasons? Excuse me if I find that a tad difficult to swallow.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
this is about self protection
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This does not exempt you from showing the evidence that support the said "self protection". Where is the evidence? It is all talk, but as soon as anyone asks for hard facts, they're hit with a barrage of propaganda and speeches filled with emotion and devoid of facts.
So you say you need to protect yourselves? Show us why are so threatened by Iraq that you need to protect yourself even at a cost of human life. Or shut the fuck up.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
I still have yet to hear anything constructive out of Nazruth.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on YOU and YOUR government to show that the threat you claim even exists. The burden of proof is for your government to show that no other possibility than a military action risking the lives of thousands is required.
It is YOU who need to provide this evidence. If you want something constructive from me, show that there is a real threat.
I hope you can come up with something more than these pathetic excuses to kill other people. I hope you have some solid facts on your side before you go and kill others.
/Naz
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nazruth:
Please, go ahead. Let's get some fucking facts into this discussion. How do [b]YOU justify murdering of other people?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't justify it. If it is in the confines of war, then people will die. That is a fact. A gruesome one. An unfortunate one. Yet a fact nonetheless. I don't approve of random killing of civilians.
I don't have any evidence that warrants the murdering of other people. I am a citizen of my country and through voting I have been a part in electing officials I feel will act in my best interest and the best interests of my nation. They don't come to my house and present me with a bunch of facts and evidence and ask for my permission.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Let's see some facts from your side of the argument because, frankly, the emotion filled propaganda that fills this thread reeks like a pile of bullshit from a mile away. All I've seen so far is the argument of "we're scared, therefore we are allowed to indiscriminately kill other people".
/Naz[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So your not being emotional?
Show facts? Facts of what? I don't support the indiscriminate murder of innocent people. I have never and will never.
I support my country engaging in self-defense even in the form of pre-emptive strikes. The US has done some pretty shady things in the past. No doubt. I don't agree with everything my country does. However, I will say that Hussein attempted to kill a former president of the USA and that alone is provocation for deposing him. There has been a great many mistakes my country has made, however it seems you use such mistakes as blinders that cloud your vision of the real issue at hand.
Hussein has attacked neighboring countries, tortured and murdered his own people and attempted to assassinate a former US President as well as some foreign official whose name escapes me. To think that profile has changed in recent years to that of a man who won't take advatange of every opportunity he has to hurt those he sees as his enemies is again foolish.
I don't want war. I don't want people to die, especially my fellow countrymen. I think right now what happens is up to Hussein.
Dornax
Jurdex
------------------
The Raven of Wisdom
Est Sularus Oth Mithas
"My Honor is My Life"
Please, go ahead. Let's get some fucking facts into this discussion. How do [b]YOU justify murdering of other people?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't justify it. If it is in the confines of war, then people will die. That is a fact. A gruesome one. An unfortunate one. Yet a fact nonetheless. I don't approve of random killing of civilians.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">What evidence do YOU have that warrants the murder of other people?</font>
I don't have any evidence that warrants the murdering of other people. I am a citizen of my country and through voting I have been a part in electing officials I feel will act in my best interest and the best interests of my nation. They don't come to my house and present me with a bunch of facts and evidence and ask for my permission.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Let's see some facts from your side of the argument because, frankly, the emotion filled propaganda that fills this thread reeks like a pile of bullshit from a mile away. All I've seen so far is the argument of "we're scared, therefore we are allowed to indiscriminately kill other people".
/Naz[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So your not being emotional?
Show facts? Facts of what? I don't support the indiscriminate murder of innocent people. I have never and will never.
I support my country engaging in self-defense even in the form of pre-emptive strikes. The US has done some pretty shady things in the past. No doubt. I don't agree with everything my country does. However, I will say that Hussein attempted to kill a former president of the USA and that alone is provocation for deposing him. There has been a great many mistakes my country has made, however it seems you use such mistakes as blinders that cloud your vision of the real issue at hand.
Hussein has attacked neighboring countries, tortured and murdered his own people and attempted to assassinate a former US President as well as some foreign official whose name escapes me. To think that profile has changed in recent years to that of a man who won't take advatange of every opportunity he has to hurt those he sees as his enemies is again foolish.
I don't want war. I don't want people to die, especially my fellow countrymen. I think right now what happens is up to Hussein.
Dornax
Jurdex
------------------
The Raven of Wisdom
Est Sularus Oth Mithas
"My Honor is My Life"
I will be aamzed if Hussein allows weapon inspectors back in without massivly restricting their access to weapons and other suspected facilities. Bush made a great political move here, asking the UN to get inspectors back in Iraq. He also asked congress to vote to get approval for action in Iraq. He basically put a vice to the democrats balls here by doing what they asked and calling them on it.. since they don't want to take a vote before the mid-term elections because they'd vote against defending the country, and lose seats in the election.
But anyway.. it comes down to this. If a country has both
A) The malicious intent to harm us
B) The means with which to harm us
then they constitute a threat and should be dealt with. Plenty of countries have just one of those, but Iraq is the one with both in flashing red highlights.
But anyway.. it comes down to this. If a country has both
A) The malicious intent to harm us
B) The means with which to harm us
then they constitute a threat and should be dealt with. Plenty of countries have just one of those, but Iraq is the one with both in flashing red highlights.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
How do you justify a country going to war against another? Do you think a country attacking another requires some sort of reason to do it, some sort of evidence that the military action is justified?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
And you don't believe that the government and the country representing you needs to present any kind of evidence in order to attack another country?
That Iraq is a credible threat to your country.
To quote your own country man, an ex-weapons inspector:
<I>
What I'm very certain of is that the Bush administration has not provided any evidence to substantiate its allegations that Saddam Hussein's regime is currently pursuing weapons of mass destruction programs or is in actual possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Based upon my experience as a weapons inspector from 1991 to 1998, while we had serious concerns about unaccounted aspects of Iraq's weapons program, we did ascertain a 90 [percent] to 95 percent level of disarmament that included all of the production equipment and means of production used by Iraq to produce these weapons.
So if Iraq has weapons today, like President Bush says, clearly they would have had to reconstitute these capabilities since December 1998. And this is something that the Bush administration needs to make a better case for, especially before we talk about going to war.
</I>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>I support my country engaging in self-defense even in the form of pre-emptive strikes.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You need to show the need for said self defense exists first.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
However, I will say that Hussein attempted to kill a former president of the USA and that alone is provocation for deposing him.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then why did you not go after him in 1994?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
There has been a great many mistakes my country has made, however it seems you use such mistakes as blinders that cloud your vision of the real issue at hand.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then please enlighten me, what is the "real" issue at hand?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Hussein has attacked neighboring countries,
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And was punished for it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
To think that profile has changed in recent years to that of a man who won't take advatange of every opportunity he has to hurt those he sees as his enemies is again foolish.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, you're singling out. If you really do believe your country represents the values you claim, that you are attacking Iraq for humanitarian reasons, that Saddam uses whatever he can get his hands on to hurt you (which he hasn't done in previous conflicts) then you need to provide some kind of evidence to support this and you (and everyone else) must use that same standard for all such cases.
So far you are not doing that.
/Naz
[This message has been edited by Nazruth (edited 09-13-2002).]
Originally posted by Nazruth:
How do YOU justify murdering of other people?
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<B>
I don't justify it. If it is in the confines of war, then people will die.
</B>
How do you justify a country going to war against another? Do you think a country attacking another requires some sort of reason to do it, some sort of evidence that the military action is justified?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
What evidence do YOU have that warrants the murder of other people?
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<B>
I don't have any evidence that warrants the murdering of other people. I am a citizen of my country and through voting I have been a part in electing officials I feel will act in my best interest and the best interests of my nation.
</B>
And you don't believe that the government and the country representing you needs to present any kind of evidence in order to attack another country?
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Show facts? Facts of what?</font>
That Iraq is a credible threat to your country.
To quote your own country man, an ex-weapons inspector:
<I>
What I'm very certain of is that the Bush administration has not provided any evidence to substantiate its allegations that Saddam Hussein's regime is currently pursuing weapons of mass destruction programs or is in actual possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Based upon my experience as a weapons inspector from 1991 to 1998, while we had serious concerns about unaccounted aspects of Iraq's weapons program, we did ascertain a 90 [percent] to 95 percent level of disarmament that included all of the production equipment and means of production used by Iraq to produce these weapons.
So if Iraq has weapons today, like President Bush says, clearly they would have had to reconstitute these capabilities since December 1998. And this is something that the Bush administration needs to make a better case for, especially before we talk about going to war.
</I>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>I support my country engaging in self-defense even in the form of pre-emptive strikes.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You need to show the need for said self defense exists first.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
However, I will say that Hussein attempted to kill a former president of the USA and that alone is provocation for deposing him.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then why did you not go after him in 1994?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
There has been a great many mistakes my country has made, however it seems you use such mistakes as blinders that cloud your vision of the real issue at hand.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then please enlighten me, what is the "real" issue at hand?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Hussein has attacked neighboring countries,
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And was punished for it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
To think that profile has changed in recent years to that of a man who won't take advatange of every opportunity he has to hurt those he sees as his enemies is again foolish.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, you're singling out. If you really do believe your country represents the values you claim, that you are attacking Iraq for humanitarian reasons, that Saddam uses whatever he can get his hands on to hurt you (which he hasn't done in previous conflicts) then you need to provide some kind of evidence to support this and you (and everyone else) must use that same standard for all such cases.
So far you are not doing that.
/Naz
[This message has been edited by Nazruth (edited 09-13-2002).]
I'm still curious Nazruth. You have said in this thread you are in favor of inspectors going back into Iraq rather than the US invading. Bush has given Hussein this option. If he refuses, do you now support military action? Or would a few dozen more UN resolutions be sufficient?
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
Bush has given Hussein this option.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all, it is not an option for Mr. Bush to give. It is an option for the United Nations to give. If the United Nations agrees that force is required to enforce their resolutions then yes, I do still have faith in this organization that you describe as an "amazing colossal joke" to make a just decision on the matter.
I don't, however, trust the colossal moron you have for a president to make any kind of a decision that would even hint of justice.
Also I would expect the United States to show some effort in recreating the credibility of the weapon inspector programme, which they (again) destroyed by abusing the powers given to them. After what happened, it seems somewhat incredible that an unconditional return of the inspectors is required while nothing is done to correct the mistrust caused by the US self-serving politics.
/Naz
[This message has been edited by Nazruth (edited 09-13-2002).]
Bush has given Hussein this option.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all, it is not an option for Mr. Bush to give. It is an option for the United Nations to give. If the United Nations agrees that force is required to enforce their resolutions then yes, I do still have faith in this organization that you describe as an "amazing colossal joke" to make a just decision on the matter.
I don't, however, trust the colossal moron you have for a president to make any kind of a decision that would even hint of justice.
Also I would expect the United States to show some effort in recreating the credibility of the weapon inspector programme, which they (again) destroyed by abusing the powers given to them. After what happened, it seems somewhat incredible that an unconditional return of the inspectors is required while nothing is done to correct the mistrust caused by the US self-serving politics.
/Naz
[This message has been edited by Nazruth (edited 09-13-2002).]
All of your america-hating self-righteous preaching means NOTHING. When it comes down to it,
We CAN
We WILL
go over there, and beat the living shit out of anyone who stands in our way. If the world really whines the way they sound like on here, then good. We can march right on over to anyone else who wants to run their mouth the way Hussein has.
As far as the UN decision making . . . HA! It was founded at a time when the world had many super powers. Wanna count how many are left?
Use both hands now . . . thats right . . . 1. Numero Uno. Top Banana. Big Dog on Campus. UFSA. And like it, hate it, love it, loathe it, we don't care. We have the power to do what we want in this world, and THAT is what you all hate. The UN doesn't have the power to stop America from taking action, no matter how much any third world dictator says otherwise.
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
We CAN
We WILL
go over there, and beat the living shit out of anyone who stands in our way. If the world really whines the way they sound like on here, then good. We can march right on over to anyone else who wants to run their mouth the way Hussein has.
As far as the UN decision making . . . HA! It was founded at a time when the world had many super powers. Wanna count how many are left?
Use both hands now . . . thats right . . . 1. Numero Uno. Top Banana. Big Dog on Campus. UFSA. And like it, hate it, love it, loathe it, we don't care. We have the power to do what we want in this world, and THAT is what you all hate. The UN doesn't have the power to stop America from taking action, no matter how much any third world dictator says otherwise.
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Daz:
<B>All of your america-hating self-righteous preaching means NOTHING. When it comes down to it,
We CAN
We WILL
go over there, and beat the living shit out of anyone who stands in our way. If the world really whines the way they sound like on here, then good. We can march right on over to anyone else who wants to run their mouth the way Hussein has.
As far as the UN decision making . . . HA! It was founded at a time when the world had many super powers. Wanna count how many are left?
Use both hands now . . . thats right . . . 1. Numero Uno. Top Banana. Big Dog on Campus. UFSA. And like it, hate it, love it, loathe it, we don't care. We have the power to do what we want in this world, and THAT is what you all hate. The UN doesn't have the power to stop America from taking action, no matter how much any third world dictator says otherwise.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That attitude Daz - the belief that the United States has the right to do as they please because they have military might, will be the downfall of the United States if it is prevalent.
Everywhere in this world there are ecologies where one entity has a much greater power than another. I've talked with a lot of people recently, and I draw a parallel between the US-world situation, and a flock of starlings-crow situation.
The world is made up of a lot of 'starling' level nations. Some of them are bigger, some are smaller. The United States is the crow - bigger than any of the starlings and delights in preying upon said smaller birds. It's bigger than they are, its might gives it the right.
Except that when the flock of starlings get fed up with the crow, they band together and kill it. They rip it apart, tear out its eyes, and let the ants and other vermin dine on the carcass.
If, in the United States, the prevalent attitude is "Let's kick ass because we have the power, you don't like it get in line we'll shoot you next", then the United States will fall. It will fall hard, and the world will suffer for the fall.
Please reconsider your opinion that the U.S. can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to whoever it wants. You discredit what makes a nation founded upon freedoms stands for, and that saddens me.
Sylvos Winteraven
Displaced American
<B>All of your america-hating self-righteous preaching means NOTHING. When it comes down to it,
We CAN
We WILL
go over there, and beat the living shit out of anyone who stands in our way. If the world really whines the way they sound like on here, then good. We can march right on over to anyone else who wants to run their mouth the way Hussein has.
As far as the UN decision making . . . HA! It was founded at a time when the world had many super powers. Wanna count how many are left?
Use both hands now . . . thats right . . . 1. Numero Uno. Top Banana. Big Dog on Campus. UFSA. And like it, hate it, love it, loathe it, we don't care. We have the power to do what we want in this world, and THAT is what you all hate. The UN doesn't have the power to stop America from taking action, no matter how much any third world dictator says otherwise.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That attitude Daz - the belief that the United States has the right to do as they please because they have military might, will be the downfall of the United States if it is prevalent.
Everywhere in this world there are ecologies where one entity has a much greater power than another. I've talked with a lot of people recently, and I draw a parallel between the US-world situation, and a flock of starlings-crow situation.
The world is made up of a lot of 'starling' level nations. Some of them are bigger, some are smaller. The United States is the crow - bigger than any of the starlings and delights in preying upon said smaller birds. It's bigger than they are, its might gives it the right.
Except that when the flock of starlings get fed up with the crow, they band together and kill it. They rip it apart, tear out its eyes, and let the ants and other vermin dine on the carcass.
If, in the United States, the prevalent attitude is "Let's kick ass because we have the power, you don't like it get in line we'll shoot you next", then the United States will fall. It will fall hard, and the world will suffer for the fall.
Please reconsider your opinion that the U.S. can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to whoever it wants. You discredit what makes a nation founded upon freedoms stands for, and that saddens me.
Sylvos Winteraven
Displaced American
You forget one thing. the most dangerous predator in the world exists not only in the United States, but in all countries that are not dictatorships.
They are called politicians.
And they will prevent that from happening, because someone will ALWAYS see money in siding with the wealthy. That, by the way, is us.
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
They are called politicians.
And they will prevent that from happening, because someone will ALWAYS see money in siding with the wealthy. That, by the way, is us.
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
-
Croban/Owom
- Sojourner
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2002 6:01 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
- Contact:
To give democracy a chance in Afghanistan, the US had to give (bribe) Pakistan with a billion dollars.
Europe got together and negotiated medicinal costs inside their countries. Thus the medical companies charge the US more to subsidize Europes lower costs.
Bush is an oil man, has oil ties, and is not interested in changing the way things are. We are capable of cutting down on oil use easily, and immediately. Instead of spending billions on other countries, we should spend it on making oil worthless. Replace it. Vote for the leaders who are doing that.
There is always one idiot in every black/white argument, and it is never you.
Accept the fact that America is not all good, but better then the alternative leader nations. We, as a nation, are so publicly displayed even our own people get to point out flaws. No sarcasm there, this is a great country we have, but rich people are making decisions for rich people, and are supported by the ignorance of the masses.
This is a good topic to educate the small percentage of people capable of rising above the masses level of comprehension.
BTW, yes I do feel the same bubbling need to waste the bad guys, but it really will not solve the problem. Spending the money and resources in the right directions will.
------------------
- Owom Spiritbear -
Europe got together and negotiated medicinal costs inside their countries. Thus the medical companies charge the US more to subsidize Europes lower costs.
Bush is an oil man, has oil ties, and is not interested in changing the way things are. We are capable of cutting down on oil use easily, and immediately. Instead of spending billions on other countries, we should spend it on making oil worthless. Replace it. Vote for the leaders who are doing that.
There is always one idiot in every black/white argument, and it is never you.
Accept the fact that America is not all good, but better then the alternative leader nations. We, as a nation, are so publicly displayed even our own people get to point out flaws. No sarcasm there, this is a great country we have, but rich people are making decisions for rich people, and are supported by the ignorance of the masses.
This is a good topic to educate the small percentage of people capable of rising above the masses level of comprehension.
BTW, yes I do feel the same bubbling need to waste the bad guys, but it really will not solve the problem. Spending the money and resources in the right directions will.
------------------
- Owom Spiritbear -
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Daz:
<B>I actually think I may enlist, so that I can go first hand over there with a gun and 'express myself.'
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please do. A healthy doze of reality would do you some good.
/Naz
<B>I actually think I may enlist, so that I can go first hand over there with a gun and 'express myself.'
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please do. A healthy doze of reality would do you some good.
/Naz
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Daz:
<B>When it comes down to it,
We CAN
We WILL
go over there, and beat the living shit out of anyone who stands in our way. We can march right on over to anyone else who wants to run their mouth the way Hussein has.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Be my guest, you will get your asses kicked like you wouldn't believe. Spiffy airplanes and bombs don't win wars, ground troops do. And ground troops need little more than Kalashnikovs. Vietnam anyone? Mogadishu? Hell even the Serbs would have kicked your ass, which is why you were too afraid to send ground troops to Yugoslavia. Your government seems to be a little hesitant to actually deploy them - perhaps they are aware that they aren't so super duper like you think. Except of course when you can deliver a crushing defeat to the crack 18-man Grenada military, reasserting your world supremacy. Hell, even the Germans in WW2 were outnumbered 20 to one and they kicked your asses hard on multiple occasions. If the Russians hadn't been pounding on them for almost half a decade, they would have crushed you like a nut. You can think you're all that sitting across that big lake of water, but you couldn't even occupy Belgium if you tried. So go on and brag about how you CAN and WILL and are the BEST and have to take NOTHING from the whole world - keep living in a dream world. You're the best, and everyone else needs to hear and know it! Clap!
[This message has been edited by cherzra (edited 09-14-2002).]
<B>When it comes down to it,
We CAN
We WILL
go over there, and beat the living shit out of anyone who stands in our way. We can march right on over to anyone else who wants to run their mouth the way Hussein has.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Be my guest, you will get your asses kicked like you wouldn't believe. Spiffy airplanes and bombs don't win wars, ground troops do. And ground troops need little more than Kalashnikovs. Vietnam anyone? Mogadishu? Hell even the Serbs would have kicked your ass, which is why you were too afraid to send ground troops to Yugoslavia. Your government seems to be a little hesitant to actually deploy them - perhaps they are aware that they aren't so super duper like you think. Except of course when you can deliver a crushing defeat to the crack 18-man Grenada military, reasserting your world supremacy. Hell, even the Germans in WW2 were outnumbered 20 to one and they kicked your asses hard on multiple occasions. If the Russians hadn't been pounding on them for almost half a decade, they would have crushed you like a nut. You can think you're all that sitting across that big lake of water, but you couldn't even occupy Belgium if you tried. So go on and brag about how you CAN and WILL and are the BEST and have to take NOTHING from the whole world - keep living in a dream world. You're the best, and everyone else needs to hear and know it! Clap!
[This message has been edited by cherzra (edited 09-14-2002).]
Yeah, our military vehicles have absolutely nothing to do with our ability to win wars. Those shiny things in the sky are all handicapped actors in wheelchairs, not airborne destruction. Lets dig further back into the past, huh? Since the present seems to hold so little importance. Yeah, I bet the Romans kicked your ass back in the day!
I am sure that America's army would really get manhandled like you fantasize about. Not likely.
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
I am sure that America's army would really get manhandled like you fantasize about. Not likely.
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nazruth:
<B> First of all, it is not an option for Mr. Bush to give. It is an option for the United Nations to give. If the United Nations agrees that force is required to enforce their resolutions then yes, I do still have faith in this organization that you describe as an "amazing colossal joke" to make a just decision on the matter.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Snicker. When every nation of the world disbands its military and renounces its soverignity, then maybe you will be correct. The US does not have the option to make ultimatums as a matter of foreign policy? Well, under your conception there is no such thing as foreign policy because we are all citizens of one world government (albeit we do not vote for our UN representatives). I just find it very strange, since the idea of a 'nation' does not matter anymore, that just about every country in the world retains a military... even the EU countries. You would think that since a national military is useless (under your logic) that they would have all been assigned to the UN. Wouldn't that be fun. Lots of politicking in the general assembly.
"Damnit, if Canada is going to have 2 generals, we Syrians demand a general and another resolution against Israel."
"That's not fair", says the Sudanese ambassador, "not only do we have no generals, but because of severe drought most of our human slaves have died off. We demand that the UN compensate us for our loss and make one of our nationals a general too!"
"The People's republic", growls the people's ambassador, "will VETO any compensation to Sudan until they agree to share the wealth! China has absolutely NO slaves and its UNFAIR"
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
<B> First of all, it is not an option for Mr. Bush to give. It is an option for the United Nations to give. If the United Nations agrees that force is required to enforce their resolutions then yes, I do still have faith in this organization that you describe as an "amazing colossal joke" to make a just decision on the matter.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Snicker. When every nation of the world disbands its military and renounces its soverignity, then maybe you will be correct. The US does not have the option to make ultimatums as a matter of foreign policy? Well, under your conception there is no such thing as foreign policy because we are all citizens of one world government (albeit we do not vote for our UN representatives). I just find it very strange, since the idea of a 'nation' does not matter anymore, that just about every country in the world retains a military... even the EU countries. You would think that since a national military is useless (under your logic) that they would have all been assigned to the UN. Wouldn't that be fun. Lots of politicking in the general assembly.
"Damnit, if Canada is going to have 2 generals, we Syrians demand a general and another resolution against Israel."
"That's not fair", says the Sudanese ambassador, "not only do we have no generals, but because of severe drought most of our human slaves have died off. We demand that the UN compensate us for our loss and make one of our nationals a general too!"
"The People's republic", growls the people's ambassador, "will VETO any compensation to Sudan until they agree to share the wealth! China has absolutely NO slaves and its UNFAIR"
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
http://www.noapologiespress.com/presents/invasion.html
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests