philgreen Posted August 25, 2002 Report Posted August 25, 2002 I love this.... from CNN: ----------------------------------------------- "One video shows Arab fighters in Chechnya ambushing a Russian convoy and killing Russian soldiers. " ----------------------------------------------- Anyone here have the attention span to notice that the rebels in Chechnya that the US called freedom fighters are now called terrorists? Didn't we whine and cry 'oh, the humanity!' when the Russian Army was fighting and killing 'civillians' in Chechnya??? Political convenience and NOTHING MORE defines waht any group is called at a given time. We were for the rebels in Chechnya, now we call them terrorists. Hell, we even show the same video footage of them fighting the Russians but this time talk about how the Russian soldiers are being killed by them (before we said the other way round!).... The Justice department is also whining about not being allowed to do everything they want.... ------------------------------------------------ "We believe the court's action unnecessarily narrowed the Patriot Act and limited our ability to fully utilize the authority Congress gave us," the Justice Department said in a statement. ------------------------------------------------ I was always taught that Congress can not grant additional powers to the government, and that the Constitution and Bill of Rights defined rights that were GOD GIVEN and could not be regulated or controlled by the government...It seems they believe our rights and their power are really theirs.... Time to let 'em know that they have no power the people do not grant them. How long before I'm placed under surveillance for voicing such 'radical' opinions??
Lotharr Posted August 27, 2002 Report Posted August 27, 2002 I've been taking a small break. I relocated to MD and started school. But I'm back....and this is not quite dead. quote: Political convenience and NOTHING MORE defines waht any group is called at a given time. It's all about the Benjamins.... Like always we have fools in power that call for war.....of course themselves and their kids aren't on the chopping block.....just backing their boy.... However, the opposing position is growing daily as the admin cannot provide real facts to justify a potential war with possibly all the Arab nations in the Middle East.with only one or two allies. A Senator from Nebraska was briefed by Defense Department officials and Pentagon officials and they could not provide him with any proof that Saddam is a threat. Did anyone hear Rumsfield make an analogy of going to war with the moon? A very surreal moment. And does anyone realize this will be the first time we start a war? An extremely alarming precedent.
Guest Posted August 27, 2002 Report Posted August 27, 2002 quote: I was always taught that Congress can not grant additional powers to the government, and that the Constitution and Bill of Rights defined rights that were GOD GIVEN and could not be regulated or controlled by the government...It seems they believe our rights and their power are really theirs.... Time to let 'em know that they have no power the people do not grant them. Yep, it is indeed time, I couldn't wait for the Patriot act to hit the courts. I knew that they would narrow it to such a point that it would become moot. But I am getting tired of the legislative branch giving up it's responsibility. It is easier for congress to pass popular reform that is unconstitutional then take the heat from the administration or their consituents. In a republic, the legislative representatives are supposed to protect our rights, even from ourselves. THAT is why this is NOT a democracy. The constitution is the law of the land, and if the people attack it, then congress needs to tell the people that they are wrong, and vice versa. quote: Like always we have fools in power that call for war.....of course themselves and their kids aren't on the chopping block.....just backing their boy.... However, the opposing position is growing daily as the admin cannot provide real facts to justify a potential war with possibly all the Arab nations in the Middle East.with only one or two allies. You need to get out more, the war was started by the terrorists, not us. Iraq had a major piece of the action of 9/11, and of course the Gulf War never really ended. Bush can declare war on Iraq very easily for 2 reasons. A: it has been proven that one of the hijackers met with a high ranking Iraqi intelligence officer just before 9/11, what they discussed etc has not been released. But they met, that is a DIRECT link between Saddaam and AlQuaeda. Bam, the congressional order to Bush after 9/11 covers that. B: Iraq has broken the treaty after the gulf war, by 1: kicking out the UN inspetors, and 2: continuing to try and create WMD weapons. Bush has all that he needs to continue the war on terrorism against Iraq and Saddam, or he has everything he needs to restart the gulf war and operation desert storm, this time going into Baghdad and taking out the garbage, like his father should have. And the other arab nations WILL NOT come to Iraqs aid, you listen to pundits in the media too much. The other arab nations will sit back and watch as the tide turns, if Iraq begins to win, then they might back Iraq, but that ain't gonna happen, so they will sit back as we overthrow the one man that they are all really afraid of, and the one man that keeps the middle east at the boiling point and ready to explode. [ 08-27-2002, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]
Lotharr Posted August 28, 2002 Report Posted August 28, 2002 To often these guys and gals think they know what is best when really they should be listening to their constituents. That is of course if they can focus..catering to corporate interest is a full time job. quote: You need to get out more, the war was started by the terrorists, not us. Iraq had a major piece of the action of 9/11, and of course the Gulf War never really ended. US policy could not possibly have anything to do with the attacks. Your right we are so perfect....when in reality our own cold war policies on arming psychos is coming right back on us. So once more we want to rush to fix the problem....without thought, sanction, or concern for the real people who are going to suffer. Well at least we are taking a minute. Let's just take the Clancy approach and throw our hands in the air and say "There are just bad people in the world....and they have to dealt with" ex navy seal Ramberto thinks as he inserts the extended magazine into the M4 Carbine with laser optical targing sights and thermal imaging equipment blab bla bla...... When I think of all the really cool ways we can fry people I get this excited feeling in my gut that Im mildly ashamed ofbut that shame makes it all the more thrilling..and who could really stop us anyway.right? It is a truly an American feeling.but it wasnt really mine..you have to be in a position of authority to feel like that. quote: A: it has been proven that one of the hijackers met with a high ranking Iraqi intelligence officer just before 9/11, what they discussed etc has not been released. But they met, that is a DIRECT link between Saddaam and AlQuaeda. Hadn't heard that give me your source. quote: Bam, the congressional order to Bush after 9/11 covers that. Ok so by American law it is ok....even if the shakiest of connections is made. What about international law....spare me. I know you could care less. quote: B: Iraq has broken the treaty after the gulf war, by 1: kicking out the UN inspetors, and 2: continuing to try and create WMD weapons. So he is breaking international law....so what!?! That never stopped us. MAYBE WE SHOULD STOP ACTING LIKE HYPOCRITIS. But alas it is the American burden to have to say one thing and do another.to do one thing and say another.general principal is so hard to agree with when at any given time our interests could be in jeopardy..what a load of crap.
Guest Posted August 29, 2002 Report Posted August 29, 2002 quote: US policy could not possibly have anything to do with the attacks. Here we go with the blame America crap again, I am so tired of people telling me how it is all our fault that 3000 people died on 9-11. Sorry, it is the fault of 19 hijackers that hijacked 4 planes and flew them into buildings. That is like saying that a rape victim is at fault because she acted like she wanted it. It's the victims fault, not the people that perpetrated the crime. BS, yeah, some of our policies may upset a minority of people, that does not give them the right to come into our country and kill our people with WMD's, and that's what they turned those planes into. quote: Hadn't heard that give me your source. As I said, you need to get out more and quit listening to network news so much. It has been beaten to death in a number of news sources, besides of course ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC etc. Foxnews has reported it, and so has the BBC. quote: Ok so by American law it is ok....even if the shakiest of connections is made. What about international law....spare me. I know you could care less. American law indeed makes it OK, and the connection is NOT shaky, as a matter of fact there is now proof that Saddam is actually allowing Al Quaeda into Iraq as guests. quote: So he is breaking international law....so what!?! That never stopped us. MAYBE WE SHOULD STOP ACTING LIKE HYPOCRITIS. But alas it is the American burden to have to say one thing and do another.to do one thing and say another.general principal is so hard to agree with when at any given time our interests could be in jeopardy..what a load of crap. Well so far, the US has played world police force for the UN for the last 15 years or so. Every time there is an international incident of some sort, the UN calls us up and says "hey, we need your military to do this." Either it's American law and that makes it NOT all right, or it's international law and that makes it NOT all right, which is it Lothar? Or do you think that we need to wait until Saddam has his nuclear weapons and we can't attack him at all, and we won't be able to stop him from taking over all of Arabia and our main source of energy. Which is his goal by the way. He thinks that it is his destiny to be in charge of all of Arabia,(the middle east). Well, it's either destroy him now, with less casualties or destroy him later and have massive casualties. Which one will it be?
CommanderJohnson Posted September 1, 2002 Report Posted September 1, 2002 Well, Jaguar covered most of it, and I especially liked the rape victim analogy. "It's her fault for quote:So he is breaking international law....so what!?! That never stopped us. MAYBE WE SHOULD STOP ACTING LIKE HYPOCRITIS. Ok, you need to choose. Either breaking international law is bad, thus it should be stopped at all points (thus justifying us stopping Iraq), or international law doesn't matter (thus the US can do whatever the hell we want and thus stopping Iraq). And before you try it, you can't attach the condition "if the US follows international law, then everyone else should", because at that point it does two things: 1. Points out that international law can begin to be followed at any time, proving the: a. Unimportance of international law b. Ability of the US to attack Iraq, and THEN start to follow international law. 2. Makes it just as fair/logical/just to say "if international law says the US can attack Iraq, then we should follow international law." or any other number of things. Causes it to become infintely regressive of "if this, then this", making the whole concept impossible and never happen.
Lotharr Posted September 10, 2002 Report Posted September 10, 2002 quote: BS, yeah, some of our policies may upset a minority of people, that does not give them the right to come into our country and kill our people with WMD's, and that's what they turned those planes into. Wrong our policies piss off a lot of people. From that large group those that are most effected by these policies join these terror groups. To believe that responsibility is with every and anything besides us is idiotic....it is complicated but to deny our own involvement is a very American sentiment....and very counter productive when trying to find a lasting solution. quote: As I said, you need to get out more and quit listening to network news so much. It has been beaten to death in a number of news sources, besides of course ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC etc. Foxnews has reported it, and so has the BBC. You get out more. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...3-2002Sep9.html This is your corporate crap media the Washington Post and it is saying that a link cannot be proved. In fact it talks about high rank admin in the Bush group lying basically....and you bought it like a good little war monger.....yo joe. There is no link between terrorists and Iraq. President Bush has no right to take unilateral action or start a war without the consent of Congress...bottom line. quote: American law indeed makes it OK, and the connection is NOT shaky, as a matter of fact there is now proof that Saddam is actually allowing Al Quaeda into Iraq as guests. Any other fairy tales? quote: Well, it's either destroy him now, with less casualties or destroy him later and have massive casualties. Which one will it be? Not accurate. quote: Ok, you need to choose. Either breaking international law is bad, thus it should be stopped at all points (thus justifying us stopping Iraq), or international law doesn't matter (thus the US can do whatever the hell we want and thus stopping Iraq). All need to follow international law.especially America. America and other forces...primarily those with "power" abuse this idea constantly and undercut it's effectiveness. Perhaps the world will have to experience another enormous tragedy before it realizes that only through genuine cooperation can a lasting peace be established. [ 09-10-2002, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
Guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Posted September 10, 2002 quote: Perhaps the world will have to experience another enormous tragedy before it realizes that only through genuine cooperation can a lasting peace be established. You're very naive, there is only one way to insure peace. Peace through superior firepower and the will to use it. That is the only way to bring peace. The links to Iraq with Al Quaeda etc are growing stronger and stronger each day. Iraq is linked to the Palestinian, he is paying $25000 to each family of a suicide bomber. He is linked to the Cole bombing, he is linked to the 1993 world trade center bombing, he is linked DIRECTLY to the embassy bombings. He is also linked to Oklahoma city believe it or not and he is now linked to September 11th. He is now ALSO harboring Al quaeda in and around Baghdad. You need to search the net a bit more, and when I trust the american media will be the day that they start actually reporting news. The BBC has a number of stories about what is going on and the links, the Israeli newspapers have all kinds of interesting articles, and Al jazeera is absolutely fascinating. Maybe you need to get out there and look for news, instead of just letting it fall in your lap. We have every right to go after Saddam and Iraq, and guess what? We are!!! No matter how much you cry your liberal cries, no matter how many times you sout your liberal lies, we are going to get rid of Saddam, and there will be peace in the middle east like there never has been before. Peace, THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER AND THE WILL TO USE IT.
Guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Posted September 10, 2002 I really liked this article, so I thought that I would post it here and see what kind of reaction I get. Should be interesting!! quote:Article in the Telegraph(UK) by Michael Ledeen America's revenge: To Turn Tyrannies into Democracies Those who said that America - and perhaps even the world at large - would never be the same after September 11 turn out to have been right only in part. American legislators have not found any anthrax in their recent mail, and so some of them, encouraged by recent remarks from officials of previous administrations, wonder openly whether further combat in the Middle East is even necessary. They are insisting not only that President George W Bush provide them with a convincing bill of particulars regarding Saddam Hussein, but also that they approve any future action. This despite their full endorsement of such action on September 14 last. In short, business as usual. Some other things have certainly changed. The pre-September 11 George W Bush was a relatively colourless figure, uncomfortable with international affairs and, despite his strong religious faith, largely bereft of what his father famously referred to as "the vision thing". The post-September 11 President is decisive, fully engaged in his mission, and quite eloquent on the war against terrorism, with an economy of language that we have not heard from a president since Truman. Similarly, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, who had been tagged as the cabinet member least likely to succeed, has become a matinee idol. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, may score higher in the polls, but nobody races to the television to watch his press conferences; they do Rumsfeld's. The transformation began immediately after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Centre, and Mr Rumsfeld told his staff: "I've been around for a while, and, believe me, this is not the last one we'll see today." The greatest change has come among the American people themselves. Americans are the first people in history to believe that peace is the normal condition of mankind, but this reassuring conviction was effectively shattered, for this generation at least, on September 11. Americans now believe, with Machiavelli, that there are many people who are more inclined to do evil than to do good, and the only way to deal with them is to dominate them. They hope and believe that Saddam will not be the last terrorist tyrant to fall at their hands. Americans are traditionally in a great hurry, but they have shown great patience with this president. They recognise that the war will be long and they trust that they have somehow struck lucky with their leader at a moment of peril. Recent drops in the President's popularity suggest that the people's patience may be wearing a bit thin, but now it seems that action is imminent and they will soon find out if Mr Bush is up to this challenge. The Americans may have been patient so far, but, as General Patton once reminded his troops, Americans can't stand a loser. Yet it is hard to imagine America will lose. So long as the people are convinced they are well led, and the war goes well, they will support it. One has a tendency to forget that, in the Second World War, it took nearly two years after Pearl Harbor before decisive victories were achieved, yet the American people did not waver. Americans are not fond of realpolitik; they are a people of crusades and spasms. They almost never fight limited wars for limited objectives (most Americans now believe the 1991 Gulf war was excessively limited); as Ronald Reagan said, the country is too great to have small ambitions. Few have noticed that President Bush has in fact outlined a war of vast dimensions. Lurking behind the awkward phrase "regime change" is a vision of a war to destroy the Middle Eastern tyrannies and replace them with freer societies, as was done in Japan and Germany after the Second World War. Early on after the September 11 attack, it was widely said that America would have to fight a new kind of war, conducted in large part in the shadows, with covert instruments and secret warriors. In the event, it turns out to be a very traditional sort of war, because they have found that the common denominator of their enemies is tyranny. The states that undergird the terror network are Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia. They do not share ethnicity (Iranians are not Arabs) or even religious conviction (both Saddam and the Assad family in Syria came to power as secular socialists), but they are all petty tyrants. And the most lethal weapon against them is the people they oppress. The Iranians demonstrate almost ceaselessly against the mullahcracy in Teheran; in recent days, there has been street fighting in Isfahan, political demonstrations in Teheran, and the petroleum pipeline has been shut down in Tabriz. Student leaders have called for a nationwide demonstration today, a clear sign of the Iranian people's desire for freedom. The Iraqis were willing to risk everything in the final weeks of the Gulf war, and the unreliability of Saddam's armies is well known. If Iranians and Iraqis are freed, the Syrian dictatorship cannot possibly survive, and the Saudi royal family would have to choose between shutting down its worldwide network of radical Wahhabi mosques or facing the same destiny as the others. A war on such a scale has hardly been mentioned by commentators and politicians, yet it is implicit in everything President Bush has said and done. He has directed the creation of an Iraqi government-in-exile that is committed to democracy, and he has promised the Iranian people that America will support them in their desire for freedom. He has recognised that democracy is essential for peace between Palestinians and Israelis, and that requirement surely extends throughout the entire region. In one of those delightful paradoxes in which history so delights, America's enemies sought to destroy it on September 11, only to find their own survival at mortal risk. And all those who said the world would never be the same, thinking that America had been fundamentally shaken and demoralised, will soon find that, instead, America's enemies will be the subject of revolutionary change at its hands. The author is a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of The War Against the Terror Masters (St Martin's Press)
IceCold Posted September 11, 2002 Report Posted September 11, 2002 quote: There is no link between terrorists and Iraq. President Bush has no right to take unilateral action or start a war without the consent of Congress...bottom line. Incorrect. The president has the authority to engage military forces for a period of 90 days. (I am not exactly sure on the length but 90 days seems about right.) Japan was the last country we declared war on and was the last country we were at war with. Vietnam, Korea, the liberation of Kuwait, Somalia, and Panama were the result of the president's executive orders. The only factor that bothers me is that there were drafts for conflicts where war was not declared. In short, the president can invade any country anytime and can start a draft to support that invasion without the approval or counsel of congress. [ 09-10-2002, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: IceCold ]
Guest MIKE113 Posted September 11, 2002 Report Posted September 11, 2002 We wouldn't need a draft, I know there are over 4 million registered hunters in Florida alone! Just ask and we will come!
Lotharr Posted September 11, 2002 Report Posted September 11, 2002 quote: In short, the president can invade any country anytime and can start a draft to support that invasion without the approval or counsel of congress. I am aware of that. When fast action is required we can't sit in committee and discuss it. However, since we are considering attacking a country when there is no immanent danger, I don't see how one man can have the right to put this country in a war. It is all so classified that who are we to decide our fate? That would be too democratic wouldn't it....yes we all know when the people of a given society make decisions for that society you can kiss it goodbye.....not. Anyway....so all the upper house folks should be cleared to hear of any doomsday weapon and should have no problem getting together and voting for war.....oh wait....they want to be briefed also....or they have and it is thin evidence.. And why do other heads of state not support this? They should have been briefed also....oh yeah cause their all a bunch of selfish piece nicks or something...... This whole thing stinks. quote: Peace, THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER AND THE WILL TO USE IT. That would make a great bumper sticker.... Yep superior firepower worked in Vietnam...yep just got to lean forward....just take those casualties...it's all in the math er.oops. quote: No matter how much you cry your liberal cries, no matter how many times you sout your liberal lies, we are going to get rid of Saddam, and there will be peace in the middle east like there never has been before. Remember that crap if one of our cities goes up in a puff...or we have to watch bulldozers push scores of bodies into decon trenches .....but I don't think they will look much like people anymore. And for what? Do you even own an SUV? And I realize this probably doesn't bother you. It is clear you don't value human life. Just American life...and thats a maybe. You are ready to make the tough call...like the nuke freaks in the cold war that actually thought someone could actually win something like that. Most knew deterrence was important. But some (and I bet this would be you) thought we could win..you and your kind are scary. You believe in power and you fail to grasp motivation. This country has power but that culture has motivation. A medieval motivation that is truly amazing and horrific when pushed to it. We need to fight the good fight. This is not it. If the world comes together then it is the good fight. If they don't then war would be the action of a rogue nation and the shame would be on all of us. In closing your article was crap and you need to provide links to any of your other so called evidence. You really should just put in the link and save space.....I would read it. We were supposed to be fighting the war on terror but we would rather destroy that international support after a good start.....I hope the UN makes a choice and we adhere to it. Sharing power...like candy.can be hard, but it needs to happen. Power corrupts.... ... ....and you know and are the rest.
Guest Posted September 11, 2002 Report Posted September 11, 2002 So Lothar, are you gonna be one of those little leftist protesters out at Berkeley protesting the war? Sorry, But you are so wrong that it is unreal. Young and naive is not an excuse, use your brain. The only thing that terrorists understand is force, we are that force. We have been attacked, it is our responsibility to respond with overwhelming force. To compare this to Vietnam is not only agregious, it is not even close. In Vietnam the will to fight and win was not there. We now have the will, and tell me one good reson that we should share power with a bunch of despots in the UN. We are the ONLY superpower, WE have been attacked, IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY and duty to fight back. No matter what a bunch of eurotrash and their little socialist governments think. We are going into Iraq, Saddam is linked to all of the happenings of AlQuaeda. Money is what makes these terrorist organizations exist. and once their sponsors are gone, so are they. The article above is right on the mark, it says exactly what is should say, and says exactly what most other papers should be saying. Cry, cry cry, NO WAR, NO WAR, well sorry, we didn't start it, but we WILL FINISH IT!! They attacked us, and killed CIVILIANS, that is the act of barbarians, and those barbarians are going to die, they will be punished and we do not need permission from anyone or anything to destroy those that have attacked us. No matter what you would like to think. The UN has no power in this, and will not have any power in this. Bush is going to go there, look those freaks in the eye, and tell them, you are either with us, or against us. Make your choice now.
Guest Posted September 11, 2002 Report Posted September 11, 2002 Hey, This will tell you how pissed I am about 9/11 and the terrorists. quote: 200 years from now, I want their children's children's children's children to cower and cringe in fear whenever they hear the sounds of jet engines overhead because their legends tell of fire from the sky. I want them to hide in dark caves and holes in the earth, shivering with terror whenever they hear the roar of diesel engines because the tales of their ancestors talk about metal monsters crawling over the earth, spitting death and destruction. I want their mothers to be able to admonish them with "If you don't behave, the Pale Destroyers will come for you", and that will be enough to reduce them to quivering obesience. I want the annihilation to be so complete that their mythology will tell them of the day of judgment when the stern gods from across the sea .. the powerful 'Mericans .. destroyed their forefathers' wickedness.
Lotharr Posted September 11, 2002 Report Posted September 11, 2002 Fear leads to hate. Don't be so scared and you won't hate them so much. 80% of what you advocate is aggression without thought, ignorance and intolerance. You may well get your war....but no one will really win. Only losers like you will think something will be accomplished. And then we both get to watch as our soldiers have to guard an area surrounded by terrorists. And we have to pay for it. Tens of billions of dollars. A heavy bill for three countries to pay. As we suffer more attacks we will have to respond.another cycle of hate.I dont want to be like Israel. We risk pushing a culture into a holy war.but not a conventional one. They will operate out of the shadows and into the shadow our forces will go. Our personal freedoms and innocent lives are at stake here. The document you claim to cherish so much will most likely be more abused then it already is. It is not worth going alone. I feel bad for you...it is not your fault that you buy into the fear. It is a systemic problem....maybe someone you care about will have to pay for your hate before you will look around for another answer. I suggest you start by looking inside yourself. From there take a look at certain policies and political ideologies that we take for granted for some real answers....
Guest $iLk Posted September 11, 2002 Report Posted September 11, 2002 This isn't about Iraq. Iraq is symbolic. The way I see it, President Bush's strategy is to carry the 'war on terror' to Iraq, in order to cause countries such as North Korea, etc. to back down. Iraq is symbolic because we have half an excuse to attack them. What I don't agree with is Bush's drumming up support with his popularity rating and little or no evidence to support his claims. Why Iraq? He named an 'axis' of terror, why aren't we marching into Korea? Or the Phillipines? What I don't agree with is the subterfuge, but it makes sense to me now. Iraq is going to be the first of others if they don't get their act together. An example is being made of Hussein. Nothing more.
Guest Posted September 11, 2002 Report Posted September 11, 2002 Lothar, I am not afraid of these cowards, nor do I hate them. They use violence against civilians to make political statements, this means that they are now fair game. Their goal is our destruction, or did you not realize this. Their goal is to have the entire world becom a muslim state. or were you not aware of this either. Oh yes, we are going to sit down with them and talk, yeah right, and as we are talking they will plunge a knife in our backs. This is war Lothar, it's not pretty, it's not sexy, it's not kumbaya buddy, they have killed our people on our soil. It is time for them to die. They have declared war on our culture, our lifestyles, they will be haapy only when we are all giving praise to Allah and allow a taliban like group to control us. THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT Lothar. They want you dead, they want me dead, they want all the infidels dead. So, unless you are ready to convert to Islam, then the time to fight is now. Otherwise, go hide in your hole while the rest of do our best to save you from yourself and them. THe time for talk and peace is over, now is the time for war and to defend that which we believe in. So lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. My children will NOT grow up with the threat of terrorism hanging over them. My children will grow up in a world that is safer because we destroyed that which is trying to destroy us. When you have children and must worry about their welfare above your own, maybe you will be willing to look at the world the way it really is. [ 09-11-2002, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]
Lotharr Posted September 11, 2002 Report Posted September 11, 2002 You are just arrogant. I hope your children (or anyone's) don't have to suffer for this state endorsed lunacy.... As for fighting with every dictator or "evil" force out there I guess we have our work cut out for us... One would think we might need some help with something like that....or does everyone think we can just crush anyone and anything we want? So we need another Vietnam eh? It will be different but it will be the same. Yeah you all probably do.blinded by the power of American sunshine....anyway I'm out of this until some new stuff comes out. I just wanted to sound off with the facts. No link can be proven between terrorists and Iraq.... When government violates law it teaches a lesson to its citizens..... When a government violates another nation and sponsors oppressive regimes and terror groups for "freedom" it teaches a lesson..... Oh yeah and every time you seek to stop another from speaking their mind you show your ignorance, fear and lack of respect for the idea of democracy.
Guest Posted September 11, 2002 Report Posted September 11, 2002 This is NOT a democracy, it is a REPUBLIC!! Get over it Lothar, I am sorry, but your facts aren't facts at all. The links are there. The fact that Saddam finances these crazies cannot be denied. Saddam is going down, and down hard, and we will rebuild Iraq in Turkeys image and Syria and Iran will go down from within right after. All that because terrorists backed by Saddam took down the towers. They are going to all be dead by the time we are through. My children will actually live in a world at peace, it will take much work and destruction before it is done. That is the price that is payed for peace. We pay for peace about every 20 years, and the problem is that many, such as yourself don't seem to realize it. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It is time to refresh it with the blood of a tyrant before he sheds the blood of our citizens in terrorist attacks with WMD's that they get from Saddam. The time is now, because later will be too late. I guess it will take another major incident to convince you, this too bad. I am not willing to give up 100,000 american citizens before we strike. How many Americans must die before you will finally say ENOUGH?!! It is time to strike... It took 69% of us 3000 lives, how many will it take to convince you?
CommanderJohnson Posted September 12, 2002 Report Posted September 12, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Yep superior firepower worked in Vietnam...yep just got to lean forward....just take those casualties...it's all in the math er.oops. Oh come on. This would be nothing like Vietnam, and we both know it. Sure, it sounds good "we dont want another Vietnam", but so many things were against us in Vietnam that are untrue in Iraq it's ridiculous: 1. We've gone to Iraq before, already proved it isn't another Vietnam. 2. Vietnam was in jungle warfare that the troops weren't prepared for and heavy equipment couldn't be accurately used, nor could our extremely advanced (comparitively speaking) tech. 3. Couldn't fight an offensive war cause of China. 4. Didn't have the true support of the nation. Attacking Iraq we'd have almost every advantage. We could use our tanks, planes, and other tech. The troops have been trained for open and urban combat, they wont have any allies, the people will support it in the US (for the most part...Bush isn't going to do it halfheartedly. I think he'd rather not be re-elected than back down from Saddam), and we've already proven it'll work. There are other reasons too, but it isn't going to be a Vietnam. More likely be an Afghanistan or Ksosovo. (oh yeah, and if you remember, the liberals said Afghanistan would be a Vietnam. Wow, really?!?!?) quote: And I realize this probably doesn't bother you. It is clear you don't value human life. Just American life...and thats a maybe. You are ready to make the tough call...like the nuke freaks in the cold war that actually thought someone could actually win something like that. Most knew deterrence was important. But some (and I bet this would be you) thought we could win..you and your kind are scary.Um, American life is human life. I think all of us here value HUMAN life, it's just that when it comes down to AMERICAN life vs IRAQI life, we would much prefer that IRAQI life is lost than ours, and that goes directly with NATURAL LAW. If your threatened, you have every right in the world to kill the source of danger. It doesn't matter how dangerous he is RIGHT NOW, it's how dangerous he CAN be, is TRYING to be, or is GOING to be. Saddam=threat, better he dies and Iraqis die than Americans die. We don't need to WAIT to die before stopping the threat. Also, I don't think any of us here think that we would have survived a nuclear exhcnage with the USSR. This is notably different, especially since no one who CURRENTLY has nuclear weapons would be stupid enough to sacrifice their country and power just to take out some Americans. These radical, propoganda filled, totalitarian islamci states however (Iraq included), have no problem with losing all the lives in their country after killing Americans (since they will ALL go to heaven with 50 virgins...remember?) At least Stalin and the other USSR heads didn't think that getting killed was bright. quote: You believe in power and you fail to grasp motivation. This country has power but that culture has motivation. A medieval motivation that is truly amazing and horrific when pushed to it.Just had a discussion on this today being 9/11 and all. Lets think about this: The countries that are greatest supporters of terrorism are totalitarian regimes, and generally muslim. These governments directly support the idea that American culture is evil. The people in charge may recognize some sort of economic or political injustice on them by the US (but not really an injustice on them, since the ones in charge are RICH...the ones in power only advocate attacking America since America is a threat), but their people's motivation is simply fed to them. They truly belive that Americans and America is EVIL, because of the indocterination of that belief by groups in power which caters to their religion (all they really have when kept oppressed). They believe that killing Americans and dying in the process will get them to heaven. They believe this at the same level we believe that if we don't breathe, we will die. This is all good, but it all falls back to the totalitarian regimes. The regimes in the Middle East realize that the more power the US projects, the more danger there oppressive regimes are in of falling because their people will become more and more informed. Israel is an example of freedom in the Middle East, and that is why they are hated by surrounding Muslim regimes. The United States is going to attack Iraq, and they don't want to see Iraq attacked because that would be another free nation in the Middle East. In order to maintain power, the Arab nations convince people to hate the United States and Israel and other democratic nations. It comes down to good vs evil, and moral relativism is pure ****. Either natural law is right, and people should be free, or not. Take your pick. If you believe in your convictions and you believe oppression is evil, you can't say "let them suffer and break free themselves". We must use our power to help them and free them, otherwise we are LETTING the oppression continue which is just as bad as oppressing them ourselves. The reason why people are taught to hate us is because our values directly contradict theirs. We believe in freedom, their governments believe in religious based totalitarianism. We believe in the rights of all in our country and support diversity, they believe in oppressing anything that is a threat or different. When we project our power in any way, that is a THREAT to their nations, and those in power react violently and by propoganda. Some of you may say that we should just stop projecting our influence and leave it alone. Some of you may think it'll solve the problem. It won't. The United States is STILL a beacon of freedom, as is Israel. Our values clash regardless of what power we project. Waiting for more problems just delays the inevitable and lets them enemies more powerful. You may think it's wrong to "control another nation", but it's not if the other nation is oppressive now. The idea and concept of oppression, as a whole, is wrong. We keep debating whether or not the US should attack Iraq and how the US is going to cause pain to itself by being active, but so what? Through eliminating totalitarian regimes (which is what we are going to do, I bet we aren't going to stop with Iraq), we are freeing people. We are getting rid of EVIL regimes. I don't know how any of you can justify NOT attacking Iraq on humanitarian grounds, while these nations OPPRESS THEIR PEOPLE ANYWAY. Let their people live in peace, even though they are living in virtual slavery? Your living in a dream world if you think every person who hates America hates America because they are well informed and made a concious decision (the majority doesnt have the access to media and information). It comes down to politics. Regimes want to stay in power. Us spreading freedom makes their regimes weaken. They try to scare the US off with terrorism. We get rid of regimes, the people stop the terrorism (or even if they don't, it stops their capability. a bunch of poor oppressed muslims in Iran can't swim across the Atlantic ocean or book passage on a ship with bags of sand). quote: We need to fight the good fight. This is not it. If the world comes together then it is the good fight. If they don't then war would be the action of a rogue nation and the shame would be on all of us. Rogue nation is a threat constructive term that the United States coined in order to justify negative relations with North Korea, Iraq, Libya, etc. It holds no real meaning. There would be no shame in taking out Iraq. Just because every other nation in the world has no convictions behind any sense of decency or morality is no reason for the United States not to. Sure, the US is full of immorality, but letting oppressive regimes exist is worse than inadvertantly killing civilians in a war. Your advocating a double standard and it's repugant! Look: 1. The United States should not oppress other nations because it oppresses and hurts the people and causes negative reactions toward us. (inversly, your advocating you must want us to help the people and think the people should not be oppressed) 2. The United States should not attack other nations because it could kill their civilians and it doesn't go along with the "international community". (inversly, your advocating we should not let civilians of other nations die, and we should do what the "international community" wants) Ok, fine, that's great, you seem to be advocating that human life is very important, and people should not be oppressed. I'm guessing you'd agree with those two statements? If i'm wrong, feel free, but before you answer, note this: 3. The other nations oppress and kill their people TO BEGIN WITH. Your advocating that we LET OPPRESSION CONTINUE because it'd be bad for us to end it? And those oppressive regimes should continue to try to kill AMERICAN LIVES? The oppression by the US and current regimes would even out (I think the US would be less oppressive, but i'll even say that it evens out), then it comes down to the lives. Do we let the regimes CONTINUE hating us because of our values, and thus put American lives at risk, or do we replace the CURRENT oppressive regime with a US supported regime (oppressive or not, doensn't matter), where American lives ARENT at risk. No matter how you look at it, lives are better off with Iraq attacks and taking out totalitarian regimes. If it is right to attack Iraq morally, it shouldn't MATTER if other nations support us or not. Morality isn't relative or a democracy. Either oppression is wrong and ending those regimes is right, or we should let oppression continue and everything we stand for means nothing. It'd be nice if we get other nations to support us, but if they don't see the simple fact that an attack on Iraq would be RIGHT under nautral law and just about every other form of common decency, then it doesn't change the objective truth that oppression is wrong, and those regimes oppressions of their people is wrong. If you want to argue that Iraq's own people aren't oppressed, i'll simply preempt that with the fact they have no CHOICE in their government, and the fact Saddam GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE. We didn't put no-fly zones over Iraq just because we were bored. quote:Fear leads to hate. Don't be so scared and you won't hate them so much. 80% of what you advocate is aggression without thought, ignorance and intolerance. You may well get your war....but no one will really win. Only losers like you will think something will be accomplished. Stop the ad hominem arguments. The arguments may be stupid, but the supporter of the argument isn't a loser. Also, the causality links are breaking down. Iraq is another Vietnam? Iraq caused 9/11? The constitution is going to be destroyed by attacking Iraq? C'mon guys, lets try to keep some form of cohesion and rational thinking in our discussion, and if your going to say something not posted or implied by every piece of media, give a link or two. We all know the general history of Saddam's insanity and politics, but even I haven't heard any evidence dierctly linking Saddam to 9/11. Not that I care either, since being an oppressive regime and violating weapons inspections is enough for me. Anyway my rant is over, I know it's sort of incoherent and long, so if anyone wants me to clarify a point, I will, but to sum up: 1. Oppression is bad. 2. Iraq's regime is oppressive. 3. We are getting attacked because our ideals directly clash (and is thus a threat) with oppression no matter what our Foreign Policy is. 4. Either you advocate oppression or you don't. If oppression is wrong, it should be ended. Just because more countries "vote" that we shouldn't stop the oppression doesn't mean that it's NOT oppression and that it's NOT wrong. Wrong is wrong, wrong isn't a democracy, and the concept of letting Iraq continue oppressing it's people is tantamount to letting a rape happen when you could have stopped it. On the other hand, if you think oppression is fine, then you shouldn't have any objection to us using up our stockpile of weapons and bombing Iraq to radioactive glass and becoming more powerful along the way.
Lotharr Posted September 12, 2002 Report Posted September 12, 2002 quote: but even I haven't heard any evidence dierctly linking Saddam to 9/11 Yup.... quote: 1. Oppression is bad. Keep in mind that if we invade Iraq the Arab out cry for action would be very, very strong....how do you think those governments are going to keep the peace....if they even try.....duh.....they are going to be cracking heads all over...but they are Muslim so I'm sure you could live with that.... I'm out...for now.
CommanderJohnson Posted September 12, 2002 Report Posted September 12, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Keep in mind that if we invade Iraq the Arab out cry for action would be very, very strong....how do you think those governments are going to keep the peace....if they even try.....duh.....they are going to be cracking heads all over...but they are Muslim so I'm sure you could live with that.... I'm out...for now.Gerwith, a Professor of Philosophy @ University of Chicago stated: " The required supplement is provided by the principle of the intervening action. According to this priciple, when there is a causal connection between some person A's performing some action (or inaction) X and some other person C's incurring a certain harm Z, A's moral responsibility for Z is removed if, between X and Z, there intervenes some other action Y of some person B who knows the relevant circumstances of his action who intends to produce Z or who produces Z through recklessness. The reason for this removal is that B's interventing action Y is the more direct or proximate cause of Z and, unlike A's action (or inaction), Y is the sufficient condition of Z as it actually occurs. An example of this principle may help to show its connection with the absolutist thesis. Martain Luther King Jr. was repeatedly told that because he led demonstrations in support of civil rights, he was morally responsible for the disorders, riots, and deaths that ensured and that were shaking the American Republic to its foundations. By the principle of the intervening action, however, it was King's opponents who were responsible because their intervention operated as the sufficient conditions of the riots and injuries. King might also have replied that the REpublic would not be worth saving if the price that had to be paid was the violation of the civil rights of black Americans. As for the rights of the other Americans to peace and order, the reply would be that these rights cannot justifiably be secured at the price of the rights of blacks." Applying it to your objection, we should look at the parallel. MLK was fighting a moral injustice even though he knew it was cause a negative reaction, and even deaths. Two concepts then came into play: 1. The idea that it wasn't HIS fault that the people died, it's the fact that the opposition groups to him killed them or the rioters made the decision. 2. The fact that a loss of rights and ignoring a moral justification makes any loss of life worthwhile due to solving an oppression of a group of people. The same concept applies to any attack on Iraq or any other totalitarian nation. We are stopping a direct opppression/moral injustice/denial of rights. The intervening actor, or the totalitarian governments, the propoganda, and radical groups calling out for revenge, are the cause of any sort of retaliation by other muslims and any sort of unrest in the Middle East. The same two factors come into play: 1. It isn't OUR fault that there will be much head-cracking by Muslims. It is the intervening actors that feed them the propoganda that we are trying to destroy them (as opposed to freeing them), as well as the people who decide to become violent. We don't cause them to become violent, just like MLK didn't cause people to attack his marches and protests. 2. The fact that a loss of rights and ignoring a moral justification makes any loss of life worthwhile due to solving an oppression of a group of people (the Arabs who are living in the stone age politically). Additionally, it saves American lives. You can't justify not acting just because other actors may or will do violent acts. Sure, many people may die, but I don't know one group in history that has preferred oppression to death after they are made aware of the injustice. [ 09-11-2002, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]
Lotharr Posted September 12, 2002 Report Posted September 12, 2002 Ok this is itreally.... It is never OUR fault..... Wake up and smell the stuff your shoveling....
CommanderJohnson Posted September 12, 2002 Report Posted September 12, 2002 Your attempting to argue against a moral calculus that is the fundamental basis for every group that has freed themselves from oppression throughout history. You can't worry about extrinsic factors that are not directly under your control when attempting to fight against oppression, otherwise oppression always wins. Simply put, it ISNT our fault, just like it's not my fault if I kill someone trying to kill me, and because of that the robber's brother kills my family. I'm morally justified in defending myself. It's not *MY* fault that my family is dead, it's the brother's fault. If we take out Iraq, it's not OUR fault that idiotic governments start killing their own people. We're morally justified in stopping the oppression of a group of people. It's not OUR FAULT that their people are killing each other, it's the GOVERNMENTS fault. I may not totally understand the world, but there is the concept of FREE WILL which every person on this planet has, and directly contradicts your idea that people shouldn't act morally because bad results could happen. Under your "logic", if there was a holocaust happening right now in Iran, we shouldn't stop it because other Arabs would get mad because of it and they might kill each other. What kind of morality are you operating under, because as it stands your making two distinct points: 1. We should preserve human life. (not do anything that might even possibility cause death) 2. We should not preserve human life. (allow any atrocities to happen to any group because action may violate #1) I fail to see any coherence. We should let people die through our complicity but not our actions? It is better to LET people die than try to stop it? Do you somehow sleep better at night thinking that if you do NOTHING to stop an atrocity, that somehow that's better than doing good and trying to stop the atrocity? Does it ever cross your mind that maybe doing the morally right thing and possibly causing physical pain is better than doing the morally wrong thing (through complicity) and allowing oppression? You can't say that people have a right to live and then leave out the fact that they also have a right to live with RIGHTS and FREEDOMS. It is far better to *attempt* to keep a person *alive*, *free*, **AND** with *rights* than to *assure* that a person is kept *alive* ***without*** *freedom* and *WITHOUT* *rights*. You find one person who HAS been oppressed under a totalitarian regime and is now free, that would rather be back in that oppression than face the POSSIBILITY of death. Too bad there isn't anyone.
Guest Posted September 13, 2002 Report Posted September 13, 2002 OK, I understood that you guys, mainly Lothar wanted Proof that Iraq and Al Quaeda have been and are cooperating in the terrorist activity. You want proof, go here, and it has yet to be updated with the very latest Info either. It is a geocities page and it just crashed out, I will get it saved on my harddrive and get it up on a mirror site and new link later tonight. [ 09-13-2002, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now