|
Vadertime
|
This is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, how can dissention exist? What I don't like is how every president since Jimmy Carter has been a control freak of one kind or another.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
i read up on the patriot act thing, and i have a question for you all: why are you all up in arms about ? it only harms those that are performing criminal acts anyways... sooo, unless you are a terrorist or something, i didnt see any problems with it..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
Now for another episode of the quoting game... Dissention means you don't sit in the back of the bus and get thrown in jail for it. THAT is dissention. So shut up and take it right? Don't protest, don't do anything, let the government wipe their feet on your face if they like. That's very VERY dangerous ground for Democracy. If you have a problem with the Democracy in its current form then it is your Bloody obligation to do something about it. Charles II is a prime example of that if you want the truth follow the money. Yes, protests are bankrolled by Leftists. But then who bankrolls Bush? That's a crude truth isn't it? Humans will always war unless God or some other higher power, aliens, what have you decides to put the smack down on you all, make you play nice, and vaporize/brainwash/send to hell/reprogram people when they decide not to Yet somehow we have all those protests and protesters that claim they don't want this war. Maybe we should change the "Humans" to "Tony Blair" and "George Bush" cause I sure as hell don't see anyone going out of their way to support this There are those who will pick up a rifle and gun down a bad guy before they or someone else get shot themselves, and those who will die empty handed from cowardice or worse - sell out their countrymen so that they can continue to live. The only difference between the two is the latter as a result gets a lot of OTHER people killed, like his family. Geez, so now my anti-war association will get my family killed? Jesus Christ that almost sounds directly out of one of those conservative talk shows where idiots ramble on for 20 minutes about how all the protesters and all those dumb enough not to stand with president Bush should be gassed in Camps. Oh I love the conservatives, maybe they'll come up with a new theory about the size of liberals brains in the jewish community... oh wait they already did... Well I've got news for you, EVERY nation does this, including France, Germany, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Mexico, Nicaragua, you name it Time to change the "does" to "did", at last check I don't see Poland invading Germany because they took some land to them that was part of Poland 500 years ago. The past is the past, what we should be worrying about is the NOW part. We can't claim that its okay for someone to do something now because someone else did it then, i mean that's insane and all it leads to is more senseless violence. And don't give me the excuse that if the US hadn't been so supportive of Israel that all of this wouldn't have happened. Your kidding right? I mean that IS the only reason this happened. Yeah you give money to arab countries, ones that are in the hands of just as bad dictators as Sadam. But the reason for the hatred has and will continue to be Israel and American Imperialisitic Foreign Policy. What would have made a difference is if Pretty Boy had TAKEN Osama when the Sudan had him wrapped up like a birthday present, but NO, does Clinton get any of the blame for any of this? What would have happened if George Bush Senior and Ronald Reagan had not given money to Osama Bin Laden in the first place? They NEED the money from the US, that's also why the US maintains good relations with Arabia and why they let the US maintain a military presence there. Good Relations? AHAHAH maybe with the fat head's of state sure but with the common man who generally urinates on the american flag on the streets you don't have such great relations. The only reason they tolerate the american presence is because the people who get run the army get paid off. Pure and simple, then the military leader can go and retire with his fine american dollars to some place like florida and not care about popular opinion or the deaththreats he gets for allowing the troops to station there. Just look at Turkey. Its International Bribery at its most obvious Now, regarding kings... so what if Kuwait has a king? So does Jordan. So does England! Well, a Queen anyway, but you get the idea. Most presidents are like kings, and most countries have either a president or prime minister in which a lot of power is vested. I'm not against monarchial rule, the world had it for thousands of years, so long as the monarch is just. I think that sentence speaks for itself, anything I say will only take away from the awesome magnitude of insanity it holds This forum is an example of that. I can imagine this kind of debate going on during the Cuban missile crisis. And how was that resolved? By LEADERSHIP, by a strong-willed president. OR by photos and irrefutable evidence. JFK would slap the hell out of Bush for his going to the UN with "cell phone" conversations that could have been made in the basement of the local Radio Shack. . He knows a hell of a lot more about the potential consequences of a war in Iraq, positive and negative, than anyone here including myself since he has a lot more access to real intelligence data. Yes this intelligence data that seems to exist but no one wants to share it about Iraq, oh yeah give me a goddamned break. If they really had proof that was so important that they can't let the public know they would have shown it to the UN behind closed doors and everyone would be on side. . After all, they got their asses KICKED in both the cold war Yes they got their asses kicked by their own people, not by the Americans ? If you ask me it seems like BOTH sides are afraid of the same thing - losing their freedom to someone who thinks differently then they do. If they lived in a dictatorship then they'd have the right to think that but in a democracy its not conceivable to think of one group having ideological power over another. The Patriot act is just an excuse to turn Bush into Sadam Skipping Crazed Unwanted Love for the Republicans Offer up your solution to this. Shoot him, very simple, don't march an occupy an entire reigion that hates your guts, send in a few troops under the radar. Assassinate him and his cabinet, and let the people of Iraq sort it out. It sure beats commiting a Genocide on an entire generation of people with bombing runs, and occupying them. At last check there wasn't a single occupation that didn't end badly for the occupier, just as Britian in the American Colonies. I'm certain that the international community would be much more open to a plan that doesn't force American Imperialism on the region and that doesn't look like an Oil Grab, which this current Admninistrations plan does quite effectively i read up on the patriot act thing, and i have a question for you all: why are you all up in arms about ? it only harms those that are performing criminal acts anyways... sooo, unless you are a terrorist or something, i didnt see any problems with it.. Did you notice the wording? The legal wording? SUSPECTED TERRORIST, so the government can suspect anyone they want, even if they really aren't anything other than a terrorist on paper, without due process and tap their phones, read their email, filter their toilets and do a whole lot of other things that would make Richard Nixon blush. Yes that's the land of the free for you, I'm sure George Orwell wants to jump out of his grave and remind people that 1984 was a image of something that he didn't want to happen, not a planning guide... This concludes this portion of the program... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-05, 07:32 by Devlar »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Atom235
|
i read up on the patriot act thing, and i have a question for you all: why are you all up in arms about ? it only harms those that are performing criminal acts anyways... sooo, unless you are a terrorist or something, i didnt see any problems with it.. DDR wasn't so bad after all, was it? They just tortured, punished and even killed "enemies of the state". Ok.. that was a crude example, but the problem is that it is possible to use it wrong. Monitoring people with filters and stuff is not seriously considered by any country who in reality wants freedom to it's people. Soviet Union was an Orwellian nightmare. I hope US doesn't make the same mistake. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-05, 09:00 by Atom235 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Devlar, I'm all for a good debate, but I'm going to ask you again to PLEASE not take my words or anyone else's out of context and change their meaning? I will start deleting the quoted portions the next time you do that unless you include the relevant surrounding text and accept the fact that I say exactly what I mean, nothing more, nothing less, as I've said in the past. Now, let's continue the hot, acidic, but yet so far very fascinating debate. I'm about coded out tonight and I could use a diversion. 
Now, to answer what you said, you seem to take what I speak as a personal attack against you, when I'm speaking about the situation as a whole. DID YOU READ the part where I said that protesters are expressing an opinion? DID I SAY that they should not have the right to do that? And did you happen to look at the general opinion of the REST of the world, including a great many citizens in the US that don't get reported about because they're NOT in front of the mainstream media with signs and banners who DO want the US to remove Saddam? There ARE plenty of people who are going out of their way to support this war, however you seem to confuse me with one of them. I've said before I do not WANT war, I just don't see any way to AVOID it at this point, nor do I see another solution that will actually work in the short term. As for Saddam being removed by an assassin squad which, by the way, is against the rules of the Geneva convention, are YOU insane? Now you suggest the US commits BLATANT WAR CRIMES? You KNOW that sets a precedent for ANY country to assassinate the leader of any other country with impunity. Is that what you want? And just how do you intend to get in a special ops crew in there to take him out and his cabinet without it being a suicide mission? Should we "good guys" smuggle in a tactical nuke and become suicide bombers OURSELVES? Eye for an Eye? And like Qusay isn't waiting to take over when daddy kicks the buckey? That is the most absurd solution I've heard so far, it won't work, and the simple reason is that the POWER STRUCTURE that Saddam has will remain. His Republican Guard will still be there, along with his loyalist generals in the regular army, and another bad guy will take over. I find it funny that you're all for democracy, but yet you seem to think the Iraqis are undeserving of it or incapable of it somehow, and I really don't understand that. The people tried to rebel before, they couldn't do it, so now they need help. Well, they're going to get it, and if anyone murders thousands of civilians I can guarantee you that Saddam will blow up a few hospitals and schools himself just to say "See what the Americans did to us?" You just watch.
Now step back and look at the rest of what you're saying here. YOU made the assertion that your anti-war association would get your family killed. I merely said that there are two types of people in the world, those who will fight if attacked, and those who won't. The consequences are historically indisputible, I leave it up to YOU to determine what kind of person you are. How should I know if you'll take a bullet willingly or pick up a gun or sword and fight back instead if threatened personally? I don't know that because I didn't ask you. Quit putting words in my mouth, I never said "Devlar's a pacifist and will get his family killed!" And I would appreciate it if you NOT use Jesus's name as a swear word on the bulletin board. Show some respect here for the resident Christians, even if you disagree with their beliefs. As for countries acting in their national interests, again you take what I say out of context. Yes, every nation DOES act in their own interests, that includes spying, military action, and economic action as well as political chess-playing. I never said that "doing it because it's always done that way" was a GOOD thing, but that IS how the game is played around the world, unless you're naive enough to expect human nature to change overnight and everything to be peace and roses just because the cold war is over. YES it leads to senseless violence, that was my whole point! This world has known nothing BUT senseless violence for all of recorded human history! What the hell do you think September 11 was? What do you think is happening NOW? Personally I'm a bit tired of hearing how "imperialist" American foreign policy is. Have you stopped to look at the EU lately? Ever hear of "globalism"? If that isn't a fancy word for imperialism then what the hell is? And as far as being imperialistic is concerned I don't see you pointing any fingers at the Soviet Union, or how about the histories of England, Portugal, or Spain? Remember the satelite countries the Soviet Union had under the Warsaw pact? Or who made North Korea what it is now? Or Communist China? And yet who is Russia and China trying to emulate now? Even CASTRO doesn't recognize China because of Western influences, you think they're immitating anyone BUT the US when it comes to that? What country does the rest of the world try to be like at the same time they blame it for all the world's evils?
Now let's move back to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel and the like. Ok, so what do you propose there, abandon the Jews? Let them go through the holocaust AGAIN like in Germany? Sit back and do NOTHING while they ALL die? Do you advocate the extinction of the Israeli people just so that America doesn't get a black eye and so it doesn't offend the radicals in the region? Like they won't act anyway, and no you don't have to bring up Palestine, I know damned well what's going on between the Jews and the Palestinians, we've been over that before as well, and as far as I'm concerned as long as the Palestinians keep harboring Hamas, Al Aqsa Brigade, Islamic Jihad, etc, then they're going to keep getting more of the same until Arafat either wakes up or gets replaced with someone who'll kick them out, that is, if it's not so late that they can even be dug out at this point. Personally I think the Palestinians CAN'T get rid of the extremists on their own, and no I am NOT an advocate of the extinction of the Palestinian people either. I want to see peaceful coexistence between the two, but then, I also know what the result of the signing of that peace treaty will be. The politics within Arabia and the other middle eastern nations are quite complex. Yes there is an anti-American sentiment there, but who do you think is breeding it? I'll tell you who, the terrorists who follow the doctrine of Wahabism LIKE Osama, and their supporting Islamic clerics who are preaching murder in the name of Allah instead of promoting peace. The reason I can stand here and defend Islam, even though it is not my belief, is that I have seen many Muslims who are better and more decent people that a lot of womanizing couch-potatos that call themselves US citizens and who would also never lift a finger in anger toward another human being. THAT is the kind if Islam that is needed in the region and in the world, and until the terrorists and their supporters both within the states of certain nations over there, INCLUDING Saudi Arabia, and within the Islamic clergy are rooted out and squashed this will only continue and get worse until it ignites into a full-scale global war. The choice is fairly simple from where I see things, either act and remove the threat before it can blossom, or reap the bitter harvest that will result. Until either ending materializes clearly things will continue to be fluid, little wars will erupt, terrorist attacks will occur, people will die and be scared, and economies will continue toward collapse. Reminds me of how it was in Noah's day before the flood.
As for giving money to Osama, you seem to forget that the US was helping the Afghanis fight off Communist aggressors from the USSR at the time, and Osama was very much on the side of the US during that period of time, at least, in appearences. It was later that he overtly turned against the US. In fact, I've heard it that Oliver North brought up Osama's name during the Iran-contra trials when being questioned by a certain Senator Gore at the time? Not sure how true that is, but Al Gore had no idea who this guy was back then if this is true, so why should Reagan or Bush have? Maybe he wasn't really that much of a threat yet, it does take time to grow terrorists you know, and Reagan had his hands full enough with the ones in Iran and Lebanon at the time. At least back then they just took hostages. It's also no big secret that the US bribes nations, well gee, big surprise there, happens all the time by lots of countries, only this time the US has decided they don't need Turkey to open a northern front but instead can go in through Kuwait. Although it WOULD be to Turkey's advantage to have the US military on a northern front to keep the Turkish border secure, so Turkey is running the risk of throwing a BIG economic boon away, as well as a security blanket when the operation goes down. Who says Saddam won't push north once it all begins? Who says the Kurds won't get some bright idea and start an uprising in Turkey at the time? Opportunists abound in the lands of sand. It's always been that way.
Now regarding monarchies, I do like the idea of democracy in principle, you seem to have missed that little fact, as much as you've missed the fact that any prime minister or president IS likened to a king as I pointed out, however as I've stated there are situations where the common voice fails to act in the common good. That's why people elect officials to handle those sorts of things. You don't ask a bricklayer to engage in international diplomacy any more than you ask a diplomat to build a bridge. Both have their place, both have their value. You call me insane? I won't dispute it. In fact, I happen to enjoy my insanity if your version of the world is what's called "sane". I'm sorry that I don't live my life around YOUR expectations Devlar, but then, I don't exist to please people and I never will. No, I do follow the will of a certain monarch, but it's one that you would never recognize exists, much less accept as legitimate. I wonder sometimes if you understand the concepts of duty, honor, and loyalty, and what good they are capable of when combined with honesty, evenhandedness, strength, love, and compassion. A good king can work wonderful things for mankind, and so can his servents, however as I said before, humans are not just and to date humanity has done a pretty damned sorry job of governing this planet. I don't think they should give up on peace or stop trying to make things better though, I've just seen it all to long to change my expectations of how things will play out. I do try to see the best in people when I can, not the worst, but I cannot ignore the latter either. I already know the bad things people are capable of, you hear about it every day on the news, nothing but negativity, why dwell on it? Why NOT look for the good in people? You want to know where I was prior to all this as you've asked in a previous post? I was planning the destruction of your species for the evil I had seen done to this world by mankind. You've all but destroyed this planet through acts of greed and war, and frankly it pisses me off to no end. A certain non-existant God convinced me quite harshly some time ago that removing mankind from the earth is not in the best interest in the universe. I do understand why, again that touches on things you do not believe in so there's no use discussing that here. The important thing is since that time I no longer seek to impose my will upon people and I've LEARNED to see the value in humanity. My only fight from this point onward is with the beings that would restrict the very ability for people like you to choose freely how to live your lives. I fight those who work in the shadows, unseen to your kind, and be very thankful that you're quite ignorant of them. If you think they don't exist, well, all the better I suppose, you can go on living in pursuit of happiness unobstructed by such worries and quite comfortable in the insanity of one certain bird of fire. Now if someone as spiteful and vengeful as I can be, who despises the actions of humanity with every fiber of his being can actually learn to see the GOOD in people, why the hell can't you? You're a damned good mapper, and except when issues of politics and religion arise you can be quite pleasant to be around and converse with. Do you have to be so cynical all the time? I'd really like to see you look on the bright side for a change. As for me, well, I will speak my mind as much as it pleases me, but don't ever think that I am out to control people's lives. Lump me in with the right wingers and conservatives if you want, call me a nut, but I am nothing more than who I am, and I will never claim to be anything else. Attack me if you will, disect what I say and change the meaning, but I will continue to speak the truth regardless of what people think, and I will continue to turn the other cheek as long as is needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-05, 10:35 by games keeper »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
Shoot him, very simple, don't march an occupy an entire reigion that hates your guts, send in a few troops under the radar. Assassinate him and his cabinet, and let the people of Iraq sort it out. It sure beats commiting a Genocide on an entire generation of people with bombing runs, and occupying them. At last check there wasn't a single occupation that didn't end badly for the occupier, just as Britian in the American Colonies. I'm certain that the international community would be much more open to a plan that doesn't force American Imperialism on the region and that doesn't look like an Oil Grab, which this current Admninistrations plan does quite effectively
devlar, i already said why we cant use your solution. the Geneva convention prevents ANYONE from assassinating world leaders.. oh, and by the way, when Saddam dies from old age, or steps down, guess who gets the throne next? HIS SON, who is even more psycho and tottaly bent on world conquest than his father.. how the hell are the Iraqis gonna sort it out? if Saddam and his cabinet goes down, his son goes into place, if his son goes down with them, someone just as bad will step up.. on the subject of bombing runs, what the hell is there left to bomb? weve blown everything of importance up with precision munitions, and we sure as hell arent going to carpet bomb entire cities ala WW2... IF it ends up at street fighting, we will win, the US has written the book on cqb(at least the SEALS did).. and with direct energy weapons we have the ability to pacify large numbers of people without killing them.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
So assassinating the people of a country is OKAY but assassinating their leaders isn't? What's there to bomb? A whole lot of people at last check, INNOCENT people the kind that dont enjoy having 500lbs of explosives dropped on thier homes. For the record I do have a problem with that part of the Geneva Convension, its utter archeic nonsense left over from a time where it was considered "ungentilemen-like" to slaughter leaders. Tell that to the boys at Nuremburg. As for your "precision munition" (The kind that have the ability to fall on Chinese Embassies) you should take a good look at your cluster bombs and notice that it is they are exact size and shape of the food packages you drop. Coincidence right?
As for Sadam, if you really have a problem with shooting him because you are this large proponent of keeping dictators alive. Then kidnap him and drop him off in Siberia, or even Northern Canada. Some place cold without a great deal of sand. An Occupation in Iraq will scream of American Imperialism and Israeli Influence in the region, if America is prepared for the onslaught of suicide bombers used against their troops, and possibly their civilians back home because they can accept a stuborn and stupid government that does it. Then so be it
As for taking you out of context? So what does that mean you contradict every single thing I've quoted there? So all of it you don't agree with? So in the sentences that follow every one of those quotes you recant everything said in them? Or maybe you actually do believe those things and you just sprinkle on a little ambiguity in order to conceil it. So which is it, do you have such poor writing skills as to say numerous things and then contradict them right after or is it the fact that you believe them. If you want to start deleting parts of my posts, go ahead, it'll only give off the great scent of despairation, as well as show why you shouldn't give conservatives something like the Patriot Act.
For the Record Pheonix, your Truth tends to be something that every rational person disagrees with, so even if you think the world's gone crazy, your still nuts
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-05, 15:27 by Devlar »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
weee i can quote too!! So assassinating the people of a country is OKAY but assassinating their leaders isn't? uhm, wtf is that exactly supposed to mean, generally you assasinate one person, if its more then one, then its no assasination. heres a definition since you dont seem to know the meaning of it.. as?sas?si?nate tr.v. as?sas?si?nat?ed, as?sas?si?nat?ing, as?sas?si?nates 1.To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons. 2.To destroy or injure treacherously: assassinate a rival's character. the Geneva convention and the treaty it put in place was NOT because of the not to kill officers type thing you are thinking about, it is because WW1 was started via the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand which led to.....(look it up if you really dont know how ww1 started) the Geneva convention took place 4 years after WW2, and not only did it put in place to stop assassinations, it also put in some general humanitarian rules of warfare that are abided by EVERY nation that fights wars. the only people that dont abide by the geneva convention are terrorists heres a link to the terms set out by the geneva convention: http://www.asociety.com/geneva1.htmland i think thats only part of it, havent had time to read it all yet.. What's there to bomb? A whole lot of people at last check, INNOCENT people the kind that dont enjoy having 500lbs of explosives dropped on thier homes uhm, again wtf? who the hell is dropping bombs on civilian targets on purpose.. we get the occasional bomb that decides to crap out, but i dont see us dropping bombs on civilians left and right.. As for your "precision munition" (The kind that have the ability to fall on Chinese Embassies) you should take a good look at your cluster bombs and notice that it is they are exact size and shape of the food packages you drop. Coincidence right? please do some research on smart weapons before you say such things. for 1. cluster bombs are not smart weapons for 2. we havent used cluster bombs in iraq since desert storm.. a list of smart weapons that the US currently uses can be found here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/index.htmlnotice that there are NO bombs with the designation CBU, which stands for Cluster Bomb Unit here is the list of dumb weapons currently in service: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/index.htmlnotice CBU's are listed under dumb bombs. making them NOT precision munitions links to pictures of cluster bombs: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu24b.jpghttp://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-58b.gif (the inset is the bomblet) http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu87_31.jpghttp://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu97-3.jpghttp://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu87_30.gif (show of use) http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/ta...n_dispenser.gifhttp://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/rockdrop2.jpgto me, those bomblets dont look like food.. facts = teh ownz0r |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
I'm against shooting Sadam all of the sudden? Where the hell did that come from? Keeping dictators alive? First you quote me out of context, now you're printing baseless assertions and outright lies? I never ONCE said Saddam should be left alive. Scroll up and re-read what I've said about Saddam if you think this is what I believe. I DO think somebody should put a bullet in him because he is an EVIL dictator and a mass MURDERER. I said assassination will not work because it's bad strategy, not because Saddam deserves to live, and I stated as Hedhunta has also repeated twice now that it is in violation to the Geneva Convention to assassinate heads of state, legitimate or not. As far as dropping Saddam off somewhere else, that's called "exile" and it's already been proposed. Exiled leaders also have a bad way of maintaining power. Besides, if he goes anywhere it would be North Korea, they'd welcome him with open arms, they've already said they would. Hedhunta's also right about the fact that the USA does NOT go out of it's way to bomb innocent civilians. If you think that the US military is that barbaric then I suggest you take whatever Anti-American propaganda you've been reading, burn it, enlist in the US military and go along and see just what they do for yourself. I KNOW people in the US military, quite a few of them actually, and EVERY DAMNED ONE OF THEM would put a bullet in his CO's head before he'd follow an order to fire on civilians, and would gladly pay the consequences for not doing the wrong thing.
Also I do not contradict myself. I provide many sides to an issue and try to lay out as many FACTS as I can before leading to the obvious conclusion. I prefer to let people draw their own conclusions for the most part as opposed to spoon-feeding them doctrine as you seem to like doing. The only contradicting I do is against what you say when you twist what I say to make it sound like I mean something else. Then I clarify and reiterate where I stand and what I really said. It's that simple. I conceal nothing because I am afraid of nothing. If you want to know something, all you have to do is ask instead of inventing alterier motives where none exist and putting words in my mouth to try to discredit me. While I do reserve the right to withhold certain things, I will answer questions truthfully, honestly and openly every time as much as it is possible. You want to know what I think? Then ASK, don't go around saying that I believe this or that when I don't. As for deleting parts of posts, I wouldn't dream of deleting your words, only MY words that you are taking out of context because in doing so you're being rude and disrespectful. I've asked you, along with other board members repeatedly NOT to do so as a matter of courtesy. Actually I think I'll do the opposite. Instead of deleting the quoted parts I'll just add the parts back in that you're leaving out so that people reading your disection will see the whole truth, not just the parts you want to pick out and stab at and twist. As for desperation, I hardly feel desperate about anything here, but you turn around and insult my writing ability? What relevance does my writing ability have in any of this? Who's being desperate here? Usually personal attacks are a sign of desperation when one doesn't have a leg to stand on idealogically. As for ideology, the pattern I've seen so far is that you attack Bush, you attack American foreign policy, you attack people with a religious affiliation of any sort, and you attack people who in your eyes have a conservative mindset. Edit, cut, print, repeat. You say you're not anti-American, but then you accuse America of being imperialist. Who's contradicting themselves?
From what I've seen so far you've shown a great deal of intolerence to anyone who's religious or political ideology differs from your own, while calling those said individuals intolerant in the process. You claim there is no right or wrong, yet anyone who differs from your political perspective is automatically wrong and/or stupid. You claim there is no "truth" yet THAT flies in the face of rationality, not what I've said unless you factor in my fight against demons. I'll admit a lot of people think that's nutball, but so what? If my "insanity" doesn't hurt anybody then who the hell cares? And if I'm really fighting bad critters then I'm doing you a favor in the process, so again who cares? Now the REST of what I say is based on the analysis and presentation of facts. Perhaps it's easier for you to twist things to fit your worldview if you don't have to acknowledge any one truth, instead of changing your mind if the facts disagree with your perceptions. Or maybe it's that you just hate conservatives, Christians, Jews, Republicans, or anything that doesn't have the word "liberal" tacked into it's description? Well, do you? You seem to delight in attacking me personally, and for what reason? Do you think I'm stupid, conservative, and a Republican lover? Well if I'm stupid I'm doing a pretty good job of coding and modeling for Generations for being an idiot, if I'm conservative then I won't dispute it, but I've never once said I'm a Republican lover. No, I'm a Christian. I'm a GOD lover, and a lover of life, even the lives of those who hate me. You call me irrational? If I was irrational I could just say "I don't like you" and ban you off the board for no reason. THAT is irrational. Have I done that? Who's being the irrational one here? I happen to know a great many rational people who think I have my head on quite straight Devlar, and insulting me just because you dislike how I look at things in life isn't going to change anything. And just who are you to so arrogantly assume that YOUR view is the commonly accepted and "rational" view of the entire civilized world? How about this article then: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-20031...3101096,00.html I guess in England you'd be in the minority on at least one issue. Also most of the world has some kind of religious belief if you ask them. Secular Humanism and Atheism are NOT in the majority despite what you may have been led to believe, and when viewed in the light of history have been almost absent from human history until the modern era when people felt for some reason a need to abolish God. That's two areas where very rational people would disagree with you. Besides, if as you've said before there's no absolute right and no absolute truth then guess what, you're just as wrong as you think I am since nobody can ever BE right. There is no logic in that, nor is there logic in the way you seem to make everything about ME in these debates. What did I ever do to anyone, hmm? Don't I get enough attention as it is, and you want to give me MORE? Controversy breeds interest, which means that more people will read what is said here and draw their own conclusions. If so, that only serves my purpose in the end.
I sense much anger in you Devlar, and so far I've seen very little love and almost no happiness except when you think you're gaining some kind of upper hand in an argument or debate in which you villify someone, insult them, and then pat yourself on the back for it. You offer very little hope for anything, and you don't say anything uplifting or positive. I'll be the first to compliment you on the good that I see in you. Like I said, when we're not discussing politics and religion you're pretty decent to be around, and you've got some very good map making abilities. Why you have to be so cynical the rest of the time is beyond me. Is it that all you realy want here is to one-up the other guy and get the last word in so you can feel good about yourself? Is this about winning somehow, feeling you somehow have to squash the local arrogant right-wing conservative? If so don't even bother, I'm not out to win arguments Devlar, only to present facts to the best of my knowledge, correct errors, and speak the truth. Yes, MY version of it because I happen to believe in myself, and I happen to believe that my version of the truth is correct. That's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it, just as you are entitled to yours. If this is your game and winning is your goal, then be prepared to play it forever. I'll just continue being who I am. Consider who I am, forever means very little to me. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Vadertime
|
Let's vote on this. Who thinks George Dubeeya is a chimp that's gone bananas? Who thinks Saddam is just another third-world low-life dictator with a lust for power and control? When you think about it, a lot of these so-called leaders are power hungry control-nuts that think "...it's my way or, hell it's my way." If our congress worked the way it's supposed to we wouldn't have in worries about heavy handed laws or missrepresentation. :ph34r:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Byskwik
|
this is what Mittens has to say on the topic. Es humor, just like this thread started out as. I think that was forgotten somewhere along the way. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Well, I can't view the flash kitty thing, but you're quite right Bys. I guess it's good that this is in CC, no? Let's lighten things up for a while! Oh, and speaking of Viva La France, Le cat is out of le bag, this should be good for a laugh or two:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm
Of course, we know the real reason France doesn't want a war with Iraq is that they don't want the world to see the Iraqis surrendering better than they do. Might ruin that reputation. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told reporters in Paris on Wednesday that France "will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force."
gotta love that.. i beleive Neville Chamberlain said soemthing similar right before Hitler tore up the entire European continent.. at least the British have learned their lesson.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dev/null
|
The British have obviously not learned their lesson since they're letting Bush do exactly what Hitler did at the beginning of his reign.
He's using fabricated war efforts to distract the American public from his failed domestic policies. It's a very simple method, which Hitler used very well. What many people don?t know is that Hitler came into power legally. He and his Nazi Party were elected democratically in a time of great national turmoil and crisis. They themselves had done much to cause the turmoil, of course, but that's what makes the Bush comparison so compelling. Like the Bush administration, the Nazis were funded and ultimately ushered into power by wealthy industrialists looking for government favors in the form of tax breaks, big subsidies, and laws to weaken the rights of workers.
When the Reichstag (Germany's Parliament building) was set ablaze in 1933 (probably by Nazis), the Nazis framed their political rivals for it. In the general panic that followed, the German Parliament was purged of all left-wing representatives who might be soft on communists and foreigners, and the few who remained then voted to grant Chancellor Hitler dictatorial powers. The only difference is that Hitler was an intelligent person, sadistic, but intelligent. Bush on the other hand is merely a puppet for his daddy's puppeteers.
Read the following two statements, and see if you can identify the authors...
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: 'Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.?
The first statement is a quote from Hitler's right hand man, Hermann Goering, explaining at his war crimes trial how easily he and his fellow Nazis hijacked Germany's democratic government. The second statement is a quote from Bush's right hand man, John Ashcroft, defending the Patriot Act and explaining why dissent will no longer be tolerated in the age of terrorism.
The Bush administration wants us to fight in Afghanistan, to fight in Iraq, and to fight wherever terrorists may be hiding. But what are we fighting for? According to the White House, we're fighting for freedom. Yet freedom is exactly what the White House is demanding that we now SURRENDER in the name of fighting terrorism.
So what's really going on? Well, it's all a lie, of course. The Bush administration isn't any more interested in protecting our freedom from terrorists than Hitler was in protecting Germans from communists, Jews, and all the other groups of scapegoats. The Bush administration is fighting only to protect itself and its corporate sponsors. It hides behind a veil of national security and behind non-stop war headlines of its own creation. And behind that smokescreen, Bush, Inc. is pursuing Hitler's old agenda from the 1920?s and 30?s: serving the interests of the corporate industrialists who brought it to power.
There is a name for governments that serve the interests of Big Business at the expense of their own citizens: FASCIST!
(Of course, a lot of this is taken from various news articles along with personal research. None of it is direct quotes though, aside from those specifically mentioned. Thus leading to a slight lack in orginality, but I feel no need to correct something that is without errors)
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-10, 19:07 by dev/null »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pepe
|
this is mere speculation on my part and more concerns what is likely to happen when not if NATO/USA attacks iraq
when it comes to war the iraqies have learned to stay out of the dessert as the american tanks, stealth-bombers and spy-satelites give them a clear advantage over the iraqies
now engaging a hostile force in a city with a hostile population? thats something else
armour sucks in cities (and yes i spent most of my millitary service trying to take out tanks and apc:s) this is a fact
the speed of modern armour and range of their cannons get neutralized by the short distances inside a city and the rubble and roadblocks makes tanks sitting ducks. tanks that go into a city must have massive infantry support
bombing the city to hell before an assault would be an option if there wasnt any CNN or other news service to report the suffering and death of all the civilians
As far as the SEAL:s writing the manual on cqb......
granted the seals and some of the other special forces units are good but iraq must have special forces of their own dont they? some part of the iraq army must have had cqb training aswell?
I once return to the hostile population part that will make it harder for the US-troops then their iraqi counterparts.
I think that the US-troops will have a hard time in the cities and if the iraqies can hold out long enough and kill enough americans the public oppinion in the US will swing just like vietnam (note that i use the word enough about killing americans for the oppinion to swing and i dont but any values into that if its a good or bad thing ill let others decide namely americans and iraqies)
i saw an episode of 60 min about the american NBC-gear.
60 minutes stated that a large amount of the current NBC-gear was deffective and that the new gear isnt availeble in large enough numbers and a soldier fainted from the heat of the television lights during the pressconference
a gas mask is a pain to wear and its hot in one and i have only wore one during winter mind you
also the NBC-detectors doesnt work properly acording to that show wich is even more alarming what good is NBC-gear if you dont know when to put it on?
NBC stands for Nuclear Biological Chemical warfare
Bagdad and simillar cities will be a rough ride for the US-troops thats my guess
Personaly I have stopped asking Will the US attack iraq? and now i mearly ask: When?
edit: also wiews on combat and millitary operations from poeple that dont have millitary training or actuall experience i will ignore
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-10, 19:29 by pepe »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dev/null
|
bombing the city to hell before an assault would be an option if there wasnt any CNN or other news service to report the suffering and death of all the civilians So killing numerous civilians, INNOCENT civilians, would be just fine and dandy in your mind if it were hidden from the public? I really hope that's not what you mean by that remark, because if it is you're just as bad as those clueless war pigs. if the iraqies can hold out long enough and kill enough americans the public oppinion in the US will swing just like vietnam I believe the public opinion for Vietman swung because we were in the wrong, just as we are now. We had no right to go f*ck with a civil war, nor do we have any right to go f*ck with Sadam because he may or may not be planning an attack. also wiews on combat and millitary operations from poeple that dont have millitary training or actuall experience i will ignore I guess I shall keep to myself about that then, since you're going to ignore the opinions of those of us smart enough to stay out of the armed forces. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-10, 20:07 by dev/null »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
smart enough to stay out of the armed forces? what kind of baseless ignorant comment is that.. I believe the public opinion for Vietman swung because we were in the wrong, just as we are now. We had no right to go f*ck with a civil war, nor do we have any right to go f*ck with Sadam because he may or may not be planning an attack. OIC, so, lets just stand by and twiddle our thumbs while Saddam builds weapons and then decides he doesnt like one country and nukes them one at a time(Israel probably being first) .. yup, thats real appealing to me.. next up.. do you have any idea of the human rights abuses that Saddam has commited? .. i dont care if any of you guys dont like Bush( it seems to me, that the common arguement is that its all 'Bush' and his 'warmongering' and that Saddam has done nothing to warrant being removed) heres the 2001 human rights report on Iraq http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8257.htmand just in case you think thats american propaganda, heres a couple articles off non-specifically american sites bit o human rights abuses: http://staging.hrw.org/reports/1995/IRAQ955.htmmm, nerve gas http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqgas/ (yes i know the reports from 1993, but saddam has yet to PROVE that hes removed these weapons..) some more human rights stuff http://hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htmPOW's, scroll down to iraqs treatement of prisoners http://staging.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ391.htmmore yummy human rights violations http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/mideast4.htmla report from australia http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/11/...4927599191.htmlohhh some pictures here i think http://www.itv.com/news/World764437.htmlthis is just some of what i could produce.. i could produce some truely graphic images of what hes done that would stick in your mind forever if i looked hard enough.. its some pretty nasty sporkin stuff..i dont care if any of you think bush is sporked in the head and fascist, once saddam is gone bush should be done with his little escapade and the world( as well as the iraqi people) will be much better off.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dev/null
|
smart enough to stay out of the armed forces? what kind of baseless ignorant comment is that.. About as ignorant as ignoring people who are not willing to give up their lives so some egotistical asshole can expand his wallet. OIC, so, lets just stand by and twiddle our thumbs while Saddam builds weapons and then decides he doesnt like one country and nukes them one at a time(Israel probably being first) .. yup, thats real appealing to me.. So what? There's several other countries in the world that DO have nuclear weapons, America included. What's to say one of these powers won't blow up the world? What even says Saddam is building and/or buying weapons? This isn't like Cuba, it's not as if we have spy plane photos of the weapons... Give me some proof that he's a threat and I'll agree. But until that times comes, I shall stand by my descision. Besides, why do you care about Israel so much anyways? next up.. do you have any idea of the human rights abuses that Saddam has commited? .. i dont care if any of you guys dont like Bush( it seems to me, that the common arguement is that its all 'Bush' and his 'warmongering' and that Saddam has done nothing to warrant being removed) So because he's not doing anything to American's that makes it okay to take over his country? This isn't really about personal opinions of liking or disliking Bush and Saddam, it's common sense. Bush is a moron with regressing genes, while Saddam is a "big bad" lunatic who may have weapons, but certainly has oil. this is just some of what i could produce.. i could produce some truely graphic images of what hes done that would stick in your mind forever if i looked hard enough.. its some pretty nasty sporkin stuff..i dont care if any of you think bush is sporked in the head and fascist, once saddam is gone bush should be done with his little escapade and the world( as well as the iraqi people) will be much better off.. I'm sure you could, HA!!! I don't think Bush is a moron or a fascist, I know he is, so would anyone that would look past the propaganda. I seriously doubt the world will be better once Bush takes over Iraq, especially if he goes against the U.N. as he seems to want to do so very badly. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-11, 02:47 by dev/null »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Dev, let me clear something up for you here. There is a difference between and accusation and a fact. A fact can be empirically proven based on physical and tangible evidence. An accusation is an assertion that something is a certain way, or that someone is guilty of some crime that you believe them to have committed. We have documentation, intelligence reports, dead bodies to back up what Saddam has done. The same with Hitler. There are still Jews alive today with the tattoos on their arms from Auschwitz, and plenty more who are still drifting in the atmosphere, or what's left of them that is. Bush is the elected leader of a country that happens to be very big on freedom and democracy, which also happened to have airplanes loaded with civilians crashed into two of its biggest cities. Thinking Bush is like Hitler as a matter of personal opinion is one thing, but what evidence is there that this grand conspiracy you speak of is under way? I heard a lot of people saying Clinton was going to use his power to declare martial law and lock down the country if there was some terrorist attack back in the 1990's. They tried to blow up the world trade center then, but it didn't happen. A lot of people accused Clinton of launching the war in Yugoslavia and blowing up a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and launching missiles into Afghanistan as a way to distract public opinion away from the investigation he was under at the time. Sounds a lot like what you're accusing Bush of doing right now, however the key difference is that Bush is not under investigation or impeachment hearings nor has he been asked to testify in front of a grand jury under oath, so one accusation would appear to be a little more believable than the other. In the end though, both are still just that - accusations based on assumed motives backed up by no hard evidence, unless you count that stained dress as the end result of "hard evidence". As for this being distraction for a failing domestic policy, what domestic policy? I find that quite an interesting assertion since the Democratic party is opposing the current domestic policy at every turn. Now whether you agree with Bush's proposals or not, stonewalling GUARANTEES his policy to fail since it won't ever be passed. Calling it a failure afterwards seems like so much back-patting. To me that is purely a partisan move with the sole intent of regaining power in the senate and house and the presidency that were lost in the last elections. We all know politicians want to be elected, and stalling any domestic policy then blaming it on the war appears to them to be the best tactic in order to do so.
Think this isn't so? Then I might wonder why the Democratic party which with its mouth likes to be the champion of the poor and minorities is currently filibustering the confirmation of a very prominant hispanic judge to the DC circuit right now. Constitutionally it takes a simple majority of 50 votes to confirm a judge yet to break the filibuster it takes 60. They had a cloture vote last week to break the filibuster and it only received 55 votes. That is an unconstitutional gesture by in effect forcing a 60 vote majority in order to confirm a judge which by the constitution should only require 50. The president has a right to appoint judges, the Congress has a duty to confirm them. Now why would the Democratic party oppose the appointing of a hispanic to a circuit court that is just one step below the US supreme court if they are for the rights of minorities? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that his interpretation of the law is not based on an ideology that they agree with poltiically, but instead as he's put it based on factual interpretation of the law, and perhaps it is because he has personal views that happen to be conservative views that they are opposed too? It seems an awfully harsh hit to take politically by being publicly hipocritical like this, opposing the appointing of a minority to a prominant position in government but then take a look at how much of a hard time that Al Sharpton - a black man - is having with his own party in seeking a presidential nomination, even though according to the latest polls has the most support in New York City and is the number 3 guy in support for New York State? Are the Republicans the ones dredging up his past in front of the press to discredit him? Just what is going on here, it is NOT like the Democratic party to oppose the advancement of minorities, is it? You tell me who's holding up up what here. As for the domestic agenda, from what I can tell it hasn't failed, in fact it CAN'T fail because it was never even given a chance. It was DOA as a political move, pure and simple, same as Esperanza's judicial appointment and the same as Sharpton's presidential bid. Those in power don't want any upstarts, they just want their power back and to keep the power they have. Block Bush, make it look like his policy with Iraq is at fault, and take back control in 2004. I don't care which political party you belong to or whether you agree with it or not, this is how the game is being played. It's dirty pool and the claws have come out. Even "doves" have claws you know. Politically speaking Republicans try to compromise with Democrats in order to not look hard-line or partisan, while Democrats tend to sieze on such compromises as opportunity to advance their agenda. Pity that the Republicans aren't hardline so much, maybe then nothing would happen in American government and people could go on living their lives in peace in the US... I find the entire notion of partisan politics disgusting. A representitive government should do just that - represent the interests of the people, not any one ideology or another.
Now that being said, Bush's current policy with Iraq DOES actually date back to September 11. Bush stated that any terrorists or the countries that harbor them will be in the crosshairs. Iraq is a known state sponsor of terrorism, Iraq has knowingly and blatantly thumbed it's nose at the free world in the face of the surrender terms at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, and has been developing weapons against these terms secretly. The United Nations has shown that it is nothing but a collection of petty dictators who want to have a voice and feel important coupled with spineless wimps who are afraid to follow through with their own threats. If anything the UN has shown time and time and time again to the whole world that it's words are empty, it's guns are empty, and it's spine was surgically removed at some point. Bush has basically said to the UN "make good on your word" and the UN is saying "we don't want to". And what kind of credibility does an agency have in the world that is about to appoint Libya to head the commission on human rights, and Iraq to the commission on world disarmament? What kind of a joke is that supposed to be? This body has absolutely no credibility left in it, and common sense has felt it's last death throw in this world. I can't blame the United States for acting in its own interests if the UN just wants to sit on the sidelines all the time. That those interests extend past the US border is an unfortunate result of globalization, which Europe, Russia, and China are very much a part of as well. When the US sits inside its borders it's called isolationist, when it acts outside of them it's called imperialist. You can't have it both ways, and in this case Bush has decided to take the fight to those people and countries who are a threat instead of waiting for another 9/11. You compare Bush to Hitler, well Saddam happens to worship Hitler, and he's admitted to this. He worships Stalin, too! I've yet to see Bush say anything nice about either of these men, yet you say Bush is the one like Hitler and somehow wants to conquer the world? I hear lots of accusations again, let's blame Bush for all the worlds evils since he's a Republican and a Righty and a rich oil boy, ad nauseum. I've even heard people on the ultra-right proclaim him to be the antichrist when that's absurdly erroneous from a biblical standpoint. So far, conspiracy theories not withstanding, Bush has presented himself as a strong leader, a Christian (oh boo hoo, he said the "G" word in public), and like him or not when he says he's going to do something he DOES IT, so evidence-wise there is little to base any of these accusations on, unless of course you think he's going to conquer the world by spreading the gospel... :blink: You somehow KNOW Bush is a moron and a fascist? Well, pony it up. If you have any hard evidence that Bush is somehow a traitor to the American people I think the people need to know, so, let's hear it. Let's see the proof, REAL proof not just some quotes of quotes from politically slanted commentaries, I mean evidence you can convict with. Let's get the impeachment hearings going, that's what they're there for after all. I'm all for calling a spade a spade if you haven't noticed by now, and if Bush is indeed guilty of criminal activity and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt I'll be right in line to damn him for it.
Right now the main goal of the US in the middle east is to remove Saddam Hussein from power because yes, he IS a threat to Israel who happens to be an ally of the United States, and yes, he IS a threat to the United States as well, along with every neighboring country in the region. Have you already forgotten what he did to Kuwait? You want to see him do it again? Do you honestly think that Saddam has had a change of heart since then? So the US is helping it's friend Israel in the process of removing Saddam, what's your problem with that? And the US is acting in what it sees as it's national interests, where's the problem there? France, Germany, Russia, and China are also acting in their own national interests as well, yet who is decrying that? They on the other hand are supporting this murderous dictator by selling him machinery and weapons and buying his oil in violation of the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq, all the while supporting him politically and diplomatically by stonewalling the execution of UN resolution 1441. Think the UN isn't in bed with this guy? How about that drone plane that was conveniently "buried" in the inspectors' reports? What does Blix have to hide here? After all, he found SO MANY weapons during the 1990's, like that missing VX gas that Iraq admitted to having, yet now denies, right? But then, the weapons inspections were a joke from the start, and they've been a joke once again. The weapons inspectors were NOT sent back into Iraq this time around to go on a bug hunt for Iraq's "nonexistant" arsenal, they were sent in to show whether or not Iraq was complying FULLY with the resolution that Iraq agreed with. Well, Iraq is NOT complying, they're turning over weapon after weapon that "they didn't have". Why turn them over except to get Blix and his merry morons to say "See, the inspections are working, we're turning up stuff" in order to stall for time to position troops and to twist the world opinion toward leaving him alone? Turning up stuff DAMNS this man, he said he had nothing and now he's handing over what he said he didn't even have! He LIED on a public interview with Dan Rather, IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD regarding the Al Samoud missiles! If they were not illegal then WHY is he destroying them, hmm? Saddam Hussein is a murderer and a liar. A liar once, a liar twice, evidence has been presented, and he IS guilty as charged. According to the resolution, war is mandated as a result of Saddam refusing to disarm. Everyone knew he wouldn't, yet they thought the US was bluffing last year. Well THEIR bluff was called, they signed the resolution and now they don't want to pony up now that the game is over. The only reason these countries choose to ignore the obvious is either they are so spineless and timid as to be impotent when faced with a real danger of war that they cower and accuse the US of being the evil power here, or else they are somehow collaborating with Iraq and don't want the truth to come out. So which is it? France is selling military parts to Iraq as we speak. Did the United States lose 200,000 people liberating France from the Germans just to have France turn against it and side with this tyrant now? And just why is it you don't hear all these Arab neighbor states to Iraq complaining about the US wanting to take this guy out? What is it about this man that scares them enough to let the big bad "Satan America" go "beat up on a fellow Islamic nation"? I haven't even heard ARAFAT condemn this! That's a huge risk politically IF, and I say IF, all these Arabs are as anti-American as everyone seems to want to believe. You can imagine the bitterness and resentment in the US government when your so-called "allies" in Europe oppose you on their own signed resolution and the "anti-american towelheads", as people seem to like to call them in this country, are the ones who are on your side! But then, Arabs are just people like anyone else, after all, except they're a LOT closer to the problem. As for Iraq not being a threat to the US, Iraq DOES represent a threat to the United States because Saddam bankrolls terrorists. If he bankrolls the families of suicide bombers who blow themselved up in Tel Aviv you can bet he's bankrolling other terrorists as well. You want to see the free world brought to its knees? You want to talk about protecting US interests? Just wait until they start running suicide boat attacks on oil tankers with Iraqi dollarsigns financing it. Then when you're paying $6.00+ a gallon at the pump for the cheap stuff don't bitch about it. If can think about it, you know the bad guys already have.
Dev/null, I won't blast you for your decision to stay out of any armed forces, that is your personal decision. The US military is a volunteer force, there is no draft in place to have to dodge. However, as a warrior in another kind of "army" I WILL chastise you regarding your comments about implying that you're somehow smarter and therefore superior to people in the armed forces. I could easily turn around and just say you're just a coward and afraid to fight. I won't do that, I will respect your decision and your reasons, and in turn I would ask you to respect the decisions and reasons of those who ARE willing to fight instead of calling them stupid. If you don't understand why people would ever choose to fight then let me spell it out for you. People who join a military join for one of two reasons: They have to, or they want to. Those who have to do it because they're conscripts, they have no choice. They risk their lives in battle, or they go to the torture chambers (or just prison in the less barbaric nations). They're also rarely loyal to those they have to fight for. Look at Iraq, they're ALREADY trying to surrender and the war has not begun. The other kind of soldier is a solidier because he wants to be, but he fights not because he wants to go to war, but because he knows the costs of complacency. You ask anyone who's fought in a war if they like war, and the answer, with the exception of a few nutballs, will be a unanimous no. People who fight choose to fight not because they hate what's at the other end of their gun, but because they love what's behind it. They fight to defend, or they fight to free the oppressed. The honorable motives for fighting are to protect what you care about, defend the weak, free those enslaved, and undo the wicked. It takes courage and commitment to do this. High words yes, but it is the truth. Have you ever killed anything dev? Do you know what it is like to take a life? Do you know what kind of lasting scars that leaves on people? I've seen the last breath of many creatures dev, those of which I have ended myself, some I've just been there for as a friend, to ease their passing, yet never is there a disrespect for life. I've looked into the eyes of the dying as they slipped away, gone from this world forever. I've weeped over friends I have lost, sang over their bodies the beauty of their lives to the wind, and left them forever. As a predator I value life, I respect life and I know how precious and delicate it is. As a warrior I have fought the most evil of things so that people like you can have a right to even EXIST, much less express an opinion on things without having a gun pointed at your head whenever you open your mouth. Most soldiers don't fight because they want to kill, they fight because they know the consequences of doing nothing and because somebody has to step up to the plate. Nobody ever wants to see their friends, themselves, or little children caught in the way blown to pieces, shot up, dying alone bleeding for hours from a stomach wound, hacked to pieces by a sword, ripped in half by the treads of a tank rolling over them, or taken away to a prison camp to a fate worse than death. They know that the consequences when good people do nothing in the face of danger are horrendously worse. The opposite of war isn't peace, it's slavery. Hitler invaded Poland, and people did nothing. Hitler invaded Belgium and France, and people did nothing. When people finally did do something it was damned near too late, all because people didn't want another war. Imagine what could have happened if a few more aircraft carriers were in Pearl Harbor that day? Or if Japan had launched a full-scale land invasion on the California coast? Of if England had said "we don't want war no matter what" like France is doing now, or if Germany had developed the A-bomb well before VE day? The bitter truth is that freedom is written in blood by those not afraid to spill it, or else the blood of the free is spilled by those who enslave them. Imagine a boot stamping on your face forever, that is the result of complacency and turning a blind eye toward evil, foreign and domestic. There was a time in this world when courage and honor meant something, where it was better to die on your feet and stand up for what is right and good than it was to live on your knees just to stay alive. Everyone dies, eventually, kneel down for now if you want, but it will only help the blade to cut cleaner.
You see, from my viewpoint it's really pretty simple. Maybe I'm not sophisticated enough for most, having an animal mind and being a bird-brain after all, but to me things either are, or they aren't. Sure there are some shades of grey inbetween, but everything in life is a question of perception and truth. Perception is what people react to, not the truth. If people perceive Bush to be a bad guy, they'll believe that if that's what they want to believe. If people believe Saddam to be a bad guy, they'll believe that too. The question is do you let your desire to believe something to be a certain way override your reason when presented with facts to the contrary? Are you willing to change your mind if you see evidence that you are wrong? I see a lot of evidence so far against Saddam, but very little against Bush. I see a lot of evidence of collaboration between France, Germany, China, Russia, and Iraq right now. I see a United Nations that is cowardly and overly pacifist with a history of inaction. I've heard of nothing but wars and rumors of wars for the last two decades and it has been no different for all of human history. This all disturbs me not really so much that yet another war is upon mankind, like that's been any different from how it was 5,000 years ago, big surprise, big deal, only the hardware has changed. What disturbs me is that now people seem to be more interested in wishing things to be a certain way and acting as if they should be a certain way instead of dealing with how things are right now. I wish people could stop fighting, but to believe that things will change any time soon would be foolish self delusion. For the average songbird it's simple, you see a cat and you fly away and squawk to the other birds to do the same, or you get eaten. Right now I see one cat on the world stage for certain, and he is busy fathering many kittens. I also see many little birds who like to see catlike shadows everywhere. While they may feel more alert in doing so than the other birds who are just going about their business, if they fly away at every shadow and never stay in the grass they will starve and be weakened in their paranoia, and they will not have the strength to fly when the obvious cat finally does decide to show his face, and pounce. Such birds earn their fate all on their own.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-11, 07:27 by Phoenix »
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
