so whats every1s view on the US/Iraq situaton?

[futuro]

Originally posted by board Lizard
know whats funny? with a single sentence i made futuro write a long and boring post. must have taken him a good 10 minutes while taking me a whole 27 seconds

p.s. i didn't read it

Good for you. Keep your mind closed. You know what's funny? You

[board Lizard]

^
|
|
|
didn't read it

[Borscht]

nobody has demonstrated to me where the US gets the right to impose it's idea of right and wrong on any other country

Saddam invaded Kuwait. The United States declared war on Saddam and expelled him from Kuwait.

When it became clear to Saddam that the duration of his life was now measured in hours, he surrendered.

His surrender was accepted, and conditions of surrender were codified as is traditionally done in such cases. A long precedent for conditions of surrender exists, dating back to Hamurabi and ancient Sumaria just in case you find something suspicious there as well.

Within two years Saddam had violated all conditions of his surrender. The United Nations, having been the authorizing body and the administrator of the conditions of surrender, began issuing resolutions outlining Saddam's violations and demanding conformance, etc.

They repeated this several times over the ensuing ten years.

Having violated the conditions of surrender, Saddam has committed an act of war. Under every legal code of every nation on the globe, our hostilities against Saddam are just and legal.

To suggest otherwise is to demonstate nothing but your own ignorance of the entire subject.

By suggesting that imposing liberty on an oppressed people is something to be shunned, you demonstrate that you are not only ignorant, but an utter moron.

Keep your mind closed.

You give yourself far too much credit. Keeping one's mind closed to your insipid, sophomoric drivel is akin to keeping a screen door closed against the insects of the night.

[board Lizard]

To suggest that imposing liberty on an oppressed people is something to be shunned, you demonstrate that you are not only ignorant, but an utter moron.

I bet that if he lived in the mid 1800s he would have been a southern slave owner and shouting that same line.

[hhh]

Originally posted by futuro

A little too simplistic, don't you think, Dennis? Couldn't they both be bads guys? Coudn't they both be a little good and a little bad? Sure, Hussein has done some bad things, but after all, he hasn't attacked the US. Bush has attacked Iraq.

Your right. He hasn't attacked the US, not directly, at least, and we aren't going to give him a chance to.

You can't tell me that given the chance, he wouldn't do it.

By the way, the Internet isn't the be-all end-all of everything. There isn't a site and source for everything, somethings you just have to see with your own eyes and feel yourself. Try talking to some vets that were there in the early 90s and seen the torture beds and the like that was setup. Get a feel for what was going on. Then tell me you don't really understand why we are there. A site listed above from the times/uk was a good example.

[Borscht]

I've said before, I don't hate Bush.

Yes, you've said a lot of things. Hmm...let's examine the record:

If there was no oil, Bush would't give a flying fuck about Iraq, would he?

If anyone is playing a game with US soldiers lives, it would have to be Bush.

"Oh, I have a polyp in my rectum? Let's cut taxes!". Whoops, that last one was Reagan, but don't think Bush wouldn't try it too.

Not with oil-man Bush in charge, we won't.

I guess [Bush] thinks if you're poor or out of work, you don't need money, but if you're rich enough to own stocks, you need more....

How many innocent civilians in those countries are going to die for Bush's ego?

Displease Bush, and he'll "liberate" you.

Ah yes, how silly of me to have interpreted any hatred of Bush. I can't imagine what I was thinking.

I'd rather be a zealot for peace, than a zealot for war.

I accept your retraction then, of the idiotic revelation that you were an atheist. A statement which had no bearing on the substance of my comment. As you acknowledge by implication in your own words above.

And by the way, chump. Peace isn't absence of war. Peace is absence of threat.

intelligent, well-informed people can come to a different conclusion than them.

Sir, you are neither of those things. You are a partisan hack, eyes wide shut, impervious to fact or reason. Spewing the stock liberal mantra, straight from the playbook. Not an original comment of your own, "answering" questions with obtuse questions, dodging all substance.

There is precisely *one* liberal in this whole affair with intellect, honesty, and courage. His name is Tony Blair.

[Pigeon]

Oh, I guess Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the minor outlying pacific Islands, Hawaii, and all the other US imperialist escapades don't dount, do they. Even the "Manifest Destiny" was an imperialist doctrine.

If you knew history, you'd know Puerto Rico is given the choice between becoming the 51st state or becoming their own sovereign country, or simply staying the way they are now. They do not pay income taxes or sales taxes to the US govt, although I think import taxes/tariffs still apply. I'm too lazy to research this atm, but I'm under the impression the Virgin Islands/Guam are the same way. Hawaii and Alaska are, on a cultural level, the same as the rest of the United States.

Yes, the US was imperialist in the early 20th century, but saying we are still an imperialist country begs the question, wtf is your definition of imperialism? Do you consider Japan to be an imperialist nation for keeping control over Hokkaido?

Given the choice, Bin Laden would kill Saddam before any US citizen, since Hussein is an infidel leading an Islamic country, a more serious crime (to him) than whatever the US is doing.

Granted, it's completely irrelevent to the topic of conversation, but... why did 9/11 happen in New York and not in Bagdad?

[Borscht]

This link illustrates far more than mere words the true character and caliber of the so-called "anti war" protestors. This is the recent rally in San Francisco.

You will need Quicktime and a high-speed connection to view this video.

http://www.brain-terminal.com/video/...cktime-hq.html

Fun to watch Futuro's fellow travellers in action

Saddam's "useful idiots".

[TDES]

Originally posted by Borscht
This link illustrates far more than mere words the true character and caliber of the so-called "anti war" protestors. This is the recent rally in San Francisco.

Saddam's "useful idiots".

Check out Protest Warrior

The picture gallery is priceless. Might have to buy one of those T-shirts .. hehe

[Joe Blow]

I wish all these stupid ass people would stop coming to San Francisco's Financial District and take it to Golden Gate Park. It's causing a utter nightmare for people like me who have to work there. The streets are all closed off, the stupid idiots lie down in front of busses and clog up the public transit system. The subway is packed like sardines because it's the only way anyone can get around. What they really need to do is look for a job. I hate to say it but it's been going on for a week now and it's really starting to get old.

[Borscht]

How many innocent civilians in those countries are going to die for Bush's ego?

A minute fraction of those that have already been murdered for Saddam's ego, or to satisfy his son's penchant for serial rape/murder.

[futuro]

Originally posted by Borscht
Saddam invaded Kuwait. The United States declared war on Saddam and expelled him from Kuwait.

Um, sorry. We didn't declare war against Iraq. Last time I looked at the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall a war declaration from Congress for either war.

Having violated the conditions of surrender, Saddam has committed an act of war. Under every legal code of every nation on the globe, our hostilities against Saddam are just and legal.

No war was ever declared by the US. We were acting as agents of the UN in 1991. The UN has refused to authorize this military action, and since we weren't the party that imposed the conditions of surrender, we don't have the right to impose our own will on the UN and Iraq.

To suggest otherwise is to demonstate nothing but your own ignorance of the entire subject.

Who authorized the war in 1991? The US? No. It was the UN. Who negotiated the surrender, the US? No again, the UN did. Who is invading Iraq right now? The UN? No. The US. If you want to argue legalities, keep your parties straight. Lacking UN authorization for this invasion puts us in the position of vigilantes, taking the law into our own hands.

And speaking of ignorance, I'm not the one who stated that the US "declared war on Saddam". There was no declaration of war, and the US hasn't declared war on anyone since 1941. Every military action we have engaged in since has been un-constitutional. The problem goes deeper than just this "war", it goes right to a thing called "the Imperial Presidency", a subject that has worried constitutional scholars for years. This is just the latest example.

By suggesting that imposing liberty on an oppressed people is something to be shunned, you demonstrate that you are not only ignorant, but an utter moron.

Now there's an oxymoron if I ever heard one... "imposing liberty". That's an absolute classic. "You'll be free whether you want to or not, because we say so!" My beer just came out my nose, I'm laughing so hard.

And no, I'm not suggesting it should be shunned. People who want liberty in their country should be helped to acheive that goal. But bombing them into oblivion isn't helping. Setting fire to half of a city of 4 million isn't "liberating" them, it's killing them.

You give yourself far too much credit. Keeping one's mind closed to your insipid, sophomoric drivel is akin to keeping a screen door closed against the insects of the night.

Your lack of a substantial argument is duly noted.

[cryptorad]

Originally posted by futuro


And to blow another hole in yet another failed analogy, at the time of the start of the Civil War, slavery was legal in the North.

Text of Pennsylvania's 1780 Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery
Following is the full text of the act which doomed slavery in Pennsylvania. Enacted on March 1st, 1780, with a vote of 34 to 21, this law was partially the work of William Brown, a Pennsylvania legislator from Lancaster County.

Link is here: http://www.afrolumens.org/slavery/gradual.html

Well.. you were close. What's 80 years among friends.

[futuro]

Originally posted by hhh


Your right. He hasn't attacked the US, not directly, at least, and we aren't going to give him a chance to.

OK, so let's not give North Korea a chance to, or Iran a chance to, or Russia, China, France, Germany, Jordan, Pakistan, Sweeden, Switzerland, Libya, South Africa, (...) a chance to.

And the implication I get from your "not directly" is that Iraq was somehow invovled in any terrorist attack against US properties or even 9/11. Sorry, there's no evidence that there was any involvement by them. Even the CIA and the State Department say so.

You can't tell me that given the chance, he wouldn't do it.

No, I can't. And you can't tell me that given the chance, he would. As a matter of fact, he's had 12 years of chances, and he hasn't. What makes you think that he would have? Note that since you're the one here that's posulating an attack by Iraq against the US, you have the burden of supplying evidence to support that position. Otherwise, you could invent a threat against the US from Iceland and all I'd have to do is ask you for some kind of evidence to support your invented threat.

Got any evidence to support your assertion that Saddam would attack the US?

By the way, the Internet isn't the be-all end-all of everything. There isn't a site and source for everything, somethings you just have to see with your own eyes and feel yourself. Try talking to some vets that were there in the early 90s and seen the torture beds and the like that was setup. Get a feel for what was going on. Then tell me you don't really understand why we are there. A site listed above from the times/uk was a good example.

Hmm, you're telling me on one hand that the internet isn't the be-all and end all of everthing, yet you then cite an internet source... interesting inconsistency, that...

But, I've never denied that Saddam has done some bad things. I've also never denied that plenty of other dictators around the world have done bad things. But the funny thing is, the one dictator that's sitting on the world's second largest oil reserve is the one we picked to "liberate". Curiuos, isn't it? Especially since Halliburton, the company that Dick Chaney was CEO of, has laready been granted a $900 million contract to "clean up" after the war. Doesn't stuff like this strike you as something that needs more light of day? Doesn't it make you think that maybe this war isn't about what Bush Inc. says it's about?

[futuro]

Originally posted by Borscht


Ah yes, how silly of me to have interpreted any hatred of Bush. I can't imagine what I was thinking.

Can you refute any of those things as misrepresenting Bush's positions on the relevant subjects? I think not. And since you can't (since you didn't even try), they don't indicate hatred of Bush, just his policies. Unlike others, I can separate issues from persons.

I accept your retraction then, of the idiotic revelation that you were an atheist. A statement which had no bearing on the substance of my comment. As you acknowledge by implication in your own words above.

Nothing implied, I was merely stating that I'd rather be a zealot for peace than a zealot for war. I happen to be neither. I happen to think that war is a last resort, and this war isn't being waged as a last resort.

And who said I was retracting being an atheist?

And by the way, chump. Peace isn't absence of war. Peace is absence of threat.

Get a dictionary, chump... Number one definition of "peace" at dictionary.com : The absence of war or other hostilities.

And a coward sees "threats" in everything.

Sir, you are neither of those things. You are a partisan hack, eyes wide shut, impervious to fact or reason. Spewing the stock liberal mantra, straight from the playbook. Not an original comment of your own, "answering" questions with obtuse questions, dodging all substance.

Thank you for showing how you shove me in your little box labeled "liberal" and dismiss everything I say as some grand "liberal playbook" quotation. You just proved my point, that some people can't accept that intellgent, well-informed people can come to different conclusions than them. You showed it by "spewing" an attack on me by claiming that my ideas aren't my own, but come from some "liberal playbook". FYI, I've been urging a poster on usenet to come up with the "liberal handbook" (as he calls it) for over a year. He has yet to produce it. And I'll bet you can't guess why he can't produce it... Because it doesn't exist... it's just a figment of some people's imaginations that they use to denigrate their opponents when they lack arguments against the points raised.

There is precisely *one* liberal in this whole affair with intellect, honesty, and courage. His name is Tony Blair.

Oh gee... why is that? Cause he seems to agree with you? How nice of you!