US MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ Y or N?
- Allister Fiend
-
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 9:39 am
- Location: Orlando, Florida USA
by Allister Fiend » Mon Feb 24, 2003 5:45 am
[quote]Originally posted by Anton
Some brave fellow actually asked why those "3 No's" voted as they did. Well
By "3 No's", I'll assume you mean France, Germany and Belgium. It's funny you call them brave, there is no bravery in what they do, it's all about oil and contracts.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030220-11583742.htm
Actually it should properly be called the Gulf Massacre
So, it was not a massacre when they invaded a smaller country, unprovoked, (for oil) and killed innocent Kuwait civilians and for lack of a better term, Kuwait troops.
We declared war with Iraq, it was no surprise, they could have surrendered, like many did. Many more would have also surrendered if they did not have to worry about being shot from behind from their own troops. It just shows what kind of a tyrant (to put it on nice terms) saddam hussein is,.
America's finest were so trigger happy, they sparked an international incident when they carelessly blew up - broad daylight, perfect visibility - a number of British tanks).
We Americans are far from perfect (damn, that hurt), accidents happen. I'm sure they had many more friendly fire accidents throughout the history of war.
These are UN and Red Cross figures by the way. Absolutely no one who knows *anything* disputes them.
A lot of people dispute them, for one thing, it is UN numbers, and I tend to question everything that comes out of the UN. As for the Red Cross they always "way over estimate" numbers. Another reason I tend not to believe either one of those groups too much is because they are run by individuals with the same philosophy as yourself (anti-American).
The US....the country which spends more money than the sum *all other developed countries combined* on 'weapons of mass destuction'.....
So you can sit by your cozy fire without a worry in the world and criticize the very thing that allows you to live and think the way that you do.
nuclear weapons (merely to 'impress' the Russians and warn them off at the beginning of the Cold War).
This statement alone shows your ignorance.
I could go on for several more days....but that'll do for now.
Please do, It's comments like yours that make me proud to be an American.
I've been writing and researching these matters for over 25 years
And once again you can thank the good ol US of A for allowing you the time to sit around and read comfortably while millions around the world live in a society where even the least bit of criticism toward their government gets them a bullet between the eyes.
Allister Fiend
Some brave fellow actually asked why those "3 No's" voted as they did. Well
By "3 No's", I'll assume you mean France, Germany and Belgium. It's funny you call them brave, there is no bravery in what they do, it's all about oil and contracts.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030220-11583742.htm
Actually it should properly be called the Gulf Massacre
So, it was not a massacre when they invaded a smaller country, unprovoked, (for oil) and killed innocent Kuwait civilians and for lack of a better term, Kuwait troops.
We declared war with Iraq, it was no surprise, they could have surrendered, like many did. Many more would have also surrendered if they did not have to worry about being shot from behind from their own troops. It just shows what kind of a tyrant (to put it on nice terms) saddam hussein is,.
America's finest were so trigger happy, they sparked an international incident when they carelessly blew up - broad daylight, perfect visibility - a number of British tanks).
We Americans are far from perfect (damn, that hurt), accidents happen. I'm sure they had many more friendly fire accidents throughout the history of war.
These are UN and Red Cross figures by the way. Absolutely no one who knows *anything* disputes them.
A lot of people dispute them, for one thing, it is UN numbers, and I tend to question everything that comes out of the UN. As for the Red Cross they always "way over estimate" numbers. Another reason I tend not to believe either one of those groups too much is because they are run by individuals with the same philosophy as yourself (anti-American).
The US....the country which spends more money than the sum *all other developed countries combined* on 'weapons of mass destuction'.....
So you can sit by your cozy fire without a worry in the world and criticize the very thing that allows you to live and think the way that you do.
nuclear weapons (merely to 'impress' the Russians and warn them off at the beginning of the Cold War).
This statement alone shows your ignorance.
I could go on for several more days....but that'll do for now.
Please do, It's comments like yours that make me proud to be an American.
I've been writing and researching these matters for over 25 years
And once again you can thank the good ol US of A for allowing you the time to sit around and read comfortably while millions around the world live in a society where even the least bit of criticism toward their government gets them a bullet between the eyes.
Allister Fiend
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Mon Feb 24, 2003 10:11 am
Kristov and Allister, great replies. I'm glad you guys are here to answer some of this stuff, 'cause I'm just lazy.
But seriously, we know media outlets can be biased. I'm just surprised to find out that ALL the bias is in favor of G.W. Bush. So maybe we should start consulting crackpot anti-American conspiracy theory websites to expand our knowledge.
Who knows, maybe we'll find out that the only reason we're threatening Iraq with war is because Hussein is about to blow the lid off the UFO cover-up. Or maybe he's about to tell everyone who really killed JFK. Or maybe he's going to prove to us that the moon landing never happened.
With this enlightenment we should finally be on the same level as our all-knowing, superior Canadian friends.
But seriously, we know media outlets can be biased. I'm just surprised to find out that ALL the bias is in favor of G.W. Bush. So maybe we should start consulting crackpot anti-American conspiracy theory websites to expand our knowledge.
Who knows, maybe we'll find out that the only reason we're threatening Iraq with war is because Hussein is about to blow the lid off the UFO cover-up. Or maybe he's about to tell everyone who really killed JFK. Or maybe he's going to prove to us that the moon landing never happened.
With this enlightenment we should finally be on the same level as our all-knowing, superior Canadian friends.
- Keekanoo
by Keekanoo » Mon Feb 24, 2003 4:31 pm
Kristov, I am not Anton. Though his lucid, and, it seems, well researched style is enviable, it is not mine. I've gone out of my way to avoid a statistical approach here. Which I stated in the begining.
To address something Rule of Wrist said earlier (I'm discovering that if I go back a page or 2 while composing a reply, my work gets deleted--most annoying) something which I can't quote for fear of taxing the limits of the servers abacus. Something along the line....'you must be a taioist who believes that nothing is knowable, therefore don't do anything'. I'm not sure if you are searching for sophism, the philosophy holding that because any point can be argued reasonably (given the arguer is adept enough), no point of view can be valid as the distinct 'right' point of view. Therefore...no point of view is valid and we may as well give up before we start. Given that I rather admire this philosophy when it comes to dealing with women, I don't hold this to be true in other aspects of life. No, I'm not a marxist because I perceive there to be a distinct social order of 'really rich' and 'generally very poor'. I just think it's obvious when I look around me. Here or anywhere else. No I'm not a facist (or, if you'd prefer, arrogantly sitting astride some tall horse--we'd call those moose in Canada, by the by) because I speak strongly about what I think about. Doug the Unforgiven--would you respect me more if I laid down if I said, "Yes Sir, right away Sir, and I know it's a bother, but would you mind terribly if I got Christmas off again this year?" No I'm not a socialist because I think wealth should be more equally shared. I'm just a simple, average guy. Like any of you guys. No high horse here, sorry. Don't even own one. Wish I had the money that I could. I own my own mind though, just like everyone here.
Dam this not being able to go back and read posts for fear of losing what I've made is aggravating. Anyone know a way around that? Is there some simple thing I'm not doing first?
Rule of Wrist.... I'm afraid I can't offer a 'better way'. Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Monarchy--all of these various forms have a way of cannabalizing themselves eventually. Capitalism is clearly doing that at an extrodinary rate--given how greedily our consumer society rapes and pillages the earths resources (including humans) and shits out all manner of wonderful toxins.
But I escape the point. Humans are not created equally. Put a bully with a gun into a pit, and an artist with a brush, and find out which one soon enough eats all of the food. You ask an ideal question knowing our human state is far from ideal. Put 2 Ghandi's in the pit and they'd share the food equally. Does that make them socialists? Commy pigs? Or fair and reasoning human beings? Can one extrapolate and imagine the 'pit' is something the size of a country? Of course not. Why? Because, unfortunately, clearly, there are very few Ghandi's in this world. Personally, I'd have no problem sharing the food equally. But put me in there with the bully and he'd wake up with a paint-brush sticking out of both ears.
The States IS a magnificent nation. Industrious. Powerful. Motivated. Reasonably liberal. The folk (from what I've seen during my times there) are generous. Affable. Curious. Reasonably healthy. But the 'U.S.' foreign policy, or what I really see as Mega-Wealthy Corporate Interests doesn't play well with other kids in the sand-box.
To address something Rule of Wrist said earlier (I'm discovering that if I go back a page or 2 while composing a reply, my work gets deleted--most annoying) something which I can't quote for fear of taxing the limits of the servers abacus. Something along the line....'you must be a taioist who believes that nothing is knowable, therefore don't do anything'. I'm not sure if you are searching for sophism, the philosophy holding that because any point can be argued reasonably (given the arguer is adept enough), no point of view can be valid as the distinct 'right' point of view. Therefore...no point of view is valid and we may as well give up before we start. Given that I rather admire this philosophy when it comes to dealing with women, I don't hold this to be true in other aspects of life. No, I'm not a marxist because I perceive there to be a distinct social order of 'really rich' and 'generally very poor'. I just think it's obvious when I look around me. Here or anywhere else. No I'm not a facist (or, if you'd prefer, arrogantly sitting astride some tall horse--we'd call those moose in Canada, by the by) because I speak strongly about what I think about. Doug the Unforgiven--would you respect me more if I laid down if I said, "Yes Sir, right away Sir, and I know it's a bother, but would you mind terribly if I got Christmas off again this year?" No I'm not a socialist because I think wealth should be more equally shared. I'm just a simple, average guy. Like any of you guys. No high horse here, sorry. Don't even own one. Wish I had the money that I could. I own my own mind though, just like everyone here.
Dam this not being able to go back and read posts for fear of losing what I've made is aggravating. Anyone know a way around that? Is there some simple thing I'm not doing first?
Rule of Wrist.... I'm afraid I can't offer a 'better way'. Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Monarchy--all of these various forms have a way of cannabalizing themselves eventually. Capitalism is clearly doing that at an extrodinary rate--given how greedily our consumer society rapes and pillages the earths resources (including humans) and shits out all manner of wonderful toxins.
But I escape the point. Humans are not created equally. Put a bully with a gun into a pit, and an artist with a brush, and find out which one soon enough eats all of the food. You ask an ideal question knowing our human state is far from ideal. Put 2 Ghandi's in the pit and they'd share the food equally. Does that make them socialists? Commy pigs? Or fair and reasoning human beings? Can one extrapolate and imagine the 'pit' is something the size of a country? Of course not. Why? Because, unfortunately, clearly, there are very few Ghandi's in this world. Personally, I'd have no problem sharing the food equally. But put me in there with the bully and he'd wake up with a paint-brush sticking out of both ears.
The States IS a magnificent nation. Industrious. Powerful. Motivated. Reasonably liberal. The folk (from what I've seen during my times there) are generous. Affable. Curious. Reasonably healthy. But the 'U.S.' foreign policy, or what I really see as Mega-Wealthy Corporate Interests doesn't play well with other kids in the sand-box.
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Mon Feb 24, 2003 5:51 pm
Keekanoo, though I generally disagree with you on everything, I don't mind being a nice guy - even if it means that I have to read super-massive, eyesight-destroying paragraphs.
While writing your post simply hit CTRL-N to open a new window the same as the original. Use the new window to surf previous posts/threads.
While writing your post simply hit CTRL-N to open a new window the same as the original. Use the new window to surf previous posts/threads.
- Anton
by Anton » Mon Feb 24, 2003 6:00 pm
A few remarks regarding some critiques of my opening salvos:
First, the numbers.
It was Norman 'Stormin' Shwarzkopf (the US commander in charge of Operation 'Desert Storm') who himself admitted to the 100,000 figure. The *lowest* estimates for civilian deaths I have encountered from any reputable source over the last decade has been 25,000.
The fact that someone (I believe it was Kristov) doubts these figures because they are so high is not an argument at all. It is merely, on the one hand, a natural, humane response to the shocking possibility of such a scale of carnage (And on that I commend you. After all, many hear the figures and simply reply, "What's your point?") while, on the other, it is, at once, a reflection of how indoctrinated the American public is to the facts of US brigandage abroad.
Indeed, the figures are not too difficult to comprehend once you realize that Iraq (unlike, say Afghanistan) is largely an urban society (the majority of the pop. is centered in cities) which was pulverized with over 30,000 air sorties during the 42 day bombardment. The 3,000 or so figure Kristov cites is pure nonsense....especially when we know that over 10,000 were probably incinerated on the infamous 'highway of death' (the Basra road 'incident') alone.
As for someone arguing that a helpless country that has not harmed us in the slightest (the connection with al Qaida - as even the CIA admits - is pure propaganda, pure theatre to shore up flagging support at home and criticism abroad) is not an argument to launch an unprovoked 'pre-emptive' attack (and murder tens of thousands of innocent civilians) is either morally defective....well, that's it, just morally defective.
...Which brings home the point of many of the comments I've come across here:
They are fundamentally reflective of an imperial mindset (i.e totally irrational, 'might makes right', 'patriotic' machismo arrogance (I believe someone actually replied to another fellow Canuck's comments along the lines that, as a non-American, he was a) intrinsically incapable of seeing the American 'point of view' or b) had no right, in any case, to criticize a mighty nation residing as he did in a militarily weak one.....What absolute rubbish is this?)
Let me also quickly respond to someone who made the argument (somewhat reasaonable in its own way) that because we here in the US and Canada experience relative physical security (dissidents are generallly not being picked up and murdered in the middle of the night by state security forces) and freedom of speech (Actually, only in a certain sense since dissidents are free to play on the net and so forth, but are almost totally debarred form accessing the mainstream, corporate media where they could have real influence).....as I say, because of these not-to-be-denied boons it is argued that therefore the troops on the borders of Empire couldn't possibily be committing murder and mayhem......Oh really. Not only is this a logical non-sequitor, it flies directly in the face of the historical record over at least the last century (An historical record, it need hardly be emphasized, that the average American is almost *completely* ignorant of).
In fact, if you look back at another historical empire - Rome, one is immediately drawn to the parallels:
Roman citizens had little to fear from Roman legions. That, of course, didn't mean spit if you happened to have had the misfortune of being born in Gaul, or North Africa or Britain.
And, by the way just to make hay with the analogy.....Rome constantly used the excuse in its expansionary drives that it was 'defending' itself.
(Indeed, that few/none of you can see the direct analogy of the US provocation of Iraq with the almost identical provocation by Nazi Germany when it went into the Sudentland, thence into Czechoslovakia, then Poland - all the while claiming these Lilliputians were a 'threat' to German security - is a marker of how indoctrinated you are)
Moreover, once Rome *did* devolve from a republic into an empire, the polarization of wealth *within* the empire grew to staggering proportions.... A similar phenomenom is already beginning in the US....As I write, the 3 wealthiest Americans (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and John Walton), between them, have more financia assets than do the poorest 100 million Americans....
3 on one side of the slate....100 million on the other.
Well, enough of the analogies ...and an apology of sorts for this overly long ramble. Just once last thought:
The real tragedy of the United States is not just the mayhem, carnage and destabilizatin of world security that it is causing..It is the gulf between this age-old imperialist agenda, and the vast potential that America represents in terms of what it *could* be doing for the world....especially in an historical era of unprecedented global crisis (i.e ecological etc.)
If you guys were real patriots, you'd be thinking about a regime change at home.
Anton
First, the numbers.
It was Norman 'Stormin' Shwarzkopf (the US commander in charge of Operation 'Desert Storm') who himself admitted to the 100,000 figure. The *lowest* estimates for civilian deaths I have encountered from any reputable source over the last decade has been 25,000.
The fact that someone (I believe it was Kristov) doubts these figures because they are so high is not an argument at all. It is merely, on the one hand, a natural, humane response to the shocking possibility of such a scale of carnage (And on that I commend you. After all, many hear the figures and simply reply, "What's your point?") while, on the other, it is, at once, a reflection of how indoctrinated the American public is to the facts of US brigandage abroad.
Indeed, the figures are not too difficult to comprehend once you realize that Iraq (unlike, say Afghanistan) is largely an urban society (the majority of the pop. is centered in cities) which was pulverized with over 30,000 air sorties during the 42 day bombardment. The 3,000 or so figure Kristov cites is pure nonsense....especially when we know that over 10,000 were probably incinerated on the infamous 'highway of death' (the Basra road 'incident') alone.
As for someone arguing that a helpless country that has not harmed us in the slightest (the connection with al Qaida - as even the CIA admits - is pure propaganda, pure theatre to shore up flagging support at home and criticism abroad) is not an argument to launch an unprovoked 'pre-emptive' attack (and murder tens of thousands of innocent civilians) is either morally defective....well, that's it, just morally defective.
...Which brings home the point of many of the comments I've come across here:
They are fundamentally reflective of an imperial mindset (i.e totally irrational, 'might makes right', 'patriotic' machismo arrogance (I believe someone actually replied to another fellow Canuck's comments along the lines that, as a non-American, he was a) intrinsically incapable of seeing the American 'point of view' or b) had no right, in any case, to criticize a mighty nation residing as he did in a militarily weak one.....What absolute rubbish is this?)
Let me also quickly respond to someone who made the argument (somewhat reasaonable in its own way) that because we here in the US and Canada experience relative physical security (dissidents are generallly not being picked up and murdered in the middle of the night by state security forces) and freedom of speech (Actually, only in a certain sense since dissidents are free to play on the net and so forth, but are almost totally debarred form accessing the mainstream, corporate media where they could have real influence).....as I say, because of these not-to-be-denied boons it is argued that therefore the troops on the borders of Empire couldn't possibily be committing murder and mayhem......Oh really. Not only is this a logical non-sequitor, it flies directly in the face of the historical record over at least the last century (An historical record, it need hardly be emphasized, that the average American is almost *completely* ignorant of).
In fact, if you look back at another historical empire - Rome, one is immediately drawn to the parallels:
Roman citizens had little to fear from Roman legions. That, of course, didn't mean spit if you happened to have had the misfortune of being born in Gaul, or North Africa or Britain.
And, by the way just to make hay with the analogy.....Rome constantly used the excuse in its expansionary drives that it was 'defending' itself.
(Indeed, that few/none of you can see the direct analogy of the US provocation of Iraq with the almost identical provocation by Nazi Germany when it went into the Sudentland, thence into Czechoslovakia, then Poland - all the while claiming these Lilliputians were a 'threat' to German security - is a marker of how indoctrinated you are)
Moreover, once Rome *did* devolve from a republic into an empire, the polarization of wealth *within* the empire grew to staggering proportions.... A similar phenomenom is already beginning in the US....As I write, the 3 wealthiest Americans (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and John Walton), between them, have more financia assets than do the poorest 100 million Americans....
3 on one side of the slate....100 million on the other.
Well, enough of the analogies ...and an apology of sorts for this overly long ramble. Just once last thought:
The real tragedy of the United States is not just the mayhem, carnage and destabilizatin of world security that it is causing..It is the gulf between this age-old imperialist agenda, and the vast potential that America represents in terms of what it *could* be doing for the world....especially in an historical era of unprecedented global crisis (i.e ecological etc.)
If you guys were real patriots, you'd be thinking about a regime change at home.
Anton
- {CN}Doomfarer
by {CN}Doomfarer » Mon Feb 24, 2003 6:25 pm
As for someone arguing that a helpless country that has not harmed us in the slightest (the connection with al Qaida - as even the CIA admits - is pure propaganda, pure theatre to shore up flagging support at home and criticism abroad)
Ok then... You are smoking what??? The CIA admits? Are you on their special mailing list or something? Let's get at least one thing straight, intelligence agencies do not "admit" anything freely or without purpose. I have yet to hear of this event, and would look at other things if I did.
Ok then... You are smoking what??? The CIA admits? Are you on their special mailing list or something? Let's get at least one thing straight, intelligence agencies do not "admit" anything freely or without purpose. I have yet to hear of this event, and would look at other things if I did.
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Mon Feb 24, 2003 6:39 pm
Susan Anton, drawing comparisons or moral equivalency between the US and Nazi-Germany leaves you with zero credibility.
As much as I disagree with Keekanoo (your "fellow Canuck"), I feel sorry for him that you would mention him in your post.
As much as I disagree with Keekanoo (your "fellow Canuck"), I feel sorry for him that you would mention him in your post.
- COL.BUKKAKE
by COL.BUKKAKE » Mon Feb 24, 2003 7:14 pm
By the writings of everyone else on this thread I'll label myself as your retarded posting member.
With that said I'm going to try and seem somewhat normal(cant believe I said the word normal). Now as Anton has stated many many times over, how we destroyed the Iraqi armed forces, can I please ask him, isnt that one of the objectives in war, to kill more of their guys. Correct me if I'm wrong on this point.
Isnt also part of war that the death of civilians, many of which I'm sure we tried to avoid killing, is unavoidable. Anton since your obviously much smarter than I, can I ask you, with your wealth of knowledge and statistics to post the number of Iraqi's his royal DICKtator Saddam has killed. I would bet it to be more than we have, or because its his country, he has that right.
Another thing I was thinking (might I add not as well as you Anton, thinking that is) is how Germany and Japan are handling life after being defeated, civilians being killed in numbers Iraq hasnt even come close too. I'm sure they would rather go back to the way it was before WWII.(sarcasm)
Or how about the 2 million Cambodians that were slaughtered after we pulled out (sure maybe we shouldnt have been there in the 1st place) after the beating of anti-war anti- American drums.
I'm sure you will come up with something way more inteligent and destroy whatever it is I think I'm saying. So I'll sit and wait for your response, as you type away on your computer in a cabin somewhere in Canuckville.
With that said I'm going to try and seem somewhat normal(cant believe I said the word normal). Now as Anton has stated many many times over, how we destroyed the Iraqi armed forces, can I please ask him, isnt that one of the objectives in war, to kill more of their guys. Correct me if I'm wrong on this point.
Isnt also part of war that the death of civilians, many of which I'm sure we tried to avoid killing, is unavoidable. Anton since your obviously much smarter than I, can I ask you, with your wealth of knowledge and statistics to post the number of Iraqi's his royal DICKtator Saddam has killed. I would bet it to be more than we have, or because its his country, he has that right.
Another thing I was thinking (might I add not as well as you Anton, thinking that is) is how Germany and Japan are handling life after being defeated, civilians being killed in numbers Iraq hasnt even come close too. I'm sure they would rather go back to the way it was before WWII.(sarcasm)
Or how about the 2 million Cambodians that were slaughtered after we pulled out (sure maybe we shouldnt have been there in the 1st place) after the beating of anti-war anti- American drums.
I'm sure you will come up with something way more inteligent and destroy whatever it is I think I'm saying. So I'll sit and wait for your response, as you type away on your computer in a cabin somewhere in Canuckville.
by bayotanzk » Mon Feb 24, 2003 8:11 pm
None of the fellows, Anton, in this forum from the pro war prospective ever said that our system was without flaws, but it is the best the world has to offer. Democracy does not guarantee equality, only the freedom and ability to strive for "the American dream". You state that three have the wealth of 100 million, but the standard of living for those 100 million poor people are some of the best in the world. We agree to disagree which is what makes our system work.
Might does not make right, but if you pick a fight in the pit with a big fellow, then you better be able to defend yourself. We did not start the Gulf War, now we finished it, with our allies, pretty damn fast. He will either disarm or face the consequences. Surely you do not think that we want to loose a single American in some shithole country in the middle east (the boil on the ass of the world!). No. We agreed to stop and not invade iraq, but there was an agreement. Kind of like the one we had with germany and france, huh, maybe birds of a feather do flock together. They all broke their word.
Our system of government is the best, in my opinion, and it is not our responsibilty to care for the world! What kind of a fantasy world are you living in? We care about ourselves and our allies, FUCK the rest. This politically correct stuff is garbage. It is George W Bush's responsibility to take care of the American people. He has to answer to us and no one else. Our safety in this country is our priority and anyone that threatens our security better clearly understand the consequences of such action.
We will try to spare as many civilians as possible, but there will be casualties, and a bunch of dead iraqi soldiers if we go to war. You can bet on it. It is there job and they will do it well. Massive human loss. All sadam has to do is comply or die.
Might does not make right, but if you pick a fight in the pit with a big fellow, then you better be able to defend yourself. We did not start the Gulf War, now we finished it, with our allies, pretty damn fast. He will either disarm or face the consequences. Surely you do not think that we want to loose a single American in some shithole country in the middle east (the boil on the ass of the world!). No. We agreed to stop and not invade iraq, but there was an agreement. Kind of like the one we had with germany and france, huh, maybe birds of a feather do flock together. They all broke their word.
Our system of government is the best, in my opinion, and it is not our responsibilty to care for the world! What kind of a fantasy world are you living in? We care about ourselves and our allies, FUCK the rest. This politically correct stuff is garbage. It is George W Bush's responsibility to take care of the American people. He has to answer to us and no one else. Our safety in this country is our priority and anyone that threatens our security better clearly understand the consequences of such action.
We will try to spare as many civilians as possible, but there will be casualties, and a bunch of dead iraqi soldiers if we go to war. You can bet on it. It is there job and they will do it well. Massive human loss. All sadam has to do is comply or die.
- Rule of Wrist
by Rule of Wrist » Mon Feb 24, 2003 11:06 pm
Anton, while your posts are well thought out and well written, I think the only thing you've been studying for 25 years is Karl Marx, Vladimir Ilych Lenin, Mein Kampf and Josef Stalin.(maybe some chairman Mao for spice). If you were a US citizen, your views could be viewed as borderline treasonous.
That said, none of these arguments should be about numbers or statistics. As Keekanoo has said and is very true, there is no way to know for sure. If anyone is familiar with a certain news story, a local story, how often are the facts and dates wrong? Pretty much all the time from my experience. But to say that the US is going to destabilize the world is outright ignorance of history and society.
I believe anton statistics. My response is (wait for it) .... So what? The US gov. WILL do whatever it takes to protect its interests, whatever those may be. We have the power to do so. And thank goodness it is the US that has this power. Another nation with this power would lead to a world enfettered.
I think that is something that bothers people about the current administration. They make no apologies for acting in our national interest. Oil is a national interest. We have the ability to affect a stable oil market so we do. Simple. A world free from terrorism is in our national interest. We have the ability to affect that, so we do. Simple.
This is why I think other nations (europe) have a problem with the current foriegn policy. We don't make any bones about what we are going to do and that it is in our interest. I would point out that the US gov's stated goal in the mideast is to bring about democracy and freedom. This will benefit us the most, true, by not having anymore terrorists from that region. But it will also benefit those in the middle east in the long run. This is what sets US policy apart from other nations. Our policy is aimed at not just helping ourselves, but with the side benefit of helping others.
Keekanoo, I believe it is Taoism that states "I had a dream that I was a man dreaming I was a butterfly. But then I could have been a butterfly dreaming I'm a man. It is impossible to know for sure." This is interesting philosophically, but I'm betting heavily that it was a man dreaming of being a butterfly, based on my limited knowledge of biology. I can't know for sure, but I'll risk that assumption. That is what I meant by not being able to move forward without some assumptions. I also applaud you for hitting on a basic truth that throws socialism and communism out the window from the word go. Nobody is equal. It's just not possible. Getting along and being equal are two different things, and your analogy of the pit doesn't hold well to economic conditions because it assumes a zero sum game. That is if there are two items for two people, and one person takes both, then the other gets nothing. Markets don't work this way. In market conditions, if there are two items and one person takes both, a third item can be produced, and a fourth, and so on. Pretty soon you have a whole lot of items. Poor people don't have to be poor forever. While they may never reach the levels of Bill Gates, the beautiful thing about it is, in the US, it is possible. Bill Gates started out a geeky high school dropout. Now look at him. Only in america.
This is why, while not agreeing with Keekanoo, I can have respect for him. He has an open mind and is willing to learn things that may change his opinion.
Anton, you show the exact opposite of this open-mindedness, which is why your opinions will never be taken seriously by reasonable people. I, unlike the Good Col. Bukkake,(crosses self) have the confidence to say that I greatly surpass you in intelligence, wit and good looks. If you have anything meaningful to retort with, I will be happy to respond in a less forgiving and reasonable manner... The words of John Paul Jones come to mind....
That said, none of these arguments should be about numbers or statistics. As Keekanoo has said and is very true, there is no way to know for sure. If anyone is familiar with a certain news story, a local story, how often are the facts and dates wrong? Pretty much all the time from my experience. But to say that the US is going to destabilize the world is outright ignorance of history and society.
I believe anton statistics. My response is (wait for it) .... So what? The US gov. WILL do whatever it takes to protect its interests, whatever those may be. We have the power to do so. And thank goodness it is the US that has this power. Another nation with this power would lead to a world enfettered.
I think that is something that bothers people about the current administration. They make no apologies for acting in our national interest. Oil is a national interest. We have the ability to affect a stable oil market so we do. Simple. A world free from terrorism is in our national interest. We have the ability to affect that, so we do. Simple.
This is why I think other nations (europe) have a problem with the current foriegn policy. We don't make any bones about what we are going to do and that it is in our interest. I would point out that the US gov's stated goal in the mideast is to bring about democracy and freedom. This will benefit us the most, true, by not having anymore terrorists from that region. But it will also benefit those in the middle east in the long run. This is what sets US policy apart from other nations. Our policy is aimed at not just helping ourselves, but with the side benefit of helping others.
Keekanoo, I believe it is Taoism that states "I had a dream that I was a man dreaming I was a butterfly. But then I could have been a butterfly dreaming I'm a man. It is impossible to know for sure." This is interesting philosophically, but I'm betting heavily that it was a man dreaming of being a butterfly, based on my limited knowledge of biology. I can't know for sure, but I'll risk that assumption. That is what I meant by not being able to move forward without some assumptions. I also applaud you for hitting on a basic truth that throws socialism and communism out the window from the word go. Nobody is equal. It's just not possible. Getting along and being equal are two different things, and your analogy of the pit doesn't hold well to economic conditions because it assumes a zero sum game. That is if there are two items for two people, and one person takes both, then the other gets nothing. Markets don't work this way. In market conditions, if there are two items and one person takes both, a third item can be produced, and a fourth, and so on. Pretty soon you have a whole lot of items. Poor people don't have to be poor forever. While they may never reach the levels of Bill Gates, the beautiful thing about it is, in the US, it is possible. Bill Gates started out a geeky high school dropout. Now look at him. Only in america.
This is why, while not agreeing with Keekanoo, I can have respect for him. He has an open mind and is willing to learn things that may change his opinion.
Anton, you show the exact opposite of this open-mindedness, which is why your opinions will never be taken seriously by reasonable people. I, unlike the Good Col. Bukkake,(crosses self) have the confidence to say that I greatly surpass you in intelligence, wit and good looks. If you have anything meaningful to retort with, I will be happy to respond in a less forgiving and reasonable manner... The words of John Paul Jones come to mind....
- Xenius
by Xenius » Mon Feb 24, 2003 11:09 pm
I really like how people can sit around and throw shit at the USA. I don't doubt that if the US returned to isolationist strategies of old things would be worse than they are. I know this has been used as an example before but remember Germany? Countries sat aside and watched them build power because no one had balls enough to do something about it.
I know there is no proof that Iraq would start a conquest of Europe, but there are a few similarities. Germany was devestated by WW1 and suffered under sanctions and resctrictions in the years following. Iraq was thoroughly beaten in the gulf war. They have since had economic and pollitcal sanctions rallied against them. I don't think war is a good idea and wish it could be avoided, but some comments of you USA haters just makes me sick.
As was stated before Anton, comparing the present day US to Nazi Germany is atrocious. The coment has proved that you are irrationally biased. You said that you want some Americans to start thinking for themselves. I have decided to take your advice.
I think that you sir, are an embarrassment to the great country that is Canada. Were I a Canadian, I would want nothing to do with you. I wish you a good day, I won't be reading your posts again, the forum shall grant me that.
I know there is no proof that Iraq would start a conquest of Europe, but there are a few similarities. Germany was devestated by WW1 and suffered under sanctions and resctrictions in the years following. Iraq was thoroughly beaten in the gulf war. They have since had economic and pollitcal sanctions rallied against them. I don't think war is a good idea and wish it could be avoided, but some comments of you USA haters just makes me sick.
As was stated before Anton, comparing the present day US to Nazi Germany is atrocious. The coment has proved that you are irrationally biased. You said that you want some Americans to start thinking for themselves. I have decided to take your advice.
I think that you sir, are an embarrassment to the great country that is Canada. Were I a Canadian, I would want nothing to do with you. I wish you a good day, I won't be reading your posts again, the forum shall grant me that.
- COL.BUKKAKE
by COL.BUKKAKE » Mon Feb 24, 2003 11:30 pm
After reading Rule's post, thank God I'm not the only one sticking up for this country or we will all be dead:D By the way keep your intelligence Rule and I'll keep my 9 inch penis. Since I wont even reply to Anton's insane comparison of Nazi Germany and the U.S., I will write something I found that was written by Donald Kagan of Yale in response to your Roman Empire comparison:
"All comparisons between America's current place in the world and anything legitimately called an empire in the past reveal ignorance and confusion about any reasonable meaning of the concept empire, especially the comparison with the Roman Empire.
The Romans acquired the greatest part of their empire by direct military conquest, subjected their people to Roman Law, imposed taxes upon them and compulsory military service under Roman command.They deprived their subjects of freedom and autonomy with variations, such arrangements characterized the many empires that have existed over the centuries.
To compare the United States with any such empire is ludicrous. It holds no land outside the 50 states without the consent of its people.
Victorious in WWI, it withdrew from Europe entirely.Victorious in WWII, it liberated Western Europe, occupied defeated Germany until its democracy could take hold and pumped great sums of money into helping its allies and former enemies achieve unprecedented prosperity.
Invited to lead them in defense against the menace of the Soviet Union. The United States spent its money and employed its forces far from home, not for conquest but to protect its allies.
It has welcomed the formation of The European Union that is entirely independent of the U.S., is formidable competitor in the world economy and feels entirely free to criticize, remain aloof from and oppose American policies, with no fear of military reprisal. That is not how empires behave.":D
"All comparisons between America's current place in the world and anything legitimately called an empire in the past reveal ignorance and confusion about any reasonable meaning of the concept empire, especially the comparison with the Roman Empire.
The Romans acquired the greatest part of their empire by direct military conquest, subjected their people to Roman Law, imposed taxes upon them and compulsory military service under Roman command.They deprived their subjects of freedom and autonomy with variations, such arrangements characterized the many empires that have existed over the centuries.
To compare the United States with any such empire is ludicrous. It holds no land outside the 50 states without the consent of its people.
Victorious in WWI, it withdrew from Europe entirely.Victorious in WWII, it liberated Western Europe, occupied defeated Germany until its democracy could take hold and pumped great sums of money into helping its allies and former enemies achieve unprecedented prosperity.
Invited to lead them in defense against the menace of the Soviet Union. The United States spent its money and employed its forces far from home, not for conquest but to protect its allies.
It has welcomed the formation of The European Union that is entirely independent of the U.S., is formidable competitor in the world economy and feels entirely free to criticize, remain aloof from and oppose American policies, with no fear of military reprisal. That is not how empires behave.":D
by Kristov » Tue Feb 25, 2003 12:28 am
Bukkake..you may not be a genius, but you've got brains and the ability to use them, very nicely done.
Keekano, sorry, the similiar styles between your and Anton's first posts made me draw an invalid conclusion, my apologies. You are definately not as far out as Anton, not by a long shot.
Anton...man..where to begin...or why bother? 25 yrs of study..of what? Sure as hell wasn't the Middle East, the Roman Empire or American History, that's for sure.
100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed in Desert Storm by the Coalition(that means it wasn't just US troops doing the pillaging bit you know). I'm not morally offended or shocked by the number, I just didn't realize that many of them actually tried to fight back. I have no issues with the mass slaughter of unknown people who are in arms against my people, sorry, call me cold, callous, whatever, but it just doesn't bother me. I've been in personal combat for my own life, and defended my family a few times, and found that if someone is meaning me or mine harm, I have no compunctions against blotting them out of existence. Try it sometime, you may find yourself rethinking your stance on many issues, I know I did.
Saddam is a power mad human with a lot of power, a lot of weapons, and the proven will and capacity to use them. He's made it clear that the US is his enemy, along with many other countries and peoples of the planet, basically, anyone who doesn't share HIS point of view. His military and his government are all following him by their own choice. After all, a coup de etat wouldn't be out of the question in Iraq, now would it it(check yer history if you don't get that)? So, since they willfully choose to follow this man, I see no problems from their extermination, since they are a direct threat to me and mine by their own words and deeds to date. So, 100,000 Iraqi soldiers dead in Desert Storm, who cares? Civilians, some stats show 2500~3500 by Coalition forces, some show 10x that amount, WHO CARES! You don't care, that's obvious enough, and I sure as hell don't care, that's also obvious. Saddam doesn't care, that's REAL obvious, since he puts those civilians in harm's way ON PURPOSE. France, Belgium, Germany, they don't care, or they'd actually DO something to see this issue gets resolved peacefully, which they aren't doing. They whine, bitch and moan, but they don't actually DO anything about the situation, well, actually, strike that, they ARE doing something about it. They are making it worse with their sanction breaking deals with Iraq, but I don't think that falls under the catagory of helping resolve the issue, does it?
So, Anton, font of wisdom and intelligence that you are, what is YOUR solution to the problem at hand? Or, do you even acknowledge that there IS a problem at hand? I mean, judging from what you've expressed so far, I get the feeling you don't think there is one, that Saddam is just fine and dandy and should just be left alone. That gives me a bit of pause, since you don't use the language I've seen from Arab sympathizers, yet you use very anti-American language in a very American format. So, what exactly IS your stance Anton?
Keekano, sorry, the similiar styles between your and Anton's first posts made me draw an invalid conclusion, my apologies. You are definately not as far out as Anton, not by a long shot.
Anton...man..where to begin...or why bother? 25 yrs of study..of what? Sure as hell wasn't the Middle East, the Roman Empire or American History, that's for sure.
100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed in Desert Storm by the Coalition(that means it wasn't just US troops doing the pillaging bit you know). I'm not morally offended or shocked by the number, I just didn't realize that many of them actually tried to fight back. I have no issues with the mass slaughter of unknown people who are in arms against my people, sorry, call me cold, callous, whatever, but it just doesn't bother me. I've been in personal combat for my own life, and defended my family a few times, and found that if someone is meaning me or mine harm, I have no compunctions against blotting them out of existence. Try it sometime, you may find yourself rethinking your stance on many issues, I know I did.
Saddam is a power mad human with a lot of power, a lot of weapons, and the proven will and capacity to use them. He's made it clear that the US is his enemy, along with many other countries and peoples of the planet, basically, anyone who doesn't share HIS point of view. His military and his government are all following him by their own choice. After all, a coup de etat wouldn't be out of the question in Iraq, now would it it(check yer history if you don't get that)? So, since they willfully choose to follow this man, I see no problems from their extermination, since they are a direct threat to me and mine by their own words and deeds to date. So, 100,000 Iraqi soldiers dead in Desert Storm, who cares? Civilians, some stats show 2500~3500 by Coalition forces, some show 10x that amount, WHO CARES! You don't care, that's obvious enough, and I sure as hell don't care, that's also obvious. Saddam doesn't care, that's REAL obvious, since he puts those civilians in harm's way ON PURPOSE. France, Belgium, Germany, they don't care, or they'd actually DO something to see this issue gets resolved peacefully, which they aren't doing. They whine, bitch and moan, but they don't actually DO anything about the situation, well, actually, strike that, they ARE doing something about it. They are making it worse with their sanction breaking deals with Iraq, but I don't think that falls under the catagory of helping resolve the issue, does it?
So, Anton, font of wisdom and intelligence that you are, what is YOUR solution to the problem at hand? Or, do you even acknowledge that there IS a problem at hand? I mean, judging from what you've expressed so far, I get the feeling you don't think there is one, that Saddam is just fine and dandy and should just be left alone. That gives me a bit of pause, since you don't use the language I've seen from Arab sympathizers, yet you use very anti-American language in a very American format. So, what exactly IS your stance Anton?
The enemy is attacking, let us prey.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests