koan wrote: That you take accusations against your country as a personal assault is what a manipulative government counts on.
sigh, koan, you are smarter than this. frankly, that may be the problem. you are asking me a patently offensive question:
"are saying that...countries do deserve to be slaughtered because of their domestic issues?"
that is a patently offensive "question", precisely the same as asking you when you stopped beating your daughter. if you think there is any answer other than the obvious one, then we will have to formally part ways.
No WMD...so what?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
No WMD...so what?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
No WMD...so what?
I think I read on another thread - or maybe this one early on - and I had to agree - I think Hussein was the weapon of mass destruction. He killed his own citizens without conscience - sounds a lot like Hitler and his genetic cleansing of Germany. And yes we are there for the oil and to spread democracy - my SIL in the military has told me this is what the military tells him. As for the other thread about Zimbwabe - no oil. The US did intervene in Samolia - oil. The stories brought back from the GI's there was that little our relief efforts for the starving people were getting to the people who needed it most. The US did oust Idi Amin - a terrorist against his own people. Has anyone heard from Kohmeni lately - I believe we bombed him out of his country too for crimes against his own people.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
No WMD...so what?
anastrophe wrote: sigh, koan, you are smarter than this. frankly, that may be the problem. you are asking me a patently offensive question:
"are saying that...countries do deserve to be slaughtered because of their domestic issues?"
that is a patently offensive "question", precisely the same as asking you when you stopped beating your daughter. if you think there is any answer other than the obvious one, then we will have to formally part ways.
of course i didn't think you would agree with that statement.
I find the painting of Iraqis as evil anti American terrorists allows the government to attack them against the better moral judgement that citizens would have if they were to think of them in less antagonistic terms.
The images created of the people we are "rescuing" is a deliberate painting. Check out the villianous action figures we buy our children and see how we distort the faces of "the enemy".
"are saying that...countries do deserve to be slaughtered because of their domestic issues?"
that is a patently offensive "question", precisely the same as asking you when you stopped beating your daughter. if you think there is any answer other than the obvious one, then we will have to formally part ways.
of course i didn't think you would agree with that statement.
I find the painting of Iraqis as evil anti American terrorists allows the government to attack them against the better moral judgement that citizens would have if they were to think of them in less antagonistic terms.
The images created of the people we are "rescuing" is a deliberate painting. Check out the villianous action figures we buy our children and see how we distort the faces of "the enemy".
No WMD...so what?
nvalleyvee wrote: The US did oust Idi Amin - a terrorist against his own people.This is the same Idi Amin who spent the last 23 years of his life in Saudi Arabia, with a pension from the Saudi Royal Family? The same Saudis who pal up with the US as if their lives depended on it, which is probably a fair reflection of the truth? Please, just this once, find a news site on the Internet that claims His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin, VC, DSO, MC, Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular, Big Daddy to his people and King of Scotland was ousted either from office or from Uganda by the US, and show it to the thread.
It's television, in my opinion. It gives the impression that if you want something, you can have it, that if you'd like something to be true, it's true. That world is a lie, and its assumptions are not truths.
It's television, in my opinion. It gives the impression that if you want something, you can have it, that if you'd like something to be true, it's true. That world is a lie, and its assumptions are not truths.
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?
nvalleyvee wrote: Has anyone heard from Kohmeni lately - I believe we bombed him out of his country too for crimes against his own people.On the dusty highway south from bustling Tehran, an enormous gold dome rises importantly across the horizon. Heat from the surrounding desert makes it shiver like a mirage, even in winter. Four spiny minarets quiver rhythmically alongside it.
The most ornate shrine in Iran †and one of the largest monuments ever constructed in the Muslim world over the past thirteen centuries †was built in record time above the burial site of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini after he died abruptly from a heart attack in 1989.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/wr ... htmlPardon me if I merely ditto the previous diatribe.
The most ornate shrine in Iran †and one of the largest monuments ever constructed in the Muslim world over the past thirteen centuries †was built in record time above the burial site of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini after he died abruptly from a heart attack in 1989.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/wr ... htmlPardon me if I merely ditto the previous diatribe.
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?
Terry Jones's War on the War On Terror. He brought at least a little humour to the absurdity of what is going on. British style.
"And yet it worries me that Mr. Bush says that one of the reasons he wants to kill a lot of Iraqis is because Saddam Hussein has also been killing them. Is there some sort of rivalry here?"
"Since the Second World War, the US has bombed China, Korea, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Guatemala (again), Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Guatemala (third time lucky), Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia - in that order - and in not a single case did the bombing produce a democratic government as a direct result."
"And yet it worries me that Mr. Bush says that one of the reasons he wants to kill a lot of Iraqis is because Saddam Hussein has also been killing them. Is there some sort of rivalry here?"
"Since the Second World War, the US has bombed China, Korea, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Guatemala (again), Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Guatemala (third time lucky), Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia - in that order - and in not a single case did the bombing produce a democratic government as a direct result."
No WMD...so what?
koan wrote: Terry Jones's War on the War On Terror. He brought at least a little humour to the absurdity of what is going on. British style.
"And yet it worries me that Mr. Bush says that one of the reasons he wants to kill a lot of Iraqis is because Saddam Hussein has also been killing them. Is there some sort of rivalry here?"
"Since the Second World War, the US has bombed China, Korea, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Guatemala (again), Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Guatemala (third time lucky), Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia - in that order - and in not a single case did the bombing produce a democratic government as a direct result."
The United States has the military and economic power to systematically conquer country after country gaining strength as it goes. We don’t, and we don’t because it isn’t the way we are. Represented by the list of “bombings†you so cleverly assembled are a variety of reasons for taking the action that was taken. Not all of them were done to establish a democracy. Some of them were mistakes when viewed with 20/20 hindsight. Some were done for very good reasons and were successful at achieving the stated goal. In all, they were limited to the objective (flawed or not) and were demonstrations of restraint by this nation and a military that is capable of wreaking havoc like this planet has never seen.
Terry Jones first puts words in President Bush’s mouth, then uses those words to make a statement that makes no sense at all. When and where did President Bush say," he wants to kill a lot of Iraqis"? Shame on you. There is absolutely nothing funny about that and you know it.
"And yet it worries me that Mr. Bush says that one of the reasons he wants to kill a lot of Iraqis is because Saddam Hussein has also been killing them. Is there some sort of rivalry here?"
"Since the Second World War, the US has bombed China, Korea, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Guatemala (again), Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Guatemala (third time lucky), Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia - in that order - and in not a single case did the bombing produce a democratic government as a direct result."
The United States has the military and economic power to systematically conquer country after country gaining strength as it goes. We don’t, and we don’t because it isn’t the way we are. Represented by the list of “bombings†you so cleverly assembled are a variety of reasons for taking the action that was taken. Not all of them were done to establish a democracy. Some of them were mistakes when viewed with 20/20 hindsight. Some were done for very good reasons and were successful at achieving the stated goal. In all, they were limited to the objective (flawed or not) and were demonstrations of restraint by this nation and a military that is capable of wreaking havoc like this planet has never seen.
Terry Jones first puts words in President Bush’s mouth, then uses those words to make a statement that makes no sense at all. When and where did President Bush say," he wants to kill a lot of Iraqis"? Shame on you. There is absolutely nothing funny about that and you know it.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
No WMD...so what?
Clint wrote: The United States has the military and economic power to systematically conquer country after country gaining strength as it goes. Only if the United States keeps chipping away at the little countries, Clint. It always demands a thousand to one advantage before it's prepared to take off the gloves, have a clean fight and may the best nation win.
Terry Jones' list misses at least Albania, Montenegro, Bulgaria, and that curious CIA-directed strike on the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade - the one that nobody argues was accidental any longer, or a result of reading the wrong map, ever since "CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress that of the 900 sites struck by NATO during the bombing campaign, only one was targeted by the CIA -- the Chinese Embassy."
Terry Jones' list misses at least Albania, Montenegro, Bulgaria, and that curious CIA-directed strike on the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade - the one that nobody argues was accidental any longer, or a result of reading the wrong map, ever since "CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress that of the 900 sites struck by NATO during the bombing campaign, only one was targeted by the CIA -- the Chinese Embassy."
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?
Clint wrote: When and where did President Bush say," he wants to kill a lot of Iraqis"? Shame on you. There is absolutely nothing funny about that and you know it.I know perfectly well what Terry Jones had in mind when he wrote that. What do you suppose "Bring 'em on" was about?
"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice," Bush said. "There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on." Now, maybe you can weasel around what those words might mean, or should have meant, or could be interpreted as, but I thought then and feel now that it was a goad, a gauntlet in the face. A typical "Come on, where's your nerve, you wanna do it then do it" macho posturing. Or are you going to tell me that he's inviting only foreign fighters into Iraq to get mown into the ground, so this isn't about wanting "to kill a lot of Iraqis"?
Or perhaps you'd like to squirm off the hook with the notion that maybe "brought to justice" doesn't mean shredded back to basic ingredients, it means arrested, charged and tried in an internationally recognized law court? Well, go for that if you want to. I still think the guy had a blood lust on him when he squirted that venom into the public domain by way of the press corps. What he says in private, I expect he'll keep for his ghosted memoirs, but I doubt if it's any less offensive or embarrassing than the Nixon tapes turned out to be.
"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice," Bush said. "There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on." Now, maybe you can weasel around what those words might mean, or should have meant, or could be interpreted as, but I thought then and feel now that it was a goad, a gauntlet in the face. A typical "Come on, where's your nerve, you wanna do it then do it" macho posturing. Or are you going to tell me that he's inviting only foreign fighters into Iraq to get mown into the ground, so this isn't about wanting "to kill a lot of Iraqis"?
Or perhaps you'd like to squirm off the hook with the notion that maybe "brought to justice" doesn't mean shredded back to basic ingredients, it means arrested, charged and tried in an internationally recognized law court? Well, go for that if you want to. I still think the guy had a blood lust on him when he squirted that venom into the public domain by way of the press corps. What he says in private, I expect he'll keep for his ghosted memoirs, but I doubt if it's any less offensive or embarrassing than the Nixon tapes turned out to be.
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?
Spot....Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds. That kind of behavior is abhorred by all civilized people on the planet.
Any leader that uses chemical weapons these days should be dethroned.
Any leader that uses chemical weapons these days should be dethroned.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
No WMD...so what?
Jives wrote: Spot....Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds. That kind of behavior is abhorred by all civilized people on the planet.
Any leader that uses chemical weapons these days should be dethroned.By the international community acting in concert, perhaps, Jives. Not by one country on a crusade.
Any leader that uses chemical weapons these days should be dethroned.By the international community acting in concert, perhaps, Jives. Not by one country on a crusade.
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?
By the international community acting in concert, perhaps, Jives. Not by one country on a crusade
Don't tell me led by Kofi (I have no idea what my son does for money) Annan the saviour of RWanda
Don't tell me led by Kofi (I have no idea what my son does for money) Annan the saviour of RWanda
"I have done my duty. I thank God for it!"
No WMD...so what?
About one coalition troop for each ten US troops, Far Rider. The breakdown at the moment is:
United Kingdom 8761
South Korea 3600
Italy 3,085
Poland 1,700
Ukraine 1,450
Georgia 898
Romania 730
Japan 550
Denmark 496
Bulgaria 450
El Salvador 380
Australia 400
Mongolia 180
Azerbaijan 151
Latvia 122
Czech Republic 110
Lithuania 120
Slovakia 105
Albania 71
Estonia 55
Armenia 46
Macedonia 33
Kazakhstan 29
Norway 10
Fiji 150
I'm not sure what the US has done recently as a favor for Norway or Denmark, but the rest I recognize.
I do note, in passing, that the President entirely gets the wrong end of the stick when he says "there are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely". These "bomb-wielding, knife carrying, surface-to-air missile -carrying islamic fundamentalist zealots" are obviously attacking so as to lengthen the period of conflict, not to reduce it.
United Kingdom 8761
South Korea 3600
Italy 3,085
Poland 1,700
Ukraine 1,450
Georgia 898
Romania 730
Japan 550
Denmark 496
Bulgaria 450
El Salvador 380
Australia 400
Mongolia 180
Azerbaijan 151
Latvia 122
Czech Republic 110
Lithuania 120
Slovakia 105
Albania 71
Estonia 55
Armenia 46
Macedonia 33
Kazakhstan 29
Norway 10
Fiji 150
I'm not sure what the US has done recently as a favor for Norway or Denmark, but the rest I recognize.
I do note, in passing, that the President entirely gets the wrong end of the stick when he says "there are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely". These "bomb-wielding, knife carrying, surface-to-air missile -carrying islamic fundamentalist zealots" are obviously attacking so as to lengthen the period of conflict, not to reduce it.
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?
Bothwell wrote: Don't tell me led by Kofi (I have no idea what my son does for money) Annan the saviour of RWandaKofi Annan began his first term as Secretary-General of the UN on 1 January 1997. The Rwanda genocide is usually dated at 1994. In what sense do you suggest that Annan was in a position to be the "saviour of Rwanda", Bothwell?
If we're going to use that rather fetching epithet, which I'm tempted to steal, it will refer to George Herbert Walker "I have no idea what my son would do for money if it weren't for the Saudis" Bush.
If we're going to use that rather fetching epithet, which I'm tempted to steal, it will refer to George Herbert Walker "I have no idea what my son would do for money if it weren't for the Saudis" Bush.
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?
I think that he was Un commisioner for refugees at the time.
"I have done my duty. I thank God for it!"
No WMD...so what?
Bothwell wrote: I think that he was Un commisioner for refugees at the time.The key words to look for on the web are:
"Be careful", a May 1 [1994] Pentagon document advises. "Legal (bureau) at State (Department) was worried about this yesterday -- genocide finding could commit USG (U.S. government) to 'do something'."The responsibility for acting, at the UN, when a difference could still have been made, was refused "on the grounds that no nation wanted to contribute troops and that there was no mandate for UNAMIR to use lethal force to even protect itself, much less Rwandan civilians." The knowledge of the developing genocide was available to US intelligence. Someone, somewhere, remembered Black Hawk Down and Somalia, and refused to allow the Security Council to take effective steps - specifically, by declaring the events to be genocide, thereby enforcing various international treaties and obligations in such circumstances. No such declaration was permitted.
"Be careful", a May 1 [1994] Pentagon document advises. "Legal (bureau) at State (Department) was worried about this yesterday -- genocide finding could commit USG (U.S. government) to 'do something'."The responsibility for acting, at the UN, when a difference could still have been made, was refused "on the grounds that no nation wanted to contribute troops and that there was no mandate for UNAMIR to use lethal force to even protect itself, much less Rwandan civilians." The knowledge of the developing genocide was available to US intelligence. Someone, somewhere, remembered Black Hawk Down and Somalia, and refused to allow the Security Council to take effective steps - specifically, by declaring the events to be genocide, thereby enforcing various international treaties and obligations in such circumstances. No such declaration was permitted.
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: Holy Mackeral Batman! Even Fiji sent troops! Way to go Fiji!Quite so, Far Rider. A coalition to be proud of.
If anyone had written down that list of predominantly cut-throat mercenary brigands, back when the USA regarded itself as a beacon of hope in a world threatened by communist domination, would it have qualified as an Axis of Evil, or an Alliance of the Righteous? I think we should name the commanders of this horde from the Steppes. Four-star General Ghengis Khan? Admiral of the Fleet Attilla the Hun? Brigadier Alaric the Goth? General Grievous?
If anyone had written down that list of predominantly cut-throat mercenary brigands, back when the USA regarded itself as a beacon of hope in a world threatened by communist domination, would it have qualified as an Axis of Evil, or an Alliance of the Righteous? I think we should name the commanders of this horde from the Steppes. Four-star General Ghengis Khan? Admiral of the Fleet Attilla the Hun? Brigadier Alaric the Goth? General Grievous?
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.
-
BuckTurgidson
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:19 pm
No WMD...so what?
Doesn't appear as though anybody here has seen 'Canadian Bacon'.
No WMD...so what?
spot wrote: I know perfectly well what Terry Jones had in mind when he wrote that. What do you suppose "Bring 'em on" was about?
"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice," Bush said. "There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on." Now, maybe you can weasel around what those words might mean, or should have meant, or could be interpreted as, but I thought then and feel now that it was a goad, a gauntlet in the face. A typical "Come on, where's your nerve, you wanna do it then do it" macho posturing. Or are you going to tell me that he's inviting only foreign fighters into Iraq to get mown into the ground, so this isn't about wanting "to kill a lot of Iraqis"?
Or perhaps you'd like to squirm off the hook with the notion that maybe "brought to justice" doesn't mean shredded back to basic ingredients, it means arrested, charged and tried in an internationally recognized law court? Well, go for that if you want to. I still think the guy had a blood lust on him when he squirted that venom into the public domain by way of the press corps. What he says in private, I expect he'll keep for his ghosted memoirs, but I doubt if it's any less offensive or embarrassing than the Nixon tapes turned out to be.
Spot, the reason I don’t respond to you is that we don’t speak the same language. You have aptly demonstrated that with this post. I simply don't have the ability to communicate with you.
"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice," Bush said. "There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on." Now, maybe you can weasel around what those words might mean, or should have meant, or could be interpreted as, but I thought then and feel now that it was a goad, a gauntlet in the face. A typical "Come on, where's your nerve, you wanna do it then do it" macho posturing. Or are you going to tell me that he's inviting only foreign fighters into Iraq to get mown into the ground, so this isn't about wanting "to kill a lot of Iraqis"?
Or perhaps you'd like to squirm off the hook with the notion that maybe "brought to justice" doesn't mean shredded back to basic ingredients, it means arrested, charged and tried in an internationally recognized law court? Well, go for that if you want to. I still think the guy had a blood lust on him when he squirted that venom into the public domain by way of the press corps. What he says in private, I expect he'll keep for his ghosted memoirs, but I doubt if it's any less offensive or embarrassing than the Nixon tapes turned out to be.
Spot, the reason I don’t respond to you is that we don’t speak the same language. You have aptly demonstrated that with this post. I simply don't have the ability to communicate with you.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
No WMD...so what?
deleted.
nah. on second thought, i'm pulling my post. gotta follow my own advice. life's too short.
nah. on second thought, i'm pulling my post. gotta follow my own advice. life's too short.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
No WMD...so what?
Clint wrote: Spot, the reason I don’t respond to you is that we don’t speak the same language. You have aptly demonstrated that with this post. I simply don't have the ability to communicate with you.Bring 'em on, Clint.
Does it sound statesmanlike, or does it sound aggressive?
I'll shorten my sentences. If it sounds aggressive when I say it, what does it sound like on the lips of the Commander in Chief of the World's sole Hyperpower?
What it sounds like is he wants to kill a lot of Iraqis, that's what it sounds like.
Does it sound statesmanlike, or does it sound aggressive?
I'll shorten my sentences. If it sounds aggressive when I say it, what does it sound like on the lips of the Commander in Chief of the World's sole Hyperpower?
What it sounds like is he wants to kill a lot of Iraqis, that's what it sounds like.
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?
spot wrote: If it sounds aggressive when I say it, what does it sound like on the lips of the Commander in Chief of the World's sole Hyperpower?
It sounds aggressive. Being the Commander in Chief of the world's sole hyper-power, you kinda need to be aggressive on occassion. Would you prefer a spineless push-over? I wouldn't. "Bring 'em on"?? Absolutely.
It sounds aggressive. Being the Commander in Chief of the world's sole hyper-power, you kinda need to be aggressive on occassion. Would you prefer a spineless push-over? I wouldn't. "Bring 'em on"?? Absolutely.
[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?
BabyRider wrote: Being the Commander in Chief of the world's sole hyper-power, you kinda need to be aggressive on occassion.Ewwww no, BabyRider. Being the Commander in Chief of the world's sole Hyperpower, you can afford to grin and purr and roll on your back and sip vodka martini with paper umbrellas. I so wish the guy could stand back and develop that sort of class.
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?
BuckTurgidson wrote: Doesn't appear as though anybody here has seen 'Canadian Bacon'.Bigger, Longer & Uncut was more my level. My children had a blank look for days after I watched that with them. I think it was the line "Satan, your ass is gigantic and red. Who am I going to pretend you are, Liza Minelli? ".
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.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
No WMD...so what?
Bring on the Internet Police
No WMD...so what?
capt_buzzard wrote: Bring on the Internet PoliceIt's allowed! "Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty woids! That's what this war is all about!"
Oh. Ass. OK, it's not allowed.
Oops! I did it again, got lost in the game, oh baby. I'm not that innocent.
Oh. Ass. OK, it's not allowed.
Oops! I did it again, got lost in the game, oh baby. I'm not that innocent.
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.
-
BuckTurgidson
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:19 pm
No WMD...so what?
spot wrote: Bigger, Longer & Uncut was more my level. My children had a blank look for days after I watched that with them. I think it was the line "Satan, your ass is gigantic and red. Who am I going to pretend you are, Liza Minelli? ".
I'm not trying to be a smarta**, but are we talking about the same 'Canadian Bacon'?
I'm not trying to be a smarta**, but are we talking about the same 'Canadian Bacon'?
No WMD...so what?
BuckTurgidson wrote: I'm not trying to be a smarta**, but are we talking about the same 'Canadian Bacon'? I think we need to hear from someone who's seen both movies.
I think we need to hear from someone who's seen both movies.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?
BTS wrote: No koan.......... That is called PATRIOTISM........
Knock your own country we will knock ours thank youI knew there was something Orwell had written about this very error, BTS. What you're arguing in favor of isn't patriotism, it's nationalism. It would be as well if you could try to distinguish between them.
By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But secondly - and this is much more important - I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
from George Orwell's essay, Notes on Nationalism.
Knock your own country we will knock ours thank youI knew there was something Orwell had written about this very error, BTS. What you're arguing in favor of isn't patriotism, it's nationalism. It would be as well if you could try to distinguish between them.
By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But secondly - and this is much more important - I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
from George Orwell's essay, Notes on Nationalism.
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: What a bunch of horsepucky...
Nationalism is the place Im a patriot. Patriotism is the ideal my country is founded on.
Imperialism is when I go and kick the living tar out of you and take your property and run it the way my country is run while you serve me tea and crumpets with my boot on your scrawny little neck.Of course! Hawaii! By Jingo, I'd quite forgotten that the perfect example of Imperialism was already a part of the US hegemony.
Before you kneejerk back at me that Hawaii's a part of the good old US of A and don't forget it, have a quick read of how you got it, who complained at the time, and whether there's a "please may we have our country back" movement out there at the moment.
Nationalism is the place Im a patriot. Patriotism is the ideal my country is founded on.
Imperialism is when I go and kick the living tar out of you and take your property and run it the way my country is run while you serve me tea and crumpets with my boot on your scrawny little neck.Of course! Hawaii! By Jingo, I'd quite forgotten that the perfect example of Imperialism was already a part of the US hegemony.
Before you kneejerk back at me that Hawaii's a part of the good old US of A and don't forget it, have a quick read of how you got it, who complained at the time, and whether there's a "please may we have our country back" movement out there at the moment.
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: Spot I was just thinking of coming for your house. Damn and my kneejerk is so lacking tonight....
Spotty boy, The fact remains that I don't hear any Hawaiians asking for it back? I think they like the USA.
Who here is an Hawaiian native? Lets aks?You truly never heard of it? http://www.hawaii-nation.org/ is a small fragment of a large protest movement. Perhaps news of it is suppressed by the US mainland news channels?
Spotty boy, The fact remains that I don't hear any Hawaiians asking for it back? I think they like the USA.
Who here is an Hawaiian native? Lets aks?You truly never heard of it? http://www.hawaii-nation.org/ is a small fragment of a large protest movement. Perhaps news of it is suppressed by the US mainland news channels?
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: Patriotism is the ideal my country is founded on.
And it's what the Patriot Act ensures. Enforced patriotism for those who question. What a great idea! Just wait until part two comes out. I'm sure you'll be jumping for joy. Thank God for the ALA so you can all read what you like without being arrested for it.
Imperialism is when I go and kick the living tar out of you and take your property and run it the way my country is run while you serve me tea and crumpets with my boot on your scrawny little neck.
Some people believe the Iraqis know just what you're talking about. It is being thought that their oil profits should go toward repaying the cost of bombing the crap out of them. And to the American companies that will rebuild it for them again. I wonder who's getting that contract.
How much should the Iraqis pay for every person killed outright? Is it less expensive if they just lost a limb or two? What will they be charged for the people who just starved to death? Or died of dissentry? Is it cheaper for them if they were almost dead already? Should they pay more or less for children that were blown up?
And it's what the Patriot Act ensures. Enforced patriotism for those who question. What a great idea! Just wait until part two comes out. I'm sure you'll be jumping for joy. Thank God for the ALA so you can all read what you like without being arrested for it.
Imperialism is when I go and kick the living tar out of you and take your property and run it the way my country is run while you serve me tea and crumpets with my boot on your scrawny little neck.
Some people believe the Iraqis know just what you're talking about. It is being thought that their oil profits should go toward repaying the cost of bombing the crap out of them. And to the American companies that will rebuild it for them again. I wonder who's getting that contract.
How much should the Iraqis pay for every person killed outright? Is it less expensive if they just lost a limb or two? What will they be charged for the people who just starved to death? Or died of dissentry? Is it cheaper for them if they were almost dead already? Should they pay more or less for children that were blown up?
No WMD...so what?
Far Rider wrote: Ok you sort out the innocents from the gun carrying terrorists that American forces killed directly with bombs and or rifles and I will be glad to pay a monetary value to each of them, just offset it with the amount they repay us when thier oil starts flowing again.It seems quite likely to me that any future Iraqi government which declares any such "repayment" agreement to be void will have a lot of backing in the world's law courts. I don't see it being enforceable, and I don't see a tame regime lasting very long round those parts without a continuous background level of Savak-style killing to back it up.
The basis for unenforceability is well-established, and stems from:
The Second Treatise of Civil Government 1690
"That the aggressor, who puts himself into the state of war with another, and unjustly invades another man's right, can, by such an unjust war, never come to have a right over the conquered, will be easily agreed by all men, who will not think that robbers and pirates have a right of empire over whomsoever they have force enough to master, or that men are bound by promises which unlawful force extorts from them.
Should a robber break into my house, and, with a dagger at my throat, make me seal deeds to convey my estate to him, would this give him any title? Just such a title by his sword has an unjust conqueror who forces me into submission. The injury and the crime is equal, whether committed by the wearer of a crown or some petty villain.
The title of the offender and the number of his followers make no difference in the offence, unless it be to aggravate it. The only difference is, great robbers punish little ones to keep them in their obedience; but the great ones are rewarded with laurels and triumphs, because they are too big for the weak hands of justice in this world, and have the power in their own possession which should punish offenders." John Locke - 1632-1704
The basis for unenforceability is well-established, and stems from:
The Second Treatise of Civil Government 1690
"That the aggressor, who puts himself into the state of war with another, and unjustly invades another man's right, can, by such an unjust war, never come to have a right over the conquered, will be easily agreed by all men, who will not think that robbers and pirates have a right of empire over whomsoever they have force enough to master, or that men are bound by promises which unlawful force extorts from them.
Should a robber break into my house, and, with a dagger at my throat, make me seal deeds to convey my estate to him, would this give him any title? Just such a title by his sword has an unjust conqueror who forces me into submission. The injury and the crime is equal, whether committed by the wearer of a crown or some petty villain.
The title of the offender and the number of his followers make no difference in the offence, unless it be to aggravate it. The only difference is, great robbers punish little ones to keep them in their obedience; but the great ones are rewarded with laurels and triumphs, because they are too big for the weak hands of justice in this world, and have the power in their own possession which should punish offenders." John Locke - 1632-1704
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: Mute point, that law assumes we unjustly invadedIt's not a law, it's a principle.
I'm sure the legality of the Liberation will one day be decided by competent authorities. You're being a bit premature pre-guessing the outcome. The point is far from moot.
I'm sure the legality of the Liberation will one day be decided by competent authorities. You're being a bit premature pre-guessing the outcome. The point is far from moot.
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... :yh_clap :yh_clap
I like you more with each post you make.
I like you more with each post you make.
[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?
Far Rider wrote: Spot I liked you better when I was ignoring you.
Mark my words, Far Rider said on this day.....
hahahaha kinda like read my lips......
No American President in my lifetime will ever sit in a war crimes trail and/or be convicted. Iraq will eventually, probably in the next 10-20 years, be under it's own government, with free elections and it will stand as a future beacon for freedom in the middle east. And just like now, despite the liberal media and the jihadist propaganda the Iraqi people will be thankful to America and coalition forces for interviening and setting it free.
I know buddies that have been thanked over and over again by greatful Iraqi's who, cling to them, thanking them with open arms and gifts of things they have precious little of.
The common Iraqi wants us there helping them.
Just because it does not fit in a tighly wrapped bloodless perfect package does not mean that it's not right to do what we have done.
War is awful and innocent peple get caught in the crossfire, the difference between coalition forces and the Iraqi/insurgents is that when an american does not have a cleear shot he does not fire, but the insurgents get to walk among us and blow themselves up and take out the children and not care. I have not been here long but I have never heard you comdemn the Iraqi/insurgent for that.
And people like you and Koan get to riducule from the sidelines.
hmmmm, I guess life isn't fair is it.
Are you really being serious with all that?
Mark my words, Far Rider said on this day.....
hahahaha kinda like read my lips......
No American President in my lifetime will ever sit in a war crimes trail and/or be convicted. Iraq will eventually, probably in the next 10-20 years, be under it's own government, with free elections and it will stand as a future beacon for freedom in the middle east. And just like now, despite the liberal media and the jihadist propaganda the Iraqi people will be thankful to America and coalition forces for interviening and setting it free.
I know buddies that have been thanked over and over again by greatful Iraqi's who, cling to them, thanking them with open arms and gifts of things they have precious little of.
The common Iraqi wants us there helping them.
Just because it does not fit in a tighly wrapped bloodless perfect package does not mean that it's not right to do what we have done.
War is awful and innocent peple get caught in the crossfire, the difference between coalition forces and the Iraqi/insurgents is that when an american does not have a cleear shot he does not fire, but the insurgents get to walk among us and blow themselves up and take out the children and not care. I have not been here long but I have never heard you comdemn the Iraqi/insurgent for that.
And people like you and Koan get to riducule from the sidelines.
hmmmm, I guess life isn't fair is it.
Are you really being serious with all that?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
No WMD...so what?
Far Rider wrote: I have not been here long but I have never heard you comdemn the Iraqi/insurgent for that.
what condemnation of the bloodthirsty religious zealots you will hear, if ever, will be tepid, compared to the baying they set forth against 'the usual suspects' - Big Corporations. Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Rove. Wolfowitz. Rice. Imperialism. Christian Conservatives. PNAC. Haliburton. The moral derelicts who serve in the military. you know the drill.
They will get up on their hind-legs at the first whiff of the word "america", and decry us for bludgeoning the world with our power. The monsters who go about slaughtering innocent men, women, and children in iraq, with explosives strapped to their bodies? 'oh yes, terrible, just terrible. a bloody shame.' The madmen who have no moral qualms with slicing off the head of another human being because they aren't a muslim? 'oh yes, terrible, just terrible. a bloody shame'. Saddam Hussein (and by extension his lovely boys, Uday and Qusay, who were in line to take over running the country had all gone as planned) - the perpetrator of genocide on his own countrymen, of true, unrepentant abject greed in the accumulated wealth uncovered by coalition forces after the fall of baghdad, the fellow whose repressive regime meant that nobody could speak publicly anything critical without the very real potential of being shipped off to abu ghraib, to be scourged, then dipped in acid for the viewing pleasure of those incorrigible sons of his? 'oh yes, terrible, just terrible. a bloody shame'.
There is a certain stench to those who will not condemn that which is clearly, patently immoral and depraved, while relentlessly blasting away at that which is at best morally questionable and ambiguous.
of course - there's no question whatsoever that if the jihadists were to have some success in spreading islam and ridding the world of infidels - as is their stated desire - the intellectuals who would come out with open arms to greet these 'freedom fighters' would be the first to taste the tip of the jihadists swords.
i imagine it would be condemned, in their last breath, as 'terribly rude'. presuming of course the blade didn't meet the neck first, as is their predilection.
what condemnation of the bloodthirsty religious zealots you will hear, if ever, will be tepid, compared to the baying they set forth against 'the usual suspects' - Big Corporations. Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Rove. Wolfowitz. Rice. Imperialism. Christian Conservatives. PNAC. Haliburton. The moral derelicts who serve in the military. you know the drill.
They will get up on their hind-legs at the first whiff of the word "america", and decry us for bludgeoning the world with our power. The monsters who go about slaughtering innocent men, women, and children in iraq, with explosives strapped to their bodies? 'oh yes, terrible, just terrible. a bloody shame.' The madmen who have no moral qualms with slicing off the head of another human being because they aren't a muslim? 'oh yes, terrible, just terrible. a bloody shame'. Saddam Hussein (and by extension his lovely boys, Uday and Qusay, who were in line to take over running the country had all gone as planned) - the perpetrator of genocide on his own countrymen, of true, unrepentant abject greed in the accumulated wealth uncovered by coalition forces after the fall of baghdad, the fellow whose repressive regime meant that nobody could speak publicly anything critical without the very real potential of being shipped off to abu ghraib, to be scourged, then dipped in acid for the viewing pleasure of those incorrigible sons of his? 'oh yes, terrible, just terrible. a bloody shame'.
There is a certain stench to those who will not condemn that which is clearly, patently immoral and depraved, while relentlessly blasting away at that which is at best morally questionable and ambiguous.
of course - there's no question whatsoever that if the jihadists were to have some success in spreading islam and ridding the world of infidels - as is their stated desire - the intellectuals who would come out with open arms to greet these 'freedom fighters' would be the first to taste the tip of the jihadists swords.
i imagine it would be condemned, in their last breath, as 'terribly rude'. presuming of course the blade didn't meet the neck first, as is their predilection.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
No WMD...so what?
anastrophe wrote: what condemnation of the bloodthirsty religious zealots you will hear, if ever, will be tepid, compared to the baying they set forth against 'the usual suspects' - Big Corporations. Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Rove. Wolfowitz. Rice. Imperialism. Christian Conservatives. PNAC. Haliburton. The moral derelicts who serve in the military. you know the drill.
They will get up on their hind-legs at the first whiff of the word "america", and decry us for bludgeoning the world with our power. The monsters who go about slaughtering innocent men, women, and children in iraq, with explosives strapped to their bodies? 'oh yes, terrible, just terrible. a bloody shame.' The madmen who have no moral qualms with slicing off the head of another human being because they aren't a muslim? 'oh yes, terrible, just terrible. a bloody shame'. Saddam Hussein (and by extension his lovely boys, Uday and Qusay, who were in line to take over running the country had all gone as planned) - the perpetrator of genocide on his own countrymen, of true, unrepentant abject greed in the accumulated wealth uncovered by coalition forces after the fall of baghdad, the fellow whose repressive regime meant that nobody could speak publicly anything critical without the very real potential of being shipped off to abu ghraib, to be scourged, then dipped in acid for the viewing pleasure of those incorrigible sons of his? 'oh yes, terrible, just terrible. a bloody shame'.
There is a certain stench to those who will not condemn that which is clearly, patently immoral and depraved, while relentlessly blasting away at that which is at best morally questionable and ambiguous.
of course - there's no question whatsoever that if the jihadists were to have some success in spreading islam and ridding the world of infidels - as is their stated desire - the intellectuals who would come out with open arms to greet these 'freedom fighters' would be the first to taste the tip of the jihadists swords.
i imagine it would be condemned, in their last breath, as 'terribly rude'. presuming of course the blade didn't meet the neck first, as is their predilection.
You do have a point about the narrowed stance regarding this issue. I believe BOTH sides of the issue naturally tend to ignore opposing points that would weaken their argument. I think it helps the discussion if one can see it from all angles, and be honest enough to admit to proven points not favoring their position.
As the nation wielding the "big stick", the US is certain to bear the "bully's" brunt of blame for these conflicts. But I will just as easily argue in support of US actions which I consider justified. Sadly, imo, they are right now being outweighed by the non-justified actions. I can only hope and pray this changes.
They will get up on their hind-legs at the first whiff of the word "america", and decry us for bludgeoning the world with our power. The monsters who go about slaughtering innocent men, women, and children in iraq, with explosives strapped to their bodies? 'oh yes, terrible, just terrible. a bloody shame.' The madmen who have no moral qualms with slicing off the head of another human being because they aren't a muslim? 'oh yes, terrible, just terrible. a bloody shame'. Saddam Hussein (and by extension his lovely boys, Uday and Qusay, who were in line to take over running the country had all gone as planned) - the perpetrator of genocide on his own countrymen, of true, unrepentant abject greed in the accumulated wealth uncovered by coalition forces after the fall of baghdad, the fellow whose repressive regime meant that nobody could speak publicly anything critical without the very real potential of being shipped off to abu ghraib, to be scourged, then dipped in acid for the viewing pleasure of those incorrigible sons of his? 'oh yes, terrible, just terrible. a bloody shame'.
There is a certain stench to those who will not condemn that which is clearly, patently immoral and depraved, while relentlessly blasting away at that which is at best morally questionable and ambiguous.
of course - there's no question whatsoever that if the jihadists were to have some success in spreading islam and ridding the world of infidels - as is their stated desire - the intellectuals who would come out with open arms to greet these 'freedom fighters' would be the first to taste the tip of the jihadists swords.
i imagine it would be condemned, in their last breath, as 'terribly rude'. presuming of course the blade didn't meet the neck first, as is their predilection.
You do have a point about the narrowed stance regarding this issue. I believe BOTH sides of the issue naturally tend to ignore opposing points that would weaken their argument. I think it helps the discussion if one can see it from all angles, and be honest enough to admit to proven points not favoring their position.
As the nation wielding the "big stick", the US is certain to bear the "bully's" brunt of blame for these conflicts. But I will just as easily argue in support of US actions which I consider justified. Sadly, imo, they are right now being outweighed by the non-justified actions. I can only hope and pray this changes.
No WMD...so what?
Far Rider wrote: You mean am I serious when I say read my lips? Um yep. Dead serious.
Why do thousands of Iraqi men line up to join the security forces?, Why after the elections when the Iraqi people got a taste of freedom did we see a measured and markedly different tactic by the insurgents in the style and target of thier attacks? Why are Iraqi forces increasingly taking charge of thier own specialized military operations? Why did the free flow of vital intel about insurgent activity increase dramatically after the elections?
Why? Because the tide has turned, and the insurgents are losing and the Iraqi people can taste it.
I'll go one step further and predict there will be no cival war either. (just a hunch)
So when will all the troops come home??
Why do thousands of Iraqi men line up to join the security forces?, Why after the elections when the Iraqi people got a taste of freedom did we see a measured and markedly different tactic by the insurgents in the style and target of thier attacks? Why are Iraqi forces increasingly taking charge of thier own specialized military operations? Why did the free flow of vital intel about insurgent activity increase dramatically after the elections?
Why? Because the tide has turned, and the insurgents are losing and the Iraqi people can taste it.
I'll go one step further and predict there will be no cival war either. (just a hunch)
So when will all the troops come home??