US MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ Y or N?
by Kristov » Thu Mar 13, 2003 4:15 pm
Ah..Cid, you'll notice I said 'Middle East LEADERS', not the common man 
I've known many Middle East immigrants, and I've yet to meet any who were 'typical' of what we see presented in the media as the 'population of *insert country name here*'. Then again, they ARE the ones who left their home country to come to the US, so, perhaps they are more enlightened then their countrymen? Nah, I know that's not true, since many of them left due to their home country no longer being a safe place to live and raise a family, despite them being religous and quite devout Muslims.
The War on Terrorism has nothing to do with religon, anyone says otherwise is lying to themselves. Saddam is far from religous, and Iraq isn't ruled by the mullahs(sp). Bin Ladden uses religon as a tool, but he doesn't actually follow what he preachs(or he'd have blown himself up a long time for Allah). It's a tool used by the various terrorists, that's all it is. Same as the Holy Roman Church used it during the Crusades, the Holy Inquistion, etc, etc, ad nausem. America itself has done the same, during the years after the Revolution and post-Civil War when it came to dealing with the American Indians. Heathens, godless, etc, were the terms used to describe them, and it was every God loving man's DUTY to help remove the threat of the godless Redman! And it was done again during the 50s...remember McCarthy?
Religon and politics..ugly ugly bedfellows that usually end up with someone getting burned at a stake.
I've known many Middle East immigrants, and I've yet to meet any who were 'typical' of what we see presented in the media as the 'population of *insert country name here*'. Then again, they ARE the ones who left their home country to come to the US, so, perhaps they are more enlightened then their countrymen? Nah, I know that's not true, since many of them left due to their home country no longer being a safe place to live and raise a family, despite them being religous and quite devout Muslims.
The War on Terrorism has nothing to do with religon, anyone says otherwise is lying to themselves. Saddam is far from religous, and Iraq isn't ruled by the mullahs(sp). Bin Ladden uses religon as a tool, but he doesn't actually follow what he preachs(or he'd have blown himself up a long time for Allah). It's a tool used by the various terrorists, that's all it is. Same as the Holy Roman Church used it during the Crusades, the Holy Inquistion, etc, etc, ad nausem. America itself has done the same, during the years after the Revolution and post-Civil War when it came to dealing with the American Indians. Heathens, godless, etc, were the terms used to describe them, and it was every God loving man's DUTY to help remove the threat of the godless Redman! And it was done again during the 50s...remember McCarthy?
Religon and politics..ugly ugly bedfellows that usually end up with someone getting burned at a stake.
The enemy is attacking, let us prey.
- {CN}Doomfarer
by {CN}Doomfarer » Thu Mar 13, 2003 4:34 pm
On the note about giving the inspectors more time... I feel that it is kind of the wishy washy thing to do. As the UN gave them one more chance last time. The UN has pretty much declared themselves toothless IMO. Still, even with my opinion, I say give them one more one more chance. Show that we AREN'T the blood thirsty bastards that we (in general) really are 
.
.- Sidekick Floppy
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:54 pm
- Location: Belgium
by Sidekick Floppy » Thu Mar 13, 2003 4:36 pm
Originally posted by {CN}Doomfarer
... Show that we AREN'T the blood thirsty bastards that we (in general) really are
Except for the sheep, right? They get another treatment
- Rule of Wrist
by Rule of Wrist » Thu Mar 13, 2003 9:36 pm
From infoplease.com/dictionary...(random house)
Bias -n.
1. an oblique or diagonal line of direction, esp. across a woven fabric.
2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
3. Statistics.a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.
(there are other noun defs. but they are superfluous to this discussion.)
-v.
1. to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, esp. unfairly: a tearful plea designed to bias the jury.
I will leave it up to the jury here to judge whether or not our friend Anton is within the parameters of bias laid out in this definition.
Personally, I think Anton falls under definition 1. and 2., as his opinion is considerably prejudiced. Also, his statistics are purposely skewed to attempt to justify his rhetoric.
However, this being a forum of opinion and debate, that is not a damnable sin. On the other hand, passing it off as unbiased fact is inherently disingenious.
I will probably be accused of not using the right dictionary, though....
Bias -n.
1. an oblique or diagonal line of direction, esp. across a woven fabric.
2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
3. Statistics.a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.
(there are other noun defs. but they are superfluous to this discussion.)
-v.
1. to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, esp. unfairly: a tearful plea designed to bias the jury.
I will leave it up to the jury here to judge whether or not our friend Anton is within the parameters of bias laid out in this definition.
Personally, I think Anton falls under definition 1. and 2., as his opinion is considerably prejudiced. Also, his statistics are purposely skewed to attempt to justify his rhetoric.
However, this being a forum of opinion and debate, that is not a damnable sin. On the other hand, passing it off as unbiased fact is inherently disingenious.
I will probably be accused of not using the right dictionary, though....
- El Cid
by El Cid » Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:09 pm
I was hoping that Anton would give us an open minded objective stab at the problems of the day. And when he complained about having to reply to a mass of dissent on this thread from hawks and conservatives, I understood that it was not easy for him defending his liberal opinion. But still I hoped, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he could bring his liberal perspective, and that we could debate.
Anton did not do this. Instead, he proved to me what I already knew about most Liberals, that they are closed minded people, who are spoiled, and think that they can handle it just fine when the rest of the world is going to hell in a bucket.
Anton did not do this. Instead, he proved to me what I already knew about most Liberals, that they are closed minded people, who are spoiled, and think that they can handle it just fine when the rest of the world is going to hell in a bucket.
by bayotanzk » Fri Mar 14, 2003 12:51 am
486 dx 50 -32 megs ram -8 meg vid card -120 meg HD -14"vga monitor, dos 5.0
- Cpl. Bingham
by Cpl. Bingham » Fri Mar 14, 2003 1:32 am
I'm not sure if this is new or not, but I was just watching a docu on weaponry and they had a great new tank weapon.
There are now new shells in service that can track their targets with real-time GPS data. If a tank lases a target, it can feed that data into the shell. Then when the shell is fired, if it senses it's going to over or under shoot the target, it can deply manouvering vanes to steer it toward the target. ANd if the tank keeps a continous lase on the target, the shell can even track onto a moving target.
As cool as it is, I wonder if tank crews will get bored from the fact they barely have to try anymore....
There are now new shells in service that can track their targets with real-time GPS data. If a tank lases a target, it can feed that data into the shell. Then when the shell is fired, if it senses it's going to over or under shoot the target, it can deply manouvering vanes to steer it toward the target. ANd if the tank keeps a continous lase on the target, the shell can even track onto a moving target.
As cool as it is, I wonder if tank crews will get bored from the fact they barely have to try anymore....
- Ralph Wiggum
by Ralph Wiggum » Fri Mar 14, 2003 1:34 am
I don't know where, but I'm sure Anton and/or Keekano have made the "U.S. armed Saddam, etc., etc." point. I haven't checked into the report cited in this letter yet, but I don't think that a dermatologist would lie to us.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-610145,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-610145,00.html
- rust
by rust » Sun Mar 16, 2003 1:04 pm
Hey,whats that smoke on the horizon.Looks like Iraq
burning....whats that smell....sniff,sniff,sniff....smells
just like chicken....Iraq Barbecue coming soon.Where
the bad guys get roasted and toasted brought to you
by the United States and Coalition armed forces.Next
barbecue to be held in Iran or North Korea as we make
the rounds of the axis of evil.Pleas BYOB
burning....whats that smell....sniff,sniff,sniff....smells
just like chicken....Iraq Barbecue coming soon.Where
the bad guys get roasted and toasted brought to you
by the United States and Coalition armed forces.Next
barbecue to be held in Iran or North Korea as we make
the rounds of the axis of evil.Pleas BYOB
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 27 guests