but how many civilians die in wars we start?? g</strong><hr></blockquote>
as i recall, saddam started this little shin-dig about 12 years ago when he decided it would be really cool to invade kwait. as far as i can tell, he hasn't lived up to his part of the cease fire agreement.
if we start firing missiles without UN authorazation it will be a war we started....as you said, kuwait was 12 years ago...this will be a new war unless there is UN authorization....iraq/kuwait was a UN action....this doesn't appear to be, at least not at this time....g
why did we care about kuwait anyway...borders are always changing...won't iraqs borders change with this war (kurds and turkey are already claiming northern iraq as we type)...oh yes, i forgot about the oil....
so are all borders and lands set in stone?? eastern europe has changed, the middle east has changed...israel has changed....tell me a date when all borders are set and done and cannot change and i will understand....g
I love you, g, but I have no clue what this means.
<hr></blockquote>
love you too, g, and respect you alot (when they first made you mod and the AO people went crazy, i thought it was a great idea...still do....and if i am ever in texas (and austin would be the only place in texas i would go), i would love to grab a beer with you... )
i guess i am thinking that we have been a defensive nation...people are attacked and we (sometimes late) jump in to help or correct wrongs done....
this time we will be the ones firing first
if we go to defend then any deaths are sad, but not really on our hands
if we fire first, especially at a country we are not at war with at the time, then every single cilivan death is directly on us...we can argue back and forth about how bad saddam is, but if we fire a missile and it kills non-military people, that is on us....
in WWII, the germans and japanese knew they were at war with europe and the USA....are the iraqi people at war with us?? no.....have they fired on us?? no....when the first missile launches from a US battleship, that will be the first shot fired in this new war of the USA against Iraq....
Your posts always focus on the "emotional imagery" (IMO), I wonder if you can break anything down rationally. It's melodramatic, but pretty useless once you step back into reality.
[quote]Originally posted by thegelding:
<strong>
if we fire first, especially at a country we are not at war with at the time,...</strong><hr></blockquote>
War will be declared prior to the "first shot". So your "...we are not at war with at the time..." statement is pretty meaningless.
<strong> [quote]then every single cilivan death is directly on us...we can argue back and forth about how bad saddam is, but if we fire a missile and it kills non-military people, that is on us....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gee, it couldn't be Saddam's fault for using them as human shields, could it? He is too saintly for that to happen, right? People seem so focused on finding a reason to villify the US, they completely lose sight that it all comes down to Saddam's unconditional compliance. Once things spin out of control (for him, that is), the blood is entirely on Saddam's hands. Is that so hard to comprehend?
<strong> [quote]...are the iraqi people at war with us??</strong><hr></blockquote>
They know they have a ruthless dictator leading their country that does very little to keep them out of a war.
<strong> [quote]...have they fired on us??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ask a no-fly zone pilot. Oh, that doesn't represent the intent of the civilians? Of course not. Do they have any control over the military who are supposed to be protecting them? No? Well that suggests a problem, no?
<strong> [quote]...when the first missile launches from a US battleship, that will be the first shot fired in this new war of the USA against Iraq...
Yes, there is absolutely no history prior to that point. The US just "decided" to start shooting missles one day. Just pick your marking point and then form your own context how ever which way you like. Makes for a most melodramatic story...
<strong>if we fire first, especially at a country we are not at war with at the time, then every single cilivan death is directly on us...we can argue back and forth about how bad saddam is, but if we fire a missile and it kills non-military people, that is on us....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well we killed a lot of non-combatants in WWI, WWII and no one would question the validity of those wars.
I don't think that the fact that Germany's military fired the first shot makes the death of a woman on the countryside trying to live her life unaware and/or powerless of/against what's going on any less tragic. To draw on your point, is the death of a Belgian or French civilian in WWII any more tragic than the death of a German civilian since Germany fired the first shot?
What you boil down to is a technicality, and beyond that this is a unique war because this is a unique situation.
[quote]<strong>in WWII, the germans and japanese knew they were at war with europe and the USA</strong><hr></blockquote>
How did they know they were at war with the USA when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor?
[quote]<strong>are the iraqi people at war with us?? no.....have they fired on us?? no....when the first missile launches from a US battleship, that will be the first shot fired in this new war of the USA against Iraq</strong><hr></blockquote>
g'rat, if it is UN against iraq i will be ok with that...like i have said before, i don't like war, but i know it is a necessary evil at times....i worry about us (USA) being a first strike nation....when you are the most powerful nation by far on the planet and you are also a first strike, ask questions later nation....not a good combo for a happy world.....
_______________________________________________
Randycat:
Your posts always focus on the "emotional imagery" (IMO), I wonder if you can break anything down rationally. It's melodramatic, but pretty useless once you step back into reality.
me:
hard to separate emotion and killing for me...sorry, just the way i am wired....with all the death and suffering i see everyday you would think i would become desensitized...thankfully that hasn't happened...my empathy helps me in my work...if i lost it i wouldn't like myself nearly as much....though i would cry with patients a whole lot less...
ps...i understand reality....and i have nothing against the military...i love the military...my grandfather served in WWII, my brother-in-law in desert storm...we have many bases here in New Mexico....kirkland, white sands (stelth fighters are kept here)...i see military personnal and their children everyday at the hospital...they are great, nice, intelligent people...i wish them nothing but the best...which is why i don't want them going to war unless they have too....perhaps it is my age, but vietnam is too strong in my mind....
quote:
Originally posted by thegelding:
if we fire first, especially at a country we are not at war with at the time,...
Randycat
War will be declared prior to the "first shot". So your "...we are not at war with at the time..." statement is pretty meaningless.
me:
who is declaring war?? the UN? if so, ok, i accept that....if it is Bush, then the war is started by us...we are attacking a country and starting a war....just not something i am use to...not the direction i want to see my beloved USA go...but just MHO
quote:
then every single cilivan death is directly on us...we can argue back and forth about how bad saddam is, but if we fire a missile and it kills non-military people, that is on us....
Randycat:
Gee, it couldn't be Saddam's fault for using them as human shields, could it? He is too saintly for that to happen, right? People seem so focused on finding a reason to villify the US, they completely lose sight that it all comes down to Saddam's unconditional compliance. Once things spin out of control (for him, that is), the blood is entirely on Saddam's hands. Is that so hard to comprehend?
me:
shields? for living in their city?? sure saddam is a horrid, evil man....but if missiles rain down on a populated city like baghdad, people die, and it won't be ALL saddam's fault....lots of blame to throw around.....where did saddam get his weapons and technology and training that we so despise?? some from the USA, some from russia....etc, etc
quote:
...are the iraqi people at war with us??
Randycat:
They know they have a ruthless dictator leading their country that does very little to keep them out of a war.
me:
i actually don't know what they know....haven't been to iraq, don't plan on visiting....rather hit australia or kenya or new zealand or ireland and have a good dark beer
quote:
...have they fired on us??
Randycat:
Ask a no-fly zone pilot. Oh, that doesn't represent the intent of the civilians? Of course not. Do they have any control over the military who are supposed to be protecting them? No? Well that suggests a problem, no?
me:
not much to say about that...seems UN action is involved, so i'm ok with the no fly zones and the shots we take at them and they at us.....
quote:
...when the first missile launches from a US battleship, that will be the first shot fired in this new war of the USA against Iraq...
Randycat:
Yes, there is absolutely no history prior to that point. The US just "decided" to start shooting missles one day. Just pick your marking point and then form your own context how ever which way you like. Makes for a most melodramatic story...
me:
we have prior "history" with the british...should we attack them?? or the germans? or japan? the UN has history with iraq...if the US attacks without UN charter then the US is starting a new war....
______________________________________________
groverat (my friend in austin)
quote:
Originally posted by thegelding:
if we fire first, especially at a country we are not at war with at the time, then every single cilivan death is directly on us...we can argue back and forth about how bad saddam is, but if we fire a missile and it kills non-military people, that is on us....
Groverat:
Well we killed a lot of non-combatants in WWI, WWII and no one would question the validity of those wars.
I don't think that the fact that Germany's military fired the first shot makes the death of a woman on the countryside trying to live her life unaware and/or powerless of/against what's going on any less tragic. To draw on your point, is the death of a Belgian or French civilian in WWII any more tragic than the death of a German civilian since Germany fired the first shot?
What you boil down to is a technicality, and beyond that this is a unique war because this is a unique situation.
me:
of course those deaths are tragic...but once again, we responded to aggression....here we start aggression...it is very different...
quote:
in WWII, the germans and japanese knew they were at war with europe and the USA
groverat:
How did they know they were at war with the USA when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor?
me:
they knew we were at war when we attacked them....what i mean is, when we fired weapons and took lives outside our borders, war was already established...i have no problems with the USA defending itself, especially within its own borders...but when we go to forgein soil and kill people in their homes in their country, we better be damn right and damn sure and we better not start the shooting and start the war....that makes us everything we claim not to be...saying "dang, iraq may attack someone and kill their citizens, so lets attack them and kill their citizens" is bad logic...even for c students....g
[quote]<strong>when you are the most powerful nation by far on the planet and you are also a first strike, ask questions later nation....not a good combo for a happy world.....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ask questions later? Later than what? 12 years?
This IS NOT a new question. Not by a longshot.
[quote]<strong>What you boil down to is a technicality, and beyond that this is a unique war because this is a unique situation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Howso?
[quote]<strong>what i mean is, when we fired weapons and took lives outside our borders, war was already established...i have no problems with the USA defending itself, especially within its own borders...but when we go to forgein soil and kill people in their homes in their country, we better be damn right and damn sure and we better not start the shooting and start the war</strong><hr></blockquote>
You seem to equate firing the first shot to "starting the war". I think this is a simplistic view. That completely ignores the circumstances leading up to the first shot.
[quote]<strong>that makes us everything we claim not to be...saying "dang, iraq may attack someone and kill their citizens, so lets attack them and kill their citizens" is bad logic...even for c students....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
The question before the U.N. Security Council (which is the vehicle for war) is not Iraq's status as a threat, but Iraq's compliance with disarmament resolutions and their deceit 17 resolutions and 12 years later.
what i mean is, when we fired weapons and took lives outside our borders, war was already established...i have no problems with the USA defending itself, especially within its own borders...but when we go to forgein soil and kill people in their homes in their country, we better be damn right and damn sure and we better not start the shooting and start the war
groverat:
You seem to equate firing the first shot to "starting the war". I think this is a simplistic view. That completely ignores the circumstances leading up to the first shot.
me:
a first shot at home and a first shot abroad are two different things....in texas you can shoot someone in your home for just about any reason....but if you shoot them at their home, you better hide the body good or you fry...g
_________________________________________
quote:
that makes us everything we claim not to be...saying "dang, iraq may attack someone and kill their citizens, so lets attack them and kill their citizens" is bad logic...even for c students....g
groverat:
The question before the U.N. Security Council (which is the vehicle for war) is not Iraq's status as a threat, but Iraq's compliance with disarmament resolutions and their deceit 17 resolutions and 12 years later.
me: so we wait for the UN to declare war?? sounds good to me.....g
<strong>)...even though i concider myself a pacifist, if someone attacked my country or home or family, i would fight to the death...not a second thought... </strong><hr></blockquote>
You would fight to the death for your country, even if it was headed by a murdering dictator, know for killing thousands of your own people? A regime that send soldiers to kill dissidents and rape and torture their families? I love my country and fellow citizens, but if I lived under a regime like that and another state invaded in order to remove that regime, I might not be willing to die for that regime.
<strong> most protestester could give a flying god damn about Saddam. Most protestors know this ain't about hussein, regime change or building falling in flames.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please don't go bring up that tired, lazy "it's all about oil" argument.
[quote]Originally posted by Sondjata:
<strong>
Saddam is an idiot if he thinks that protestors are defending him. His mouth pieces are inefected spokesmen and don't know shyt about propaganda or use of the media.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think he believes that are defendinghim. I think he beleives they are weakening the resolve of the UN to enforce sanctions against him. I think he is probably right.
[quote]Originally posted by Sondjata:
<strong>
most of us know this is about "securing" certain natural resources. Just as Condoleeza got caught agreeing with a coup in venzuela (A huge exporter of certain natural resources). How can you defend Democracy and praise a military coup at the same time? Easy, when you really don't care about Democracy.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, right, it's "all about oil". That's why they didn't just lift sanctions within the last 12 years and negotiate deals with Iraq. Or grab and hold Iraqi oil fields during the Gulf War. What do you think, Bush is going to open his own gas station in Iraq when this is over?
[quote]Originally posted by Sondjata:
<strong>
Any whoo.. once in Iraq, And only a damn fool thinks that it wont happen AND an even bigger fool thinks that US troops are endangered more by iraqui republican guards than depleted uranium. Bombs will be dropped from 30,000 feet where the only risk is the same fate as the SS challenger. Anyways.. once in Iraq; the miltary dyks will be pointed at Iran, Syria ( who's helping now..but....as history shows...sometimes your friend..sometimes not...) and korea. Nice permanent wedge dead in the center of the Euro-Africa quadrtant. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not sure what you mean by the Challenger comment exactly...they are going to suffer o-ring failure upon take off? I take it you meant to write Columbia..pretty tasteless either way.
Besides, what you expect them to fly really, really low when they bomb? The point of a bombing run is to hit a target and leave, not hit target and give their anti-air batteries a change to hit you.
[quote]Originally posted by Sondjata:
<strong>Don't sleep. You may miss the truth </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well wake up sleeping beauty, you're missing a whole lot.
you know your country and love your country...do the people in baghdad think saddam is evil?? perhaps, but probably not...they think bush is evil...they would probably think of us what you are saying about them...the people of baghdad my think that they should attack america because we will give up to get away from the evil bush...
i would fight and die for my country because i love it and i believe in it...maybe not always the leaders, but the leaders come and go...the USA remains....i thought the iraqi people would be the same, but people i trust and love have told me otherwise...i hope they are right...as i have said time and time again...i don't want war, but if we go to war i want it to be quick with the fewest deaths possible and i want our side to win and have the fewest casualites...i am a hometown boy that thinks of the world also...but i of course still want my home team to win...g
[quote]love you too, g, and respect you alot....and if i am ever in texas (and austin would be the only place in texas i would go), i would love to grab a beer with you... )<hr></blockquote>
<strong>At least we know who gets to sleep on which side of the bed, gelding on the left of course and groverat on the right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>g'rat...that quote is from your post above...i didn't write it, so i can't answer your "howso?" </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't make sense!! How can you people stand to talk to me!!?
[quote]<strong>a first shot at home and a first shot abroad are two different things....in texas you can shoot someone in your home for just about any reason....but if you shoot them at their home, you better hide the body good or you fry</strong><hr></blockquote>
What if I'm a member of an organized body (that the guy who is going to get shot is a voluntary member of) that has decided that the guy has violated the organized body's rules (the organized body's authority is valid) and needs to be shot? Certainly I can shoot him then, eh?
[quote]<strong>so we wait for the UN to declare war?? sounds good to me.....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the idea.
[quote]<strong>do the people in baghdad think saddam is evil?? perhaps, but probably not</strong><hr></blockquote>
of course many kurds have fled....and others too...but the people who stay often do for many reasons...sometimes even love and belief of country...the more forgein people i meet, the more i believe we are all so similar....that thought make me happy inside.....the picture of g'rat on the right side of my bed instead of my wife makes me sad.... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> g
Comments
<strong>
but how many civilians die in wars we start?? g</strong><hr></blockquote>
as i recall, saddam started this little shin-dig about 12 years ago when he decided it would be really cool to invade kwait. as far as i can tell, he hasn't lived up to his part of the cease fire agreement.
<strong>but how many civilians die in wars we start?? g</strong><hr></blockquote>
I love you, g, but I have no clue what this means.
why did we care about kuwait anyway...borders are always changing...won't iraqs borders change with this war (kurds and turkey are already claiming northern iraq as we type)...oh yes, i forgot about the oil....
so are all borders and lands set in stone?? eastern europe has changed, the middle east has changed...israel has changed....tell me a date when all borders are set and done and cannot change and i will understand....g
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thegelding:
but how many civilians die in wars we start?? g
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love you, g, but I have no clue what this means.
<hr></blockquote>
love you too, g, and respect you alot (when they first made you mod and the AO people went crazy, i thought it was a great idea...still do....and if i am ever in texas (and austin would be the only place in texas i would go), i would love to grab a beer with you...
i guess i am thinking that we have been a defensive nation...people are attacked and we (sometimes late) jump in to help or correct wrongs done....
this time we will be the ones firing first
if we go to defend then any deaths are sad, but not really on our hands
if we fire first, especially at a country we are not at war with at the time, then every single cilivan death is directly on us...we can argue back and forth about how bad saddam is, but if we fire a missile and it kills non-military people, that is on us....
in WWII, the germans and japanese knew they were at war with europe and the USA....are the iraqi people at war with us?? no.....have they fired on us?? no....when the first missile launches from a US battleship, that will be the first shot fired in this new war of the USA against Iraq....
g
[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by thegelding:
<strong>
if we fire first, especially at a country we are not at war with at the time,...</strong><hr></blockquote>
War will be declared prior to the "first shot". So your "...we are not at war with at the time..." statement is pretty meaningless.
<strong> [quote]then every single cilivan death is directly on us...we can argue back and forth about how bad saddam is, but if we fire a missile and it kills non-military people, that is on us....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gee, it couldn't be Saddam's fault for using them as human shields, could it? He is too saintly for that to happen, right? People seem so focused on finding a reason to villify the US, they completely lose sight that it all comes down to Saddam's unconditional compliance. Once things spin out of control (for him, that is), the blood is entirely on Saddam's hands. Is that so hard to comprehend?
<strong> [quote]...are the iraqi people at war with us??</strong><hr></blockquote>
They know they have a ruthless dictator leading their country that does very little to keep them out of a war.
<strong> [quote]...have they fired on us??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ask a no-fly zone pilot. Oh, that doesn't represent the intent of the civilians? Of course not. Do they have any control over the military who are supposed to be protecting them? No? Well that suggests a problem, no?
<strong> [quote]...when the first missile launches from a US battleship, that will be the first shot fired in this new war of the USA against Iraq...
[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, there is absolutely no history prior to that point. The US just "decided" to start shooting missles one day. Just pick your marking point and then form your own context how ever which way you like. Makes for a most melodramatic story...
<strong>if we fire first, especially at a country we are not at war with at the time, then every single cilivan death is directly on us...we can argue back and forth about how bad saddam is, but if we fire a missile and it kills non-military people, that is on us....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well we killed a lot of non-combatants in WWI, WWII and no one would question the validity of those wars.
I don't think that the fact that Germany's military fired the first shot makes the death of a woman on the countryside trying to live her life unaware and/or powerless of/against what's going on any less tragic. To draw on your point, is the death of a Belgian or French civilian in WWII any more tragic than the death of a German civilian since Germany fired the first shot?
What you boil down to is a technicality, and beyond that this is a unique war because this is a unique situation.
[quote]<strong>in WWII, the germans and japanese knew they were at war with europe and the USA</strong><hr></blockquote>
How did they know they were at war with the USA when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor?
[quote]<strong>are the iraqi people at war with us?? no.....have they fired on us?? no....when the first missile launches from a US battleship, that will be the first shot fired in this new war of the USA against Iraq</strong><hr></blockquote>
U.N. against Iraq.
_______________________________________________
Randycat:
Your posts always focus on the "emotional imagery" (IMO), I wonder if you can break anything down rationally. It's melodramatic, but pretty useless once you step back into reality.
me:
hard to separate emotion and killing for me...sorry, just the way i am wired....with all the death and suffering i see everyday you would think i would become desensitized...thankfully that hasn't happened...my empathy helps me in my work...if i lost it i wouldn't like myself nearly as much....though i would cry with patients a whole lot less...
ps...i understand reality....and i have nothing against the military...i love the military...my grandfather served in WWII, my brother-in-law in desert storm...we have many bases here in New Mexico....kirkland, white sands (stelth fighters are kept here)...i see military personnal and their children everyday at the hospital...they are great, nice, intelligent people...i wish them nothing but the best...which is why i don't want them going to war unless they have too....perhaps it is my age, but vietnam is too strong in my mind....
quote:
Originally posted by thegelding:
if we fire first, especially at a country we are not at war with at the time,...
Randycat
War will be declared prior to the "first shot". So your "...we are not at war with at the time..." statement is pretty meaningless.
me:
who is declaring war?? the UN? if so, ok, i accept that....if it is Bush, then the war is started by us...we are attacking a country and starting a war....just not something i am use to...not the direction i want to see my beloved USA go...but just MHO
quote:
then every single cilivan death is directly on us...we can argue back and forth about how bad saddam is, but if we fire a missile and it kills non-military people, that is on us....
Randycat:
Gee, it couldn't be Saddam's fault for using them as human shields, could it? He is too saintly for that to happen, right? People seem so focused on finding a reason to villify the US, they completely lose sight that it all comes down to Saddam's unconditional compliance. Once things spin out of control (for him, that is), the blood is entirely on Saddam's hands. Is that so hard to comprehend?
me:
shields? for living in their city?? sure saddam is a horrid, evil man....but if missiles rain down on a populated city like baghdad, people die, and it won't be ALL saddam's fault....lots of blame to throw around.....where did saddam get his weapons and technology and training that we so despise?? some from the USA, some from russia....etc, etc
quote:
...are the iraqi people at war with us??
Randycat:
They know they have a ruthless dictator leading their country that does very little to keep them out of a war.
me:
i actually don't know what they know....haven't been to iraq, don't plan on visiting....rather hit australia or kenya or new zealand or ireland and have a good dark beer
quote:
...have they fired on us??
Randycat:
Ask a no-fly zone pilot. Oh, that doesn't represent the intent of the civilians? Of course not. Do they have any control over the military who are supposed to be protecting them? No? Well that suggests a problem, no?
me:
not much to say about that...seems UN action is involved, so i'm ok with the no fly zones and the shots we take at them and they at us.....
quote:
...when the first missile launches from a US battleship, that will be the first shot fired in this new war of the USA against Iraq...
Randycat:
Yes, there is absolutely no history prior to that point. The US just "decided" to start shooting missles one day. Just pick your marking point and then form your own context how ever which way you like. Makes for a most melodramatic story...
me:
we have prior "history" with the british...should we attack them?? or the germans? or japan? the UN has history with iraq...if the US attacks without UN charter then the US is starting a new war....
______________________________________________
groverat (my friend in austin)
quote:
Originally posted by thegelding:
if we fire first, especially at a country we are not at war with at the time, then every single cilivan death is directly on us...we can argue back and forth about how bad saddam is, but if we fire a missile and it kills non-military people, that is on us....
Groverat:
Well we killed a lot of non-combatants in WWI, WWII and no one would question the validity of those wars.
I don't think that the fact that Germany's military fired the first shot makes the death of a woman on the countryside trying to live her life unaware and/or powerless of/against what's going on any less tragic. To draw on your point, is the death of a Belgian or French civilian in WWII any more tragic than the death of a German civilian since Germany fired the first shot?
What you boil down to is a technicality, and beyond that this is a unique war because this is a unique situation.
me:
of course those deaths are tragic...but once again, we responded to aggression....here we start aggression...it is very different...
quote:
in WWII, the germans and japanese knew they were at war with europe and the USA
groverat:
How did they know they were at war with the USA when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor?
me:
they knew we were at war when we attacked them....what i mean is, when we fired weapons and took lives outside our borders, war was already established...i have no problems with the USA defending itself, especially within its own borders...but when we go to forgein soil and kill people in their homes in their country, we better be damn right and damn sure and we better not start the shooting and start the war....that makes us everything we claim not to be...saying "dang, iraq may attack someone and kill their citizens, so lets attack them and kill their citizens" is bad logic...even for c students....g
[ 02-21-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
Ask questions later? Later than what? 12 years?
This IS NOT a new question. Not by a longshot.
[quote]<strong>What you boil down to is a technicality, and beyond that this is a unique war because this is a unique situation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Howso?
[quote]<strong>what i mean is, when we fired weapons and took lives outside our borders, war was already established...i have no problems with the USA defending itself, especially within its own borders...but when we go to forgein soil and kill people in their homes in their country, we better be damn right and damn sure and we better not start the shooting and start the war</strong><hr></blockquote>
You seem to equate firing the first shot to "starting the war". I think this is a simplistic view. That completely ignores the circumstances leading up to the first shot.
[quote]<strong>that makes us everything we claim not to be...saying "dang, iraq may attack someone and kill their citizens, so lets attack them and kill their citizens" is bad logic...even for c students....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
The question before the U.N. Security Council (which is the vehicle for war) is not Iraq's status as a threat, but Iraq's compliance with disarmament resolutions and their deceit 17 resolutions and 12 years later.
What you boil down to is a technicality, and beyond that this is a unique war because this is a unique situation.
Howso?
g'rat...that quote is from your post above...i didn't write it, so i can't answer your "howso?"
__________________________________________________ _
quote:
what i mean is, when we fired weapons and took lives outside our borders, war was already established...i have no problems with the USA defending itself, especially within its own borders...but when we go to forgein soil and kill people in their homes in their country, we better be damn right and damn sure and we better not start the shooting and start the war
groverat:
You seem to equate firing the first shot to "starting the war". I think this is a simplistic view. That completely ignores the circumstances leading up to the first shot.
me:
a first shot at home and a first shot abroad are two different things....in texas you can shoot someone in your home for just about any reason....but if you shoot them at their home, you better hide the body good or you fry...g
_________________________________________
quote:
that makes us everything we claim not to be...saying "dang, iraq may attack someone and kill their citizens, so lets attack them and kill their citizens" is bad logic...even for c students....g
groverat:
The question before the U.N. Security Council (which is the vehicle for war) is not Iraq's status as a threat, but Iraq's compliance with disarmament resolutions and their deceit 17 resolutions and 12 years later.
me: so we wait for the UN to declare war?? sounds good to me.....g
<strong>)...even though i concider myself a pacifist, if someone attacked my country or home or family, i would fight to the death...not a second thought... </strong><hr></blockquote>
You would fight to the death for your country, even if it was headed by a murdering dictator, know for killing thousands of your own people? A regime that send soldiers to kill dissidents and rape and torture their families? I love my country and fellow citizens, but if I lived under a regime like that and another state invaded in order to remove that regime, I might not be willing to die for that regime.
<strong> most protestester could give a flying god damn about Saddam. Most protestors know this ain't about hussein, regime change or building falling in flames.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please don't go bring up that tired, lazy "it's all about oil" argument.
[quote]Originally posted by Sondjata:
<strong>
Saddam is an idiot if he thinks that protestors are defending him. His mouth pieces are inefected spokesmen and don't know shyt about propaganda or use of the media.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think he believes that are defendinghim. I think he beleives they are weakening the resolve of the UN to enforce sanctions against him. I think he is probably right.
[quote]Originally posted by Sondjata:
<strong>
most of us know this is about "securing" certain natural resources. Just as Condoleeza got caught agreeing with a coup in venzuela (A huge exporter of certain natural resources). How can you defend Democracy and praise a military coup at the same time? Easy, when you really don't care about Democracy.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, right, it's "all about oil". That's why they didn't just lift sanctions within the last 12 years and negotiate deals with Iraq. Or grab and hold Iraqi oil fields during the Gulf War. What do you think, Bush is going to open his own gas station in Iraq when this is over?
[quote]Originally posted by Sondjata:
<strong>
Any whoo.. once in Iraq, And only a damn fool thinks that it wont happen AND an even bigger fool thinks that US troops are endangered more by iraqui republican guards than depleted uranium. Bombs will be dropped from 30,000 feet where the only risk is the same fate as the SS challenger. Anyways.. once in Iraq; the miltary dyks will be pointed at Iran, Syria ( who's helping now..but....as history shows...sometimes your friend..sometimes not...) and korea. Nice permanent wedge dead in the center of the Euro-Africa quadrtant. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not sure what you mean by the Challenger comment exactly...they are going to suffer o-ring failure upon take off? I take it you meant to write Columbia..pretty tasteless either way.
Besides, what you expect them to fly really, really low when they bomb? The point of a bombing run is to hit a target and leave, not hit target and give their anti-air batteries a change to hit you.
[quote]Originally posted by Sondjata:
<strong>Don't sleep. You may miss the truth </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well wake up sleeping beauty, you're missing a whole lot.
[ 02-21-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
i would fight and die for my country because i love it and i believe in it...maybe not always the leaders, but the leaders come and go...the USA remains....i thought the iraqi people would be the same, but people i trust and love have told me otherwise...i hope they are right...as i have said time and time again...i don't want war, but if we go to war i want it to be quick with the fewest deaths possible and i want our side to win and have the fewest casualites...i am a hometown boy that thinks of the world also...but i of course still want my home team to win...g
[quote]love you too, g, and respect you alot....and if i am ever in texas (and austin would be the only place in texas i would go), i would love to grab a beer with you... )<hr></blockquote>
G is for Gelding
G is for Groverat
G is for Gay
<strong>
G is for Gelding
G is for Groverat
G is for Gay</strong><hr></blockquote>
Another Internet romance blooming before us?
can somebody call CoD's parents and have them activate the internet filters....g
At least we know who gets to sleep on which side of the bed, gelding on the left of course and groverat on the right.
[ 02-21-2003: Message edited by: ColanderOfDeath ]</p>
<strong>At least we know who gets to sleep on which side of the bed, gelding on the left of course and groverat on the right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Don't worry, g, CoD gets a little jealous.
actually my wife sleeps on the right, but that is because the alarm is on that side and i tend to turn it off and sleep some more...
<strong>g'rat...that quote is from your post above...i didn't write it, so i can't answer your "howso?" </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't make sense!! How can you people stand to talk to me!!?
[quote]<strong>a first shot at home and a first shot abroad are two different things....in texas you can shoot someone in your home for just about any reason....but if you shoot them at their home, you better hide the body good or you fry</strong><hr></blockquote>
What if I'm a member of an organized body (that the guy who is going to get shot is a voluntary member of) that has decided that the guy has violated the organized body's rules (the organized body's authority is valid) and needs to be shot? Certainly I can shoot him then, eh?
[quote]<strong>so we wait for the UN to declare war?? sounds good to me.....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the idea.
[quote]<strong>do the people in baghdad think saddam is evil?? perhaps, but probably not</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ask the 4 million who have fled Iraq.
of course many kurds have fled....and others too...but the people who stay often do for many reasons...sometimes even love and belief of country...the more forgein people i meet, the more i believe we are all so similar....that thought make me happy inside.....the picture of g'rat on the right side of my bed instead of my wife makes me sad.... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> g