Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around...
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128707] |
Thu, 23 December 2004 23:08   |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
No, I've actually been playing with a great fluid simulator for the past two days, other people have semi-stood in for me, and quite frankly I don't have all the time that I used to have to post on these forums. Note how hydra's post up there was about 6 pages long.
|
Ah, okay, so now you're implying that I have no life? Just because I took about an hour and a half out of my life to write that to put you where you belong?
Do you think I was just spontaneously driven to tear your pathetic excuses of arguments apart? Do you think I wrote that as a result of your posts in this thread alone?
If your hypocrisy and mindlessness had been contained in this thread alone, I would never have gone through all the trouble I did in writing that harsh appraisal of your posts.
The problem goes much further back than this.
The problem goes all the way back to the first post you ever wrote in the Politics/Hot Issues forum.
The problem is that you have posted nothing but the same propaganda that's been force-fed to you by the mainstream media since day fucking one!!!
Each and every time you would make a post as mind-numbingly ridiculous and hypocritical as all the others you have posted, we have called you on it ("we" being the dedicated conservatives of the forum).
Time and again, your hypocrisy would be proven and exposed, yet you would continue in bombarding us with your outrageous propaganda and mindless crap, while in the process accusing us Republicans of "blindly following 'President' Bush" simply because we disagree with the utter bullshit you spew out of the asshole you call a mouth!
I don't think you've ever made a single post recognizing anything good that George W. Bush has done ever since he first took office. Hell, even I am willing to admit that Clinton made some correct decisions in office!
No, the Democratic Party has told you hate anything and everything Bush does in office because he "stole" the 2000 election, so like a sheep you will blindly follow their orders no questions asked and hate George W. Bush with every ounce of your being.
Every single post you have ever made in this forum reflects that sentiment, and I, as well as probably many others, am absolutely fed up with it!
We have put up with your crap for long enough, and it's time you finally put an end to your spreading around of Democratic propaganda that we've heard thousands of times over!!!
THINK FOR YOURSELF FOR ONCE!!!
| Quote: |
Also, have you all heard about the defamation of character and libel suit that John Kerry has against the Swift Boat Hoax?
|
What the hell does that have to do with anything written in this entire thread? I can't even understand why you would decide to put that here when it has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're discussing in this thread whatsoever!
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you're trying to change the subject to something completely unrelated in order to escape the web of hypocrisy and mindlessness that you have woven for yourself and that I have just exposed.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128726] |
Fri, 24 December 2004 01:52 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
It wouldn't be the first time he's changed the subject when he can't win. It's either that or "I need to talk to my dad some more."
I wonder if his dad is the mindless drone and SFE doesn't want to disappoint him by thinking about what we say.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128754] |
Fri, 24 December 2004 06:42 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
Ah, okay, so now you're implying that I have no life? Just because I took about an hour and a half out of my life to write that to put you where you belong?
|
No, I'm not implying that you're a loser at all. I'm just saying that I've been busy working on film projects and I need to hurry up.
| Crimson |
It wouldn't be the first time he's changed the subject when he can't win. It's either that or "I need to talk to my dad some more."
|
Oh, honestly. I haven't changed the subject. It's not like there is much more to be debated here anyways, it's come down to a "You're a sucky American!" What needs to be done is more or less to wait and see what the ACLU finds. And Crimson, I've only ever said that I need to have a word with my dad twice, on issues I don't entirely comprehend. Would you prefer that I just make things up on the fly? And if I truly did agree that torturing soldiers outside the U.S. was ok, yeah, I probably would side with you all.
Also,
| The Washington Post |
War Crimes
Thursday, December 23, 2004; Page A22
THANKS TO a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other human rights groups, thousands of pages of government documents released this month have confirmed some of the painful truths about the abuse of foreign detainees by the U.S. military and the CIA -- truths the Bush administration implacably has refused to acknowledge. Since the publication of photographs of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in the spring the administration's whitewashers -- led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- have contended that the crimes were carried out by a few low-ranking reservists, that they were limited to the night shift during a few chaotic months at Abu Ghraib in 2003, that they were unrelated to the interrogation of prisoners and that no torture occurred at the Guantanamo Bay prison where hundreds of terrorism suspects are held. The new documents establish beyond any doubt that every part of this cover story is false.
Though they represent only part of the record that lies in government files, the documents show that the abuse of prisoners was already occurring at Guantanamo in 2002 and continued in Iraq even after the outcry over the Abu Ghraib photographs. FBI agents reported in internal e-mails and memos about systematic abuses by military interrogators at the base in Cuba, including beatings, chokings, prolonged sleep deprivation and humiliations such as being wrapped in an Israeli flag. "On a couple of occasions I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water," an unidentified FBI agent wrote on Aug. 2, 2004. "Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18 to 24 hours or more." Two defense intelligence officials reported seeing prisoners severely beaten in Baghdad by members of a special operations unit, Task Force 6-26, in June. When they protested they were threatened and pictures they took were confiscated.
Other documents detail abuses by Marines in Iraq, including mock executions and the torture of detainees by burning and electric shock. Several dozen detainees have died in U.S. custody. In many cases, Army investigations of these crimes were shockingly shoddy: Officials lost records, failed to conduct autopsies after suspicious deaths and allowed evidence to be contaminated. Soldiers found to have committed war crimes were excused with noncriminal punishments. The summary of one suspicious death of a detainee at the Abu Ghraib prison reads: "No crime scene exam was conducted, no autopsy conducted, no copy of medical file obtained for investigation because copy machine broken in medical office."
Some of the abuses can be attributed to lack of discipline in some military units -- though the broad extent of the problem suggests, at best, that senior commanders made little effort to prevent or control wrongdoing. But the documents also confirm that interrogators at Guantanamo believed they were following orders from Mr. Rumsfeld. One FBI agent reported on May 10 about a conversation he had with Guantanamo's commander, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who defended the use of interrogation techniques the FBI regarded as illegal on the grounds that the military "has their marching orders from the Sec Def." Gen. Miller has testified under oath that dogs were never used to intimidate prisoners at Guantanamo, as authorized by Mr. Rumsfeld in December 2002; the FBI papers show otherwise.
The Bush administration refused to release these records to the human rights groups under the Freedom of Information Act until it was ordered to do so by a judge. Now it has responded to their publication with bland promises by spokesmen that any wrongdoing will be investigated. The record of the past few months suggests that the administration will neither hold any senior official accountable nor change the policies that have produced this shameful record. Congress, too, has abdicated its responsibility under its Republican leadership: It has been nearly four months since the last hearing on prisoner abuse. Perhaps intervention by the courts will eventually stem the violations of human rights that appear to be ongoing in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan. For now the appalling truth is that there has been no remedy for the documented torture and killing of foreign prisoners by this American government.
|
EDIT: Once I get time, hydra, I'll get back to your post.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128817] |
Fri, 24 December 2004 12:07 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
I have told you like 493 times that I don't watch FOX news... I read CNN.com for my news and nothing more.
|
Sorry for any confusion, but I was referring to the guy above you, who called Iraqis sissies.
Aright, hydra, here you go...
| hydra1945 |
Why do you have "President" in quotation marks? Oh, wait, that's right, since Michael Moore told you to believe that the 2000 election wasn't legitimate, that's the honest-to-God... oh, wait, I'm sorry, I forgot I can't say "God" for fear of offending an atheist... honest-to-Clinton (because he's the closest thing to a "god" you Democrats have) truth, and there is no other way it can possibly be. Lord Moore said it, so it must be so. Bush stole the election, and that's just the way it is.
|
No, Moore's movie came out quite a while after the election. Quite a while after I had thought this through and seen events unfold. Also, I think you're typecasting Christmas-bashing with Democrats a bit too much here. It's not exactly a stated goal of the DNC. I actually didn't get all that much out of F 9/11. Just another movie.
| hydra1945 |
Now that Lord Moore and the Infallible Church of the ACLU have told you to believe that Bush authorized "torture" (of which, by the way, you have a very pussified definition, but I'll get to that later), it must be true, and there is no contesting it.
|
Well, you and your "crew" certainly flat out deny any possibility of it and that's the way it must be. Don't pretend that you're leaning over the fence and I'm not.
| hydra1945 |
You obviously never read the Geneva Convention before, or you'd know that terrorists get absolutely no protection under it whatsoever.
|
I believe warranto touched on this one.
| hydra1945 |
I'm amazed how you have claimed in the past to be more "open-minded" than conservatives, then you imply that all conservatives are white-supremacists. Not very open-minded, is it?
You really showed those racist Republicans how open-minded you are! Great job in showing just how much of a hypocrite you are!
|
I have claimed to be more open-minded on issues of race? And also, speech never comes out very well if you end two sentences, one right after the other, with "you are!" Just a tidbit of advice.
| hydra1945 |
Proof, ladies and gentlemen, that you can be incredibly book-smart but at the same time have no common sense.
|
I think you mean booksmart and yet not agree with the ideals of others. Didn't you just earlier imply that you were more open about the ideas of others than I am?
| hydra1945 |
The reason we all say you hate America is you're always willing to blame America first for its problems. Before the war ever started, you said it was America's fault for Saddam being there in the first place. You said it was America's fault for giving weapons to the terrorists to fight the Soviets twenty years ago. You said it was America's fault for pissing the terrorists off in the first place.
|
You do realize that Reagan did indeed give enormous amounts of arms to the Afghans and pretend to the American people that it wasn't happening? Did I indeed say it was some president's fault that Saddam was in power? Was that back when I was 11 or something?
| hydra1945 |
It's always America that's the belligerent country, isn't it, SuperFlyingLiberalTool? It's never the other side that is actually causing the problem, is it? It's America's fault that more than a thousand soldiers died in Iraq. It can't possibly be the terrorists' fault, even though they were the ones who were setting off the bombs and firing the AK-47s.
|
America is not the infallible entity you would like it to be. Yes, there are more than a handful of people in Iraq and Afghanistan out to kill our soldiers. Some of it is because of all of the hate propaganda over there. But you have to open your eyes, hydra. Right now, almost everyone in Iraq knows someone personal that we have killed with bombs and such. They take that pretty seriously over there. And we've killed a LOT of civilians. It's not just because they're evil satanists, it's because they have genuine reasons to be mad at the U.S. These things need to be recognized if we're to bring peace back to Iraq, which isn't going to happen at a snap of the fingers.
| hydra1945 |
Oh, wait, Ted Kennedy says it's America's fault for the war. I forgot; Lord Kennedy of the Kennedy dynasty is always right. My apologies.
|
He's actually getting pretty old. I haven't seen him speak in a while.
| hydra1945 |
That wasn't his point, and you know it.
|
His "point," if you could call it that, was that I was somehow empowering Arabs to shoot our men. Not many of them are going to hear what I have to say. Are you suggesting that we should cover up everything bad the government does and portray a better picture of ourselves, like in 1984?
| hydra1945 |
No, you don't. You care more about the well-being of the terrorists than you do our own soldiers. This thread is a perfect example.
|
So I should be more gung-ho and not care about how harshly we deal with soldiers we capture when it's AGAINST OUR LAWS?
| hydra1945 |
Here you are, bitching about how we're keeping the terrorists up all night to obtain information from them that can be vital to the survival of an entire squad of soldiers (I'll delve deeper into this issue later on). If you truly cared about the well-being of our soldiers, you would step back and let the interrogators do their job and get every little bit of information out of the captured terrorists as possible.
|
Are you really so befuddled in your mind as to believe that all Iraqis are terrorists? Terrorists flew planes into our buildings. Guerilla soldiers are what we're fighting right now in Iraq. And keeping people up all night is one way to describe the torture going on. [See Washington Post editorial]
| hydra1945 |
In case you haven't noticed, WE'RE IN THERE ALREADY, and now that we're in there, WE CAN'T JUST UP AND LEAVE, OR THE IRAQI PEOPLE WOULD BE ROYALLY FUCKED OVER!!!
|
Why, yes, you're right. However, that doesn't suddenly make this war a just cause, and what do you propose we do from here on? Shoot them all until there's no one to fight us? Well, that is kind of against the point of this humanitarian war the Republicans have turned WMDs into.
| hydra1945 |
We can't leave now that we're in, and if you actually did care about our soldiers, you'd stop being such a hypocrite and let the interrogators do their job. If they have to keep terrorists up all night listening to the fucking Barney song in order to get them to spill their guts about where a terrorist weapons cache is, well Clintondamn it, let them!
|
So the ends justify the means? We should break our own rules all we want to get information that we can't even prove is truly helpful? One of the discoveries of the 20th century is that people subjected to torture are going to tell the torturers what they want to hear, not what they know. It's not a truly effective technique for coaxing information out of someone.
| hydra1945 |
You're kidding, right? Did you just completely miss the multitudes of protests, both anti- and pro-war, going on around the country when the first tomahawks were landing in Baghdad? You do realize that protests are one way of letting your elected officials know where you stand on a particular issue, right?
If they're willing to go out on a weekend and protest, they're probably motivated enough to write a simple letter to their elected politicians.
|
There were pro-war rallies? Didn't see many of those on any large scale. And even then, that's still only a very small majority. One of the biggest demonstrations probably ever witnessed in the U.S. was the protest outside the Republican Convention this year, which only made up a quarter of one percent or less of the population.
| hydra1945 |
No, you only believe that the majority of voters voted on moral values because that's what you've been told to believe.
The majority of voters actually voted because of the War on Terror. Nice try pinning the blame on those bastard Christians who still carry some amount of morals, though.
|
I suppose that'll teach me to ever turn on FOX NEWS, because that's where I heard about all this "voting your morals" business.
| hydra1945 |
You actually think we're torturing people in Iraq? Look at what Saddam did to his own people in the underground rape rooms. That's torture. You're comparing that to sleep deprivation? Where the hell is your common fucking sense?
|
Yeah, Saddam was a small-scale dictator. One what size did he kill people here? Surely not 100,000 civilians or more, like the number we've probably killed from bombing and fighting, although the President won't release any numbers, because whenever he does they make him look bad. Again, read the Post Editorial I C&P'ed a couple posts up.
| hydra1945 |
Yet, you believed John Kerry when he said we were torturing civilians in Vietnam. icon_rolleyes.gif
Hypocrisy just naturally rolls right off of your fingertips onto your keyboard, doesn't it?
|
Why, yes, that was a bad war as well. The point I was trying to get across, which I perhaps could have been clearer on, is that the U.S. has laws that we don't torture people. We should not have been in Vietnam, and we should not be in Iraq now. An occupation of a Middle Eastern country is almost a joke.
| hydra1945 |
And you say Fox News isn't a reliable source...
|
Why, yes, I do. I triangulate a lot of my news from different blog sites. Generally, they're run by Washington insiders who'll print better and more accurate stories than major media. They also run all stories, not pick & choose like FOX news.
| hydra1945 |
I'm assuming you meant to say, "they can kill us...."
Typos aside, this could be one of the most outrageous remarks you have ever made. Are you saying you want our troops to wait to be shot at first before they can get off the first shot? You do realize an American soldier can be killed by that first shot, right?
How far away from reality can your mind possibly be???
And you say you care about our troops....
|
I'm assuming you meant to say, "Typo aside,"
Typo aside, that was in reponse to a remark that more or less stated that we should kill any opposing people in the way of our arbitrary goals.
You may have missed that one.
| hydra1945 |
The key word here is "implying." You're taking an article, published by a biased source about a ridiculous case, that makes an accusation of the Bush administration and making it into an absolute truth.
|
The ACLU is suing right now under Freedom of Information for an executive order that leaked documents are pointing straight to an executive order, and they want to see it. I'm not saying this is an absolute truth. I'm posting this as a "here's-where-we-are-know." 'Sides, if you want to read an unbiased source, just read all those documents they have.
| hydra1945 |
For you to even think for one second that what we're doing to interrogate the captured terrorists is even comparable to the torture Saddam forced upon his own people that is plainly exemplified in that report is completely out-of-line and utterly stupid.
|
Read the Washington Post editorial.
| hydra1945 |
That's funny. You're telling someone to think for himself when not a single original political thought that might run counter to the goals of the Democratic Party. Most Republicans here can give an example of at least one issue on which they disagree with George W. Bush, whereas you, even when directly challenged by myself, have not ever given one single example of any issue with which you disagree with the general stance of the Democratic Party.
It is you who needs to try thinking for yourself once in a while.
|
But you all almost exclusively disagree with the Republican party on issues of religious zealotism, not actual political issues. If I entirely re-wrote the DNC's stand on everything, it wouldn't be the same, but I agree with their general ideals.
| hydra1945 |
The situation of not having a single independent political thought in your entire body.
See? There you go again, putting "President" in quotation marks again.
Are you so pro-Democrat that you can't stand to see anyone disagree with any holy decree Pope Al Gore makes about George W. Bush?
|
I don't think Al Gore ever said the election was stolen.
| hydra1945 |
Ah, slandering him while accusing him of slandering you, are we?
Isn't that something a hypocrite would do, generally?
|
I don't think that statement is entirely comperable to him calling me a "fuck."
| hydra1945 |
This all goes back to the ACLU's, and your, definition of "torture." Like I said earlier, you have a very pussified definition. You actually believe keeping the terrorists up all night listening to the Barney song is actually torture. What the hell do you want us to do, put lounge chairs in their jail cells and feed them fucking filet mignon for dinner each day? Do you think that will convince any one of them to talk?
If we can't make them (gasp!) uncomfortable, how the hell do you expect us to get any information out of them? Ask them nicely? Get down on our knees and beg for the information? These were fuckers who, just a day ago, were trying to kill us! How can you not understand that these terrorists could hold vital information to weapons cache locations, locations of terrorist leaders, and anything else that might prevent the loss of an American soldier's life?
Why the hell aren't you willing to make these bastards "uncomfortable" in order to get them to spill their guts with information?
You want torture? Go back two years to one of those torture rooms in Baghdad described in that USA Today article. THAT is torture. This staying up all night bullshit? Not even comparable.
Just out of curiosity, where was your outrage when Ali Kaddam Kardom was being beaten, refrigerated naked and held underground for being a Shiite?
|
When was that ever the ACLU's definiton of torture? Again, read the Washington Post editorial and LOOK at the ACLU documents! Those will outline what kinds of torture they think were authorized.
Yes, Saddam was a minor league dictator, but the U.S. is not an international police force. And we went in claiming an imminent threat from WMDs, which was a bald-faced lie. Then you all tried to change the pretext to a humanitarian issue, because otherwise Georgio would look bad.
NOTE: Okay, this thing is too long. I'm going to pick and choose major topics out of your mile-long post.
| Hydra1945 |
Secondly, if they hadn't hated us for our freedoms and other "stupid" reasons like that, they wouldn't have flown two jets into the World Trade Center twin towers
|
Either that or because we killed those terrorist's families when we shelled the Bekaa Valley with the U.S.S. North Carolina's battle cannons.
These issues aren't one-sided. You have to look at them from everyone's points of view.
| hydra1945 |
When you substitute short words with longer words in a failed effort to make yourself appear more intelligent as a result of your massive superiority complex.
|
I still don't engage in the use of a thesaurus.
| hydra1945 |
Stop talking before you embarass yourself more.
What, exactly, was all that, um, whatchacallit, oh yeah, sarin stuff the Polish troops found a few months ago? Isn't that sarin stuff a weapon of mass destruction? Didn't they also just recently find some more of that stuff in the trunk of a car in Fallujah?
Oh, wait, that must've been a new flavor of jell-o or something. Silly me. I should tell my mom to buy me some sarin jell-o next time she's at the grocery store.
|
Didn't the Duelfer report say that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction? The Bushies have been so lax about border control that it's a small wonder there are nerve agents in the country now. Found them a few months ago? That doesn't mean anything. It's been so long since we've invaded that these could have come from any neighbouring country.
| hydra1945 |
You already do, unless you don't consider nearly half of both houses of Congress to be considered leaders.
|
Democrats in Congress aren't exactly the leaders right now. And if they had gotten into this Iraq mess, I would have been just as mad. You don't notice many Democrats getting into mass bloodshed battles, do you? [Come on, say something about Clinton.]
| hydra1945 |
Who the hell is trying to censor you? He wasn't saying you couldn't disagree with the actions taken by the head-of-state, just that in your blind hatred of every little thing done by George W. Bush, you begin hating your own country, which is the opposite of patriotism.
|
There's actually a bill on the floor of the Congress right now trying to ban liberal viewpoints on the internet.
| hydra1945 |
Don't make me laugh. The same can be said of you.
|
Kindly don't compare me to cowmisfit, or whoever I was talking to there.
| hydra1945 |
Be sure to ask Santa for some common sense this Christmas (that is, if you celebrate Christmas; I wouldn't be surprised if you became an atheist just to make sure you don't offend anyone by celebrating the birth of your lord and saviour, Jesus Christ (well, to normal people it'd be Jesus Christ; to you, it'd be Bill Clinton)).
|
Stop typecasting Democrats with a couple ACLU suits.
| hydra1945 |
How do you know there's an executive order when there is no evidence to prove the existence of one?
|
Because so many leaked FBI documents point to one. And right now, the ACLU is suing to see if there is one. Time will tell.
| hydra1945 |
No one is saying you can't question the actions of the President; you just happen to disagree with every little thing he does, and your arguments are making us believe you hate your own country since you're so quick to blame America first in any foreign conflict.
|
No, conflicts that stop genocides are pretty good, like if Bush invaded Sudan to stop what's going on in there. That would be pretty good. And also, the invasion of Afghanstan was most certainly a good move, although elections aren't going very well over there.
| hydra1945 |
Typical. You name four Republican presidents and point out one bad quality in each. Nevermind that Nixon negotiated the end of the Vietnam War. Nevermind that Reagan brought about the fall of the Berlin Wall. Nevermind that Bush Sr. oversaw the fall of the Soviet Union (though it began during Reagan's term).
And, of course, nevermind that Bush Jr. freed at least 50 million Iraqis and Afghanis and is leading the War on Terror in the best way possible.
|
Nixon was too early for me to talk about the Vietnam war.
Reagan and Bush Sr. didn't do much to end the Soviet Union, it collapsed from its own internal problems with its economic system.
Bush Jr. is fighting the war on Iraq in a terrible way, namely putting soldiers in Iraq and telling them to shoot people who shoot at them. There hasn't been much news from Afghanistan.
| hydra1945 |
You know nothing about economics. Stop acting like you do.
|
Gold is at 434+ right now and the Euro is worth 1.3 dollars. Those are horrible signs of inflation.
| hydra1945 |
Neither does acting like you're better than everyone else.
My Clinton, I have never seen someone with a superiority complex as big as yours.
|
Tell me, how am I supposed to state a differing opinion from someone else and yet not act better than them, in your eyes?
| hydra1945 |
We use the electoral college to elect our presidents. The popular vote is literally meaningless. Crimson just mentioned the popular vote to make a point that you obviously missed.
|
Crimson didn't make much sense when she touched on the popular vote. I didn't quite understand what she meant, and I'm not sure you did, either.
When did I say we elected officials based on the popular vote? No, I really didn't.
Well, there you go. After the bold, the rest of those points I had already touched on or where too stupid for me to care about, statements like "You are such a tool!"
Have fun.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128825] |
Fri, 24 December 2004 12:27 |
 |
xptek
Messages: 1410
Registered: August 2004
Location: USSA
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| cowmisfit |
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Also, have you all heard about the defamation of character and libel suit that John Kerry has against the Swift Boat Hoax?
|
Don't matter, he won't win. Swift Boat was just telling everyone the truth , and convinced at least a few people not to vote for that anti-american fool.
|
You really need to stop calling everything you don't agree with anti-american.
cause = time
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128868] |
Fri, 24 December 2004 16:36 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| hydra1945 |
We use the electoral college to elect our presidents. The popular vote is literally meaningless. Crimson just mentioned the popular vote to make a point that you obviously missed.
|
Crimson didn't make much sense when she touched on the popular vote. I didn't quite understand what she meant, and I'm not sure you did, either.
|
| Crimson |
Oh PLEASE... this is so straightforward. You think "hmm it wasn't a legit election" in 2000, well, Bush managed to convince enough people he could do the job and being a Republican rules to WIN, completely, even with over 50% of the popular vote which Clinton couldn't accomplish. LET IT GO ALREADY.
|
Bush managed to convince enough people that he could do that job, and the Republican party convinced enough people that Repuiblican is the way to be. He won, completely, even with over 50% of the popular vote. Clinton couldn't manage 50% of the popular vote.
I do not agree with my fellow Republicans who say that the war is for humanitarian reasons. I will stick by the WMD reasoning that's been there since day 1. I will use the Duelfer report outlining the vast corruption in the United Nations that prevented more countries from supporting action against the guy who gave them lots of money as the reasoning why all countries in the UN weren't with us.
I would say that if my grandma died, not one of you would truly care about it, though you might feel bad for me for like a few minutes. I don't really honestly give a shit about a couple prisoners being kept awake. It's retarded. They need to send Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Phoenix over there. 
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #129271] |
Mon, 27 December 2004 17:32 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
Either that or because we killed those terrorist's families when we shelled the Bekaa Valley with the U.S.S. North Carolina's battle cannons.
|
Engi, check your facts before you post please. the USS North Carolina was decomissioned on June 27 1947. You are either making things up, or you have the wrong battleship.
| Quote: |
Yeah, Saddam was a small-scale dictator. One what size did he kill people heere? Surely not 100,000 civilians or more, like the number we've probably killd from bombing and fighting, although the President won't release any numbers, because whenever he does they make him look bad. Again, read the Post Editorial I C&P'ed a couple posts up.
|
Come back when you have the REAL numbers, will you? And if you truely believe that the US military, as professional and well-trained as it is, has killed 100,000 civilians, you need to re-aquaint yourself with reality. People holding weapons do not count as civilians. What, you want our troops to stand there while some goon with an AK-47 blasts them, just because he isn't wearing a uniform? Come on. Anyone who poses a threat to our soldiers is NOT a civilian. I really wish people would stop trying to paint the US as a gang of baby-killing thugs to get an anti-war message across... anyone who knows someone in the military, or anyone who IS in the military, will tell you that our soldiers would NEVER intentionally attack unarmed civilians. Every effort is made to cut down the possibility of civilian casualties.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #129594] |
Thu, 30 December 2004 04:16 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| warranto |
In regards to this whole terrorists and prisoners of war bit. If Iraqi insurgents aren't being held as prisoners of war, what are they being held as? Even normal prisoners have certain rights that must be upheald.
|
They're being held as captured terrorists; that's what they are, at least. As has been established, they cannot be held as prisoners of war since they do not meet the requirements to be considered as such according to the Geneva Convention, which is the legal document to which we are relating.
The proper treatment or "rights" of captured terrorists (or the existence of, for that matter) is not outlined in the Geneva Convention, so they receive no coverage under said document.
To my knowledge, there is actually no document whatsoever that really dictates how we're supposed to treat these captured terrorists (if there is, please let me know and show it to me), and it seems that we're not drilling holes into their ankles, pulling their teeth out with pliers, and gouging their eyes out (three examples of types of torture Saddam's interrogators used on their prisoners (THAT'S real torture)) out of our good grace, even though the bastards certainly deserve it.
| Quote: |
Not according to the UN just prior to war being delcared. And that is all that really matters, regardless of what you may happen to think about the UN.
|
Not really since all that really matters is the truth; whether or not they were found before or after the war is irrelevant. The truth is he had them, and the programs for their development were just waiting to be restarted as soon as enough people in the U.N. were paid off through the Oil-for-Food program and sanctions were lifted.
| Quote: |
That is true, I was nitpicking. This is only because, while those in captivity have done unspeakable things (I'm assuming this as people are lableing them terrorists) and deserve what they are getting, the point is that it is still not the "right" thing to do, to which you appear to be arguing the alternative.
|
The "right" thing to do is to get them to divulge any information that may be helpful to U.S. troops out on the battlefield; an example that I have given before of one such piece of information could possibly be the location of a large terrorist weapons cache. Get the captured terrorist to spill his guts about this weapons cache, and that's a boatload of weapons that the soldiers don't have to worry about since they'd be able to use that information given by the captured terrorist to go to that location and secure the weapons.
We are not gouging their eyes out; we are not shoving rats up their asses through metal pipes to eat them from the inside out; we're not forcing them to sit on broken Pepsi bottles to fill it up with their blood.
| Quote: |
Take a psychology course, and perhaps you'll think differently. These seemingly menial things can have a profound impact on a prisoners health. Both mental and physical... A simple dog barking won't do a thing bad, however, a dog sounding like it will attack, while it's beeing held on a leash infront of your face, will.
|
Who gives a shit about the terrorists' well-being? When U.S. soldiers' lives are on the line, every measure possible should be taken to ensure their survival. If that means scaring a few captured terrorists with some german shepards to get them to divulge whatever helpful information they may have, so be it.
Like I said before, we'll muzzle the mutts when they spill their guts.
Until they get to talkin', they can keep on barkin'.
| SuperFlyingLiberalTool |
No, Moore's movie came out quite a while after the election. Quite a while after I had thought this through and seen events unfold. Also, I think you're typecasting Christmas-bashing with Democrats a bit too much here. It's not exactly a stated goal of the DNC. I actually didn't get all that much out of F 9/11. Just another movie.
|
The Democratic Party's platform shares the same goals that the ACLU and most other organizations that are pitching such a huge fit about Christmas's, and religion's in general, presence in the public venue have in relation to that issue. In fact, they're nearly identical.
If you don't want to be "typecasted," don't associate yourself so closely to the party.
| Quote: |
Well, you and your "crew" certainly flat out deny any possibility of it and that's the way it must be. Don't pretend that you're leaning over the fence and I'm not.
|
You seem to forget from whom this story is originating: the ACLU, which is, at best, nothing more than a liberal think tank. You're taking this small (and probably wrong) allegation and turning it into some scandal as big as the Oil-for-Food scandal. You're blindly accepting it as fact since the ACLU published it and it appears to hurt Bush.
I'm not saying there's no possibility of "torture" in the sense that you mean it. According to your definition, thumping someone on the head with your middle finger is "torture." In that case, I hope we're "torturing" the captured terrorists. I reiterate: if they have to listen to doggies yip each day and receive daily thumpings on the head to get them to talk, so be it.
I certainly hope you didn't imply you were "leaning over the fence" at any time in this thread; such a move would be very uncharacteristic of you.
| Quote: |
I think you mean booksmart and yet not agree with the ideals of others.
|
I meant exactly what I said.
| Quote: |
I have claimed to be more open-minded on issues of race? And also, speech never comes out very well if you end two sentences, one right after the other, with "you are!" Just a tidbit of advice.
|
I wasn't even referring to a race issue. Besides, you incriminate yourself later on in your post:
| Quote: |
These issues aren't one-sided. You have to look at them from everyone's points of view.
|
You essentially call me closed-minded while basically proclaiming you have an open-minded view. Yet, you seemingly have a very closed-minded view on conservatives.
By the way, people generally find it offensive when you're correcting their minor grammar mistakes, so unless you want to make a name for yourself as an asshole, you might want to keep from pointing out minor errors like that. Just a tidbit of advice.
| Quote: |
Didn't you just earlier imply that you were more open about the ideas of others than I am?
|
I didn't imply anything. I said bluntly that you were on a moral power-trip to prove yourself somehow better than conservatives.
I guess it's the superiority complex talking.
| Quote: |
You do realize that Reagan did indeed give enormous amounts of arms to the Afghans and pretend to the American people that it wasn't happening?
|
You just proved the point I was making.
| Quote: |
Did I indeed say it was some president's fault that Saddam was in power? Was that back when I was 11 or something?
|
You know what I meant and what my point was. Stop nitpicking at details.
| Quote: |
America is not the infallible entity you would like it to be.
|
Too bad I've never said or even implied that America is infallible.
| Quote: |
Yes, there are more than a handful of people in Iraq and Afghanistan out to kill our soldiers. Some of it is because of all of the hate propaganda over there. But you have to open your eyes, hydra. Right now, almost everyone in Iraq knows someone personal that we have killed with bombs and such.
|
You make a statement like that right after telling me to open my eyes?
First of all, it's not even mathematically plausible. Later on in your post, you claim 100,000 civilians have been killed by coalition forces. That's 0.38% of the total Iraqi population. Tell me, please, how mathematically 99.62% of the rest of the population can know at least one person of that 0.38%.
Like NukeIt15 said, if you honestly think the best-trained and most-sophisticated military in the entire fucking world has killed 100,000 civilians, whether intentionally or unintentionally, you need to open your eyes to reality.
Your statement would have been more correct to reality had you said, "Right now, almost everyone in Iraq knows someone personal that Saddam has killed with torture methods."
Need I repost that USA Today article for you so you can read it again (based on your comment, something tells me you didn't)?
| Quote: |
They take that pretty seriously over there. And we've killed a LOT of civilians. It's not just because they're evil satanists, it's because they have genuine reasons to be mad at the U.S. These things need to be recognized if we're to bring peace back to Iraq, which isn't going to happen at a snap of the fingers.
|
We haven't killed as many people as Saddam has during his reign of terror. I again cite the USA Today article I previously posted. The true number of people tortured to death by Saddam may never be known since they're making new discoveries of the horrific torment placed on thousands, if not millions, of Iraqi citizens during Saddam's reign.
You also greatly overestimate the numbers of Iraqis that are truly resistant to America's presence in Iraq. According to an interview with an Army general on Fox News (I might as well stop here since you won't believe for a second anything Fox News says), about 95% of the Iraqi population is truly grateful for their liberation, are truly satisfied with how things are going, and wish the United States to stay as long as needed to get the job done. That leaves only 5% that is angered at our presence there, and most of that 5% is peaceful resistance.
Now what the hell kind of statement is "they have genuine reasons to be mad at the US"? You're going to pull that "we killed their babies!" argument on me now, aren't you? As I said before, anyone believing that argument for a second needs a jolt of reality.
They're mad because they're told to be mad by their oppressive government. I don't know where you're getting this "genuine reasons to be mad" bullshit from.
By the way, I have never implied the Iraq war would be a short one. Stop trying to imply that I, any other Republican on this message board, or George W. Bush has ever said it would be.
| Quote: |
Are you suggesting that we should cover up everything bad the government does and portray a better picture of ourselves, like in 1984?
|
We shouldn't act so damn surprised when something bad does happen; it's a war for Clinton's sake! Quite frankly, the public doesn't need to know about every little bad thing that might happen during the war until all the facts are known about it.
| Quote: |
So I should be more gung-ho and not care about how harshly we deal with soldiers we capture when it's AGAINST OUR LAWS?
|
"Soldiers" isn't the right term to describe them; "human pieces of shit" would be more fitting.
You do know just who these people are, right? These were terrorists who were trying to kill our own soldiers. I can't believe you would actually put their well-being above that of the American soldier.
Oh, and exactly against what law is making the captured terrorists listen to dogs bark?
| Quote: |
Are you really so befuddled in your mind as to believe that all Iraqis are terrorists?
|
Sometimes I wonder if you even read what I write....
I cannot BELIEVE that you actually thought that I was saying all Iraqis are terrorists. WHEN did I EVER say ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO ANYTHING LIKE THAT?????
Don't you see that I'm the only one here who actually cares about the well-being of the Iraqis?? You're the one who didn't want the war waged in the first place! You're the one who would rather have Saddam back in power than to see George W. Bush succeed! YOU'RE THE ONE WHO WANTS THE RAPE ROOMS AND TORTURE ROOMS TO BE FILLED WITH SCREAMS AND CRIES OF HORRIBLE PAIN AND TERROR!!!!!!!
Can't you see just how much good this war did to the Iraqi people?? Can't you see that Saddam was no "small-scale dictator" as you labeled him later on?? Can you not see past your Democratic indoctrination to realize anything good that came out of this war?????
| Quote: |
Terrorists flew planes into our buildings. Guerilla soldiers are what we're fighting right now in Iraq. And keeping people up all night is one way to describe the torture going on. [See Washington Post editorial]
|
No, TERRORISTS are what we're fighting right now in Iraq. Not "insurgents" or "Iraqi militants" or "resistance fighters" or any other prettied-up term the anti-war media might play up. These are TERRORISTS. Keeping people up all night is NOT torture IN ANY NORMAL SENSE OF THE WORD!!!!
Find something other than a damn editorial to back up your arguments. I might as well post one of the articles Neal Boortz wrote on his webpage and call it "evidence supporting my viewpoint."
How about an actual news article instead of a damn editorial?
| Quote: |
and what do you propose we do from here on?
|
Help the Iraqis become self-sufficient (the rest of your post was too stupid to reply to).
| Quote: |
So the ends justify the means? We should break our own rules all we want to get information that we can't even prove is truly helpful? One of the discoveries of the 20th century is that people subjected to torture are going to tell the torturers what they want to hear, not what they know. It's not a truly effective technique for coaxing information out of someone.
|
You keep referring to some set of "rules" that somehow dictates how we're supposed to treat captured terrorists. Show me these rules.
Do you honestly think we as civilians would have access to any information that may have been gathered during interrogations when these "torture" methods were employed?
One of the discoveries made by common sense is that the prisoners, no matter what the situation, will always portray the conditions of his prison far worse than how they really are in order to garner support from the public in an ultimate goal of being released. It is therefore not possible to go solely by what the captured terrorists are claiming about their conditions since they are more likely than not lying about the extreme of their conditions. Some people will even injure themselves to make it look like they have suffered daily beatings.
| Quote: |
Yeah, Saddam was a small-scale dictator. One what size did he kill people here? Surely not 100,000 civilians or more, like the number we've probably killed from bombing and fighting, although the President won't release any numbers, because whenever he does they make him look bad. Again, read the Post Editorial I C&P'ed a couple posts up.
|
Like I said before, Saddam was no "small-scale dictator." I can't believe you would insult the thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis who have suffered in his torture chambers. Since you seem like you never actually read that USA Today article, I'll link you to it again (this time, actually read it): http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm
Like I said before, the true number of the people tortured and killed by Saddam's regime may never be known. New, horrifying discoveries are made every day that reveal just how badly Saddam tortured his own people.
How can you sit back and call that "small-scale?"
Also, again, like NukeIt15 said and like I said earlier in this post, how can you possibly believe the best military in the world accidentally killed 100,000 civilians? Take Nuke's advice and come back with the real numbers before you start throwing false statistics around.
I thought you said you cared about our soldiers; why, then, would you proceed to insult them in such a way?
You damn hypocrite.
| Quote: |
The ACLU is suing right now under Freedom of Information for an executive order that leaked documents are pointing straight to an executive order, and they want to see it... 'Sides, if you want to read an unbiased source, just read all those documents they have.
|
I've read the documents, and no, they do not.
| Quote: |
I'm not saying this is an absolute truth. I'm posting this as a "here's-where-we-are-know."
|
Let's look at your very first post in this thread, shall we?
| Quote: |
Yes, that's right. Seems as if "President" Bush authorized torture and this wasn't just a small isolated thing. But anyone who reads news already knew that.
|
The contradiction is obvious. I rest my case.
| Quote: |
Read the Washington Post editorial.
|
First, you read the USA Today news article, then find me an unbiased news article that substantiates your argument.
| Quote: |
But you all almost exclusively disagree with the Republican party on issues of religious zealotism, not actual political issues. If I entirely re-wrote the DNC's stand on everything, it wouldn't be the same, but I agree with their general ideals.
|
Please, for the love of all things sacred and holy, tell us where they would differ at all, even if it's in regard to only one issue. Give us just one issue where you disagree with the Democratic Party's stance. Take note of how I'm not talking about "general ideals;" I'm talking a specific issue where your view differs from the Democratic Party to any degree.
More to come later.
I leave you with that challenge.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #129638] |
Thu, 30 December 2004 11:45 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Who gives a shit about the terrorists' well-being? When U.S. soldiers' lives are on the line, every measure possible should be taken to ensure their survival. If that means scaring a few captured terrorists with some german shepards to get them to divulge whatever helpful information they may have, so be it.
|
Quite interesting, considering I believe America is up in arms about people being taken hostage by the Iraqi "terrorists". I guess this falls under the "It's ok, as long as it doesn't happen to me" category.
If you're not willing to admit that this is the exact same reasoning that the other side uses, and accept that it is ok, your arguement holds no strength.
| Quote: |
Not really since all that really matters is the truth; whether or not they were found before or after the war is irrelevant. The truth is he had them, and the programs for their development were just waiting to be restarted as soon as enough people in the U.N. were paid off through the Oil-for-Food program and sanctions were lifted.
|
And the truth is that the ends to not justify the means. The war was entered into illegally, no way around that. Whether or not something incrimminating was found as a result does not matter. After all, if the police force their way into a home and perform an illegal seach, what usually happens?
| Quote: |
No, TERRORISTS are what we're fighting right now in Iraq. Not "insurgents" or "Iraqi militants" or "resistance fighters" or any other prettied-up term the anti-war media might play up. These are TERRORISTS. Keeping people up all night is NOT torture IN ANY NORMAL SENSE OF THE WORD!!!!
|
Gasp! A country's people are defending themselves from an invading force by any means available to them! Terrorists!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #129679] |
Thu, 30 December 2004 15:14 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
That's interesting- considering that the majority of insurgents that have been killed or captured so far weren't from Iraq. They even found several French citizens in the pile. Defending their own country, my ass. It isn't their own country any more than China is mine.
Tell me, how many soldiers have you talked to before blabbering on about "how bad" it is over there? Any at all? I know a few who are close family friends who have served/are serving in Iraq, and they don't paint so dark a picture as you do. I keep hearing stories of towns getting runningw ater for the first time, schools being re-opened for the first time in years...funny how you never mention anything good. It's almost as if you don't want to believe anything good is happening at all. Funny, that.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #129681] |
Thu, 30 December 2004 15:33 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 |
That's interesting- considering that the majority of insurgents that have been killed or captured so far weren't from Iraq. They even found several French citizens in the pile. Defending their own country, my ass. It isn't their own country any more than China is mine.
|
Except the problem you people have is you view them as one solid terrorist army. There are rebels involved, Iraqi fundamentalists, terrorists, and the like among the "insurgent" force. An insurgent in this war isn't necessarily a terrorist, especially if they fall into the Iraqi fundamentalist category, and it is extremely uninformed and prejudice to think that they are.
Remember, it was YOUR coalition that lept head first into this invasion illegally, fucked up the standing recognized sovereignty, and established YOUR ideal representative government to be recognized as legit until this election happens-- whenever it happens. As far as those rebels and fundamentalists are concerned, Iraq is still their nation and do not recognize the government established by this coup d'etats. That does NOT make them terrorists by any reasoning.
| Quote: |
Tell me, how many soldiers have you talked to before blabbering on about "how bad" it is over there? Any at all? I know a few who are close family friends who have served/are serving in Iraq, and they don't paint so dark a picture as you do. I keep hearing stories of towns getting runningw ater for the first time, schools being re-opened for the first time in years...funny how you never mention anything good. It's almost as if you don't want to believe anything good is happening at all. Funny, that.
|
This isn't even remotely on topic to what we were discussing. No one denies the improvement of life in Iraq, and nor do we want it to stop. However, when you look at the larger picture, past, present, and future, the basis of that improvement stemmed from grounds that couldn't possibly justify it legally.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #129744] |
Thu, 30 December 2004 18:09 |
 |
Jecht
Messages: 3156
Registered: September 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Javaxcx |
No one denies the improvement of life in Iraq, and nor do we want it to stop. However, when you look at the larger picture, past, present, and future, the basis of that improvement stemmed from grounds that couldn't possibly justify it legally.
|
who says it was illegal? the UN? that corrupt mob that hordes money in exchange for peoples happiness, health, and freedom? If thats what you mean by illegal then call me a criminal. In the end, The Iraqi people wont care how it came to pass, only that they can now embrace freedom. A right that should have been theirs at birth.
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #129783] |
Thu, 30 December 2004 18:51 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| =[DT |
=gbull=[L]=]who says it was illegal? the UN? that corrupt mob that hordes money in exchange for peoples happiness, health, and freedom? If thats what you mean by illegal then call me a criminal. In the end, The Iraqi people wont care how it came to pass, only that they can now embrace freedom. A right that should have been theirs at birth.
|
This is sheer hypocrisy. How can you support the actions of the coalition, a coalition comprised of countries that have done the very thing you're accusing the U.N. of doing throughout their histories. And while it is likely true that the U.N. has done what you've stated, that does not mean that the U.N. prioritizes what you've mentioned over people all of the time. Who do you think plays the critical role in humanitarian organization and deployment and multilateral diplomatic negotiations worldwide? Here's a hint, it's not the United States alone.
As for the war being illegal. As a matter of fact it is. Another thing that amazes me is that you people tend to forget that YOU ALL SIGNED THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS. YOU AGREED TO THE TERMS WITHIN IT. Not only that, you've signed AND ratified them. That means, when Resolution 687 says "Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq..." and the charter says "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations," you are NOT legally allowed to violate Iraqi government or territory no matter how evil you believe it to be.
Does that mean I don't wish for the Iraqi people to be given the right to the same liberties that I supposedly have? Of course not. They, as far as "I" am concerned deserve the same rights and benefits as I do. The law doesn't work that way. What more, you've gone one over and affirmed that law. But does that mean I support this war? I can't make the leap and support an illegal war. But that certainly doesn't mean the results of the war are bad. It simply means that the ends cannot justify the means.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #129840] |
Thu, 30 December 2004 21:40 |
 |
glyde51
Messages: 1827
Registered: August 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Very off topic, but...
| Quote: |
Osama Bin Laden is offering 25000 for anyone willing to be a suicide bomber. So far none of those four people that took the offer have appeared to collect their cash.
|
No. Seriously. No.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 15 20:06:05 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01525 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
