Iraqis? are they worth it
-
Jon Newman wrote: From what we've seen from Katrina, America appears to be a deeply racist Care to give an example of this so called "deeply racist"? Jon Newman wrote: violent THere is violence in every country. Why are people in the UK running around with axes chopping at people? Sounds pretty violent to me. Jon Newman wrote: I have always been of the opinion that people will get the leaders that they need/deserve. Always? That is a crazy statement. Jon Newman wrote: (pseudo)democracy What counrty are you talking about? FYI the US is a Republic not a Democracy. Jon Newman wrote: not millitary action started and led by foreign nations. Your short term history wrong. All Sadamn had to do was comply. Even the UN and Blix says he was not complying. He started the war. Western allies finished it.
kgaddy wrote: the US is a Republic not a Democracy. WTF?! The US isn't a democracy!? Funny then it dare to try to spread democracy[^] around the World. kgaddy wrote: Your short term history wrong Yours isn't better. kgaddy wrote: Even the UN and Blix says he was not complying According to Newsmax and the White House[^]. Blix report's led to UN resolution 1441, and this resolution led Iraq to comply with UN inspectors[^]. And we know now Iraq complied, and destroyed all its WMD and WMD-related programs after the first Gulf War. kgaddy wrote: He started the war. Yeah right. What country would start a war against the US? To avoid war, Saddam Hussein even offered that "Americans could send 2,000 FBI agents to look wherever they wanted"[^] Saddam didn't want the war, he knew he would be crushed in a few days.
fat_boy wrote: I've got plenty of opinions, if you don't like them I've got plenty more
-
kgaddy wrote: the US is a Republic not a Democracy. WTF?! The US isn't a democracy!? Funny then it dare to try to spread democracy[^] around the World. kgaddy wrote: Your short term history wrong Yours isn't better. kgaddy wrote: Even the UN and Blix says he was not complying According to Newsmax and the White House[^]. Blix report's led to UN resolution 1441, and this resolution led Iraq to comply with UN inspectors[^]. And we know now Iraq complied, and destroyed all its WMD and WMD-related programs after the first Gulf War. kgaddy wrote: He started the war. Yeah right. What country would start a war against the US? To avoid war, Saddam Hussein even offered that "Americans could send 2,000 FBI agents to look wherever they wanted"[^] Saddam didn't want the war, he knew he would be crushed in a few days.
fat_boy wrote: I've got plenty of opinions, if you don't like them I've got plenty more
K(arl) wrote: And we know now Iraq complied Just by saying "We will comply" doent mean it's so. First of all. The resolution says Iraq will prove it destroyed its weapons. They never did. If they had destroyed them why noy provide the proof they did? But hey, dont take my word for it. Blix tells U.N. Iraq refuses to comply on disarmament U.N.: Iraq imported missile engines 'Iraq Has Failed to Comply' I can get more if you want......
-
bugDanny wrote: Um, not to be too much of a stickler, but the US is actually a Republic Democracy Actually no. The US is a Constitution-based federal republic with strong democratic traditions. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/usgov.htm
Thank you for correcting me. To be absolutely clear, I got this quote from the first site you noted: "Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives. " So yes, the US is a federal republic. As you may note the last sentence "ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives." As you may know, a democracy is a nation where the power is retained by the people, ideally where the people vote on changes to be made, etc., etc. My point was, while the US is not a pure democracy, it could fall under the point of the earlier post "(pseudo)democracy" (dictionary.com - pseudo, as a preface, "Apparently similar") Danny
-
Jon Newman wrote: From what we've seen from Katrina, America appears to be a deeply racist Care to give an example of this so called "deeply racist"? Jon Newman wrote: violent THere is violence in every country. Why are people in the UK running around with axes chopping at people? Sounds pretty violent to me. Jon Newman wrote: I have always been of the opinion that people will get the leaders that they need/deserve. Always? That is a crazy statement. Jon Newman wrote: (pseudo)democracy What counrty are you talking about? FYI the US is a Republic not a Democracy. Jon Newman wrote: not millitary action started and led by foreign nations. Your short term history wrong. All Sadamn had to do was comply. Even the UN and Blix says he was not complying. He started the war. Western allies finished it.
kgaddy wrote: I have always been of the opinion that people will get the leaders that they need/deserve. Always? That is a crazy statement. I agree. We didn't need/deserve the incompetent bastards we have today for two terms... but I suspect you'll disagree. ;P
I cannot take anything the Bush administration does seriously. The corruption, the cynical disregard for humanity, the cronyism and incompetence, all wrapped in a slimey flag of ultra-marketed nationalism repulses me. -- consdubya from fark.com.
-
Thank you for correcting me. To be absolutely clear, I got this quote from the first site you noted: "Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives. " So yes, the US is a federal republic. As you may note the last sentence "ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives." As you may know, a democracy is a nation where the power is retained by the people, ideally where the people vote on changes to be made, etc., etc. My point was, while the US is not a pure democracy, it could fall under the point of the earlier post "(pseudo)democracy" (dictionary.com - pseudo, as a preface, "Apparently similar") Danny
-
kgaddy wrote: I have always been of the opinion that people will get the leaders that they need/deserve. Always? That is a crazy statement. I agree. We didn't need/deserve the incompetent bastards we have today for two terms... but I suspect you'll disagree. ;P
I cannot take anything the Bush administration does seriously. The corruption, the cynical disregard for humanity, the cronyism and incompetence, all wrapped in a slimey flag of ultra-marketed nationalism repulses me. -- consdubya from fark.com.
-
Well, after the previous post, and, from what an old friend of my fathers said, who was in Iraq in the 30's as a soldier, one has to wonder whether these people deserve someone like Sadam to rule them. They are, quite clearly, incapable of governing their own society effectively, and steeped in violence of the most brutal sort. And havent changed since the 30's. Should we even bother being there? Nunc est bibendum!
is this for real ??[^] it was sponsored by Isreal but nonetheless... The lead article in the August issue of the Israel Medical Association Journal reports success in lowering infant mortality rates among Arabs in the Western Galilee. These rates being generally twice as high among Israeli Arabs as among Israeli Jews, by 2002 an Israeli health program launched in the late 1980s had lowered the rate among Western Galilee Arabs to about 1.5 that of the Jews in the area. The program found three main factors causing the high rates among the Arabs: infections, home births, and diseases resulting from inbreeding. About 40 percent of Muslim and Druze women and 70 percent of Bedouin women in the region were found to be married to first—or second-degree relatives.
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote: but I suspect you'll disagree. For once your suspicions are correct, hell is freezing over....;P
Just curious, do you vote a 1 on every post you disagree with? I suspect you do, and that's why I voted you a 1.
I cannot take anything the Bush administration does seriously. The corruption, the cynical disregard for humanity, the cronyism and incompetence, all wrapped in a slimey flag of ultra-marketed nationalism repulses me. -- consdubya from fark.com.
-
Well, after the previous post, and, from what an old friend of my fathers said, who was in Iraq in the 30's as a soldier, one has to wonder whether these people deserve someone like Sadam to rule them. They are, quite clearly, incapable of governing their own society effectively, and steeped in violence of the most brutal sort. And havent changed since the 30's. Should we even bother being there? Nunc est bibendum!
It is worth the effort. Those who do wish to live in a more modern society certainly deserve the opportunity to try to achieve it. It may well be a futile effort, but if that is true what are our other options? Do we simply continue to tolerate the violence and intolerance such societies spawn and try to defend ourselves from it with ever more draconian abuses to civil liberties? Do we nuke them? Do we buy them off? Do we isolate them? If this effort doesn't work, one of the others must be resorted to. So,yeah, its worth it. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Just curious, do you vote a 1 on every post you disagree with? I suspect you do, and that's why I voted you a 1.
I cannot take anything the Bush administration does seriously. The corruption, the cynical disregard for humanity, the cronyism and incompetence, all wrapped in a slimey flag of ultra-marketed nationalism repulses me. -- consdubya from fark.com.
-
Anonymous wrote: Oil doesn't grow on trees you know. Well sure it does, you just need to be more specific. Olive trees produce olive oil. If you believe the claims, there are certain[^] trees that are used to produce diesel fuel. I know that you were just using the opportunity to slam Bush, but at least come out of hiding long enough to do it with some backbone. Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read -- modified at 11:00 Tuesday 20th September, 2005
-
bugDanny wrote: it could fall under the point of the earlier post "(pseudo)democracy Yes, but to be honest I do not think that was his intent. From the tone of the post I believe he was trying to take a swing at the US.
-
Just curious, do you vote a 1 on every post you disagree with? I suspect you do, and that's why I voted you a 1.
I cannot take anything the Bush administration does seriously. The corruption, the cynical disregard for humanity, the cronyism and incompetence, all wrapped in a slimey flag of ultra-marketed nationalism repulses me. -- consdubya from fark.com.
-
K(arl) wrote: And we know now Iraq complied Just by saying "We will comply" doent mean it's so. First of all. The resolution says Iraq will prove it destroyed its weapons. They never did. If they had destroyed them why noy provide the proof they did? But hey, dont take my word for it. Blix tells U.N. Iraq refuses to comply on disarmament U.N.: Iraq imported missile engines 'Iraq Has Failed to Comply' I can get more if you want......
kgaddy wrote: 'Iraq Has Failed to Comply' Read Blix's speech[^]. Blix said Iraq didn't comply about missiles parts and fuels, however he didn't say Iraq didn't destroy its stokpile of WMD. Note the sentence "I have not asserted n behalf of the UNMOVIC that proscribed items or activites exist in Iraq": Blix report stated that there were no certainty about WMD. This report led to the unanimously voted UN resolution 1441[^], which pushed Iraq to accept UN inspections. Was the resolution accepted[^] is the hot topic.
fat_boy wrote: I've got plenty of opinions, if you don't like them I've got plenty more
-
kgaddy wrote: 'Iraq Has Failed to Comply' Read Blix's speech[^]. Blix said Iraq didn't comply about missiles parts and fuels, however he didn't say Iraq didn't destroy its stokpile of WMD. Note the sentence "I have not asserted n behalf of the UNMOVIC that proscribed items or activites exist in Iraq": Blix report stated that there were no certainty about WMD. This report led to the unanimously voted UN resolution 1441[^], which pushed Iraq to accept UN inspections. Was the resolution accepted[^] is the hot topic.
fat_boy wrote: I've got plenty of opinions, if you don't like them I've got plenty more
K(arl) wrote: however he didn't say Iraq didn't destroy its stokpile of WMD. The point is Iraq did'nt prove they DID destroy stockpiles. This was the point of the resolution. Do you remember when the Iraqis had all these documents and CDs on a table they claimed to have proof of the destruction of stockpiles? Well after Blix and his team went through them they found it was complete rubbish. K(arl) wrote: Blix report stated that there were no certainty about WMD. You are right on this statement. Which proves my point. There was "no certainty" and it was certainty that the Sadamn was supposed to provide. He did not.
-
It is worth the effort. Those who do wish to live in a more modern society certainly deserve the opportunity to try to achieve it. It may well be a futile effort, but if that is true what are our other options? Do we simply continue to tolerate the violence and intolerance such societies spawn and try to defend ourselves from it with ever more draconian abuses to civil liberties? Do we nuke them? Do we buy them off? Do we isolate them? If this effort doesn't work, one of the others must be resorted to. So,yeah, its worth it. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: Those who do wish to live in a more modern society certainly deserve the opportunity to try to achieve it Agreed, but not with any mean. Stan Shannon wrote: Do we simply continue to tolerate the violence and intolerance such societies spawn and try to defend ourselves from it with ever more draconian abuses to civil liberties? Do we nuke them? Do we buy them off? Do we isolate them? When looking through History, Freedom carried at the point of the bayonet doesn't last for long. Giving the means to the population to take care of itself works much better. Stan Shannon wrote: So,yeah, its worth it To decide so, you must also look to the risks created by such an effort: civil war, destabilization of the country, emergence of new forces because of the vacuum created, the loss suffered by your troops, the financial cost, and what may happen in case of failure.
fat_boy wrote: I've got plenty of opinions, if you don't like them I've got plenty more
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Those who do wish to live in a more modern society certainly deserve the opportunity to try to achieve it Agreed, but not with any mean. Stan Shannon wrote: Do we simply continue to tolerate the violence and intolerance such societies spawn and try to defend ourselves from it with ever more draconian abuses to civil liberties? Do we nuke them? Do we buy them off? Do we isolate them? When looking through History, Freedom carried at the point of the bayonet doesn't last for long. Giving the means to the population to take care of itself works much better. Stan Shannon wrote: So,yeah, its worth it To decide so, you must also look to the risks created by such an effort: civil war, destabilization of the country, emergence of new forces because of the vacuum created, the loss suffered by your troops, the financial cost, and what may happen in case of failure.
fat_boy wrote: I've got plenty of opinions, if you don't like them I've got plenty more
I don't necessarily agree with all of that, but just for the sake of argument, suppose I do. You still have to offer a better option. If invasion doesn't work, and sanctions don't work, what does? Most on the left appear to want to pursue an appeasement strategy. That is, try to understand what the Muslims are angry about and try our best to ease their concerns on those issues. But, once we start down that road, how far do we go? Even you have to agree that not every thing they are angry about is our fault, and much of it is simply a reflection of problems innate to their own culture. How much of that do we tolerate to try to get them to not be angry with us? I, for one, am happy to try it your way, but not until I have a concrete answer to that question. Where are you willing to draw the line and say - fuck it, give them the bayonet...? "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Those who do wish to live in a more modern society certainly deserve the opportunity to try to achieve it Agreed, but not with any mean. Stan Shannon wrote: Do we simply continue to tolerate the violence and intolerance such societies spawn and try to defend ourselves from it with ever more draconian abuses to civil liberties? Do we nuke them? Do we buy them off? Do we isolate them? When looking through History, Freedom carried at the point of the bayonet doesn't last for long. Giving the means to the population to take care of itself works much better. Stan Shannon wrote: So,yeah, its worth it To decide so, you must also look to the risks created by such an effort: civil war, destabilization of the country, emergence of new forces because of the vacuum created, the loss suffered by your troops, the financial cost, and what may happen in case of failure.
fat_boy wrote: I've got plenty of opinions, if you don't like them I've got plenty more
K(arl) wrote: what may happen in case of failure I support the history-repeats-itself theory that saddam/iraq should be handled DIFFERENTLY than previous over-motivated dictators like Herr H were handled with way too much appeasement & not enough containment. My guess is if some secret spy types had succeeded in neutralizing his power in 1930's Germany things would have been different. Yes, probably still lots of fighting due to general world situation at that time, but I think it would have been less. Unless of course, you are the optimist type & believe that somebody with even more abilities to motivate the German people would have then come to power.... :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
-
No, I only vote 5s for the really good ones. I don't agree with voting 1 or 2 without explaining why.
I cannot take anything the Bush administration does seriously. The corruption, the cynical disregard for humanity, the cronyism and incompetence, all wrapped in a slimey flag of ultra-marketed nationalism repulses me. -- consdubya from fark.com.
-
No, I only vote 5s for the really good ones. I don't agree with voting 1 or 2 without explaining why.
I cannot take anything the Bush administration does seriously. The corruption, the cynical disregard for humanity, the cronyism and incompetence, all wrapped in a slimey flag of ultra-marketed nationalism repulses me. -- consdubya from fark.com.