Menchise

quote:I simply cannot imagine Bush risking his political career by going to war without this proof - and without the support of the security council. I just can't imagine it.It wasn't as risky as it is now. When Bush started using the possibility of WMD as the pretext for war, he was gambling that Saddam would not allow the inspectors in, due to suspicions that they would be used for intelligence gathering for an invasion plan. Bush lost the gamble, but tried desperately to sway events in his favour by calling Saddam's invitation a trick. The international community didn't buy it, and the inspectors went in with unprecedented cooperation from the Iraqis. As the inspectors continue to find no WMD in what has now been a month of surprise visits to sensitive sites, the pretext for war is being nullified. Bush reacted to this with innuendos that the inspectors are incompetent. Blix was not impressed: he is now demanding to see the evidence that Bush claims to possess, so that the inspectors can know exactly where to look. The plot thickens with each passing day. quote:And the reason they don't want to show evidence is that Saddamn may alleviate the threat, thereby killing any attempts of an attack.Any justification for an attack on the basis of WMD has already been left for dead by the introduction of inspectors. The pretext was only effective as long as Iraq remained unchecked. If the inspectors find nothing after months of work, then it would indicate that Iraq is not a serious threat, but the big irony is that if the inspectors do find WMD, then the entire pretext for invasion would be dead and buried, because now you would have inspectors disarming Iraq without military force. However, none of this really matters now, because Bush intends to attack anyway. He can't turn back now without losing the support of the Republicans, which would make him a one-term president if he's lucky. quote:There is an old Archeology saying: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."There is an old legal saying: "Burden of proof." There is another old legal saying: "Due process of law." If this whole issue was being played out in a courtroom, the case would have been thrown out and the prosecutors disbarred. [ 12-29-2002, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:China is not on the list, but North Korea isChina was the US government's favourite bogeyman before 9/11. North Korea borders with China. Do the math. quote:Iran will fall on it's own.What leads you to that conclusion? quote:And the US will not HOLD Iraq, we are for Regime change, this imperialistic crap you spout, is just that.I did not say that the US government would occupy Iraq, and occupation is not the only means of imperialism. The US government will replace Saddam with another puppet dictator, hence changing the regime. It's a sanitary euphemism for imperialism. quote:Blix is almost as bad as you are, if he ignores the problem and plays nice, maybe Saddam will become a nice benevolent dictatorIt is not Blix's job to overthrow Saddam. The problem he's facing is the prospect of WMD in Iraq, and claiming that he ignores that problem is a lie. Claiming that weapons inspectors "play nice" is another lie. No one is expecting Saddam to become a "nice benevolent dictator" as a result of the weapons inspections. The whole point of the inspections is to confirm that he is a disarmed dictator, and to keep it that way with UN monitors. quote:Remember WWII Menichise? I for some reason seriously doubt it, look up Neville chamberlain, to give yourself a clue.Neville Chamberlain did not have weapons inspectors and Saddam does not have Central Europe. Chamberlain had a piece of paper and Saddam has two-thirds of Iraq (barely). What's happening now is not appeasement, it's a confirmation and maintenance of disarmament. Your analogy is completely irrelevant. quote:Regardless, before we move in, I for one would like to SEE the evidence that we have that Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction.So does Blix, and every other weapons inspector who has been accused of incompetence. [ 12-28-2002, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Yep. Despite the fact that the weapons inspectors have found nothing, the US military is prepared to invade within a fortnight. Despite claiming to have evidence of WMD, the US government has provided none of it to the weapons inspectors, making their innuendo of incompetence diabolical at best. Bye Saddam. Remember to say hi to the next brutal dictator on your way out. If you have time, you can give him the guided tour, and remind him to beware of Americans bearing gifts (e.g. gas, viruses, bacteria, and probably nukes), because they expect total obedience in return, regardless of what the Iraqi people want. Also, remind him to keep his troops prepared for war, just in case Bush decides that Iran is a threat to national security and patriotic Americans believe him without question, although he may decide that China is a threat instead, in which case the new dictator can attack Iran anyway and receive a pat on the back from Rumsfeld for taking the initiative, and saving time for the United States Imperial Army to attack elsewhere.

quote:Menchise - website not workingIt works now.

Anyone who thinks the Associated Press is reliable, think again. Even I was surprised by this.

Remo's article inspired me to add another quote: ---------------------------------------------- "...I came from Detroit and I was driven to the airport by an American citizen of Lebanese descent. On September 12th, he was arrested by the FBI and held 27 days incommunicado. His crime: he took flight lessons. An American citizen was held incommunicado for 27 days! He didn't commit a crime. Now people can say "well, you know - gosh! - we were attacked!" No, ladies and gentleman, the second we allow the United States government to treat American citizens in this fashion, to violate the due process of law, we cease to be America!" - Scott Ritter

Here are some classic quotes for you to think about. -------------------------------------------- "Too bad that all the people who really know how to run the country are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair" - George Burns "I say one evil empire down... one to go." - Michael Moore "The reason we start a war is to fight a war, win a war, thereby causing no more war!" - George Walker Bush "As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities...Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire "When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world and we knew exactly who the they were. It was us versus them and it was clear who them was. Today, we're not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there." - George Walker Bush "Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor. For patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and patriotism, will offer up all of their rights to the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done." - Julius Caesar "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged" - Noam Chomsky "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country....corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war." - Abraham Lincoln [ 12-17-2002, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Sorry Dragon Lady. It was bound to happen. The truth is they both suck. My web development lecturers constantly reminded students to test their sites on both IE and Netscape to check for compatibility issues. The mere fact that compatibility issues can exist when implementing HTML of all things is disappointing. These compatibility issues are mainly caused by the developers of IE and Netscape in their attempts to hijack web standards with browser-dependent tags, bells and whistles. This behaviour flagrantly contradicts with the World Wide Web's need for interoperability. Apart from that, there are a variety of reasons why both browsers should be avoided. When IE crashes, Windows crashes; Netscape has a poor track record with CSS support; both browsers bundle insecure email clients; and so on. If you're a Windows user, get Opera 6. If you're a Linux user, get Mozilla. [ 12-16-2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Defender-ship.

I am resigning from Spectre Fleet. My interests and priorities have changed over time, to the extent that I will not be able to be an active fleet member anymore. I will still visit the BC forums, but not as often as I used to. I will still be playing BC for a long time to come, but I won't be participating in multiplayer. [rp] Bring 'em hell, fellow Insurgents. See ya 'round. *Nick salutes and the Lion's Mane departs from Destiny Starstation. [/rp]

quote:I'd love to hear the music from that game though, if it's anywhere near as good as the original Wing Commander music.The music section of the Wing Commander CIC has MP3s of music from most of the Wing Commander games and their spin-offs, including Privateer. The music in Privateer is good, and very different from other Wing Commander games. It primarily sets the darker tone of the game's mood. I wouldn't call it the best of Wing Commander though.

quote: quote:Anyway, to really decrease crime, I think that the citizens who own guns should be well trained in using them to preven accidents. And also know who to act if the need arises.I concur, but this should be the responsibility of the gun owner, not the government. Replace the word "gun" with the word "car", and think again. I'm not familiar with the requirements for getting a weapon permit in the US, but I think one of the requirements should be - at the very least - a basic understanding of firearm safety. [ 11-21-2002, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:That was pleasantly short.Short? The keynote address alone was over an hour long. quote:I'm not sure what to say though, I know perfectly well that WMDs are more of an excuse to attack then anything else, but it's a good enough excuse. And besides, the actual reasons (being prevention of terrorism, oil, and such not) are perfectly adequate.Considering that you haven't countered the argument that attacking Iraq will stimulate terrorism rather than prevent it, among other costs that far outweigh any benefits (which are marginal at best for the people in general), your assertion seems premature to me. [ 11-21-2002, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Ritter speaks about Weapons Inspections and UN Resolution 1441 The first question in the Q&A period of the speech addresses the so-called "Iraqi Deal" story, which has been used to attack Ritter's credibility.

quote:I have no clue what it means.The results are explained at the end of the test. The compass is a good design when compared to the 'left-right' spectrum, and the test is well-done, but it's no substitute for self-description and debate.

quote:Pure bovine excrement and a bogus way to run a debate Menchise.That was not the way that I debated eventually, and what was bogus was how most people were responding to the FAQ, calling it rubbish without any substantial argument for why it is so (your description below is an example). I merely demanded a substantial argument, rather than saying that it's 'pacifist leftist trash' and expecting everyone to simply accept that and continue ignoring everything that it says. Then, when everyone started providing all of their pro-war arguments without reading the FAQ, guess what happened? Instead of ignoring those posts (which I initially said I would), I kept referencing sections of the FAQ. Why? Because nearly ALL of the arguments that everyone was putting forward were already countered in the FAQ. Only a few posts responded to the counter-arguments, while others ignored them and repeated the same assertions like a broken record. Other people in the thread also quoted their own sources which I regarded as trash. Did I ignore them or dismiss them as trash? No! I responded to every single point with substantial counter-arguments. I was not even remotely bogus in this debate. I wish I could say the same for everyone else. quote:That FAQ is pure refuse. All those "... according to polls ..." references set off alarms IMO regarding the validity of the FAQ itself. Polls are bogus. The pollsters can skew the questions so that no matter what answer is given, it will support the ultimate premise behind the poll. And if they (the pollsters) don't like how the poll is shaping up, they just increase the percentage of error factor.Out of the 45 subsections in the FAQ, only one referred to a poll. Your response is bogus. quote:Anything from the Clinton News Network must be taken with a grain of salt that has been diluted in Lake Superior. Their credibility is none existent.Once again, your response is bogus. If you had read the FAQ, you would know that it also criticized the Clinton Administration. Here is a direct quote from FAQ A2: "...Thus, if one asks what the Clinton administration's motives were in Kosovo, the claim that it was driven by concern for the rights and self-determination of ethnic minorities is hardly credible given that the same Clinton administration was backing Turkey's much worse oppression of its Kurdish minority..." quote:It is not a matter if we're going to Iraq, but when.I agree, which is why it's much more important to oppose the war now, and not just the war, but the subsequent occupation too. quote:I'm still not sold on the whole Iraq idea, but my feelings are - if we have to go, let's at least do it RIGHT this time.What is the "right" way in your opinion, and what makes you think that it will be done "right this time"? quote:The left is reinventing itself in the method of Al Gore.Al Gore is right-wing. quote:3/4 of every argument is whining about Oh the poor /children/workers/ environment letting you know that they really CARE about everything, while sputtered throughout is the Socialist diatribe of STEALING wealth and 'redistributing' it. They call it 'RE' distributing it as if it were distributed in the first place.There were other arguments in the FAQ that you didn't mention. For example, my argument (written in my previous post) is a formulation of some of the other points made in the FAQ, to which you didn't respond.

Doesn't surprise me. [ 11-17-2002, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

I don't need a political compass to tell me that I'm a libertarian socialist, but that's exactly what it said. Economic Left/Right: -7.88 Authoritarian/Libertarian: -6.77

quote:I'm just repeating what you yourself regurgitate - that the reason people are doing these things is because there isn't equal distribution of wealth throughout the world and it's 'unfair' 'unjust' 'unkind' etc.I did not say that. I said that the US government is allying itself with and/or puppeteering oppressive regimes in the Middle East, hence undermining human rights in the region. One of the primary motivations behind this is the acquisition of disproportionate wealth and power for its elite (e.g. the controlling interests of the oil companies). Telling Arabs to get a job is a copout, because most are either already working or trying to leave the country to find a job somewhere else, and merely getting a job and working hard is not going to change the fact that their government is a Washington-backed tyranny or oligarchy that has no sense of accountability. Now you have terrorist leaders who have their own agenda, which happens to be the same as the US government and US corporate elite: acquisition of disproportionate power. In the case of Al Qaeda's leaders, the aim is to establish their version of Islamic theocracy in the region, preferably with themselves and their allies at the top. They look around and discover huge numbers of potential recruits in the suffering populations of Washington-backed oppressive regimes, so they start projecting rhetoric that makes them look and sound sympathetic to the people, while simultaneously indoctrinating them with propaganda about Islamic theocracy. These are the basic ingredients of anti-US terrorism. Any attempt to defeat it with military force only increases the number of potential recruits for the terrorist organizations, which is one of the reasons why the 9/11 plan was implemented by Al Qaeda: to provoke the US to take military action that would substantiate the false image of sympathy that terrorist leaders are projecting to the people, as well as increasing the popularity of Islamic fundamentalism and theocracy. The strategy is already working. In October, the elections in Pakistan featured surprising gains by the MMA, a coalition of Islamic fundamentalist parties. It was the largest vote for Islamic fundamentalism in the electoral history of Pakistan (six times its highest result in previous elections). Pakistan now has a hung parliament with MMA holding an equal share in the balance of power. Therefore, the US government's attempts to defeat anti-US terrorism are having the opposite effect. An invasion of Iraq will only accelerate the progress of the terror agenda, and lead to more draconian measures by neighbouring states to silence dissent. quote:Menchise, I have no idea how you got to be so ill informed. Saddam is directly helping AlQuaeda, there is proof, you are just choosing to ignore it.How can I ignore proof that does not exist? You haven't given me any sources to back up your claims. In fact, while I have responded to every article you have quoted about "why the anti-war left sucks," you have dismissed my sources without adequate reason and repeated the same old assertions. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine, but don't you dare call me ignorant when I have bent over backwards to be open-minded here! quote:Saddam sees them as a stepping stone to power, they will weaken those countries that they attack and they will be all the more easily taken over by himself.He can't take over a Starbucks without losing his position entirely. Here is a direct quote from the first paragraph of FAQ C2: C2. Are U.S. leaders correct in their characterization of Saddam Hussein as a threat to world peace and security? Broadly, yes, of course they are. That is to say, Saddam Hussein, given no obstacles, could probably be relied on to hurt many more people by his actions than he already has. But he doesn't confront a situation of no obstacles. Instead, he well knows that if Iraq does anything to seriously endanger much less harm people outside its borders, it will simply be annihilated. quote:You live in some sort of dream land, come into the real world please.Don't patronize me, Jaguar. I'm in no mood to take it. [ 11-13-2002, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Bush Should Have Stopped It -- But Not That Way!: Instead of focusing on what we should do now, claim that Bush could have stopped 9/11 before it happened by aggressively going after the terrorists pre-911. Then reflexively oppose every suggestion the Bush administration comes up with to prevent another attack because it will create a "police state." This one drives right-wingers crazy!!FAQ B2 quote:How Can We Invade Saddam When He Used To Be Our Friend?: We must force these right-wing zealots to realize that relationships between nations are NEVER are allowed to change. Since we were friends with Saddam in the eighties, it was hypocritical of us to kick him out of Kuwait and keep him from annexing Saudi Arabia. Even if he hates us now, is acquiring nukes, and has ties to terrorists we still can't attack him -- for some reason or another. I think there is a UN rule against attacking former friends for any reason or something.FAQ A2 quote:If We Preemptively Attack Iraq -- Everyone Will Do It!: The United States could be setting a dangerous precedent here since no other nation has ever attacked another nation "preemptively." Wait a second, if that was true, shouldn't we always be at peace since no nation has ever attacked another nation except in self-defense? So that's Bush's evil plan, to spoil world peace!FAQ A7 quote:Insist That We Give Inspections A Chance: No one believes Saddam is going to actually allow unfettered inspections but we know from a decade of experience that he can literally run the inspectors around in circles for years. The more time Saddam wastes, the closer he gets to a nuclear bomb he can use to stop Bush's filthy war!FAQ C8 quote:It's About The Ordinary People: The most important reason you are against the war is because you care about the innocent people in Iraq. That's why you're so strongly against replacing the dictator who has starved, gassed, tortured, and oppressed so many of his own people -- you may not want to phrase it exactly like that, but you get the idea.FAQ A3 quote:Keep Moving That Goalpost: If the pro-war crowd starts beating you up too much because you won't support war under any circumstances, say that you are willing to use force.. A) As soon as Al-Queda is destroyed, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is over C) Afghanistan is a strong and stable Democracy D) Against Iran E) Against Pakistan F) Against Iran G) If inspections fail (again) H) Once the whole world agrees with us...etc. It really doesn't matter what you come up with here because the purpose is to delay things endlessly. Even if your condition were met, you would simply change the conditions you'd need to meet your goal.FAQ A1 quote:Never Admit That You Are Helping Terrorists And Dictators:Act offended if anyone claims you are helping dictators and terrorists by opposing killing, capturing, or hindering them in any significant way. Sure that may be the actual RESULT of doing what you're suggesting, but INTENTIONS, not results, are what have to be considered.FAQ B2 (again) quote:Pretend To Be Offended When You're Accused Of Anti-Semitism: Just because you call Palestinian terrorists "freedom fighters", condemn every Israeli attempt to defend itself from terrorist attacks, believe Jews control the US media and government, and think a land dispute is an adequate reason for blowing up women and children at a bus stop (as long as they're Jews), does not make you anti-semitic. No matter how obvious your anti-semitism is, it doesn't count unless you ADMIT that you're anti-semitic.Hawkins has his opponents mixed up: David Duke is not an anti-war leftist. Leftists are against the Israeli government for its horrendous oppression of the Palestinians, which lead to the rise of terrorism in the first place. This does not mean that leftists are anti-Semitic. A particularly relevant example of this is the growing anti-war movement in the Israeli Defense Forces (known as the refuseniks). According to Amnesty International's 2002 report on Israel, "At least 33 Jewish and Druze citizens of Israel who refused to perform military service or to serve in the Occupied Territories were sentenced to terms of imprisonment of up to four and a half months. They were prisoners of conscience." Does this mean that the Israeli government is anti-Semitic? Whether or not the actions of the Palestinians are terroristic depends on two factors: 1) Whether or not the target is military 2) Whether or not it's in the Occupied Territories If the Palestinians are attacking military targets in the Occupied Territories, then it's not terrorism, because Israeli occupation is not a defensive act and it's not legal. The fact that Hawkins calls it a "land dispute" clearly demonstrates his ignorance of this. If the Palestinians are attacking civilians, then it's terrorism, and cannot be justified. If the Palestinians are attacking within Israel's borders, then it's terrorism, and cannot be justified, unless the Israeli government annexes the Occupied Territories, but that would never happen. quote:Remember Who The Real Enemies Are: Obviously, George Bush and America are to blame for the 'war on terrorism.' You should certainly never blame nations like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or the 'Disputed Territories', etc, for actually sponsoring terrorist groups that have no real purpose other than to murder innocent people.FAQ A9, A10 quote:Show Me Osama's Corpse: Even though we haven't heard from Osama Bin Laden since the United States bombed the area he was in into blood, sand, and rubble, you must insist that the 'war on terrorism' is a failure since we don't have him in hand. Sure we haven't heard a thing from him in nine and half months but he's probably just laying low! The best thing about this one is that since Osama was probably blown into a fine red mist at Tora Bora, the Bush administration will never be able to 'prove' that he's dead. This means you can't ever be proven 'wrong' when you claim that he's still alive.That is still a debatable issue, and not a significant one either. quote:Solutions? Uh....: When pressed for solutions it's a good idea to mumble incoherently, or just say, "I don't know what we should do, but I know war isn't the answer!!!" If you're really pressed you can suggest that America should give more aid to the poor, that one never gets old.FAQ C6 quote:Tell Those 'Chickenhawks' What For: Demand that anyone who is pro-war sign up for the military because only people who are willing to risk their lives in combat have a right to advocate going to war. If they counter with "well if you believe that, then you should go to Iraq and throw yourself on one of Saddam's bunkers so you can be a 'human shield'" either quickly change the subject or say that you detest Saddam (despite the fact that you are firmly against any attempt at removing him from power).A minority of anti-war leftists do say that, but they're not taken seriously by other anti-war leftists, especially since an argument as foolish as that would justify a war if the military was pro-war. quote:There's No Reason To Bomb Saddam!: Just because Hussein is a psychopathic dictator who gassed the Iranians and his own people, fought against the United States, tried to assassinate a US President, has massive stockpiles of WMD, is seeking nukes, and has ties to terrorists doesn't mean he's dangerous. In fact, we have no evidence that the global terrorist network is still a threat at all...except for 9/11 and all the other attacks across the world since then.FAQ C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 quote:War For Oil!: This war isn't really about terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, it's about oil like every big war America fought in during the last century! Well...except for WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and Korea... but the Gulf War was all about oil! Of course, Iraq only supplies 2.1% of America's oil and Afghanistan doesn't supply any...but "everyone" says it's about oil so it must be somehow or another!I don't know where Hawkins gets the 2.1 percent figure, but it's still not an effective rebuttal to the anti-war left's claim that the war on Iraq is a war for oil. Oil companies are multi-national, hence they sell to more countries than just America, and a big slice of an oligopoly on the world's second largest oil reserve means significant profit for the controlling interests. As for Afghanistan, see FAQ B17. quote:We'll Destabilize the Middle-East: It's common knowledge that the 'Arab Street' will immediately overthrow their leaders if Muslims are harmed anywhere across the world, no matter what the reason may be. Of course, we've gotten off lucky so far since the 'Arab Street' didn't erupt when Israel bombed an Iraqi nuke site, when Israel invaded Lebanon, when Israel 'invaded' the "disputed territories" about 500 times, when Reagan bombed Libya, when the US invaded Iraq, when the Serbs were slaughtering Bosnian Muslims, when the US invaded Afghanistan, when the US bombed through Ramadan, etc, etc. But this time the 'Arab Street' is REALLY SERIOUS!!!Hawkins exaggerates the anti-war argument regarding destabilization. The argument is "that elements closer in ideology to al Qaeda and the Taliban would rise in prominence and power, perhaps even to take over additional states." After the attack on Afghanistan, additional states were not taken over, but there has been a rise in the prominence and power of Islamic fundamentalism (e.g. the unexpected gains of the MMA in the October elections in Pakistan).

quote:My concern is, you are looking in all the wrong places for the purpose. I'll agree to an extent that people's economic/social/political conditions around the world have an influence on their actions. My concern is that you seek to alleviate these conditions over time. While our leaders could be thinking about 'Why no one likes us?' 'Why everyone wants to kill us?', Terrorists could be slamming planes into buildings, blowing up stuff, etc. Here's my take on it - I don't care why they did it. If I know who did it, I would strike back and decimate them to the point where they would be unlikely to mount so well an attack the next time. If they wanted more, and the next time seized hostages, shot up a school, whatever - Terrorism right back into their face. Drop bombs on their homes, destroy their will to fight.First, one of the reasons why the terrorism occurs in the first place is because nobody asks those questions. Secondly, I've already made an unchallenged argument that the war will do nothing to stop terrorists from slamming planes into buildings, blowing up stuff, etc. quote:If their country is in the pits, they need to think of something better to do themselves before pissing off the big dog. Like getting a job, or improving their own country.You just had to assume that they're layabouts on welfare, eh? Wake up, $iLk! quote:Would you enlighten us on how slamming airliners into the World Trade Center helped boost their way of life?It doesn't. I already responded to this in length in my previous post to you. Does anyone read my posts anymore, or do you just imagine what I wrote? quote:Saddam has ignored ALL UN resolutions, he interfered with Instpectors and IS developing weapons of mass destruction. His MAIN goal has always been the complete control of the middle east, himself in charge of course, and the total destruction of Israel. WE CANNOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN, PERIOD!!Jaguar, repeating assertions already addressed by counter-argument without responding to counter-argument is not substantial. I did not provide those links so that you could ignore them and repeat yourself. quote:Saddam supports and finances terrorism ALL around the world, along with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, to just name a few, but he is the one that helps them the mostSaudi Arabia is the primary source of funding for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, and it's a US ally in the region. Iraq is not a primary helper, and unlike Saudi Arabia, it had no involvement in 9/11 (FAQ C3). quote:he is also the one that has allowed Al Quaeda operatives to test and practice with Chemical and biological weapons WITHIN Iraq itself. They have also practiced hijacking and blowing up airliners within Iraq as well. 6-10 high ranking Al Quaeda members are within Baghdad as I type, put up in the best hotels, and being trained by Iraqi intelligence on where, when and whom to strike. Saddam's government is what allows terrorists to do a lot of what they do, he finances them, he gives them weapons, and he IS going to give them a WMD in the near future. Count on it.Your claims are impossible, because Saddam is an enemy of Al Qaeda. His government is secular, and Al Qaeda is Islamic fundamentalist. Al Qaeda is primarily funded by Saudi Arabia, another enemy of Saddam. He would not support an organization that aims to overthrow him (FAQ B4, C3), especially when such actions would provoke the US to attack him. quote:The Palestinian suicide bombers are financed DIRECTLY from Saddam Housien, he writes them checks for $25,000 each time one of them blows themselves up.Correction: he writes checks to the families of the suicide bombers, not to the terrorist organizations who equip the bombers, hence he is not financing them directly or even indirectly. The whole exercise is one of Saddam's propaganda tactics to make him appear to be an ally of the Palestinian cause. quote:He has gained himself quite a bit of time, what does he have in store? You do NOT want to know, but if we do not get rid of his WMD's and KILL him outright, we are going to find out.Circular argument: you have no substantial claim that Saddam has WMD. When I provided a counter-argument to your claim, you merely ignored it and repeated your assertions. You also ignored the entire argument expressed in FAQ C9, which indicates that if Saddam did have WMD, an invasion would force him into the one situation where he would use it. The fact that Bush can't wait to put Saddam into that situation is also proof that Saddam does not have WMD, and Bush knows it. quote:This war is not about economics, this war is not about food, this war is not about the palestinians. This war is about Islam, if you are not Muslim, YOU ARE A TARGET, if you give them money, if you give them food, if you fall down on your knees and beg for mercy, THEY ARE GOING TO KILL YOU, unless you are Muslim. This is a war between the western Judeo Christian countries and fundamentalist Muslims. The only way this is ever going to end is when they run out of fundamentalists, or we can put them out of commission. How do we do that? BY DESTROYING THEM and those that support them. Iraq is first, after that, Iran will fall of it's own accord, The house of Saud will disintegrate, and then we will be getting somewhere.Your argument contradicts itself, because the Iraqi government is not an Islamic fundamentalist regime. In fact, the US strengthened its alliance with Saddam in 1980 by supporting his war against the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran. Your claim that this war is all about religion has no substance whatsoever. Your assertion that this war is not about economics also has no substance, especially in the face of unchallenged arguments to the contrary. quote:Oh, and Menchise, FYI, Iraq is smuggling through Syria and Jordan, NOT Turkey. Get your facts straight. Anything that comes through Turkey is marked Jordan mfr, or Syrian, NOT Iraqi. Anything marked Iraqi, or traceable to Iraq, is confiscated if it hits Turkish Soil. I KNOW this to be true. Again, that is all I will say about that.Read this. quote:It isn't safe but safer than without the military. If the respective agencies stay vigilant the risk of being bombed is much lower than if you have no significant protection, you can hardly argue about that. If these fundies are so eager to die, Bush might as well spare them the hassle of "travelling" to the US, and kill them right were they are now. The result is the same minus several thousand dead American civilians. Of course there will be casualties but unlike civilians, the military is well trained and the equipped plus they are doing their job.FAQ B2

From Lion's Mane to Wolferz: Get well soon, mate.

I'll be away from the forum for a couple of days to study for an exam. Read ya later.

quote:True, though in I take both sides with a grain of salt. Besides, I do read quite a bit of the leftist propaganda you post, I simply didn't feel like reading that entire bloody FAQ.In that case, I may not feel like reading your entire bloody post. quote:But the point isn't to liberate the country, that's a side advantage that, while nice, is not all that important. Rather the point is to protect American interests in that country (in the case of Iraq that mean oil and not getting nuked). Secondary objectives are exactly that, secondary.As I've already stated, an invasion of Iraq would be counter-productive to the objective of keeping American civilians safe from terrorism, which is also secondary in US government policy. quote:You can't possible be referring to that unproven rumor about Bush having evidence can you?You misinterpreted my post. I was referring to information about what the US government is doing "in the interests of its people". quote:That aside, there are always times that informing the population of something because of national security, or because, yes, the people are morons.How convenient that the government decides when those times will be. It's a flagrant bypass of accountability. Assuming that the people are morons is also a lame excuse for bypassing accountability. quote:Yes darling, but the truth of the matter is that there is a conflict between what is good for our population and what is good for there population.Once again, you misinterpret my post (I admit that I'm a bit vague sometimes). The interests of both populations would be curtailed. The people in the puppet regime lose freedom and representation, which understandably pisses them off and drives some to terrorism. The people of the United States become the prime targets of the terrorism while gaining very little from the oppression (most of the benefits go to the economic elite). quote:First of all, it's pretty hard to just benefit the economic elites, after all what is good for the economy in general is good for everyone.Most of the benefits go to the economic elites (they're the ones that get the most out of revenues). quote:This aside, however, giving in even slightly to any form of terrorism is completely counterproductive because it will encourage more terrorism on the basis that it's an effective strategy to deal with us.I've already covered this in my response to $iLk's post. quote:However, there is another issue, we are a powerful country and smaller countries (and some members of there populace) are jealous of that power. It's like if I were to go somewhere wearing my mink there is a chance I could be mugged, that kind of thing happens, but I'll be damned if that means I'm going to wear rags.Begging the question of jealousy, eh? The problem is you have provided no convincing argument that rank and file terrorists (as opposed to terrorist leaders) are motivated by jealousy of power, whereas there are more compelling arguments that many of their grievances are genuine. Therefore, jealousy is not really an issue here. quote:I doubt that can be demonstrated conclusively either way (whatever the propaganda might say)That propaganda is supported by a statement by a non-leftist international relations specialist, which certainly indicates that there is something to this. Unless you can provide me with an equally compelling contrary source, I'd say that while it cannot be conclusively demonstrated, it can be indicated with very high probability. quote:and at least with military action cannot be seen as giving into terrorism.I'm sure the 20,000 dead Afghan civilians appreciate dying for the sake of America looking like a thug. quote:Seams like a rather indirect way of solving the problem, not to mention a rather ineffectual one.Popular resistance succeeded against Suharto and Milosevic, and they were much more powerful than Saddam is now (he barely holds two thirds of Iraq's territory). quote:Besides, what's the point of supporting a resistance group when it's a hell of a lot easier (and much more assured) to simply go in there ourselves.FAQ A2, A4, C12, C15 quote:Like I said before, the fact that we're powerful may have lead to terrorism, but that's no excuse to surrender that power because of terrorists.The terrorism was not caused by having power, but by abusing that power, hence it is not a requirement to surrender power in order to stop terrorism, unless the abuse is never stopped. quote:Rather, we need to be strong so that no terrorist in his right mind (well, ok, the ones not in there right mind as well) would avoid attacking the US, and so that supporting ant-US terrorism is tantamount to suicide.How much stronger would the US need to be?! It's already the most powerful nation militarily and economically in the history of the world, and yet the terrorist attacks have only become more bold and more sophisticated. Strength is useless when fighting terrorism, and using the strength for brutal intentions only encourages more terrorism and an escalation in the magnitude of the attacks. [ 11-09-2002, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:"No blood for oil" implies that the United States is attacking Iraq to ensure a low price for petroleum ÔÇö a plot purportedly to allow SUV- driving soccer moms to buzz around at the world's expense.Hanson's interpretation of "no blood for oil" is wrong. It's not about keeping the price down. It's about who controls the supply. Currently, American oil companies have a relative share of the Iraqi oil trade with other states (e.g. Russia, France, and so on) under the OFP. A US-led invasion would change all of that. American oil companies would get a bigger share of the oligopoly. More control over the supply of oil from Iraq means more profit for those companies, and less dependence on the Saudi Arabian Oil Company. quote:The argument instead can be made that a fascistic Iraq currently pumps far less than its natural capacity or its national interests would otherwise demand ÔÇö perhaps as much as a million-barrel shortfall. And such an artificially created dearth helps the price-gouging Russians and the Gulf States by reducing world supplies at the expense of billions well outside the borders of the United States.It's funny how Hanson blames Iraq, Russia and the Gulf States for an artificial dearth created and benefited by the United States and Britain: the lesser oil production in Iraq is due to economic sanctions which would not exist without US and British veto power on the Security Council, because the other permanent members (including Russia) oppose it. The economic sanctions block Iraqi imports of oil field equipment defined as "dual use", and close oil pipelines to countries such as Syria. Meanwhile, Iraqi oil is smuggled to Turkey every day under the noses of the USAF. Turkey is a US ally. quote:The dream of 1960s radicals was supposedly that someday the United States might use its vast cultural influence and military power to be on the "right side of history." That meant ÔÇö instead of Pavlovian opposition to idealistic socialists and occasional Communists in preference for odious figures like Pinochet, Somoza, or Franco ÔÇö we would try to topple just those regimes and implant democracies in their place. Few then lectured that the Nicaraguans should be left to handle their own dictators or that we had no right to tell the Spanish what to do with Franco. Instead, support for revolutionary movements was voiced and action demanded. Well, with the end of the Cold War, those days of hope have at last arrived. Noriega, Milosevic, and Mullah Omar not only were fascistic and bloodthirsty, but they are also all gone thanks to the United States military.Manuel Noriega was captured not because he was fascistic and bloodthirsty (the US supported him throughout this period), but because he stopped following orders from the US government. Milosevic was overthrown by a popular rebellion within Serbia, not by the US military. Mullah Omar and the rest of the Taliban came to power with the blessings of the US government, despite its brutal oppression of the Afghans. It was only when the Taliban stopped obeying the US government that it was opposed. This is a common pattern among former US allies, and yet it's still being followed. quote:Rather than seeing protestors chanting to ignore Saddam Hussein, I would have expected that the refrain would be "Solidarity with the brave Iraqi people in their brave struggles against a fascist mass murderer."The protestors are not chanting to ignore Saddam Hussein. In fact, Hanson's recommended refrain is exactly what the anti-war left is demanding (solidarity with the Iraqi people). What's preventing the Iraqis from winning their struggle against Saddam is the economic sanctions, which make the people completely dependent on Saddam for food and medicine. Also, the fact that Saddam's worst acts of mass murder were defended and even facilitated by the US government throughout the 1980s indicates that the US government has no solidarity with the Iraqi people, and should be the last group to try to "liberate" them, especially when it still supports economic sanctions that have resulted in ten times the death that resulted from Saddam's mass murder spree. The lack of solidarity is also clarified by one of the US government's recommended replacements for Saddam (General Khazraji), who was indicted to a Danish court for his alleged participation in the Halabja massacre (where the Kurds were gassed). quote:Yet today a democratic Israel ÔÇö with a vociferous press, an antiwar movement, a plentitude of parties, regular elections, and a civilian-controlled military ÔÇö is as demonized as Mr. Arafat is praised by Western intellectuals. Do we see protest signs that say "Support the democratic peoples of Israel in their struggle against sexist, homophobic, and fundamentalist reactionaries"?Israel's democracy is based on a policy of displacing the Palestinians from their homes and keeping them across the border to maintain a Jewish majority in the voting population, hence it's a racist fraud. The left is not against the people of Israel, but against the Israeli government for its brutal oppression of the Palestinians which drove them to commit terrorism in the first place (I am merely explaining it, not justifying it). It's also the only country in the Middle East that is proven to have nuclear weapons. quote:If I could summarize the antiwar movement's traditional view of the military, it ran something like this: Anyone who came of age during the draft and combat abroad had a constitutional duty not to serve the imperialist war aims of the United States, especially in Vietnam. The military were slandered as innately fascistic and its officers not to be trusted ÔÇö veterans who were said to have the blood of innocent civilians on their hands. Only the brake of civilians ÔÇö intellectual and principled ÔÇö could save us from a dangerous militarism. Or so it went on the campuses. Now, however, those in their mid and late 50s in government who did not go to Vietnam are slurred as "chicken hawks" in the manner that those same accusers once tarred veterans as "baby killers." That the top brass is wary of going into Iraq is suddenly proof that such military experts, not their civilian overseers, should be heeded as wise and reasonable. Are there petitions, then, that suggest that serving in the ground war in Vietnam between 1965 and 1972 was an act of patriotism, coupled with proclamations that military minds are in general more responsible to gauge the morality of war? If so, the protesters in D.C. should have placards proclaiming, "Listen to our brave generals and rally behind our Vietnam vets." And since dissidents also apparently think that in this war it is safer to be in the fleet than in the path of terrorist bombers, their placards should read: "Chicken-hawks: Leave your sanctuary in the Pentagon and safe high-rises of New York and get into harm's way on a submarine."Hanson tries to make anti-war leftists seem hypocritical by misrepresenting whom they oppose. The fact is the anti-war left opposes pro-war elements. It does not discriminate between the military and the civilian government in this regard. quote:After the murderous aftermath of 1975 in Southeast Asia ÔÇö boat people, summary executions, the piled skulls of the killing fields, reeducation camps, over a million refugees in the United States ÔÇö the antiwar Left claimed that its efforts were aimed only at stopping the United States from fighting in Asia and that it had been led astray by the phony rhetoric of the Viet Cong. Thus the myth arose that radical dissidents were more pacifist than anti-American. Suspicions that many favored the eventual Communist victory as part of a general hatred of things America were discounted as absurd, if not libelous. But their stance against the present war with fascists has finally caught up to them, and revealed a large number for what they really are: deductive anti-Americanists.That is both untrue and insulting. The anti-war movement during Vietnam was motivated by a variety of factors. First, the US government took drastic measures to ensure that Vietnam was not unified by popular consent. The Geneva Accords of 1954 stipulated that Vietnam would be reunited after elections in 1956. Fearing that Ho Chi Minh would be the likely victor of these elections (his forces were instrumental in achieving Vietnamese independence from the French), the United States supported the installation of an authoritarian regime in the south under Diem (which became increasingly oppressive as more people actively opposed it) to curtail the electoral process. Diem was overthrown in 1963 by a US-approved military coup when it became clear that he had lost all credibility. The new government (under president Thieu) was no better. Secondly, the US military was using horrendous tactics in the war, including near-indiscriminate mass destruction of civilian areas. The number of Vietnamese civilian deaths is estimated at 2 million. Thirdly, the US government instituted a draft when the volunteer pool dried up, despite indications that the war could not be won. The rhetoric of the NLF (the term Viet Cong was invented by Diem) was not a factor in opposing the war. quote:The post-9/11 animus from a Norman Mailer (the Twin Towers were like ugly buck teeth), Noam Chomsky (America planned to kill "millions" in Afghanistan), or Michael Moore (there were few Bush voters at the World Trade Center) ÔÇö followed by gleeful predictions by others of U.S. failure against the Taliban ÔÇö is now come to logical fruition over the toppling of the odious Saddam Hussein. And what one has to conclude from the present venom is that anti-Americanism is neither logical nor empirical. Indeed, it is a fundamentalist secular religion, not a reasoned stance, one entirely inconsistent and unpredictable in its choice of friends and foes ÔÇö except for one constant: Whatever America does, it hates.This conclusion is based on Hanson's ridiculous interpretations of anti-war positions regarding oil, Saddam, Israel, and Vietnam. The following quotes consist of Hanson's laughable pseudo-psychological analysis of leftists. He assembles every stereotype into one strawman argument, portraying all leftists as raving lunatics. quote:We are learning that resistance never really entailed opposition to fascism at all, much less the need for intervention to support democracy, but was simply a strange desire to vent displeasure with our own culture.The anti-war left identifies and criticizes specific elements within a nation that directly benefit from a war. This is not a venting of displeasure with "our own culture", whatever that means. quote:That so many of these ideological teenagers mad at their opulent and indulgent parents are affluent suburbanites suggests the deleterious effects of leisure and wealth;Hanson's inconsistent argument is contradicted by the fact that many of the richest people in America are pro-war. quote:that so many enjoy the appurtenances of nice cars, houses, and travel denotes abject hypocrisy;The anti-war left does not condemn wealthy people for having wealth. It criticises institutions that produce conditions in which disproportionate wealth is allocated, hence producing an economic elite that has material incentives for supporting war. Therefore, Hanson's argument that middle class anti-war leftists are hypocritical has no substance, especially since most if not all of them would not be beneficiaries of the war. quote:that so many mindlessly repeat cant and fad reflects the power of belonging to a clique that promises status by being more "sophisticated" and "subtle" than ordinary Americans; that so many demand utopian perfection reminds us that their god Reason is an unforgiving totem; that so many are shrill and angry suggests that they seek global causes to assuage personal unhappiness and anger at a system that has not met their own high demands upon it.This quote is best described as incoherent babble, as Hanson paints an imaginary picture of leftists as bratty lemmings seeking utopia. It is natural to express anger in the face of injustice. The fact that leftists express anger does not make them irrational, unless they don't provide arguments to explain that anger. Leftists provide arguments all the time, and Hanson still calls them irrational, not because they're angry, but because he disagrees with them. The rest of the article restates the same arguments as before. quote:The only thing that gets me about these discussions, there are those who discuss what we should do about a problem, and there are those who whine and complain about why we shouldn't do that while offering no solutions of their own.$iLk, before solutions can be suggested, one needs to argue what the real nature of the problem is. That's what's happening now. It's redundant to suggest solutions if there is widespread disagreement about what the problem is. quote:Understand why they do not appreciate us, and give in totally to their demands and expect nothing in return.That is an oversimplistic and misleading interpretation of a proposed solution. To deliberately avoid an understanding of why one would commit such terror is foolish, especially when it's being caused by the policies of one's own government. To gain an understanding is not to justify the action either (FAQ B3). Addressing those grievances also doesn't require that one give in to all demands, since the available evidence indicates that Al Qaeda is lead by a group pursuing its own agenda while simultaneously coopting genuine grievances to gain more recruits (FAQ B4). Addressing the genuine grievances would undermine the terrorist leaders' ability to recruit unsuspecting followers. The result would be a substantial reduction of terrorism and a blow against radical Islamic fundamentalism. The rest of your "suggestions" are stereotypes.