The Iraq War: Somehow Even Worse than you Thought?
-
Oakman wrote:
Actually we have a great number of laws on the books specifically designed to protect our freedom.
br mode="hold" /> "Protection" implies security if you bother to actually think about what you are saying. Yes, there are laws that, for example, protect my right to vote. I like that law because I'm afraid someone might otherwise deprive me of it. I could take a gun and exercise my freedom to vote in my own way But instead, I trade freedom for security and depend upon the law. But there are many laws which are overtly about trading freedom for security. Laws tht force me to pay social security for example. Hell, the very concept of civilization is nothing but trading freedom for security.
Oakman wrote:
That's really pathetic, Stan, you know that? Really pathetic. Kinda reminds me of "Whip me! Beat me! Make me write bad checks!"
Yes because my right to do something that is not even mentioned in the constitution is so much more important to me than the lives of my countrymen. Wow, are you a lover of liberty er whut?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
America was founded by men who understood that the threat of domestic tyranny is as great as any threat from abroad. If we want to be worthy of their legacy, we must resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society. Otherwise, our own government will become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist. Until you feel that in your bones, discussing this with you is an exercise in futility. Sheep do not make good citizens. By the way I won't be notified of your response, if any. I'm bored.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
As an opponent of European totalitarianism, would you not agree that the left is, in fact, fascist? Look at Mussolini's agenda and tell me that of Clinton or Obama is all that much different. You seem to go ape shit if someone puts a tap on a wire that you don't even own, so how do you feel about being forced by the state to pay for someone else's health care?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
No, I don't think the left is fascist. I think that all governments, sooner or later, tend towards fascism. There's only a little difference between the changes America has undergone since the days of the republic and the changes Rome went through since. . .the days of the republic. If Obama or Clinton is elected, can we expect the same strong defense of them that we have had from you re: Bush? Well you continue to damn those who decry any usurpation of liberty they make with the same vehemence you use against me when I point out Bush's mendacity? Ironically, if you say you will, I will continue to be the object of your scorn. But then I'm very comfortable with that. Knowing I drive you nuts assures me I have a firm grasp on reality.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
America was founded by men who understood that the threat of domestic tyranny is as great as any threat from abroad. If we want to be worthy of their legacy, we must resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society. Otherwise, our own government will become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist. Until you feel that in your bones, discussing this with you is an exercise in futility. Sheep do not make good citizens. By the way I won't be notified of your response, if any. I'm bored.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
America was founded by men who understood that the threat of domestic tyranny is as great as any threat from abroad. If we want to be worthy of their legacy, we must resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society. Otherwise, our own government will become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist. Until you feel that in your bones, discussing this with you is an exercise in futility. Sheep do not make good citizens.
To equate listening to telephone conversations with ever-increasing state control given the history of such over the 20th century is simply ridiculous. The IRS monitors every single bank transaction you make in real time - that is in an overt violation of some of the most important protections the founders created for us. Don't talk to me about being a sheep if you support that.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
No, I don't think the left is fascist. I think that all governments, sooner or later, tend towards fascism. There's only a little difference between the changes America has undergone since the days of the republic and the changes Rome went through since. . .the days of the republic. If Obama or Clinton is elected, can we expect the same strong defense of them that we have had from you re: Bush? Well you continue to damn those who decry any usurpation of liberty they make with the same vehemence you use against me when I point out Bush's mendacity? Ironically, if you say you will, I will continue to be the object of your scorn. But then I'm very comfortable with that. Knowing I drive you nuts assures me I have a firm grasp on reality.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
No, I don't think the left is fascist.
So, you don't consider the courts usurping the 9th and 10th amendments to promote humanist principles to not be fascist? You don't believe that government control of schools, the Roe v Wade decision, the overturning of sodomy laws, the legalization of flag burning to not be based upon fascist principles even though all of those ideas are based upon fascist orthodoxy? If so, you don't have a clue as to what this debate is even about.
Oakman wrote:
If Obama or Clinton is elected, can we expect the same strong defense of them that we have had from you re: Bush?
I will support what ever efforts they deem appropriate in the prosecution of their constitutional responsibilities as commander inchief to defend the nation. If they commit troops with the approval of the congress I will certainly not impugn their motives even if I do publically disagree with their decisions. Precisely as I have with Bush. If I feel there has been any abuse of power, I will insist that my congressional representatives take appropriate action. I will take no public actions which would embolden any enemy against which our troops have been obligated to defeat by the very people we have elected to office. Beyond that, however, I have frequently openly avowed that I am a traitor to the agenda of the left. They are facists. The entire intellectual history of the left is rooted in European fascism. The agenda they promote is purely a fascist agenda and maintains no respect for the founding principles of this nation. If there were a war to destroy those poltical principles I would happily join the effort. I would fight and kill other Americans to do so.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Oakman wrote:
No, I don't think the left is fascist.
So, you don't consider the courts usurping the 9th and 10th amendments to promote humanist principles to not be fascist? You don't believe that government control of schools, the Roe v Wade decision, the overturning of sodomy laws, the legalization of flag burning to not be based upon fascist principles even though all of those ideas are based upon fascist orthodoxy? If so, you don't have a clue as to what this debate is even about.
Oakman wrote:
If Obama or Clinton is elected, can we expect the same strong defense of them that we have had from you re: Bush?
I will support what ever efforts they deem appropriate in the prosecution of their constitutional responsibilities as commander inchief to defend the nation. If they commit troops with the approval of the congress I will certainly not impugn their motives even if I do publically disagree with their decisions. Precisely as I have with Bush. If I feel there has been any abuse of power, I will insist that my congressional representatives take appropriate action. I will take no public actions which would embolden any enemy against which our troops have been obligated to defeat by the very people we have elected to office. Beyond that, however, I have frequently openly avowed that I am a traitor to the agenda of the left. They are facists. The entire intellectual history of the left is rooted in European fascism. The agenda they promote is purely a fascist agenda and maintains no respect for the founding principles of this nation. If there were a war to destroy those poltical principles I would happily join the effort. I would fight and kill other Americans to do so.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, you don't consider the courts usurping the 9th and 10th amendments to promote humanist principles to not be fascist? You don't believe that government control of schools, the Roe v Wade decision, the overturning of sodomy laws, the legalization of flag burning to not be based upon fascist principles even though all of those ideas are based upon fascist orthodoxy? If so, you don't have a clue as to what this debate is even about.
Good. You read the first sentence I wrote. Then, to refute it, you cited detail after detail that proved my second sentence -> Governments tend towards fascism. And then, having proved me correct, you presume to suggest that I don't know what the discussion is about? What are you smoking, Stan?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I would fight and kill other Americans to do so.
Got anybody in mind, killer? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, you don't consider the courts usurping the 9th and 10th amendments to promote humanist principles to not be fascist? You don't believe that government control of schools, the Roe v Wade decision, the overturning of sodomy laws, the legalization of flag burning to not be based upon fascist principles even though all of those ideas are based upon fascist orthodoxy? If so, you don't have a clue as to what this debate is even about.
Good. You read the first sentence I wrote. Then, to refute it, you cited detail after detail that proved my second sentence -> Governments tend towards fascism. And then, having proved me correct, you presume to suggest that I don't know what the discussion is about? What are you smoking, Stan?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I would fight and kill other Americans to do so.
Got anybody in mind, killer? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
You read the first sentence I wrote. Then, to refute it, you cited detail after detail that proved my second sentence -> Governments tend towards fascism. And then, having proved me correct, you presume to suggest that I don't know what the discussion is about?
Because the rest of your statement was an inane comparison to Rome of questionable historic validity which I did'nt wish to address. Rome fell primarily because economic evolution had made the governmental model of the city state invalid. There are similar economic pressures on the US as a growing global economy makes the governmental model of the nation state simarly less valid, but that is about as close a comparison as deserves mention.
Oakman wrote:
Got anybody in mind, killer?
I thought I explained that quite well. Not that I think that actually armed civil war or revolution in a modern industrial society to be a credible possiblility, of course.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Oakman wrote:
You read the first sentence I wrote. Then, to refute it, you cited detail after detail that proved my second sentence -> Governments tend towards fascism. And then, having proved me correct, you presume to suggest that I don't know what the discussion is about?
Because the rest of your statement was an inane comparison to Rome of questionable historic validity which I did'nt wish to address. Rome fell primarily because economic evolution had made the governmental model of the city state invalid. There are similar economic pressures on the US as a growing global economy makes the governmental model of the nation state simarly less valid, but that is about as close a comparison as deserves mention.
Oakman wrote:
Got anybody in mind, killer?
I thought I explained that quite well. Not that I think that actually armed civil war or revolution in a modern industrial society to be a credible possiblility, of course.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because the rest of your statement was an inane comparison to Rome
Actually, Stanley, my second sentence was about governments tending to become fascist. You really shouldn't lie about things already down in black and white.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not that I think that actually armed civil war or revolution in a modern industrial society to be a credible possiblility, of course.
I'm disappointed. I thought maybe you had grown a pair. By the way, since you've wussed out here, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation either. But you can still reply and call me a traitor 'cause I don't love GB. I just won't ever read it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
If oil had been the primary goal I'm sure somebody would have considered that. The goal was to remove a dictatorial regime that supported terrorists, had a proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs and related technologies, and refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have. Buying neighborhood property there wouldn't have solved any of that.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
The goal was to remove a dictatorial regime that supported terrorists, had a proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs and related technologies, and refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have. Buying neighborhood property there wouldn't have solved any of that.
I'm guessing you really believe this. Have you read about how Saddam was selling oil in Euros and this could have bought the US economy to the ground. Actually Saddam's regime did not support terrorists, if by terrorist you mean Al Qaeda, he was very much opposed to Al Qaeda. Can you list the terrorist groups Saddam supported please. Can you tell me who he shared WMD and related technologies with please. (Hang on a minute wasn't it the US who shared those technologies with Iraq) Of course the situation today in Iraq is so much more complicated than a fight against terrorism. Those fighting the insurgency range from Iraqis disillusioned with the occupation to foreign 'freedom fighters'/terrorists. Saddam was a despot, however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma...
You always pass failure on the way to success.
-
If oil had been the primary goal I'm sure somebody would have considered that. The goal was to remove a dictatorial regime that supported terrorists, had a proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs and related technologies, and refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have. Buying neighborhood property there wouldn't have solved any of that.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
dictatorial regime
I agree.
BoneSoft wrote:
that supported terrorists
Which ones? Al Qaeda? Definitely not.
BoneSoft wrote:
proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs
Acquired from the good old US in the 80s, yeah.
BoneSoft wrote:
refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have
Before checking yourself into an asylum, please google for Hans Blix.
Cheers, Vikram.
If the radiance of a thousand suns Were to burst at once into the sky That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one— I am become Death, The shatterer of Worlds.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
The goal was to remove a dictatorial regime that supported terrorists, had a proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs and related technologies, and refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have. Buying neighborhood property there wouldn't have solved any of that.
I'm guessing you really believe this. Have you read about how Saddam was selling oil in Euros and this could have bought the US economy to the ground. Actually Saddam's regime did not support terrorists, if by terrorist you mean Al Qaeda, he was very much opposed to Al Qaeda. Can you list the terrorist groups Saddam supported please. Can you tell me who he shared WMD and related technologies with please. (Hang on a minute wasn't it the US who shared those technologies with Iraq) Of course the situation today in Iraq is so much more complicated than a fight against terrorism. Those fighting the insurgency range from Iraqis disillusioned with the occupation to foreign 'freedom fighters'/terrorists. Saddam was a despot, however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma...
You always pass failure on the way to success.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Saddam was a despot, however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma...
... not to mention America's buddies, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia... of which the first two are MNNAs....
Cheers, Vikram.
If the radiance of a thousand suns Were to burst at once into the sky That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one— I am become Death, The shatterer of Worlds.
-
Oakman wrote:
When eating steak would you say you hold your knife in your right hand and your fork in your fascist left?
As a matter of fact I do. But then, I'm left handed, through no fault of my own of course.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm left handed
Oh, the irony.... :laugh:
Cheers, Vikram.
If the radiance of a thousand suns Were to burst at once into the sky That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one— I am become Death, The shatterer of Worlds.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because the rest of your statement was an inane comparison to Rome
Actually, Stanley, my second sentence was about governments tending to become fascist. You really shouldn't lie about things already down in black and white.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not that I think that actually armed civil war or revolution in a modern industrial society to be a credible possiblility, of course.
I'm disappointed. I thought maybe you had grown a pair. By the way, since you've wussed out here, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation either. But you can still reply and call me a traitor 'cause I don't love GB. I just won't ever read it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Actually, Stanley, my second sentence was about governments tending to become fascist. You really shouldn't lie about things already down in black and white.
Its still an inane comparison. Modern fascism is not some kind of mindless historic inevitability, it is a purposeful, planned movement.
Oakman wrote:
I'm disappointed. I thought maybe you had grown a pair.
Just an observation of a sad reality, and has nothing to do with me.
Oakman wrote:
But you can still reply and call me a traitor 'cause I don't love GB.
You are a traitor because you use your freedom of speech to say things which support the cause of those our troops have been committed to defeat. If Bush is what you claim, people around the world should be fighting against him, and so should you.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
BoneSoft wrote:
The goal was to remove a dictatorial regime that supported terrorists, had a proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs and related technologies, and refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have. Buying neighborhood property there wouldn't have solved any of that.
I'm guessing you really believe this. Have you read about how Saddam was selling oil in Euros and this could have bought the US economy to the ground. Actually Saddam's regime did not support terrorists, if by terrorist you mean Al Qaeda, he was very much opposed to Al Qaeda. Can you list the terrorist groups Saddam supported please. Can you tell me who he shared WMD and related technologies with please. (Hang on a minute wasn't it the US who shared those technologies with Iraq) Of course the situation today in Iraq is so much more complicated than a fight against terrorism. Those fighting the insurgency range from Iraqis disillusioned with the occupation to foreign 'freedom fighters'/terrorists. Saddam was a despot, however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma...
You always pass failure on the way to success.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Have you read about how Saddam was selling oil in Euros and this could have bought the US economy to the ground.
What I've read is that France, Germany and Russia were violating the UN Embargo six ways from Sunday in order to line their pockets - is that what you mean?
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Actually Saddam's regime did not support terrorists, if by terrorist you mean Al Qaeda, he was very much opposed to Al Qaeda.
And he didn't support terrorists if by terrorists you mean the Boy Scouts. However if you mean providing money to Palestinians who were suicide bombers then (oops!) I guess he did support terrorists.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Saddam was a despot, however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma...
Great idea - why don't you suggest it to your PM. I have made it abundantly clear that I think the US made a number of tactical and strategic mistakes in Iraq and I wish we'd pulled out 30 days after we entered Baghdad. But I do know that we had enough reasons to suspect Saddam was stockpiling WMD - and enough intel to know that a number of "allies" were too busy paying off Saddam to get as much oil as they could to ever worry about the consequences of their actions - that the decision was not as black and white as the oh so virtuous critics now claim.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Saddam was a despot, however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma...
... not to mention America's buddies, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia... of which the first two are MNNAs....
Cheers, Vikram.
If the radiance of a thousand suns Were to burst at once into the sky That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one— I am become Death, The shatterer of Worlds.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
dictatorial regime
I agree.
BoneSoft wrote:
that supported terrorists
Which ones? Al Qaeda? Definitely not.
BoneSoft wrote:
proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs
Acquired from the good old US in the 80s, yeah.
BoneSoft wrote:
refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have
Before checking yourself into an asylum, please google for Hans Blix.
Cheers, Vikram.
If the radiance of a thousand suns Were to burst at once into the sky That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one— I am become Death, The shatterer of Worlds.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Which ones? Al Qaeda? Definitely not.
This is getting old. Anyone whose head is not up his ass knows that Saddam was providing support to Palestinians who were terrorising Israel.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Acquired from the good old US in the 80s, yeah.
And France, Germany and Russia in the 1990s-2000's.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Before checking yourself into an asylum, please google for Hans Blix.
If I can provide citations that prove that Saddam was refusing to allow inspectors into Iraq, will you stfu and stay shut?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
BoneSoft wrote:
The goal was to remove a dictatorial regime that supported terrorists, had a proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs and related technologies, and refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have. Buying neighborhood property there wouldn't have solved any of that.
I'm guessing you really believe this. Have you read about how Saddam was selling oil in Euros and this could have bought the US economy to the ground. Actually Saddam's regime did not support terrorists, if by terrorist you mean Al Qaeda, he was very much opposed to Al Qaeda. Can you list the terrorist groups Saddam supported please. Can you tell me who he shared WMD and related technologies with please. (Hang on a minute wasn't it the US who shared those technologies with Iraq) Of course the situation today in Iraq is so much more complicated than a fight against terrorism. Those fighting the insurgency range from Iraqis disillusioned with the occupation to foreign 'freedom fighters'/terrorists. Saddam was a despot, however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma...
You always pass failure on the way to success.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Actually Saddam's regime did not support terrorists, if by terrorist you mean Al Qaeda, he was very much opposed to Al Qaeda. Can you list the terrorist groups Saddam supported please.
Money to families of martyrs of the Palestinian uprising. Here[^] here[^] & here[^]. Testimony from the 911 commission hearings[^] From the New Your Sun of all places[^] Support for Philippine terrorist group[^] Training camps[^]
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Can you tell me who he shared WMD and related technologies with please.
I may be wrong. I remember reading an article or two on the subject, but I don't remember the details and I can't find a source at the moment.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Hang on a minute wasn't it the US who shared those technologies with Iraq
Do you have a source? What technologies did the US share with Sadam?
GuyThiebaut wrote:
however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma
I agree, let's get em'
Try code mode
-
BoneSoft wrote:
dictatorial regime
I agree.
BoneSoft wrote:
that supported terrorists
Which ones? Al Qaeda? Definitely not.
BoneSoft wrote:
proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs
Acquired from the good old US in the 80s, yeah.
BoneSoft wrote:
refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have
Before checking yourself into an asylum, please google for Hans Blix.
Cheers, Vikram.
If the radiance of a thousand suns Were to burst at once into the sky That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one— I am become Death, The shatterer of Worlds.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Which ones? Al Qaeda? Definitely not.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Acquired from the good old US in the 80s, yeah.
Read a couple of posts up from here...[^]
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Before checking yourself into an asylum, please google for Hans Blix.
It was well documented in virtually every news paper in the world, the count down to the deadline for Sadam to let inspectors in to do their jobs unrestricted and he refused. "Before checking yourself into an asylum"? Get bent.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Sure... 1) I don't see how US & EU money to Palestine is relevant. 2) Didn't find doesn't mean they weren't there or even wasn't there. And it really doesn't matter, there was ample reason to believe they were there. If they weren't, then what was the harm in letting the inspectors in for a look-see? 3) What he could and could not hit at the time says nothing about what he could in the future. And like I said, he was actively seeking more WMDs and technologies. Plus with said secrecy, how could anybody be sure what he really had the capabilities of striking? Did you have nothing to say about the Imperial Japanese analogy?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
- You said Sadam sent money to Palestine. So did the US and EU. Despite who that money was sent ti, it still supported the general economy. 2) The fact you cant find them means they arent adn WMD there. Also, the fact none were used on you when you invaded means he didnt have any. 3) And wsince gulf war 1, when all he could do was knock bits of concrete of buildings in telaviv, he was under sanctions and no fly zones. And he was suppposed to have become stronger? Dont make me laugh. 4) Japan did invade for rubber, oil, steel, etc.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
- You said Sadam sent money to Palestine. So did the US and EU. Despite who that money was sent ti, it still supported the general economy. 2) The fact you cant find them means they arent adn WMD there. Also, the fact none were used on you when you invaded means he didnt have any. 3) And wsince gulf war 1, when all he could do was knock bits of concrete of buildings in telaviv, he was under sanctions and no fly zones. And he was suppposed to have become stronger? Dont make me laugh. 4) Japan did invade for rubber, oil, steel, etc.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
- The general economy needs support. That's not comparable to martyr incentives. 2) That may be, it's also possible that just because I can't find it doesn't mean it ain't so. But I'll concede on this. 3) With the help of France, Germany and whoever else was involved, they raped the hell out of the Oil for Food program. They might as well have not been under sanctions at all. The fact is he was still looking to expand weapons. 4) Yeah, they were also looking for Korean chicks. But first and foremost they were looking for land. Not an occupation, a take over. They conquered for the purpose of taking more land as the Empires own. Which they had had their eye on for quite some time condsidering the population on their tiny island. Unlike a good portion of Europe, the US has never been empirial and likely never will be. WWII Japan & the current US are apples and oranges.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.