[quote]Originally posted by superkaratemonkeydeathcar:
<strong>jesus giant, even when i agree with you, you give me grief.
i don't want to tell people how they should be governed, i just think they should have a voice in it. and in all those countries i mentioned the populace is oppressed. why is the jihad directed at america? solely because of our position in israel? a position we would dearly love to get out from under i might add. well that's pretty weak.
the jihad should be directed at the oppressor, but then the fundamentalists are just as oppressive as the rotten arab governments.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry. I'm not trying to give you grief.
I agree with what you say here.
I agree that we should have a voice and be a leader in the movement toward freedom.
the enemy is ignorance, but it's evasive, and you can't drop bombs on it, you can only shine a light on it.
maybe some day every one will have a voice, the voice to dissent, a voice to SING (like they can in kabul, again), and a voice to type little stupid ideas into a silly forum like this.
This is slightly off topic, but a question if I may.
If the Iraqi people are so oppressed and want to to be liberated from Saddam. Why did they all just sit around waiting for Saddam to rebuild his republican guard and re-establish his power after the first war <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>I thought it was a good speech. He seemed to lay out some compelling reasons why Mr. Hussein shouldn't stick around any longer than he has to.
Giving the people who live in Iraq a break from this insane, evil asshole is reason enough, IMO. It'll probably be the happiest day of their lives when they realize they are freer and don't have to live in fear and dread 24/7.
I guess I'm naive, but I don't see what the problem is. Seems very clear-cut to me: Hussein was supposed to do this, this and this. He agreed. 12 years later, after numerous "second chances", waiting, talking, sending inspectors in, out, back, out again, back in, etc. he hasn't done that, that and that.
I think he's unstable and dangerous. I think he poses a genuine, honest-to-goodness threat.
Anyone who think we're "rushing" to anything needs to tweak their definition of the word "rush" because he's had more time and more "second chances" than anyone I can think of. I admire our restraint sometimes.
Hussein could simply put an end to all of this today if he wanted to. He obviously doesn't.
I tend to want to believe (and put my trust and faith in) the President, Powell, Rumsfeld, the U.N. inspectors, Iraqi defectors, intelligence reports, etc. more than I do Hollywood actors, naked Bay Area protestors and college students.
But that's just me.
Nothing wrong with acting, being naked or in college, of course. But I don't think they're in as good a position to truly know circumstances, inside info, strategies, etc. as the others are. It's simply not their job, nor are they privy to everything. Powell trumps Sarandon on this, fellas.
And I know that some are just philosophically against war and violence no matter what. And I respect that...who the hell - in their right mind - likes war? But it doesn't make them "right" in every case. And I simply think they're wrong in this one.
If it wasn't for a few nasty, brutal wars, they might not have the ability to even protest, raise their voices and otherwise experience all these cool freedoms many take for granted. There's an awesome connection there between the two that I think gets overlooked and ignored sometimes.
It cuts both ways: sometimes you have to break a few eggs and endure some nasty business to come out the other side and realize "okay, that was worth it...look at the outcome".
That doesn't (and shouldn't) make a "blind patriot" or whatever the term used in that other thread. I'd MUCH prefer (because I have friends over there as we speak, who - if things got bad and went horribly awry - I might not ever see or talk to again ) that Hussein woke up tomorrow morning, realized what an asshole he's been, realizes the jig is up, gives the inspectors everything they're asking for and either eats a bullet for dinner or simply grabs some cash and splits to an island somewhere and just lives the rest of his life fishing and snorkeling and reading quietly on his porch.
I'd love for there to not to be one bomb dropped, rifle fired or missile launched. But...
Just seems very cut-and-dried to me. If I saw things in a few more hundred shades of gray, maybe it would be different...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's rhetorical trickery to equate Susan Sarandon with Colin Powel as dove is to hawk. It's true on a basic level because one is indeed one and not the other. But I'm sure there are plenty of other *more qualified* anti-war protesters that could have been mentioned. Especially since the poster questioned the credibility of the person he mentioned in the first place! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> That much only makes sense. Let's be honest at least by NOT setting up issues just to knock them down.
[quote]Originally posted by superkaratemonkeydeathcar:
<strong>9/11 aside, the biggest threat to america is crazy-ass americans....</strong><hr></blockquote>
The biggest threat to america is Lazy-ass americans.
Security should be everyones concern, not just the governments. Most Americans want to look the other way. Sadly the other thread is discussing a main reason... LAWYERS and lawsuits.
<strong>His case against Iraq was devastating. You may not like it, but it was. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Show me evidence. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! I guess we'll have to wait until Feb 5th. Sorry, but you don't make your case with rhetoric. You make your case with evidence. His case is nothing until Feb 5th.
Actually I?d like you to get it straight. But I?m sure you can?t.
I posted this quote
[quote] "He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that." - Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.) <hr></blockquote>
Then you posted:
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
This is a simple factual statement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then I posted:
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>Giant could you please give me a list of the OBL roads, schools, hospitals and (trying not to laugh here) day care facilities. WTF would an Islamic fundamentalist need a day care facility for?
Further could you please detail the amount of money the US, Hamas et. al. has spent in Egypt and the PT. Real dollar amounts would be great. TIA.
BTW you may want to shore up that hole you?re digging there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which you haven?t done yet because you can?t. Why? Because you are wrong. So turn you tail and run. Go stick your head in the sand and hide. Please prove to me that OBL and any others help out more than the US. Your anti-Americanism is only surpassed by your incredible ignorance.
Show me evidence. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! I guess we'll have to wait until Feb 5th. Sorry, but you don't make your case with rhetoric. You make your case with evidence. His case is nothing until Feb 5th.</strong><hr></blockquote>
" I'll have a good belly laugh when giant sees US troops unearth Saddam's nuclear program in three months ".
Too bad I won't be able to see your face when they don't.
You see you don't have any idea any more than I do. The only thing about this is that Bush has said he's got some proof as justification for a " material breach " for some time now. The world's getting tired of waiting. I know he's said he'll disclose but that hasn't happened yet. So until then in my book it's just talk.
After they invade they can plant anything there to support their actions.
This is idiocy. Perhaps we oppose these actions because they are wrong? Anti-choice is wrong. Breaking Title 9 is wrong. Going to war to win an election is wrong. Lowering taxes for the rich is wrong. Reaganomics is very, very wrong. An international policy of sword wielding is wrong. An international policy of soapbox politics is wrong. And where Bush has made good proposals (volunteerism) the execution has been half-assed and lacking. A policy of hypocrisy just makes him look like an ass (preaching for emissions-free vehicles after all the administration has done in favor of the oil companies and against environmentalism?)
As I have said, there has not been a single Bush policy that has been successful. Not a single one. He talks the talk, and for some of you that is enough because you follow the Republican warmongering agenda because that is what you identify with, not because that is what you agree with.
WE NEED RESULTS. BUSH HAS FAILED 100% THUS FAR AND THE FORECAST IS A BLEAK ONE. At this point I think it's fair to call for a "regime change".</strong><hr></blockquote>
With all due respect you are wrong.
You like that word "wrong"
You say Bush is anti-choice and such a stance is wrong?
I will always maintain that if you support killing via partial birth abortion that you are not only wrong but you are sick.
20 years from now Liberals will look back and scratch their heads and ask... Why did we wink at abortion and permit it. It "abortion" is so wrong it is not even funny tonton. How can you look me in the eye and say honestly that you find abortion ok?
<strong>" I'll have a good belly laugh when giant sees US troops unearth Saddam's nuclear program in three months ".
Too bad I won't be able to see your face when they don't.
You see you don't have any idea any more than I do. The only thing about this is that Bush has said he's got some proof as justification for a " material breach " for some time now. The world's getting tired of waiting. I know he's said he'll disclose but that hasn't happened yet. So until then in my book it's just talk.
After they invade they can plant anything there to support their actions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said before (maybe in another thread I lost track) it's not the job of the inspectors to find the "smoking gun". It's the job of Iraq to bring everything out to see and have it destroyed. That's how it worked in other countries. Not in Iraq. Why? Iraq refuses to do that. Hans Blix said so himself. That's a clear violation even if the irrelevant UN refuses to say so.
I remember the days when there was "no proof" that OBL was a part of 9-11. Now that we have the video the anti-US idiots just move on to other things that they will be proven wrong about. Like Iraq.
So we should kill them rather than live the "unwanted" life. Oh BTW a coat hanger aint going to pry a baby lose that otherwise would have been aborted via PBA.
I'm pro-choice but PBA is flat out wrong. Medical exceptions seem resonable but to terminate an unwanted pregnancy at that late stage is just wrong.
<strong>Can you look me in the eye and say that the life of an unwanted child is ok? Or what this child might grow up to be is ok?
Or that back alley coat hanger surgery is ok?
Do you know when a piece of tissue becomes a human exactly? Or are you one of these idiotic it's always a potential people?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> Your first two questions are ignorant and do not address the issue. I would reply to your back alley question by saying that it is just as wrong as any other abortion. Funny that you find the back alley context to be disturbing but yet if it is "legal" and in an office complex it is somehow "ok"
I am not going to reply to your last question. I think you should really think about this issue and reflect on just what abortion is.
Again one day I would hope liberals come to question why they ever allowed this.
[quote]"Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance ? not even today ? of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and live in peace," - Hans Blix<hr></blockquote>
That there is yourup UN talkin' fer "He aint doin' what he's 'pose to be doin'"
Here's anothe good part
[quote]Mr. Blix's sweeping and detailed critique of Iraq's failure to demonstrate with documents, interviews and other evidence that it had destroyed its prohibited weapons appeared to put new pressure on France, Germany and other nations that have resisted early military action to respond more forcefully to Baghdad's noncompliance.<hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>jesus giant, even when i agree with you, you give me grief.
i don't want to tell people how they should be governed, i just think they should have a voice in it. and in all those countries i mentioned the populace is oppressed. why is the jihad directed at america? solely because of our position in israel? a position we would dearly love to get out from under i might add. well that's pretty weak.
the jihad should be directed at the oppressor, but then the fundamentalists are just as oppressive as the rotten arab governments.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry. I'm not trying to give you grief.
I agree with what you say here.
I agree that we should have a voice and be a leader in the movement toward freedom.
maybe some day every one will have a voice, the voice to dissent, a voice to SING (like they can in kabul, again), and a voice to type little stupid ideas into a silly forum like this.
maybe someday, enshallah.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: superkaratemonkeydeathcar ]</p>
If the Iraqi people are so oppressed and want to to be liberated from Saddam. Why did they all just sit around waiting for Saddam to rebuild his republican guard and re-establish his power after the first war <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>I thought it was a good speech. He seemed to lay out some compelling reasons why Mr. Hussein shouldn't stick around any longer than he has to.
Giving the people who live in Iraq a break from this insane, evil asshole is reason enough, IMO. It'll probably be the happiest day of their lives when they realize they are freer and don't have to live in fear and dread 24/7.
I guess I'm naive, but I don't see what the problem is. Seems very clear-cut to me: Hussein was supposed to do this, this and this. He agreed. 12 years later, after numerous "second chances", waiting, talking, sending inspectors in, out, back, out again, back in, etc. he hasn't done that, that and that.
I think he's unstable and dangerous. I think he poses a genuine, honest-to-goodness threat.
Anyone who think we're "rushing" to anything needs to tweak their definition of the word "rush" because he's had more time and more "second chances" than anyone I can think of. I admire our restraint sometimes.
Hussein could simply put an end to all of this today if he wanted to. He obviously doesn't.
I tend to want to believe (and put my trust and faith in) the President, Powell, Rumsfeld, the U.N. inspectors, Iraqi defectors, intelligence reports, etc. more than I do Hollywood actors, naked Bay Area protestors and college students.
But that's just me.
Nothing wrong with acting, being naked or in college, of course. But I don't think they're in as good a position to truly know circumstances, inside info, strategies, etc. as the others are. It's simply not their job, nor are they privy to everything. Powell trumps Sarandon on this, fellas.
And I know that some are just philosophically against war and violence no matter what. And I respect that...who the hell - in their right mind - likes war? But it doesn't make them "right" in every case. And I simply think they're wrong in this one.
If it wasn't for a few nasty, brutal wars, they might not have the ability to even protest, raise their voices and otherwise experience all these cool freedoms many take for granted. There's an awesome connection there between the two that I think gets overlooked and ignored sometimes.
It cuts both ways: sometimes you have to break a few eggs and endure some nasty business to come out the other side and realize "okay, that was worth it...look at the outcome".
That doesn't (and shouldn't) make a "blind patriot" or whatever the term used in that other thread. I'd MUCH prefer (because I have friends over there as we speak, who - if things got bad and went horribly awry - I might not ever see or talk to again
I'd love for there to not to be one bomb dropped, rifle fired or missile launched. But...
Just seems very cut-and-dried to me. If I saw things in a few more hundred shades of gray, maybe it would be different...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's rhetorical trickery to equate Susan Sarandon with Colin Powel as dove is to hawk. It's true on a basic level because one is indeed one and not the other. But I'm sure there are plenty of other *more qualified* anti-war protesters that could have been mentioned. Especially since the poster questioned the credibility of the person he mentioned in the first place! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> That much only makes sense. Let's be honest at least by NOT setting up issues just to knock them down.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
BLEAK!
<strong>9/11 aside, the biggest threat to america is crazy-ass americans....</strong><hr></blockquote>
The biggest threat to america is Lazy-ass americans.
Security should be everyones concern, not just the governments. Most Americans want to look the other way. Sadly the other thread is discussing a main reason... LAWYERS and lawsuits.
There are a lot of very cynical, negative people on these boards.
That's the guy from MAD magazine for those of you too young. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>His case against Iraq was devastating. You may not like it, but it was. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Show me evidence. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! I guess we'll have to wait until Feb 5th. Sorry, but you don't make your case with rhetoric. You make your case with evidence. His case is nothing until Feb 5th.
<strong>
Interesting that you get nothing straight, Scott.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually I?d like you to get it straight. But I?m sure you can?t.
I posted this quote
[quote] "He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that." - Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.) <hr></blockquote>
Then you posted:
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
This is a simple factual statement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then I posted:
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>Giant could you please give me a list of the OBL roads, schools, hospitals and (trying not to laugh here) day care facilities. WTF would an Islamic fundamentalist need a day care facility for?
Further could you please detail the amount of money the US, Hamas et. al. has spent in Egypt and the PT. Real dollar amounts would be great. TIA.
BTW you may want to shore up that hole you?re digging there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which you haven?t done yet because you can?t. Why? Because you are wrong. So turn you tail and run. Go stick your head in the sand and hide. Please prove to me that OBL and any others help out more than the US. Your anti-Americanism is only surpassed by your incredible ignorance.
If you?d like reply in the <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=002564"; target="_blank">original thread.</a>
Don't leave out the list of OBL daycare centers as well as a detailed accounting of how much money the US donates to that part of the world.
<strong>
Show me evidence. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! I guess we'll have to wait until Feb 5th. Sorry, but you don't make your case with rhetoric. You make your case with evidence. His case is nothing until Feb 5th.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Listen to Hans Blix.
Too bad I won't be able to see your face when they don't.
You see you don't have any idea any more than I do. The only thing about this is that Bush has said he's got some proof as justification for a " material breach " for some time now. The world's getting tired of waiting. I know he's said he'll disclose but that hasn't happened yet. So until then in my book it's just talk.
After they invade they can plant anything there to support their actions.
<strong>
This is idiocy. Perhaps we oppose these actions because they are wrong? Anti-choice is wrong. Breaking Title 9 is wrong. Going to war to win an election is wrong. Lowering taxes for the rich is wrong. Reaganomics is very, very wrong. An international policy of sword wielding is wrong. An international policy of soapbox politics is wrong. And where Bush has made good proposals (volunteerism) the execution has been half-assed and lacking. A policy of hypocrisy just makes him look like an ass (preaching for emissions-free vehicles after all the administration has done in favor of the oil companies and against environmentalism?)
As I have said, there has not been a single Bush policy that has been successful. Not a single one. He talks the talk, and for some of you that is enough because you follow the Republican warmongering agenda because that is what you identify with, not because that is what you agree with.
WE NEED RESULTS. BUSH HAS FAILED 100% THUS FAR AND THE FORECAST IS A BLEAK ONE. At this point I think it's fair to call for a "regime change".</strong><hr></blockquote>
With all due respect you are wrong.
You like that word "wrong"
You say Bush is anti-choice and such a stance is wrong?
I will always maintain that if you support killing via partial birth abortion that you are not only wrong but you are sick.
20 years from now Liberals will look back and scratch their heads and ask... Why did we wink at abortion and permit it. It "abortion" is so wrong it is not even funny tonton. How can you look me in the eye and say honestly that you find abortion ok?
How?
Fellowship
<strong>" I'll have a good belly laugh when giant sees US troops unearth Saddam's nuclear program in three months ".
Too bad I won't be able to see your face when they don't.
You see you don't have any idea any more than I do. The only thing about this is that Bush has said he's got some proof as justification for a " material breach " for some time now. The world's getting tired of waiting. I know he's said he'll disclose but that hasn't happened yet. So until then in my book it's just talk.
After they invade they can plant anything there to support their actions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said before (maybe in another thread I lost track) it's not the job of the inspectors to find the "smoking gun". It's the job of Iraq to bring everything out to see and have it destroyed. That's how it worked in other countries. Not in Iraq. Why? Iraq refuses to do that. Hans Blix said so himself. That's a clear violation even if the irrelevant UN refuses to say so.
I remember the days when there was "no proof" that OBL was a part of 9-11. Now that we have the video the anti-US idiots just move on to other things that they will be proven wrong about. Like Iraq.
Or that back alley coat hanger surgery is ok?
Do you know when a piece of tissue becomes a human exactly? Or are you one of these idiotic it's always a potential people?
Hmmm? The rest of the world, the UN, and the inspection teams seem to think ( and say ) otherwise.
Good thing you're not in charge.
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
I'm pro-choice but PBA is flat out wrong. Medical exceptions seem resonable but to terminate an unwanted pregnancy at that late stage is just wrong.
And most of American and the USSC agree with me.
<strong>Can you look me in the eye and say that the life of an unwanted child is ok? Or what this child might grow up to be is ok?
Or that back alley coat hanger surgery is ok?
Do you know when a piece of tissue becomes a human exactly? Or are you one of these idiotic it's always a potential people?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> Your first two questions are ignorant and do not address the issue. I would reply to your back alley question by saying that it is just as wrong as any other abortion. Funny that you find the back alley context to be disturbing but yet if it is "legal" and in an office complex it is somehow "ok"
I am not going to reply to your last question. I think you should really think about this issue and reflect on just what abortion is.
Again one day I would hope liberals come to question why they ever allowed this.
Fellowship
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>" Like I said before (maybe in another thread I lost track) it's not the job of the inspectors to find the "smoking gun". "
Hmmm? The rest of the world, the UN, and the inspection teams seam to think ( and say ) otherwise.
Good thing you're not in charge.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah no. Hans Blix said that Iraq ... here wait I can go find the quote ...
oh wait I found one for giant.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Iraq-Evidence.html"; target="_blank">Inspector: Tubes Could Have Nuclear Use</a>
login: aimember
pass: aimember
... okay back to Blix ...
Here we go
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/international/middleeast/28IRAQ.html"; target="_blank"> Inspector Says Iraq Falls Short</a>
[quote]"Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance ? not even today ? of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and live in peace," - Hans Blix<hr></blockquote>
That there is yourup UN talkin' fer "He aint doin' what he's 'pose to be doin'"
Here's anothe good part
[quote]Mr. Blix's sweeping and detailed critique of Iraq's failure to demonstrate with documents, interviews and other evidence that it had destroyed its prohibited weapons appeared to put new pressure on France, Germany and other nations that have resisted early military action to respond more forcefully to Baghdad's noncompliance.<hr></blockquote>
It's a good read.
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>