Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer?
    #1262728 -

This is the question that all Americans should be asking themselves at this moment. There is a very significant chance that invading Iraq will make the United States LESS safe, not more. Here's an editorial by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times:

Iraq War: The First Question

A new book about Iraq by Con Coughlin describes Saddam's younger son, Qusay, giving a speech last year in an underground bunker before his father and top officials: "With a simple sign from you, we can make America's people sleepless and frightened to go out in the streets. I only ask you, sir, to give me a small sign [to] turn their night into day and their day into a living hell."

The older son, Uday, told Iraqi journalists last week: "If [the Americans] come, what they wept for on Sept. 11 and what they view as a major event, it will appear as a picnic for them."

That Baghdad bonhomie comes to mind now that the U.N. reports have been issued and the debate about invading Iraq moves to center stage. The starting point to justify an invasion, it seems to me, has to be an affirmative answer to the question: Will we be safer if we invade?

The real answer is that we don't know. But it's quite plausible that an invasion will increase the danger to us, not lessen it. As a C.I.A. assessment said last October: "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks [in the U.S.]. Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." It added that Saddam might order attacks with weapons of mass destruction as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

Frankly, it seems a bad idea to sacrifice our troops' lives along with billions of dollars in a way that may add to our vulnerability.

No doubt this seems craven, and I admit there are so many high-minded American hawks and doves that I'm embarrassed that on this issue I'm unprincipled. To me there is no principle involved here; it's just a matter of assessing costs and benefits.

It would be nice to weigh only lofty principles. But the greatest failure in foreign relations in the last half-century has been blindness to practical, on-the-ground dangers, like those that mired us in Vietnam. And it's only sensible to weigh them before leaping into Iraq.

There's no moral tenet that makes me oppose invasion. If we were confident that we could oust Saddam with minimal casualties and quickly establish a democratic Iraq, then that would be fine and such a happy scenario is conceivable. But it's a mistake to invade countries based on best-case scenarios.

A dismal scenario is just as plausible: We could see bloody street-to-street fighting, outraging the Muslim world, igniting anti-American riots and helping Al Qaeda recruit terrorists. The first regime change we see could be in Jordan and Pakistan, where pro-Western governments have a fragile hold on angry populations. If Pakistan topples, Al Qaeda might gain nuclear weapons.

Moreover, President Bush has undermined the hawk position by the very success of his campaign against Iraq. To his credit, Mr. Bush has revived U.N. inspections, boxed Saddam into a corner and increased the chance that Saddam will be assassinated or overthrown. If Mr. Bush stops where he is now, he will have defanged Saddam at minimal cost.

As the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace put it in a new report on Iraq, the U.S. goal of preventing any attack by Iraq has already been achieved.

"Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to any aggression," the report noted. "Inside Iraq, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in [weapons of mass destruction] capabilities. The status quo is safe for the American people."

Hawks can fairly complain that the status quo may not be sustainable. If we let this chance to invade slip by, will Saddam outfox us and emerge in a year's time with nukes?

No, very unlikely. Inspections were maintained from 1991 to 1998, in which period the U.N. destroyed far more Iraqi weaponry than the U.S. had during the gulf war. Saddam will be forced to remain on his best behavior, and in any case he is 65 and an actuarial nightmare. If we just get intelligence on where he's going to spend one night, then my guess is that we'll respond to Iraqi antiaircraft fire by striking that particular building.

Will an invasion make us safer? That's the central question, and while none of us know the answer, there is clearly a significant risk that it will do just the opposite.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1262758 -

shortterm: no, it will be worse
Longterm: I think so


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1262817 -

Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer?
Short term, NO. Long term, NO.
Unless you consider providing another reason for people to turn to terrorism as something that will make Americans safer. In that case, you need a lobotomy.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: Evolving]
    #1262913 -

Evolving writes:

Unless you consider providing another reason for people to turn to terrorism as something that will make Americans safer.

You and I agree on most things. This is one where we disagree.

The opinion piece provided to us by EchoVortex is a thoughtful one, and the scenarios the author enumerates must be given serious consideration. Even *I* have said that although the US (or any country, for that matter) has the right to overthrow Hussein's regime, it does not have the obligation to do so. There are of course others who insist that it was the US who enabled Hussein to get to the position he is today, so OF COURSE the US has the obligation to clean up their mess and kill their Frankenstein's monster -- to do less would be to abdicate their responsibility.

But one motive I cannot agree with is to refrain from action out of fear that it will give Islamic terrorists a motive to mount further attacks against the US. To cave in to those perceived potential threats is to submit to extortion, literally.

Besides, there are many terrorists who don't need ANY motive, not even the flimsiest, to act out their hatred of The Great Satan. Observe the stated motive for the WTC attacks: bin Laden was offended that American infidels (the US troops garrisoned in Saudi Arabia) were "defiling" the Holy Places by their very presence. Using that kind of "logic", if the US wanted to reduce the chance of terrorist attacks, it should have immediately withdrawn all its troops from Saudi Arabia, thus breaking a treaty signed with an ally.

What it boils down to is that by acceding to terrorist demands (note that in the case of invading Iraq, they are not even demands as such, merely predictions that there WILL BE such demands) whenever they are made or implied or anticipated, the world is delivered into the hands of the terrorists -- whatever the terrorists demand, they receive. This is precisely why no nation EVER gave in to the demands of hostage takers or hijackers back in the days when airliner hi-jackings were commonplace. Do it even once, and the demands INCREASE, not decrease. Even politicians are bright enough to understand this concept.

I agree that there are valid reasons for perhaps waiting a bit longer to remove Hussein from power -- economic considerations, the certainty that the lives of American military personnel will be lost, the possibility that Hussein will lob a SCUD or two filled with anthrax into some neighboring nation -- but to sit on your hands because "it might upset the terrorists" is the equivalent of refusing to prosecute a Hell's Angel for murder because it might goad the Satan's Choice and the Gypsy Jokers into going on a rampage. It's like refusing to prosecute John Gotti because it might provoke the Gambinos into robbing a few more banks.

Terrorists might be nuts, but they aren't complete morons -- if they see that threats of violence achieve their goals, they will ESCALATE their demands, not reduce them. Why shouldn't they? They will have discovered a foolproof formula.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: Phred]
    #1262969 -

Even *I* have said that although the US (or any country, for that matter) has the right to overthrow Hussein's regime

According to who? Certainly not international law.

are of course others who insist that it was the US who enabled Hussein to get to the position he is today

Certainly.

so OF COURSE the US has the obligation to clean up their mess and kill their Frankenstein's monster -- to do less would be to abdicate their responsibility.

So they can install another vicious thug who is compliant to their oil demands? Don't be silly.

Besides, there are many terrorists who don't need ANY motive, not even the flimsiest, to act out their hatred of The Great Satan.

Forget what you read in the washington post. They are no evil people with green eyes who get up one morning and decide to kill themselves. They have motivation. Killing 600,000 kids thanks to sanctions is one. Bombing the fuck out of a helpless country is another.

This is precisely why no nation EVER gave in to the demands of hostage takers or hijackers back in the days

You ever heard of Irangate? Read up on it.

Even politicians are bright enough to understand this concept.

Reagan wasn't.

but to sit on your hands because "it might upset the terrorists"

How about using peaceable means to disarm Iraq of their theoretical weapons? Why the rush to go in killing innocents? The real world isn't like a Rambo film you know. People really die.

Terrorists might be nuts, but they aren't complete morons

Sums up Bush and the boys to perfection.



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: Phred]
    #1263156 -

But one motive I cannot agree with is to refrain from action out of fear that it will give Islamic terrorists a motive to mount further attacks against the US. To cave in to those perceived potential threats is to submit to extortion, literally.

There is a difference between fear and prudence. Fear is paralysis in the face of danger. Prudence is realizing that it is foolish to do dangerous things that serve no real purpose. No one is arguing against striking at terrorists whenever and wherever they have been identified. No proof has been presented yet that Saddam has any link to al-Qaeda or 9/11. If such proof were forthcoming, I would support the invasion, as would the rest of the Western world and most of the UN Security Council.

Besides, there are many terrorists who don't need ANY motive, not even the flimsiest, to act out their hatred of The Great Satan. Observe the stated motive for the WTC attacks: bin Laden was offended that American infidels (the US troops garrisoned in Saudi Arabia) were "defiling" the Holy Places by their very presence.

The number of terrorists who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their cause is at a certain level today. That number would increase significantly, probably by a few orders of magnitude, in the event that an invasion were launched. In the event that that invasion led to massive unrest and disarray in the middle east, with the possible collapse of Pakistan and Jordan, that number could grow exponentially.

I agree that there are valid reasons for perhaps waiting a bit longer to remove Hussein from power -- economic considerations, the certainty that the lives of American military personnel will be lost, the possibility that Hussein will lob a SCUD or two filled with anthrax into some neighboring nation

This is not about a couple of Scuds filled with Anthrax. This is about stability within the region as a whole, particularly in Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear capacity, they have nuclear know-how, they have fissible materials. They can't attack the United States directly, but they could easily help terrorists create a nuclear device, or give it to them outright. This is also about terrorists getting whatever Saddam has left and then using them within the borders of Western countries, particularly in densely populated urban centers, where they can do a great deal more damage than they can in the form of missiles or other projectiles.

Terrorists might be nuts, but they aren't complete morons -- if they see that threats of violence achieve their goals, they will ESCALATE their demands, not reduce them.

Wrong again, dude. What exactly do you think the "goals" of al-Qaeda are, exactly? To get the US to leave Saudi Arabia? Do you think that's what 9/11 was all about? Their goal is something far grander than that--nothing less than a clash of civilizations. A massive war in the middle east, a world-wide clash between Islam and Christianity. In order for this to happen, they need POLARIZATION. Muslims getting fired up with hatred for the West, the West rising up in fury against the Middle East. Would the West lose such a battle, such a worldwide conflagration? Obviously not. But there would be a terrible, terrible price to pay, and anybody with a shred of sense realizes that the price is far too high. Calmer heads in both the West and the Islamic world should be working together to lessen polarization, to develop and enhance diplomatic ties and international cooperation, to COOPERATE in the fight against terrorists, and to encourage greater mutual understanding among the societies involved. If this happens, the terrorists' support dries up at its base. As the last year and a half has shown, it's impossible to "root out" terrorists, find them, nab them, whatever. Bin Laden is still unaccounted for, al-Qaeda is still alive and kicking. Even if al-Qaeda were smashed, a new group would rise to take their place. The direct approach doesn't work here--it's like those games at the arcade where you hit the head that pops up, and then another head pops up, then you hit that, and so on ad infinitum. What one has to do here is just unplug the fucking machine.

An attack on Iraq doesn't harm al-Qaeda IN THE LEAST. In fact, there's no doubt that they're salivating at the prospect. It will bring them countless new footsoldiers, sympathizers, and financial benefactors. An invasion of Iraq by the United States is EXACTLY what they want.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1263222 -

Man, good post.


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1263457 -

EchoVortex writes:

If such proof were forthcoming, I would support the invasion, as would the rest of the Western world and most of the UN Security Council.

Yes, you would. But would those whose "goal is something far grander than that--nothing less than a clash of civilizations. A massive war in the middle east, a world-wide clash between Islam and Christianity," give it similar support? I don't believe they would, and I don't really think you do either.

The people you describe don't even require an OVERT action on the part of the West to become incensed -- why do you think they would sit back and say, "Oh, it's okay, then. It's not just The Great Satan that wishes to oppress our Iraqi brothers; it's the entire Western world." Did it occur to you that perhaps one reason some of the Western nations are reluctant to state publicly that Iraq should be forced to fulfill its surrender agreement is that they fear the Islamists will target THEM? Osama bin Laden has done this already. He won't be the last.

No proof has been presented yet that Saddam has any link to al-Qaeda or 9/11.

Surely you are not saying that the ONLY reason to justify military force against a nation is that they have been proven to harbor terrorists? The Al-Qaeda "connection" is just one of many reasons Bush has enumerated for taking action against Iraq now, and it is a very recent reason at that. The original (and still strongest) reason was Iraq's non-compliance with the surrender agreement.

The number of terrorists who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their cause is at a certain level today. That number would increase significantly, probably by a few orders of magnitude, in the event that an invasion were launched.

Entirely possible. Perhaps even probable. So where does that leave us? At the mercy of a cheesy little sociopath too stubborn to step down from power -- one who isn't even really a Muslim except by birth. One who has even been offered the chance to relocate to some other place in exile (obviously retaining his Swiss bank accounts) in safety. We are to allow THIS miserable waste of human flesh to dictate the course we must follow? I say this is not prudence, this is fear. Hussein has literally gotten away with mass murder because he knows that any attempt to bring him to justice will cause more trouble for the West than allowing him to defy the laws of civilized conduct. Don't think that others will ignore this object lesson. They won't.

This is also about terrorists getting whatever Saddam has left...

I take it that you are not one of the naifs who believe he has destroyed all his stocks of chemical and bio weapons, then?

As the last year and a half has shown, it's impossible to "root out" terrorists, find them, nab them, whatever.

Not impossible. Difficult and time consuming, yes. Al-Qaeda has lost a number of key men already.

Bin Laden is still unaccounted for, al-Qaeda is still alive and kicking. Even if al-Qaeda were smashed, a new group would rise to take their place.

Correct. What's your point? How is it possible to appease those whose goal is "nothing less than a clash of civilizations"? As long as there are Islamists, there will be Islamist terrorists.

Calmer heads in both the West and the Islamic world should be working together to lessen polarization, to develop and enhance diplomatic ties and international cooperation, to COOPERATE in the fight against terrorists, and to encourage greater mutual understanding among the societies involved.

That SHOULD be what occurs, yes. How realistic is it that it WILL occur? In the very few instances when it DOES occur, as it has in the case of such "friendly" Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia, the Islamist terrorist direct their activities towards their own heads of state before bothering with the West, because they perceive those men as traitors to the cause. Result? Leaders of Muslim countries are (understandably) reluctant to make any gesture that might be remotely interpreted by their hotheaded citizens as conciliatory towards the West. They (again understandably) place their own survival ahead of any other consideration. The only Islamic leaders who have the courage to take such a stance are the ones that the US is constantly criticized for dealing with -- those who rule their people so harshly they believe they have nothing to fear from any dissidents.

The direct approach doesn't work here...

I submit that the approach of appeasement won't work either. There will be an endless list of demands, each more loony than the last, until all nations on earth are fundamentalist Islam theocracies, and even then the strife will continue as they kill each other over interpretations of the Qu'ran. At which point is it correct to say, "Enough!"

Sometimes there are no alternatives that aren't ugly. This is one of those times.

pinky

***edited to change "Evolving writes" to "EchoVortex writes" -- my apologies to both parties for the error.


--------------------

Edited by pinksharkmark (01/31/03 12:31 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: Phred]
    #1263492 -

I thought evolving was trying to say that going to war with Iraq will not make americans safer because when they counter attack they will do so with terrorist activity. And then I took him to mean that if that terrorist activity were to increase, then the terrorist activity of the United States Govt. on its own people would increase. Because "homeland security" turns our police force into a military terrorist force vs. those who want to uphold the constitution.

Anyone ever think about this: The puppetmasters induce and allow attackers to use planes on 9/11 in order to strip away individual people's rights, in order to take total control of the people in a never ending thirst for power.

Buy an AR-15 today, you wont regret it tommorow.


--------------------
----

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1263509 -

I keep being reminded of the results of kicking a puppy untill it grows up... the puppy grows up to hate you, and any other pups that grew up along side of it will hate the kicker as well.

I feel this is what America keeps doing... keeps beating/killing ones off and then letting some grow up into what become a serious threat to America.

In short... NO. Attacking Iraq will, in the short term and long term make America LESS safe. ' cuz we will never take out all of our enemies by doing this. We will just give the survivors and friends of those killed in these wars more reason to hate and kill more Americans.


--------------------
>>Jammer>>

Edited by Jammer (01/30/03 09:13 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: Xlea321]
    #1263516 -


Quote:
So they can install another vicious thug who is compliant to their oil demands? Don't be silly.



Please, you stop with the sillyness. Oh, you never made a mistake? At that time it seemed like the best choice that was available. hind sight is ...

Quote:
Killing 600,000 kids thanks to sanctions is one.



God I hate this shit. He chose to fortify his millitary instead of feed his people. He did that not us. All he had to do wasd sell oil for food. That simple.

Quote:
How about using peaceable means to disarm Iraq of their theoretical weapons?



Don't you think he has had all the chances he needs to resolve this "peaceably".. And they aren't thearetical any more than a hand in the pocket is thearetical. If I see you have a hand and you put it in your pocket and tell me you cut it off, guess what. I don't believe you.

Quote:
Bombing the fuck out of a helpless country is another



No country with WMD is helpless. And if he is helpless, he should shut the fuck up.

Quote:
According to who? Certainly not international law.


I'd say according to Saddam when he signed a contract saying he would do certain things if we didn't kill him. If he doesn't do those things than any country who was a part of the first coalition and a party to the treaty that was signed has a right.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1263529 -

This isnt a war... Ita an occupation.

We are going in not to disarm IRAQ but to take out the leader so we can put a new one in his place.

Over all we will do a better job of running that country and the people will come to love us for it.

And then Bush woke up.


--------------------
GabbaDj

FAMM.ORG             

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1263541 -

Quote:
No proof has been presented yet that Saddam has any link to al-Qaeda or 9/11. If such proof were forthcoming, I would support the invasion,



You know maybe there is no point to discussing any of this untill after feb.5.
I am anxious to see what is presented and how this community will react.


Who will eat crow?



--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: Jammer]
    #1263559 -

Quote:
I keep being reminded of the results of kicking a puppy untill it grows up... the puppy grows up to hate you, and any other pups that grew up along side of it will hate the kicker as well.

I feel this is what America keeps doing... keeps beating/killing ones off and then letting some grow up into what become a serious threat to America.

In short... NO. Attacking Iraq will, in the short term and long term make America LESS safe. ' cuz we will never take out all of our enemies by doing this. We will just give the survivors and friends of those killed in the war more reason to hate and kill more Americans.



And I think of a family whos child has never seen a lick of diciplin. Running around stepping on your toes, spiting in your face, and being generaly annoying.

All we gotta do is rebuild Iraq with alot of McDonalds. once the corporations work their vodo on them it will be all over.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Edited by mntlfngrs (01/30/03 09:38 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: BowlKiller]
    #1263565 -

Quote:
I thought evolving was trying to say that going to war with Iraq will not make americans safer because when they counter attack they will do so with terrorist activity. And then I took him to mean that if that terrorist activity were to increase, then the terrorist activity of the United States Govt. on its own people would increase. Because "homeland security" turns our police force into a military terrorist force vs. those who want to uphold the constitution.

Anyone ever think about this: The puppetmasters induce and allow attackers to use planes on 9/11 in order to strip away individual people's rights, in order to take total control of the people in a never ending thirst for power.

Buy an AR-15 today, you wont regret it tommorow.


Now that is something I can agree with. That fuckin scares me more than a terrorist any day. Ar-15's and plenty of chicken shit/deisle fuel.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #1263569 -

yeah once the world is inundated with McDonalds, they'll be too fat and lazy to fight back.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #1264350 -

Quote:
He chose to fortify his millitary instead of feed his people.


Sounds like he's a Republican.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #1264359 -

Quote:
And I think of a family whos child has never seen a lick of diciplin. Running around stepping on your toes, spiting in your face, and being generaly annoying.


My parents never did anything more than yell at me, and I turned out all right.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Edited by silversoul7 (01/31/03 04:33 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: Phred]
    #1264369 -

Bin Laden is still unaccounted for, al-Qaeda is still alive and kicking

Correct. What's your point?

That we should find him before going slaughtering Iraqi innocents?

The whole point of going into Afghanistan was to find Bin Laden according to Georgy Boy. Remember when he said if the taliban would hand him over we won't invade? So why did the "hunt for bin laden" fizzle out the moment the contract for the oil pipeline was signed?

You don't need to be a genius to understand what's going on pinkie.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? [Re: BowlKiller]
    #1264614 -

Quote:
I thought evolving was trying to say that going to war with Iraq will not make americans safer because when they counter attack they will do so with terrorist activity. And then I took him to mean that if that terrorist activity were to increase, then the terrorist activity of the United States Govt. on its own people would increase. Because "homeland security" turns our police force into a military terrorist force vs. those who want to uphold the constitution....


Thank you BowlKiller, you hit the nail on the head. Iraq IS NOT a threat to the U.S., but attacking it will increase the threats to Americans, both from terrorists and our own overzealous government's responses to terrorists activity or the threat of terrorist activity. The current situation bodes ill for the future of liberty in the U.S.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Edited by Evolving (01/31/03 06:08 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 43 Attacks on Americans in Iraq Yesterday
( 1 2 all )		 Zahid 2,402 24 10/30/03 04:46 PM
by PsiloKitten
* Poll: Should the US attack Iraq? 1stimer 483 1 09/12/02 03:10 PM
by Malevolent_Angel
* Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion
( 1 2 3 all )		 Xochitl 6,705 43 06/22/06 05:15 PM
by Phred
* Every american - and anyone else alive. Read this
( 1 2 all )		 BleaK 2,401 27 11/17/19 09:41 AM
by relic
* 10 questions about Iraq Ellis Dee 893 11 02/24/03 11:30 PM
by Innvertigo
* Commander: US Troops in Iraq Through 2006 Zahid 713 1 10/19/03 12:20 AM
by wingnutx
* The secret war on Iraq Xlea321 722 1 12/28/02 03:25 AM
by Buddha5254
* Iraq: It's Beginning to Smell a Lot Like Vietnam Zahid 834 2 10/23/03 09:31 AM
by Xlea321

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,882 topic views. 3 members, 157 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.