Maybe you missed the paragraph above where I described a dangerous dictorial regime that has already been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. In comparison, Saddam's is extremely benign.
I was trying to prepare a point by point argument...and then I just kept laughing my ass off at the ludicrous reasoning I keep seeing. I'll try to keep it together:
giant:
"As I pointed out, here at conservative NU the faculty is somewhere around 95% against the war. That kind of thing doesn't show up in random polls."
"conservative faculty"
tonton:
"We were in the UN to seek the moral and unambiguously legal right to go to war. We didn't get it. "
You are assuming it is needed. Historically, it hasn't always been sought. Secondly, there is no question that the UN security council has proved itself totally ineffective in these matters. They have stood idly by and watched slaughters. They are toothless.
Bunge:
"The United States, or Bush, has made a unilateral decision to attack Iraq outside of the U.N. Charter and our own Constitution. The number of countries doesn't matter. That's not how 'unilateral' is defined."
1. Your argument that this is unilateral is totally without merit. You accuse Bush of "pushing one side". WTF else would he do? I'm sure he "cares" that some other nations don't support the action....but he is going to do it anyway because he believes it has to be done. The man has an opinion and he made very effort to convince the UN of that opinion. Due to France's position, he couldn't get explicit authorization. That doesn't make it immoral. By your reasoning, anyone with an opinion that acts upon it is acting unilaterally. If anyone was acting unilaterally, it was FRANCE. The final estimate was that we would have gotten TEN VOTES. Who was being unilateral, again? Let's see...the US with 30-45 nations on board. Or, France with itself. Hmmmm.
2. The UN charter is not being violated. The United States is acting in the national security interests of itself and its allies. The UN didn't pass a resolution forbidding military action, bunge.
3. OUR CONSTITUTION How? Where? The President has explicit authority under the congressional resolution. We went through 6 months (not to mention 12 years) of diplomacy. He has submitted the required notice to Congress that he must now use the military. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids military actions when the President and his administration determine there is a threat. Nothing. What a ridiculous, assasine statement.
giant again:
"You know. I just realized how elementary this shit is. If you really are so behind in life that this is news, it's not really worth my time to try to explain it to you. Go back to college (or go for the first time) and this time pay attention."
You're in israeli, aren't you? BTW: I have a feeling that Americans won't allow the war-mongering to go on that long. I think you might be underestimating the anti-war movement in the US. Polls don't do it justice. As I pointed out, here at conservative NU the faculty is somewhere around 95% against the war. That kind of thing doesn't show up in random polls.
Yes I am.
When it?s your survival you find the energy. If you think you can lay passive and the threat will go away, you either have an interest in making such claims, or you?re too stupid for me to even carry a conversion with you. I give you the benefit of the doubt that it?s the former.
Quote:
It seems you want to turn a blind eye toward the whole of africa, which is approaching another major continental war. If we ignore the AIDS situation and focus just on deliberate acts carried out by ruling regimes, you still have a vastly larger problem than Iraq. I highly doubt that Saddam and Iraq under intense inspections will cause a million deaths. If you want to find the land of corrupt regimes, africa is the place to look.
Or are a few million black lives not as important as 'US and Israeli interests,' since that's what we are really talking about?
The Problems in Africa are interlinked to this issue. The Islamization of that continent is at the root cause of the conflicts there, the disinvestment and the starvation. But you never hear that perspective in your media. What you do hear is that talentless monkey Geldof and others like him yabering in self-promotion.
So you're a little biased about what the US should do in the region. Thanks for the input, and it will be considered when Americans make decisions about their own county. In the meantime, prepare to not have US fight your battles forever.
Quote:
The Problems in Africa is interlinked to this issue. The Islamization of that continent is at the root cause of the conflicts there, the disinvestment and the starvation
Funny. First you ignore colonialism and the slave trade, then you call starvation a "root cause." This is right after an insult. You're a teenager, too, right? I sure hope so.
So you're a little biased about what the US should do in the region. Thanks for the input, and it will be considered when Americans make decisions about their own county. In the meantime, prepare to not have US fight your battles forever.
I think you have that backwards.
Quote:
Funny. First you ignore colonialism and the slave trade, then you call starvation a "root cause." This is right after an insult. You're a teenager, too, right? I sure hope so.
Yeah, that must be it. Keep spewing that leftist garbage. Too bad it?s completely negated by facts on the ground. If it weren?t for colonialism and the investment in infrastructure that it brought, these people would still be eating each other, rather than endangered guerrillas.
Maybe you missed the paragraph above where I described a dangerous dictorial regime that has already been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. In comparison, Saddam's is extremely benign.
Saddam's regime is responsible for far more than "thousands" of deaths. American deaths are more powerful to me, but when it's 3,000 versus... oh, I don't know, roughly a million foreign deaths I'll go ahead and say the ~1mil is worse.
As usual, I find myself on neither side, and agreeing with some of what you say, but ultimately I have to wonder about the wilfull simplicity of which you accuse others but, nonetheless, you yourself display.
There are no innocents when you explore the motivations of any nation/state, self interest rules.
Iraq is more dangerous than the picture you propose, guaranteed, you can choose to see it, or not. Is it related to 9-11? Mebbe, mebbe not. But securing Iraqi oil will allow America to keep Saui Arabia and others honest for another 20 years, and that absolutely must be the case. Saudi money will buy Al Queda a nuke as soon as such a weapon comes to market (if it hasn't already, but for lack of delivery).
We need to start squeezing a few of those twitching princes untill their eyeballs pop out of their sockets, but hey...
I can never be proud of being American again. Every time someone asks where I'm from I'll be hesitant to tell them the truth (incidentally, 99% of the people I meet are not American and 90% of those will hate Americans after this). I am ashamed to be associated with a country that thinks it IS God.
A friend of mine is married to a girl from Iraq. and she has a lot of family in iraq and they happy about this war. She says that their family says that if no more than half of them die it will be worth it to get rid of Sudan.
None of us have no idea what it is like fora commom person to live under an evil ruler. in the past decade millions of iracs own people have been killed with gas and other more horriable ways. Including torture such as forceing parents to watch their children eaten alive by wild dogs.
their are no disabled people in irac because if you become disabled you are shot. I could go on and on and on and on.
terroririst are not these poor people that have been oppressed by the U.S.
they are the elite and the rich. most of them are highly educated. the oppressed are the poor starving people living in iraq under an evil rule.
OIL OIL OIL how i am tired of hearing about how bush wants oil. I remember they said the same thing about the gulf war. well, in 1991 we won a war and got the oil. So if we were after oil wouldn't we have kept it instead of giving it back to the people after the fighting was over, The Oil belogs to the people of irac instead of putting billions in saddamms bank account the money could be paying for schools and medicine, etc. and we are going to give the people of iraq their oil.
We are going to liberate the people of Irac. I am proud to be an american. We are the only country that comes to the aid of others. Sudan is a hundred times worse than hitler. every year he is responsible for more deaths than hitler ever did. 45 countries are supporting us now. when all is said and done americanism will be improved
I am proud that we are doing whats right. Bush is actually telling you the truth, evidence supports this
The Problems in Africa are interlinked to this issue. The Islamization of that continent is at the root cause of the conflicts there, the disinvestment and the starvation.
Seriously Mika, if there were a Muslim or a Christian here as staunchly against Judiasm as you are against Muslims, there'd be no end to the Nazi accusations.
Seriously Mika, if there were a Muslim or a Christian here as staunchly against Judiasm as you are against Muslims, there'd be no end to the Nazi accusations.
If those Christians or Muslims had Jews trying to kill them daily soley because they were Christian or Muslim, those accusations might not be as forth coming as you think.
" The UN charter is not being violated. The United States is acting in the national security interests of itself and its allies. The UN didn't pass a resolution forbidding military action, bunge. "
Tell me how this statement translates into reality. None of the supposed WOMD have been found and he certainly has no ability to deliver them to the U.S.
Also if he does he's under attack why hasn't he used them? Where's this big threat you're talking about?
I don't like Sadaam any more than you do but, there are other countries that pose more of a threat. So where's the justification?
Another thing won't this breed distrust and anger among some of those other countries that we know have these weapons and can deliver them?
None of the supposed WOMD have been found and he certainly has no ability to deliver them to the U.S.
Not found doesn't mean they don't exist. 4 years is plenty long enough to hide materials. Can't delivery them to the US? Maybe not on a missle, but it's naive to think there aren't numerous ways to deliver them.
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Also if he does he's under attack why hasn't he used them? Where's this big threat you're talking about?
Hopefully he won't use them. But, since the air war just barely begun, it would make sense that he might wait till US troops are actually on the ground. Chem and Bio weapons aren't much good against jets and bombers.
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Another thing won't this breed distrust and anger among some of those other countries that we know have these weapons and can deliver them?
Hopefully. Maybe they might learn a lesson or two as well.
Not found doesn't mean they don't exist. 4 years is plenty long enough to hide materials. Can't delivery them to the US? Maybe not on a missle, but it's naive to think there aren't numerous ways to deliver them.
Hopefully he won't use them. But, since the air war just barely begun, it would make sense that he might wait till US troops are actually on the ground. Chem and Bio weapons aren't much good against jets and bombers.
Hopefully. Maybe they might learn a lesson or two as well.
But there's that proof thing again. We're talking justifaction here.
" Chem and Bio weapons aren't much good against jets and bombers. "
If it weren?t for colonialism and the investment in infrastructure that it brought, these people would still be eating each other, rather than endangered guerrillas.
A bit like saying "If the Nazis hadn't murdered millions of Jews then they'd still be money-grubbing liars." Just as accurate, and just as offensive.
By the way, a "guerrilla" is someone who fights using a particular set of loose tactics. A "gorilla" is an endagered mammal with slightly more capacity for ordered thought then you.
If those [Palestinians] had Jews trying to kill them daily soley because they were [Palestinians], those accusations might not be as forth coming as you think.
You're right. But this should probably be in a different thread (that I'm sure some day will resurface....)
Comments
...benign dictorial regimes like Saddam's...
Sweet merciful Christ.
Originally posted by groverat
Sweet merciful Christ.
Maybe you missed the paragraph above where I described a dangerous dictorial regime that has already been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. In comparison, Saddam's is extremely benign.
giant:
"As I pointed out, here at conservative NU the faculty is somewhere around 95% against the war. That kind of thing doesn't show up in random polls."
"conservative faculty"
tonton:
"We were in the UN to seek the moral and unambiguously legal right to go to war. We didn't get it. "
Bunge:
"The United States, or Bush, has made a unilateral decision to attack Iraq outside of the U.N. Charter and our own Constitution. The number of countries doesn't matter. That's not how 'unilateral' is defined."
1. Your argument that this is unilateral is totally without merit. You accuse Bush of "pushing one side". WTF else would he do? I'm sure he "cares" that some other nations don't support the action....but he is going to do it anyway because he believes it has to be done. The man has an opinion and he made very effort to convince the UN of that opinion. Due to France's position, he couldn't get explicit authorization. That doesn't make it immoral. By your reasoning, anyone with an opinion that acts upon it is acting unilaterally. If anyone was acting unilaterally, it was FRANCE. The final estimate was that we would have gotten TEN VOTES. Who was being unilateral, again? Let's see...the US with 30-45 nations on board. Or, France with itself. Hmmmm.
2. The UN charter is not being violated. The United States is acting in the national security interests of itself and its allies. The UN didn't pass a resolution forbidding military action, bunge.
3. OUR CONSTITUTION How? Where? The President has explicit authority under the congressional resolution. We went through 6 months (not to mention 12 years) of diplomacy. He has submitted the required notice to Congress that he must now use the military. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids military actions when the President and his administration determine there is a threat. Nothing. What a ridiculous, assasine statement.
giant again:
"You know. I just realized how elementary this shit is. If you really are so behind in life that this is news, it's not really worth my time to try to explain it to you. Go back to college (or go for the first time) and this time pay attention."
Typical.
Originally posted by giant
You're in israeli, aren't you? BTW: I have a feeling that Americans won't allow the war-mongering to go on that long. I think you might be underestimating the anti-war movement in the US. Polls don't do it justice. As I pointed out, here at conservative NU the faculty is somewhere around 95% against the war. That kind of thing doesn't show up in random polls.
Yes I am.
When it?s your survival you find the energy. If you think you can lay passive and the threat will go away, you either have an interest in making such claims, or you?re too stupid for me to even carry a conversion with you. I give you the benefit of the doubt that it?s the former.
Quote:
It seems you want to turn a blind eye toward the whole of africa, which is approaching another major continental war. If we ignore the AIDS situation and focus just on deliberate acts carried out by ruling regimes, you still have a vastly larger problem than Iraq. I highly doubt that Saddam and Iraq under intense inspections will cause a million deaths. If you want to find the land of corrupt regimes, africa is the place to look.
Or are a few million black lives not as important as 'US and Israeli interests,' since that's what we are really talking about?
The Problems in Africa are interlinked to this issue. The Islamization of that continent is at the root cause of the conflicts there, the disinvestment and the starvation. But you never hear that perspective in your media. What you do hear is that talentless monkey Geldof and others like him yabering in self-promotion.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Yes I am.
So you're a little biased about what the US should do in the region. Thanks for the input, and it will be considered when Americans make decisions about their own county. In the meantime, prepare to not have US fight your battles forever.
The Problems in Africa is interlinked to this issue. The Islamization of that continent is at the root cause of the conflicts there, the disinvestment and the starvation
Funny. First you ignore colonialism and the slave trade, then you call starvation a "root cause." This is right after an insult. You're a teenager, too, right? I sure hope so.
Originally posted by giant
So you're a little biased about what the US should do in the region. Thanks for the input, and it will be considered when Americans make decisions about their own county. In the meantime, prepare to not have US fight your battles forever.
I think you have that backwards.
Quote:
Funny. First you ignore colonialism and the slave trade, then you call starvation a "root cause." This is right after an insult. You're a teenager, too, right? I sure hope so.
Yeah, that must be it. Keep spewing that leftist garbage. Too bad it?s completely negated by facts on the ground. If it weren?t for colonialism and the investment in infrastructure that it brought, these people would still be eating each other, rather than endangered guerrillas.
Originally posted by giant
Maybe you missed the paragraph above where I described a dangerous dictorial regime that has already been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. In comparison, Saddam's is extremely benign.
Saddam's regime is responsible for far more than "thousands" of deaths. American deaths are more powerful to me, but when it's 3,000 versus... oh, I don't know, roughly a million foreign deaths I'll go ahead and say the ~1mil is worse.
As usual, I find myself on neither side, and agreeing with some of what you say, but ultimately I have to wonder about the wilfull simplicity of which you accuse others but, nonetheless, you yourself display.
There are no innocents when you explore the motivations of any nation/state, self interest rules.
Iraq is more dangerous than the picture you propose, guaranteed, you can choose to see it, or not. Is it related to 9-11? Mebbe, mebbe not. But securing Iraqi oil will allow America to keep Saui Arabia and others honest for another 20 years, and that absolutely must be the case. Saudi money will buy Al Queda a nuke as soon as such a weapon comes to market (if it hasn't already, but for lack of delivery).
We need to start squeezing a few of those twitching princes untill their eyeballs pop out of their sockets, but hey...
Originally posted by tonton
...
I can never be proud of being American again. Every time someone asks where I'm from I'll be hesitant to tell them the truth (incidentally, 99% of the people I meet are not American and 90% of those will hate Americans after this). I am ashamed to be associated with a country that thinks it IS God.
A friend of mine is married to a girl from Iraq. and she has a lot of family in iraq and they happy about this war. She says that their family says that if no more than half of them die it will be worth it to get rid of Sudan.
None of us have no idea what it is like fora commom person to live under an evil ruler. in the past decade millions of iracs own people have been killed with gas and other more horriable ways. Including torture such as forceing parents to watch their children eaten alive by wild dogs.
their are no disabled people in irac because if you become disabled you are shot. I could go on and on and on and on.
terroririst are not these poor people that have been oppressed by the U.S.
they are the elite and the rich. most of them are highly educated. the oppressed are the poor starving people living in iraq under an evil rule.
OIL OIL OIL how i am tired of hearing about how bush wants oil. I remember they said the same thing about the gulf war. well, in 1991 we won a war and got the oil. So if we were after oil wouldn't we have kept it instead of giving it back to the people after the fighting was over, The Oil belogs to the people of irac instead of putting billions in saddamms bank account the money could be paying for schools and medicine, etc. and we are going to give the people of iraq their oil.
We are going to liberate the people of Irac. I am proud to be an american. We are the only country that comes to the aid of others. Sudan is a hundred times worse than hitler. every year he is responsible for more deaths than hitler ever did. 45 countries are supporting us now. when all is said and done americanism will be improved
I am proud that we are doing whats right. Bush is actually telling you the truth, evidence supports this
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
The Problems in Africa are interlinked to this issue. The Islamization of that continent is at the root cause of the conflicts there, the disinvestment and the starvation.
Seriously Mika, if there were a Muslim or a Christian here as staunchly against Judiasm as you are against Muslims, there'd be no end to the Nazi accusations.
Originally posted by bunge
Seriously Mika, if there were a Muslim or a Christian here as staunchly against Judiasm as you are against Muslims, there'd be no end to the Nazi accusations.
If those Christians or Muslims had Jews trying to kill them daily soley because they were Christian or Muslim, those accusations might not be as forth coming as you think.
" The UN charter is not being violated. The United States is acting in the national security interests of itself and its allies. The UN didn't pass a resolution forbidding military action, bunge. "
Tell me how this statement translates into reality. None of the supposed WOMD have been found and he certainly has no ability to deliver them to the U.S.
Also if he does he's under attack why hasn't he used them? Where's this big threat you're talking about?
I don't like Sadaam any more than you do but, there are other countries that pose more of a threat. So where's the justification?
Another thing won't this breed distrust and anger among some of those other countries that we know have these weapons and can deliver them?
Originally posted by jimmac
None of the supposed WOMD have been found and he certainly has no ability to deliver them to the U.S.
Not found doesn't mean they don't exist. 4 years is plenty long enough to hide materials. Can't delivery them to the US? Maybe not on a missle, but it's naive to think there aren't numerous ways to deliver them.
Originally posted by jimmac
Also if he does he's under attack why hasn't he used them? Where's this big threat you're talking about?
Hopefully he won't use them. But, since the air war just barely begun, it would make sense that he might wait till US troops are actually on the ground. Chem and Bio weapons aren't much good against jets and bombers.
Originally posted by jimmac
Another thing won't this breed distrust and anger among some of those other countries that we know have these weapons and can deliver them?
Hopefully. Maybe they might learn a lesson or two as well.
I want peace, and this is just not right.
Action is needed, but not that way.
<a href="http://www.votetoimpeach.org/"><img src="http://www.votetoimpeach.org/img/vti_button.gif"; width="250" height="100" border="0"></a>
Originally posted by Tulkas
Not found doesn't mean they don't exist. 4 years is plenty long enough to hide materials. Can't delivery them to the US? Maybe not on a missle, but it's naive to think there aren't numerous ways to deliver them.
Hopefully he won't use them. But, since the air war just barely begun, it would make sense that he might wait till US troops are actually on the ground. Chem and Bio weapons aren't much good against jets and bombers.
Hopefully. Maybe they might learn a lesson or two as well.
But there's that proof thing again. We're talking justifaction here.
" Chem and Bio weapons aren't much good against jets and bombers. "
This just reafirms what I've been talking about.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
[B]I think you have that backwards.
If it weren?t for colonialism and the investment in infrastructure that it brought, these people would still be eating each other, rather than endangered guerrillas.
A bit like saying "If the Nazis hadn't murdered millions of Jews then they'd still be money-grubbing liars." Just as accurate, and just as offensive.
By the way, a "guerrilla" is someone who fights using a particular set of loose tactics. A "gorilla" is an endagered mammal with slightly more capacity for ordered thought then you.
Originally posted by Tulkas
If those [Palestinians] had Jews trying to kill them daily soley because they were [Palestinians], those accusations might not be as forth coming as you think.
You're right. But this should probably be in a different thread (that I'm sure some day will resurface....)
Originally posted by jimmac
But there's that proof thing again. We're talking justifaction here.
" Chem and Bio weapons aren't much good against jets and bombers. "
This just reafirms what I've been talking about.
Well, you seem to desire proof on the battlefield. I would prefer proof be found, not provided during at battle at this point.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Well, you seem to desire proof on the battlefield. I would prefer proof be found, not provided during at battle at this point.
I really hope there is no proof ever.