No WMD...so what?
-
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
No WMD...so what?
Hello Spot. ...to take the right and wrongs out of an argument, and then leap to a right or wrong conclusion? It's like trying to grow a flower using only the petals and forgetting there is a stem, leaves, and roots that form the plant.
I asked if she was serious because she stressed the word "possibly" - and you Brits are masters of irony. I like to give the benefit of the doubt before I leap in. (grin)
I asked if she was serious because she stressed the word "possibly" - and you Brits are masters of irony. I like to give the benefit of the doubt before I leap in. (grin)
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
-
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:18 am
No WMD...so what?
spots spot on!! i am serious
the reason i ask is because on topics like this everyone gets too caught up in the emotions of it....
so strip it back and take the emotions out
is the world a better place without saddam hussain in power?
that has to be the starting point of a discussion about this
the reason i ask is because on topics like this everyone gets too caught up in the emotions of it....
so strip it back and take the emotions out
is the world a better place without saddam hussain in power?
that has to be the starting point of a discussion about this
life is what you make it
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
No WMD...so what?
pink princess wrote: spots spot on!! i am serious
the reason i ask is because on topics like this everyone gets too caught up in the emotions of it....
so strip it back and take the emotions out
is the world a better place without saddam hussain in power?
that has to be the starting point of a discussion about this
Then don't we need to know if Spot means short term, long term or both?
the reason i ask is because on topics like this everyone gets too caught up in the emotions of it....
so strip it back and take the emotions out
is the world a better place without saddam hussain in power?
that has to be the starting point of a discussion about this
Then don't we need to know if Spot means short term, long term or both?
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:18 am
No WMD...so what?
forget long term short whatever
someone out there just answer the question:
IS THE WORLD/IRAQ A BETTER PLACE WITHOUT SADDAM IN POWER?
someone out there just answer the question:
IS THE WORLD/IRAQ A BETTER PLACE WITHOUT SADDAM IN POWER?
life is what you make it
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
No WMD...so what?
pink princess wrote: forget long term short whatever
someone out there just answer the question:
IS THE WORLD/IRAQ A BETTER PLACE WITHOUT SADDAM IN POWER?
In the short term, his absence has been destabilizing. The immediate result has been violence and things are not better. In the long term, his absence will allow the people of Iraq and possibly the region to experience freedom. Some people can’t see how so much violence can ever be good and would say the world/Iraq is not better off. Others see through the present situation and beyond, and would say the world/Iraq is better off because of the hope they/we now have.
I say the world and Iraq are better off.
someone out there just answer the question:
IS THE WORLD/IRAQ A BETTER PLACE WITHOUT SADDAM IN POWER?
In the short term, his absence has been destabilizing. The immediate result has been violence and things are not better. In the long term, his absence will allow the people of Iraq and possibly the region to experience freedom. Some people can’t see how so much violence can ever be good and would say the world/Iraq is not better off. Others see through the present situation and beyond, and would say the world/Iraq is better off because of the hope they/we now have.
I say the world and Iraq are better off.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:18 am
No WMD...so what?
TW2005 wrote: Doesnt seem to be so far. Lets see what happens. We wont really know till we are out of Iraq.
so someone in power who used to cut of the legs of the players of his own football team if they didnt play well...... good idea to have left him where he was??
now that hes gone i seriously doubt that anyone as brutal as him will be running the country..... so even with the chaos iraq is currently in surely its better
one less violent evil dictator to worry about
so someone in power who used to cut of the legs of the players of his own football team if they didnt play well...... good idea to have left him where he was??
now that hes gone i seriously doubt that anyone as brutal as him will be running the country..... so even with the chaos iraq is currently in surely its better
one less violent evil dictator to worry about
life is what you make it
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
No WMD...so what?
pink princess wrote: so someone in power who used to cut of the legs of the players of his own football team if they didnt play well...... good idea to have left him where he was??
now that hes gone i seriously doubt that anyone as brutal as him will be running the country..... so even with the chaos iraq is currently in surely its better
one less violent evil dictator to worry about
That too.
now that hes gone i seriously doubt that anyone as brutal as him will be running the country..... so even with the chaos iraq is currently in surely its better
one less violent evil dictator to worry about
That too.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:18 am
No WMD...so what?
ok heres an idea
all of you who wish to make moral judgements about how we had no right to go into iraq etc - you go live in zimbabwe (as per the other similar thread running at the mo) if you think we had no right to intervene in the evil dictatorship you go and live in one and then judge
all of you who wish to make moral judgements about how we had no right to go into iraq etc - you go live in zimbabwe (as per the other similar thread running at the mo) if you think we had no right to intervene in the evil dictatorship you go and live in one and then judge
life is what you make it
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
No WMD...so what?
I think most of the negative reaction to Iraq comes from people who didn’t want to see George Bush elected. Success in Iraq might be credited to him and they can’t stand the thought of it. I’m no real fan of his but give credit where credit is due or at least be silent. The constant reaction from the poor losers is making it more difficult for troops to get the job done. The harder the pessimistic poor losers harp the longer it will be before the troops come home.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:18 am
No WMD...so what?
i never wanted george bush in the first place, i was so upset when clinton went and i wanted gore to replace him....
however at least george got rid of him (shame he cant get osama tho!)
as for the troops..... i havent read the whole thread but my take on it is they know what they sign up for.... when they decide to go into the army they know they may go to war and the consequences of that.... they dont sign up because they think its gonna be a plush boarding school with afternoons of tennis!!!
a question to those who think bush was wrong..... what would you have done? left saddam where he was to accrue more weapons and kill more innocent people? if you think george was wrong tell us how he should have done it right....
however at least george got rid of him (shame he cant get osama tho!)
as for the troops..... i havent read the whole thread but my take on it is they know what they sign up for.... when they decide to go into the army they know they may go to war and the consequences of that.... they dont sign up because they think its gonna be a plush boarding school with afternoons of tennis!!!
a question to those who think bush was wrong..... what would you have done? left saddam where he was to accrue more weapons and kill more innocent people? if you think george was wrong tell us how he should have done it right....
life is what you make it
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
No WMD...so what?
pink princess wrote: i never wanted george bush in the first place, i was so upset when clinton went and i wanted gore to replace him....
however at least george got rid of him (shame he cant get osama tho!)
as for the troops..... i havent read the whole thread but my take on it is they know what they sign up for.... when they decide to go into the army they know they may go to war and the consequences of that.... they dont sign up because they think its gonna be a plush boarding school with afternoons of tennis!!!
a question to those who think bush was wrong..... what would you have done? left saddam where he was to accrue more weapons and kill more innocent people? if you think george was wrong tell us how he should have done it right....
I just read your signature line. Congratulations and best wishes.
however at least george got rid of him (shame he cant get osama tho!)
as for the troops..... i havent read the whole thread but my take on it is they know what they sign up for.... when they decide to go into the army they know they may go to war and the consequences of that.... they dont sign up because they think its gonna be a plush boarding school with afternoons of tennis!!!
a question to those who think bush was wrong..... what would you have done? left saddam where he was to accrue more weapons and kill more innocent people? if you think george was wrong tell us how he should have done it right....
I just read your signature line. Congratulations and best wishes.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:18 am
No WMD...so what?
Clint wrote: I just read your signature line. Congratulations and best wishes.
thankyou!
thankyou!
life is what you make it
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
No WMD...so what?
pink princess wrote:
a question to those who think bush was wrong..... what would you have done? left saddam where he was to accrue more weapons and kill more innocent people? if you think george was wrong tell us how he should have done it right....
Excellent question here. We can all sit here and debate whether Bush is doing the right thing, or sticking his nose in where it doesn't belong. My opinion is that Iraq will eventually be a better place without Saddam in power, and that never would have happened without our intervention.
AK, I was actually thinking of your son when I wrote my reply to you. I remember a while back you telling me what his plans were. Please thank him for me, also. You should be VERY proud of him, as I know you are.
People who enlist in the service may not have a totally clear view of every aspect of what they will be asked to do. I do believe, however, that the thought of going to war and being asked to lay down their life for their country is something that occurs to them as a possibility.
My thoughts and prayers are with your son, as they are with all our troops.
a question to those who think bush was wrong..... what would you have done? left saddam where he was to accrue more weapons and kill more innocent people? if you think george was wrong tell us how he should have done it right....
Excellent question here. We can all sit here and debate whether Bush is doing the right thing, or sticking his nose in where it doesn't belong. My opinion is that Iraq will eventually be a better place without Saddam in power, and that never would have happened without our intervention.
AK, I was actually thinking of your son when I wrote my reply to you. I remember a while back you telling me what his plans were. Please thank him for me, also. You should be VERY proud of him, as I know you are.
People who enlist in the service may not have a totally clear view of every aspect of what they will be asked to do. I do believe, however, that the thought of going to war and being asked to lay down their life for their country is something that occurs to them as a possibility.
My thoughts and prayers are with your son, as they are with all our troops.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
-
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:50 am
No WMD...so what?
The question as to whether or not President Bush did the right thing by ordering the United States to invade Iraq is answered by looking at the transcripts of his 'head-to-heads' with John Kerry during the recent presidential campaign.
Kerry is on record as stating that he would have done exactly the same thing.
They differed over how the war was proscuted once in Iraq but not whether they would have invaded.
Kerry is on record as stating that he would have done exactly the same thing.
They differed over how the war was proscuted once in Iraq but not whether they would have invaded.
America the Beautiful :-6
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
No WMD...so what?
You don't perhaps feel, PE, that an American Presidential Candidate and an American President is a slightly small sample of the world's population to poll, when deciding on what's "the right thing"? To say that the unanimity of your bipartisan sample answers the question is rather arrogant.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
No WMD...so what?
The two people representing the two major majorities of the people OF THIS COUNTRY? I'd say it does. If the two of them agreed on something, I'd say it's a real good indicator.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
No WMD...so what?
I think you'll find that they're the two people representing the two major majorities of the citizens of the United States of America, BR. Around one person in twenty on this planet is a citizen of the United States of America. The two representatives don't speak for the other ninety five percent.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
No WMD...so what?
Well, here we go again arguing semantics. :-5
Probably every other member was aware I meant the people of THIS country. Leave it to you to point out that I didn't specifically say that. I'll go edit my post now....
Probably every other member was aware I meant the people of THIS country. Leave it to you to point out that I didn't specifically say that. I'll go edit my post now....
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
No WMD...so what?
The problem wasn't that you said it, it's that you thought those two are sufficient to make the decision even though, between them, they don't represent the other ninety five percent. You still don't think the views of the other ninety five percent count.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:18 am
No WMD...so what?
what would be really interesting was if out of this thread someone changed their opinion.....
or if everyone remains at the same stance their at now....
or if everyone remains at the same stance their at now....
life is what you make it
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
-
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:50 am
No WMD...so what?
spot wrote: You don't perhaps feel, PE, that an American Presidential Candidate and an American President is a slightly small sample of the world's population to poll, when deciding on what's "the right thing"? To say that the unanimity of your bipartisan sample answers the question is rather arrogant.
No.
No.
America the Beautiful :-6
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
No WMD...so what?
Jiperly wrote: First off all- what took you so long in writing this? The Iraqi Survey Group concluded there was no WMD nearly a year ago- and suddenly you choose its okay the main cause for war isn't all that important? What caused this sudden change in pace?
Now, for your and other peoples points:
I'd hardly say that exploiting children sexually is equal to claiming Iraq will set off nukes in major cities in America, nor does that anology appropreiately address the urgency the Bush Adminstration made it out to be. Nonetheless.....
An ambitious neighbour who was intending on becoming the new "Father" of this household....oh yea....nothing could be suspicious about what that man had to say...
I cannot imagine what thats supposed to represent, other than an attempt to demonize a demon.(Saddam)
What? Does the Meth represent WMD's?
That would imply that there was an alteritive motive from the beginning- and that is just not true. It was WMD and terrorist threats- both of which ended up being no threat at all.
I'm sorry- are you claiming the Iraqi People are children?
Cause I gotta say, you sure do think highly of America if you think full grown adults from other countries are children in comparison to Americans.....
Allow me to explain what you just said then, but without the twist- what REALLY happened, using your same anology.
You're from the rich side of town. First, you make pals with a man named Saddam who lives on the edge of the poor side of town. You later find out he abbuses his family, but that doesn't stop you from helping him harasses another neighbour you both don't like. In the end, they attempt to kidnap people from one of their neighbours (Kuwait)- you finally stand against him and, with the police, get the people free and forces him to never keep a weapon in the house ever again(including things like cleaning supplies and such)
Ten years later, your house gets broken into and someone dies. Demanding that someone pay, you accuse the people that have always had it out for you- you first get the police to arrest the house that have assaulted you in the past- the people whose all evidence shows that they did it.. Then you turn around and said that the home that once made threats to you may be planning on breaking into your house also. Also, you claim they were involved in the breakin, even though the Police claim there is no evidence whatsoever.
You pleed to the police to arrest the man, claiming he's going to kill someone in your home, and so they go over there and start investigating for weapons or explosives in the home. They find none, but they do find that the home is unkept and the people living under the Saddam are in poverty, some terribly ill because there is no cleaning supplies and Saddam refuses to spend the money to help them.
So your solution? You break into his house, kill the people who are defending Saddam, kill some innocent bystands accidently, and claim you did it in self-defense. When the police stop by and go over it, they sweep the home from top to bottom, and find NOTHING indicting they had any weapons other than clubs of wood and such- nothing to attack you with. You then said they gave it to other neighbours to attack you with. No one can find a shread of evidence of that. Then you said it you did it for the people, whom you are living in their house now, despite the fact that you killed someone in the family.
Would that be a fair assessment(naw- even I don't like it- but its more accurate)
To be fair though, your anology is seriously flawed, but thats just because you went about it the wrong way. A smarter anology would compare Saddam to Al Capone. I mean, the comparison practially writes itself!
Gosh, why didn't you just say you didn't like my analogy? You could have saved all that work.
I wrote it now because this is when I thought, "gee, I think I have an analogy".
Now, for your and other peoples points:
I'd hardly say that exploiting children sexually is equal to claiming Iraq will set off nukes in major cities in America, nor does that anology appropreiately address the urgency the Bush Adminstration made it out to be. Nonetheless.....
An ambitious neighbour who was intending on becoming the new "Father" of this household....oh yea....nothing could be suspicious about what that man had to say...
I cannot imagine what thats supposed to represent, other than an attempt to demonize a demon.(Saddam)
What? Does the Meth represent WMD's?
That would imply that there was an alteritive motive from the beginning- and that is just not true. It was WMD and terrorist threats- both of which ended up being no threat at all.
I'm sorry- are you claiming the Iraqi People are children?
Cause I gotta say, you sure do think highly of America if you think full grown adults from other countries are children in comparison to Americans.....
Allow me to explain what you just said then, but without the twist- what REALLY happened, using your same anology.
You're from the rich side of town. First, you make pals with a man named Saddam who lives on the edge of the poor side of town. You later find out he abbuses his family, but that doesn't stop you from helping him harasses another neighbour you both don't like. In the end, they attempt to kidnap people from one of their neighbours (Kuwait)- you finally stand against him and, with the police, get the people free and forces him to never keep a weapon in the house ever again(including things like cleaning supplies and such)
Ten years later, your house gets broken into and someone dies. Demanding that someone pay, you accuse the people that have always had it out for you- you first get the police to arrest the house that have assaulted you in the past- the people whose all evidence shows that they did it.. Then you turn around and said that the home that once made threats to you may be planning on breaking into your house also. Also, you claim they were involved in the breakin, even though the Police claim there is no evidence whatsoever.
You pleed to the police to arrest the man, claiming he's going to kill someone in your home, and so they go over there and start investigating for weapons or explosives in the home. They find none, but they do find that the home is unkept and the people living under the Saddam are in poverty, some terribly ill because there is no cleaning supplies and Saddam refuses to spend the money to help them.
So your solution? You break into his house, kill the people who are defending Saddam, kill some innocent bystands accidently, and claim you did it in self-defense. When the police stop by and go over it, they sweep the home from top to bottom, and find NOTHING indicting they had any weapons other than clubs of wood and such- nothing to attack you with. You then said they gave it to other neighbours to attack you with. No one can find a shread of evidence of that. Then you said it you did it for the people, whom you are living in their house now, despite the fact that you killed someone in the family.
Would that be a fair assessment(naw- even I don't like it- but its more accurate)
To be fair though, your anology is seriously flawed, but thats just because you went about it the wrong way. A smarter anology would compare Saddam to Al Capone. I mean, the comparison practially writes itself!
Gosh, why didn't you just say you didn't like my analogy? You could have saved all that work.
I wrote it now because this is when I thought, "gee, I think I have an analogy".
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
No WMD...so what?
pink princess wrote: what would be really interesting was if out of this thread someone changed their opinion.....
or if everyone remains at the same stance their at now....
I would imagine most of us will stay with our current stance...after all, if we thought enough about it to debate it here, then we've probably thought enough about it to keep firm on our own opinions.
Also, several posts just lead to other arguments, and it's not usually worth it to digress that much. For example (and nothing personal in this), your questioning basically asks if the end justifies the means. By means of an attempted answer, it also asks if the US has the right to "parent" other countries. And why attack Iraq when there are so many other places with brutal dictators running the place.
BR, thanks for you good thoughts for my son. I'll pass yours along as well. Naturally I still disagree with you, but that should be no surprise (stubborn grin).
or if everyone remains at the same stance their at now....
I would imagine most of us will stay with our current stance...after all, if we thought enough about it to debate it here, then we've probably thought enough about it to keep firm on our own opinions.
Also, several posts just lead to other arguments, and it's not usually worth it to digress that much. For example (and nothing personal in this), your questioning basically asks if the end justifies the means. By means of an attempted answer, it also asks if the US has the right to "parent" other countries. And why attack Iraq when there are so many other places with brutal dictators running the place.
BR, thanks for you good thoughts for my son. I'll pass yours along as well. Naturally I still disagree with you, but that should be no surprise (stubborn grin).
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
No WMD...so what?
Far Rider wrote: I don't know where to start on this thread...
let me take what I know.
At 17 I joined the US Army. I had no idea what I was getting myself into, but before basic was over I knew full well and I was prepared to die for freedom if required to do so. I also knew that my buddies were worth more than myself. And that about sums it up.
As for WMD being the reason we went to war, bull. (JMHO) We went to destroy a regime and set up a killing field thats a vacuum in attracting terrorist players to destroy them.
I still can't figure out if GW is a brilliant strategist or a blundering puppet, but this war on terror has been highly successful, both in Iraq and in all the other countries you never hear about where we are destroying the terrorists.
As for the analogy, whats' legal and what's moral are not always the same. It's moral to defend your own nation against threats, if that crosses international lines then bring your bullets and fight us.
I'm a soldier and I make no apology for it. If you stand in my door way and threaten me I will destroy you. If you stand a hundred miles away and threaten me I will destroy you.
Since the war on terror has started there have been no more incidents in the US of terrorism like the 911 attack.
I'm not a bully, Im not a vigilante, I'm an American. I have a nation to protect and I desire peace for my children and my children's children. If I have to kill someone who's hell bent on my distruction to keep peace, then so be it.
Couldn't agree more about defending family and country against all threats to safety and security. The oath taken to defend the Constitution is an honorable and righteous pledge.
The problems only arise when there are doubts about whether these conditions genuinely exist when war is engaged against another nation (or group). When the initial reasons given are later found to be false, doubts are legitimately raised. In the case of Iraq, the WMD's were declared on numerous occasions to genuinely exist, and therefore Iraq was a threat to the safety and security of Western nations. After many US and British, and countless more Iraqis, lay dead or wounded in the battlefields, and on the streets, the WMD's were not found.
To then attempt to legitimize the war by saying it really was Saddam himself who was an imminent "future" threat, and thus needed removal, raises doubts and justifiable questions. Outside of the obvious worry that lies have been used as an excuse for war, if that alone becomes a legitimate reason for attacking any other nation, then the slope has become as slippery as an iceberg in the Norwegian fjords.
It is not unpatriotic to uphold the ideals of the Constitution, and to require your elected representative Government to do the same thing, and justly criticize them if they do not, nor if you have doubts they have misled the people into defending not the nation, but into fighting for personal or inner group agendas. The notion that soldiers are used not to defend the homeland against threats, but for reasons known only to the leaders who direct them has every likelihood of existing in the present day. Just as it's historically proven to have been all too common in previous conflicts.
let me take what I know.
At 17 I joined the US Army. I had no idea what I was getting myself into, but before basic was over I knew full well and I was prepared to die for freedom if required to do so. I also knew that my buddies were worth more than myself. And that about sums it up.
As for WMD being the reason we went to war, bull. (JMHO) We went to destroy a regime and set up a killing field thats a vacuum in attracting terrorist players to destroy them.
I still can't figure out if GW is a brilliant strategist or a blundering puppet, but this war on terror has been highly successful, both in Iraq and in all the other countries you never hear about where we are destroying the terrorists.
As for the analogy, whats' legal and what's moral are not always the same. It's moral to defend your own nation against threats, if that crosses international lines then bring your bullets and fight us.
I'm a soldier and I make no apology for it. If you stand in my door way and threaten me I will destroy you. If you stand a hundred miles away and threaten me I will destroy you.
Since the war on terror has started there have been no more incidents in the US of terrorism like the 911 attack.
I'm not a bully, Im not a vigilante, I'm an American. I have a nation to protect and I desire peace for my children and my children's children. If I have to kill someone who's hell bent on my distruction to keep peace, then so be it.
Couldn't agree more about defending family and country against all threats to safety and security. The oath taken to defend the Constitution is an honorable and righteous pledge.
The problems only arise when there are doubts about whether these conditions genuinely exist when war is engaged against another nation (or group). When the initial reasons given are later found to be false, doubts are legitimately raised. In the case of Iraq, the WMD's were declared on numerous occasions to genuinely exist, and therefore Iraq was a threat to the safety and security of Western nations. After many US and British, and countless more Iraqis, lay dead or wounded in the battlefields, and on the streets, the WMD's were not found.
To then attempt to legitimize the war by saying it really was Saddam himself who was an imminent "future" threat, and thus needed removal, raises doubts and justifiable questions. Outside of the obvious worry that lies have been used as an excuse for war, if that alone becomes a legitimate reason for attacking any other nation, then the slope has become as slippery as an iceberg in the Norwegian fjords.
It is not unpatriotic to uphold the ideals of the Constitution, and to require your elected representative Government to do the same thing, and justly criticize them if they do not, nor if you have doubts they have misled the people into defending not the nation, but into fighting for personal or inner group agendas. The notion that soldiers are used not to defend the homeland against threats, but for reasons known only to the leaders who direct them has every likelihood of existing in the present day. Just as it's historically proven to have been all too common in previous conflicts.
-
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:18 am
No WMD...so what?
Far Rider wrote:
As for WMD being the reason we went to war, bull. (JMHO) We went to destroy a regime and set up a killing field thats a vacuum in attracting terrorist players to destroy them.
exactly - anyone who believed the war was only about WMD should open their eyes a little more, america/britain have been trying to get rid of saddam for YEARS and this was merely an excuse to go in, of course it was always about removing saddam, and there was a possibility of the WMD which when got rid of would prove to be a bonus
so those of you who think it was so wrong to go in there......
is iraq/the world a better place without saddam?
(far rider its good to have peeps like you, too many people are becoming 'namby pamby' all this political correctness and oooh we cant go to war - what did everyone fight for in the first and second world wars if now we are going to sit back..... if we have another hitler will it be ok to go to war then?)
As for WMD being the reason we went to war, bull. (JMHO) We went to destroy a regime and set up a killing field thats a vacuum in attracting terrorist players to destroy them.
exactly - anyone who believed the war was only about WMD should open their eyes a little more, america/britain have been trying to get rid of saddam for YEARS and this was merely an excuse to go in, of course it was always about removing saddam, and there was a possibility of the WMD which when got rid of would prove to be a bonus
so those of you who think it was so wrong to go in there......
is iraq/the world a better place without saddam?
(far rider its good to have peeps like you, too many people are becoming 'namby pamby' all this political correctness and oooh we cant go to war - what did everyone fight for in the first and second world wars if now we are going to sit back..... if we have another hitler will it be ok to go to war then?)
life is what you make it
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
-
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
No WMD...so what?
pink princess wrote: exactly - anyone who believed the war was only about WMD should open their eyes a little more, america/britain have been trying to get rid of saddam for YEARS and this was merely an excuse to go in, of course it was always about removing saddam, and there was a possibility of the WMD which when got rid of would prove to be a bonus
I beg to disagree. We weren't remotely interested in getting rid of Hussein for a long long time, and in fact when Iraqi freedom fighters came to us asking for assistance in deposing him, we gave them very paltry sums.
As for your "bonus", the invasion was originally based on "proof" that Iraq had WMD and planned to use them against us. Lots of people would be willing to die to protect their country in such circumstances. Finding out later that this wasn't the case at all might change the minds of a few of these people, don't you think? Yet it doesn't change their circumstances.
Maybe it doesn't bother you to be lied to by your government. But it pisses me off to no end, and I'm hardly the only one. That alone gives me pause when considering Iraq...and it would give me the same pause even if it was Nazi Germany (which people seem to mention constantly, though there is no connection.)
pink princess wrote: so those of you who think it was so wrong to go in there......
is iraq/the world a better place without saddam?
You can't separate it like that, and completely ignore the parts you don't like or don't want to deal with. But, to give a simplistic answer to your repetition, I'm not God so I don't get to judge the world or its state, of who gets to stay and who must go.
pink princess wrote: (far rider its good to have peeps like you, too many people are becoming 'namby pamby' all this political correctness and oooh we cant go to war - what did everyone fight for in the first and second world wars if now we are going to sit back..... if we have another hitler will it be ok to go to war then?)
Hussein is not Hitler. It appears to be a difficult concept.
When Hussein decided to take over other countries, the US was pretty united in its commitment to stop that particular action.
Hitler did that kind of thing, too - taking over countries that didn't belong to him. Of course, he declared that he was freeing them, offering them a superior way of life, of government, etc...And people fought to protect their countries against a very real threat, not mysterious WMDs.
So today the US goes in to another country under false pretenses, and you think people have a problem with based on "namby pamby political correctness"? That's pretty small thinking, begging your pardon.
I beg to disagree. We weren't remotely interested in getting rid of Hussein for a long long time, and in fact when Iraqi freedom fighters came to us asking for assistance in deposing him, we gave them very paltry sums.
As for your "bonus", the invasion was originally based on "proof" that Iraq had WMD and planned to use them against us. Lots of people would be willing to die to protect their country in such circumstances. Finding out later that this wasn't the case at all might change the minds of a few of these people, don't you think? Yet it doesn't change their circumstances.
Maybe it doesn't bother you to be lied to by your government. But it pisses me off to no end, and I'm hardly the only one. That alone gives me pause when considering Iraq...and it would give me the same pause even if it was Nazi Germany (which people seem to mention constantly, though there is no connection.)
pink princess wrote: so those of you who think it was so wrong to go in there......
is iraq/the world a better place without saddam?
You can't separate it like that, and completely ignore the parts you don't like or don't want to deal with. But, to give a simplistic answer to your repetition, I'm not God so I don't get to judge the world or its state, of who gets to stay and who must go.
pink princess wrote: (far rider its good to have peeps like you, too many people are becoming 'namby pamby' all this political correctness and oooh we cant go to war - what did everyone fight for in the first and second world wars if now we are going to sit back..... if we have another hitler will it be ok to go to war then?)
Hussein is not Hitler. It appears to be a difficult concept.
When Hussein decided to take over other countries, the US was pretty united in its commitment to stop that particular action.
Hitler did that kind of thing, too - taking over countries that didn't belong to him. Of course, he declared that he was freeing them, offering them a superior way of life, of government, etc...And people fought to protect their countries against a very real threat, not mysterious WMDs.
So today the US goes in to another country under false pretenses, and you think people have a problem with based on "namby pamby political correctness"? That's pretty small thinking, begging your pardon.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
No WMD...so what?
Far Rider wrote: Pink the answer to your question is 'yes absolutely' we are all better off without Saddam in power.
I'll offer two opinions about that. First an Iraqi woman can look a man other than her husband in the eye when she speaks to him without fear of being beaten to death by her husband. Second, thousands of terrorists with the capabilities to come to the US and other peace loving countries are now dead.It's the same the whole world over, it's the poor what gets the blame, it's the rich what gets the pleasure, isn't it a blooming shame?
This is from yesterday's Financial Times from London:
More than half of Iraq's population lives below the poverty line. The median income fell from $255 (£144, €211) in 2003 to about $144 in 2004, according to a recent UN survey. Families buy the food baskets for a few dollars at state-licensed shops.
Ahmed Mukhtar, director-general of the ministry, blamed the shortage of rations on security threats that created bottlenecks at the borders with Jordan, Syria and Turkey. "We're attempting to make sure the supplies are safely delivered," Mr Mukhtar said. "Anything that disturbs the food supplies is a critical situation."
Zainab Hadi said she and other women had been forced to buy food at the market, pushing prices up. The cost of tea and flour has almost tripled. At food markets, a 35-pound can of vegetable oil, which just a few months ago cost $4 - a little more than an average day's wage - now costs $12. Mr Hadi recently lost his job as an electrical engineer with US troops and now works as a minibus driver.
Over the doorway of the Hadis' tiny house, a small blue ceramic plaque offers praise to God. The 10 family members share two rooms. The upstairs living room doubles as a bedroom. In their kitchen, a poster of the Shia Muslim martyr Hussein shares pride of place with a world map. The fridge is largely empty. Sprite and Coke bottles filled with tap water share shelf space with medicine to relieve the aching joints of Hadi's widowed mother.
In Sadr City, a Baghdad slum into which 2m people are crammed, the reduction in food rations is also taking a toll. Intisan Karim, 26, lives with 24 family members in a small house. If rations continue to shrink, she joked, laughing without mirth, "we'll start eating each other".
Outside sewage flowed along the streets; goats gnawed on rubbish.
"The food basket is shrinking and the people's hopes are also shrinking," said Amir Huseini, who dealt with social issues in an office affiliated with Moqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shia cleric.
"One or two missing items have become three, four and five, until this point when the really vital item - the flour - is also missing."I would contend that, even despite the economic sanctions imposed between 1992 and 2003, the poor of Iraq were better treated under Saddam Hussein's regime.
Perhaps you can cite an instance of "look a man other than her husband in the eye when she speaks to him without fear of being beaten to death by her husband" in Iraq? Saddam's regime was very much a forward-looking secular one in terms of women's rights. Women in Iraq, since he was removed from power, have been forced to revert to a non-western dress code which previously had been an option to them.
I'll offer two opinions about that. First an Iraqi woman can look a man other than her husband in the eye when she speaks to him without fear of being beaten to death by her husband. Second, thousands of terrorists with the capabilities to come to the US and other peace loving countries are now dead.It's the same the whole world over, it's the poor what gets the blame, it's the rich what gets the pleasure, isn't it a blooming shame?
This is from yesterday's Financial Times from London:
More than half of Iraq's population lives below the poverty line. The median income fell from $255 (£144, €211) in 2003 to about $144 in 2004, according to a recent UN survey. Families buy the food baskets for a few dollars at state-licensed shops.
Ahmed Mukhtar, director-general of the ministry, blamed the shortage of rations on security threats that created bottlenecks at the borders with Jordan, Syria and Turkey. "We're attempting to make sure the supplies are safely delivered," Mr Mukhtar said. "Anything that disturbs the food supplies is a critical situation."
Zainab Hadi said she and other women had been forced to buy food at the market, pushing prices up. The cost of tea and flour has almost tripled. At food markets, a 35-pound can of vegetable oil, which just a few months ago cost $4 - a little more than an average day's wage - now costs $12. Mr Hadi recently lost his job as an electrical engineer with US troops and now works as a minibus driver.
Over the doorway of the Hadis' tiny house, a small blue ceramic plaque offers praise to God. The 10 family members share two rooms. The upstairs living room doubles as a bedroom. In their kitchen, a poster of the Shia Muslim martyr Hussein shares pride of place with a world map. The fridge is largely empty. Sprite and Coke bottles filled with tap water share shelf space with medicine to relieve the aching joints of Hadi's widowed mother.
In Sadr City, a Baghdad slum into which 2m people are crammed, the reduction in food rations is also taking a toll. Intisan Karim, 26, lives with 24 family members in a small house. If rations continue to shrink, she joked, laughing without mirth, "we'll start eating each other".
Outside sewage flowed along the streets; goats gnawed on rubbish.
"The food basket is shrinking and the people's hopes are also shrinking," said Amir Huseini, who dealt with social issues in an office affiliated with Moqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shia cleric.
"One or two missing items have become three, four and five, until this point when the really vital item - the flour - is also missing."I would contend that, even despite the economic sanctions imposed between 1992 and 2003, the poor of Iraq were better treated under Saddam Hussein's regime.
Perhaps you can cite an instance of "look a man other than her husband in the eye when she speaks to him without fear of being beaten to death by her husband" in Iraq? Saddam's regime was very much a forward-looking secular one in terms of women's rights. Women in Iraq, since he was removed from power, have been forced to revert to a non-western dress code which previously had been an option to them.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
No WMD...so what?
Far Rider wrote: an Iraqi woman can look a man other than her husband in the eye when she speaks to him without fear of being beaten to death by her husband.OK, it seems likely that you can't quite remember what it was that told you that was a fact. Let me try to help.
Shakespeare wrote a play about an Arab who became so misguidedly jealous of his wife, thinking she was interested in other men, that he strangled her to death. It's called Othello, and his wife was Desdemona.
It's not an Iraqi play, Far Rider, it's a Western Play. About an Arab. You might feel that, as testimony, it's slightly tainted and possibly (as with his Jew of Venice) antisemitic. My main criticism of it, as justification for your comment, is that it's fiction.
I've tried for a while to suggest here that people tend to project their own society's ills onto others, not recognizing that what they describe is their own back yard. Here's a few words from the Albuquerque Tribune:
Nelson was hiding beside the house, and after Anna got out of the truck he walked towards her, pulled out a .38-caliber pistol and shot her dead, police say. Then he placed the muzzle of the gun to his temple and killed himself.
It was a violent end to a stormy relationship.
And, to some of Anna's relatives, it wasn't a complete surprise.
Anna repeatedly returned to Nelson, the man who occasionally beat her and one Christmas even threatened to shoot and kill her... Much of the abuse was verbal, said Symbola-Shije, and it seemed to stem from misplaced jealousy on Nelson's part.
"He was very possessive of her," she said. "Every time she went somewhere, he thought she was seeing someone."
That sort of behavior is a very American thing, Far Rider. I don't believe it's very Iraqi at all. My personal experience of Arabs is that they're thoughtful and cultured. I know thoughtful and cultured Americans too, don't get me wrong. You may be tarring Iraqis without justification. I'm merely saying your pathology in this instance is a reflection of the society you grew up in.
Shakespeare wrote a play about an Arab who became so misguidedly jealous of his wife, thinking she was interested in other men, that he strangled her to death. It's called Othello, and his wife was Desdemona.
It's not an Iraqi play, Far Rider, it's a Western Play. About an Arab. You might feel that, as testimony, it's slightly tainted and possibly (as with his Jew of Venice) antisemitic. My main criticism of it, as justification for your comment, is that it's fiction.
I've tried for a while to suggest here that people tend to project their own society's ills onto others, not recognizing that what they describe is their own back yard. Here's a few words from the Albuquerque Tribune:
Nelson was hiding beside the house, and after Anna got out of the truck he walked towards her, pulled out a .38-caliber pistol and shot her dead, police say. Then he placed the muzzle of the gun to his temple and killed himself.
It was a violent end to a stormy relationship.
And, to some of Anna's relatives, it wasn't a complete surprise.
Anna repeatedly returned to Nelson, the man who occasionally beat her and one Christmas even threatened to shoot and kill her... Much of the abuse was verbal, said Symbola-Shije, and it seemed to stem from misplaced jealousy on Nelson's part.
"He was very possessive of her," she said. "Every time she went somewhere, he thought she was seeing someone."
That sort of behavior is a very American thing, Far Rider. I don't believe it's very Iraqi at all. My personal experience of Arabs is that they're thoughtful and cultured. I know thoughtful and cultured Americans too, don't get me wrong. You may be tarring Iraqis without justification. I'm merely saying your pathology in this instance is a reflection of the society you grew up in.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
- anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
No WMD...so what?
* Nearly 30 percent of children in Britain are living in poverty, with one-third coming from families where at least one parent is in work.
* Particularly vulnerable to poverty are families of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin. Three-quarters of families from these national backgrounds live on or below the official poverty level, i.e., they receive less than 60 percent of median income after the deduction of housing costs.
* Around a fifth of pensioners fell into the official poverty category, rising to 25 percent of those aged over 75.
* In the early 1980s one in seven adults in the course of a year could not afford to purchase at least three items thought of as essential by most people; today that figure has increased to one in four.
* Since 1980 the poorest quintile of the population has experienced no growth in real earnings. Nearly twice as many people have relatively low incomes as 25 years ago.
* The report points out that “millions are unable to afford basic necessities such as proper clothing and nutritionâ€Â. Tens of thousands of the poorest households have seen an absolute decline in their earnings since 1997 and the poorest 10 percent of the population have experience average income increases incapable of meeting the rising cost of living
Source: Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) Strategies Against Povertyâ€â€A Shared Roadmap
* Particularly vulnerable to poverty are families of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin. Three-quarters of families from these national backgrounds live on or below the official poverty level, i.e., they receive less than 60 percent of median income after the deduction of housing costs.
* Around a fifth of pensioners fell into the official poverty category, rising to 25 percent of those aged over 75.
* In the early 1980s one in seven adults in the course of a year could not afford to purchase at least three items thought of as essential by most people; today that figure has increased to one in four.
* Since 1980 the poorest quintile of the population has experienced no growth in real earnings. Nearly twice as many people have relatively low incomes as 25 years ago.
* The report points out that “millions are unable to afford basic necessities such as proper clothing and nutritionâ€Â. Tens of thousands of the poorest households have seen an absolute decline in their earnings since 1997 and the poorest 10 percent of the population have experience average income increases incapable of meeting the rising cost of living
Source: Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) Strategies Against Povertyâ€â€A Shared Roadmap
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
- anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
No WMD...so what?
spot wrote: I've tried for a while to suggest here that people tend to project their own society's ills onto others, not recognizing that what they describe is their own back yard.
I'm merely saying your pathology in this instance is a reflection of the society you grew up in.mmm. indeed.
I'm merely saying your pathology in this instance is a reflection of the society you grew up in.mmm. indeed.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
No WMD...so what?
anastrophe wrote: Source: Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) Strategies Against Povertyâ€â€A Shared RoadmapYou're getting so lazy, anastrophe. Write your own material, stop pasting uncommented text from the web.
Those statistics are a reflection of the Thatcher years, I've been trying to mention them now and then but you keep using that pissant formula at me, "thanks for..." whatever. Try to drop all the formulaic shorthand, try to think and express yourself. I'm sure it's in there someplace, from however long ago it was that you last thought independent thoughts.
Those statistics are a reflection of the Thatcher years, I've been trying to mention them now and then but you keep using that pissant formula at me, "thanks for..." whatever. Try to drop all the formulaic shorthand, try to think and express yourself. I'm sure it's in there someplace, from however long ago it was that you last thought independent thoughts.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
- anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
No WMD...so what?
spot wrote: You're getting so lazy, anastrophe. Write your own material, stop pasting uncommented text from the web.
Those statistics are a reflection of the Thatcher years, I've been trying to mention them now and then but you keep using that pissant formula at me, "thanks for..." whatever. Try to drop all the formulaic shorthand, try to think and express yourself. I'm sure it's in there someplace, from however long ago it was that you last thought independent thoughts.mmm, indeed. as you were 'thinking for yourself' with naomi klein's article.
a nice bit of dodge there old boy. take responsibility for your own country. seems that pakistanis and bangladeshis living in britain have it worse off than today's iraqis.
you have someone to blame for everything. ah - it's not your country that's at fault - it's that evil bitch thatcher! of course! if only you could get the *right* people running your government, all would be well. say, who did you folks re-elect recently? i recall a cover from that lovely bit of journalism 'the mirror', that posed the question "how can 56 million people be so dumb" upon george bush's re-election. oddly enough, you folks didn't seem to consider asking the same question of yourselves after re-electing the Despot of Downing Street.
Those statistics are a reflection of the Thatcher years, I've been trying to mention them now and then but you keep using that pissant formula at me, "thanks for..." whatever. Try to drop all the formulaic shorthand, try to think and express yourself. I'm sure it's in there someplace, from however long ago it was that you last thought independent thoughts.mmm, indeed. as you were 'thinking for yourself' with naomi klein's article.
a nice bit of dodge there old boy. take responsibility for your own country. seems that pakistanis and bangladeshis living in britain have it worse off than today's iraqis.
you have someone to blame for everything. ah - it's not your country that's at fault - it's that evil bitch thatcher! of course! if only you could get the *right* people running your government, all would be well. say, who did you folks re-elect recently? i recall a cover from that lovely bit of journalism 'the mirror', that posed the question "how can 56 million people be so dumb" upon george bush's re-election. oddly enough, you folks didn't seem to consider asking the same question of yourselves after re-electing the Despot of Downing Street.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
No WMD...so what?
what's good for the goose...
The US has the worst education system in the developed world; one in three are illiterate either totally or to the degree that they can not function in a society based on the written word.
Healthcare, not just the cost but the fact that 40 million Americans have no health insurance. The only developed country in the world with no national health plan.
And on and on.
Every country has their own problems. I don't get the point. Except that every country has their own problems and it doesn't mean they deserve to be slaughtered for it.
The US has the worst education system in the developed world; one in three are illiterate either totally or to the degree that they can not function in a society based on the written word.
Healthcare, not just the cost but the fact that 40 million Americans have no health insurance. The only developed country in the world with no national health plan.
And on and on.
Every country has their own problems. I don't get the point. Except that every country has their own problems and it doesn't mean they deserve to be slaughtered for it.
No WMD...so what?
anastrophe wrote: seems that pakistanis and bangladeshis living in britain have it worse off than today's iraqis.If you're so utterly ignorant as to equate "they receive less than 60 percent of median income after the deduction of housing costs." - UK median income, anastrophe, not Iraqi median income - with "One or two missing items have become three, four and five, until this point when the really vital item - the flour - is also missing" - then you need remedial studies, or a Home for the Bewildered.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
- anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
No WMD...so what?
koan wrote: what's good for the goose...
The US has the worst education system in the developed world; one in three are illiterate either totally or to the degree that they can not function in a society based on the written word.
citations please?
i see an entirely different set of facts:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu ... ig_lit_lev
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu ... ow_lit_lev
let's see: the US and UK's illiteracy rates exceed canada's by just under seven percent.
on the other end, in terms of high literacy rates, canada exceeds the UK and US rates by about six percent.
none of the three countries is at the top or bottom of the literacy rates.
let me ask, what are some of the world renowned universities in canada? hmm, i'd have to look it up. of course, few need to look up Stanford University, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, MIT. and on the other side of the pond, Cambridge, Oxford. canada, canada....nope, nothing comes to mind.
'the worst education system in the developed world'. sorry koan, i have to say it plainly - that's full of crap.
Healthcare, not just the cost but the fact that 40 million Americans have no health insurance. The only developed country in the world with no national health plan.
and thank god for that. no way i would ever want a national health plan. never, ever.
let's see, what country has the most advanced medical technology in the world? what country is it that other countries send their most extreme and desparate cases to when no place else on earth can help? what country develops more useful pharmaceuticals that the world needs than any other country on earth?
the one with 'the worst educational system in the developed world.' mmm-hmm.
what country did the CPU inside your computer come from, koan? i know the answer to that, because no other nation on earth creates CPUs for personal computers. that nation? the one with the worst educational system on earth. and, i guess because we don't have national health insurance - the sickest nation on earth.
And on and on.
two examples, both weak. sorry, you'll have to come up with better america bashing.
Every country has their own problems. I don't get the point. Except that every country has their own problems and it doesn't mean they deserve to be slaughtered for it.
non sequitur.
The US has the worst education system in the developed world; one in three are illiterate either totally or to the degree that they can not function in a society based on the written word.
citations please?
i see an entirely different set of facts:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu ... ig_lit_lev
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu ... ow_lit_lev
let's see: the US and UK's illiteracy rates exceed canada's by just under seven percent.
on the other end, in terms of high literacy rates, canada exceeds the UK and US rates by about six percent.
none of the three countries is at the top or bottom of the literacy rates.
let me ask, what are some of the world renowned universities in canada? hmm, i'd have to look it up. of course, few need to look up Stanford University, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, MIT. and on the other side of the pond, Cambridge, Oxford. canada, canada....nope, nothing comes to mind.
'the worst education system in the developed world'. sorry koan, i have to say it plainly - that's full of crap.
Healthcare, not just the cost but the fact that 40 million Americans have no health insurance. The only developed country in the world with no national health plan.
and thank god for that. no way i would ever want a national health plan. never, ever.
let's see, what country has the most advanced medical technology in the world? what country is it that other countries send their most extreme and desparate cases to when no place else on earth can help? what country develops more useful pharmaceuticals that the world needs than any other country on earth?
the one with 'the worst educational system in the developed world.' mmm-hmm.
what country did the CPU inside your computer come from, koan? i know the answer to that, because no other nation on earth creates CPUs for personal computers. that nation? the one with the worst educational system on earth. and, i guess because we don't have national health insurance - the sickest nation on earth.
And on and on.
two examples, both weak. sorry, you'll have to come up with better america bashing.
Every country has their own problems. I don't get the point. Except that every country has their own problems and it doesn't mean they deserve to be slaughtered for it.
non sequitur.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
No WMD...so what?
I'm not bashing. I clearly stated that every country has it's own problems. The actual stats are irrelevant.
So, by disagreeing with me, are you saying the United States has no domestic problems. I just want to check if that is what you mean.
Non sequitur. Again just to check...are saying that, since my conclusion is illogical, countries do deserve to be slaughtered because of their domestic issues?
So, by disagreeing with me, are you saying the United States has no domestic problems. I just want to check if that is what you mean.
Non sequitur. Again just to check...are saying that, since my conclusion is illogical, countries do deserve to be slaughtered because of their domestic issues?
- anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
No WMD...so what?
koan wrote: I'm not bashing. I clearly stated that every country has it's own problems. The actual stats are irrelevant.
nonsense. if you are going to make statements such as "The US has the worst education system in the developed world", you should be prepared to back them up. If not, then we must presume that you are plucking them from thin air. If so, then that means you have no argument.
So, by disagreeing with me, are you saying the United States has no domestic problems. I just want to check if that is what you mean.
ahem. back to logic 101. one does not follow from the other.
Non sequitur. Again just to check...are saying that, since my conclusion is illogical, countries do deserve to be slaughtered because of their domestic issues?
countering an illogical non-sequitur with a further illogical non-sequitur does not create a logical syllogism.
nonsense. if you are going to make statements such as "The US has the worst education system in the developed world", you should be prepared to back them up. If not, then we must presume that you are plucking them from thin air. If so, then that means you have no argument.
So, by disagreeing with me, are you saying the United States has no domestic problems. I just want to check if that is what you mean.
ahem. back to logic 101. one does not follow from the other.
Non sequitur. Again just to check...are saying that, since my conclusion is illogical, countries do deserve to be slaughtered because of their domestic issues?
countering an illogical non-sequitur with a further illogical non-sequitur does not create a logical syllogism.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
No WMD...so what?
for a conversation to be productive we must actively listen. That means I summarize what I think you are saying before I respond.
I summarized for you. I am saying that the US has domestic issues. Whether I know what they are or not by precise figures or quotes is irrelevant. It is a sidetrack I don't want to take. The point was that every country has domestic issues and that no country should be slaughtered because of that.
Now I reflect back to you that I heard you saying that the US does not have any major domestic issues and that you think it is possible to justify slaughtering another country because they do.
I ask again. Is this what you are saying? If not, can you clarify for me what you were saying.
I summarized for you. I am saying that the US has domestic issues. Whether I know what they are or not by precise figures or quotes is irrelevant. It is a sidetrack I don't want to take. The point was that every country has domestic issues and that no country should be slaughtered because of that.
Now I reflect back to you that I heard you saying that the US does not have any major domestic issues and that you think it is possible to justify slaughtering another country because they do.
I ask again. Is this what you are saying? If not, can you clarify for me what you were saying.
- anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
No WMD...so what?
koan wrote: for a conversation to be productive we must actively listen. That means I summarize what I think you are saying before I respond.
I summarized for you. I am saying that the US has domestic issues. Whether I know what they are or not by precise figures or quotes is irrelevant. It is a sidetrack I don't want to take. The point was that every country has domestic issues and that no country should be slaughtered because of that.
Now I reflect back to you that I heard you saying that the US does not have any major domestic issues and that you think it is possible to justify slaughtering another country because they do.
I ask again. Is this what you are saying? If not, can you clarify for me what you were saying.
weaving a nonsensical tale from my response to your irresponsible and unsupported claim that the united states has the worst educational system of developed countries does not put *me* in a position of "clarifying" the nonsensical tale *you* are weaving.
so, to summarize:
you believe i'm saying that the united states has no domestic problems. you believe that i'm saying that other countries can be slaughtered because they have domestic issues.
is that what you're saying? if not, can you clarify for me why you are implying the nonsense you are implying?
I summarized for you. I am saying that the US has domestic issues. Whether I know what they are or not by precise figures or quotes is irrelevant. It is a sidetrack I don't want to take. The point was that every country has domestic issues and that no country should be slaughtered because of that.
Now I reflect back to you that I heard you saying that the US does not have any major domestic issues and that you think it is possible to justify slaughtering another country because they do.
I ask again. Is this what you are saying? If not, can you clarify for me what you were saying.
weaving a nonsensical tale from my response to your irresponsible and unsupported claim that the united states has the worst educational system of developed countries does not put *me* in a position of "clarifying" the nonsensical tale *you* are weaving.
so, to summarize:
you believe i'm saying that the united states has no domestic problems. you believe that i'm saying that other countries can be slaughtered because they have domestic issues.
is that what you're saying? if not, can you clarify for me why you are implying the nonsense you are implying?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:50 am
No WMD...so what?
Ah, Koan.
Not only are your facts totally incorrect but you're way out of your league on this!
I think you may just realize that.
You know what they say about being in a hole. Best stop digging.
Not only are your facts totally incorrect but you're way out of your league on this!
I think you may just realize that.
You know what they say about being in a hole. Best stop digging.
America the Beautiful :-6
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
No WMD...so what?
anastrophe wrote: weaving a nonsensical tale from my response to your irresponsible and unsupported claim that the united states has the worst educational system of developed countries does not put *me* in a position of "clarifying" the nonsensical tale *you* are weaving.
so, to summarize:
you believe i'm saying that the united states has no domestic problems. you believe that i'm saying that other countries can be slaughtered because they have domestic issues.
is that what you're saying? if not, can you clarify for me why you are implying the nonsense you are implying?
This is a complete derail from the topic.
If my "facts" were wrong about the US I have no qualms about saying. OK. I got them from a bad source. I am not on a mission to find out what the US domestic problems are. I never claimed to be. This is about US foreign policy.
So what you are saying now is that I completely garbled what you were saying. Got it. Though you didn't say it, I suppose now that you admit the US has domestic problems but not the ones I named. Perhaps you have no opinion on the question.
Now it seems that this whole conversation was a nifty way for you to get out of answering whether or not you think a country should be slaughtered because they have domestic problems. Let's change a word here. Do domestic problems justify invading a country which "accidentally" causes death to thousands?
so, to summarize:
you believe i'm saying that the united states has no domestic problems. you believe that i'm saying that other countries can be slaughtered because they have domestic issues.
is that what you're saying? if not, can you clarify for me why you are implying the nonsense you are implying?
This is a complete derail from the topic.
If my "facts" were wrong about the US I have no qualms about saying. OK. I got them from a bad source. I am not on a mission to find out what the US domestic problems are. I never claimed to be. This is about US foreign policy.
So what you are saying now is that I completely garbled what you were saying. Got it. Though you didn't say it, I suppose now that you admit the US has domestic problems but not the ones I named. Perhaps you have no opinion on the question.
Now it seems that this whole conversation was a nifty way for you to get out of answering whether or not you think a country should be slaughtered because they have domestic problems. Let's change a word here. Do domestic problems justify invading a country which "accidentally" causes death to thousands?
- anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
No WMD...so what?
koan wrote: This is a complete derail from the topic.
If my "facts" were wrong about the US I have no qualms about saying. OK. I got them from a bad source. I am not on a mission to find out what the US domestic problems are. I never claimed to be. This is about US foreign policy.
So what you are saying now is that I completely garbled what you were saying. Got it. Though you didn't say it, I suppose now that you admit the US has domestic problems but not the ones I named. Perhaps you have no opinion on the question.
Now it seems that this whole conversation was a nifty way for you to get out of answering whether or not you think a country should be slaughtered because they have domestic problems. Let's change a word here. Do domestic problems justify invading a country which "accidentally" causes death to thousands?
you are playing rhetorical games.
let me ask you this, koan: when did you stop beating your daughter?
same sort of game. it is a time honored rhetorical trick, and i'm not going to dignify your - and i'll use this word, because it is appropriate - *scurrilous* "question".
If my "facts" were wrong about the US I have no qualms about saying. OK. I got them from a bad source. I am not on a mission to find out what the US domestic problems are. I never claimed to be. This is about US foreign policy.
So what you are saying now is that I completely garbled what you were saying. Got it. Though you didn't say it, I suppose now that you admit the US has domestic problems but not the ones I named. Perhaps you have no opinion on the question.
Now it seems that this whole conversation was a nifty way for you to get out of answering whether or not you think a country should be slaughtered because they have domestic problems. Let's change a word here. Do domestic problems justify invading a country which "accidentally" causes death to thousands?
you are playing rhetorical games.
let me ask you this, koan: when did you stop beating your daughter?
same sort of game. it is a time honored rhetorical trick, and i'm not going to dignify your - and i'll use this word, because it is appropriate - *scurrilous* "question".
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
No WMD...so what?
anastrophe wrote: you are playing rhetorical games.
let me ask you this, koan: when did you stop beating your daughter?
same sort of game. it is a time honored rhetorical trick, and i'm not going to dignify your - and i'll use this word, because it is appropriate - *scurrilous* "question".
That you take accusations against your country as a personal assault is what a manipulative government counts on.
let me ask you this, koan: when did you stop beating your daughter?
same sort of game. it is a time honored rhetorical trick, and i'm not going to dignify your - and i'll use this word, because it is appropriate - *scurrilous* "question".
That you take accusations against your country as a personal assault is what a manipulative government counts on.
No WMD...so what?
koan wrote: That you take accusations against your country as a personal assault is what a manipulative government counts on.
No koan.......... That is called PATRIOTISM........
Knock your own country we will knock ours thank you
No koan.......... That is called PATRIOTISM........
Knock your own country we will knock ours thank you
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."