Home | Community | Message Board


World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

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!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
For In(di)go
    #1452496 - 04/12/03 02:54 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

I am opening a new thread here so that In(di)go and I may continue our discussion in the appropriate forum rather than taking a thread from The Pub further off-topic. The first part of the exchange may be viewed here :

In(di)go writes:

... why exactly did they resume the war right now, when they could have done it a few years ago?

Because Clinton cared more about trying to duck the Monica Lewinsky (and numerous other) scandals than anything else. Let me ask you -- if the decision had been made a few years ago rather than a month ago, would your position have been any different? If so, why?

...does it have anything to do with the fact that the us "president" together with a lot of other folks in the white house own one of the worlds largest oil companies?

Incorrect. Bush doesn't "own" an oil company.

... and could you please tell me why when that cease-fire treaty was signed, the states and the other countries in the coallition didnt choose to disarm THEIR countries?

Because they didn't have to. Please note that Hussein wouldn't have had to either if he hadn't invaded Kuwait. Here's how it works -- if you invade another country, lose the war, get kicked out of the invaded country, and are let off the hook only if you agree to do certain things, one of which is to destroy certain weaponry; then you have to destroy those weapons -- the liberators of the invaded country don't have to destroy theirs. It's that simple.

... what gives THEM the right to own such weapons that doesnt apply to irak?

See above.

...that is not the way to achieve peace, sir... there is never going to be peace on earth while any country carries weapons of mass destruction...

Why? If the weapons are never used, how are they preventing people from acting peacefully?

... so, are you going to tell me that if irak would have complied with the conditions of disarming the country, the states would have done the same? no sir...

Since the US didn't have to, no they wouldn't have. See above explanation of how surrender agreements work.

and yes, i am kind of relieved that the UN insists on participating in the reconstruction, although i must say that i dont trust them either... they have done some pretty fucked up stuff, too... but they're better in any case than the american government...

How are they better?

...the only thing that worries me is that it is going to be my tax money repairing the mess that the states left...

What taxes? All Germany has to do is to tell Iraq it doesn't have to repay its outstanding loans to Germany. Your tax dollars were already spent to provide those loans in the first place.

you state that the UN will not have to pay for the reconstruction if germany, france and the rest have it their way... well tell me why shouldnt they? we never supported this war to begin with...

Without the war, there would have been no reconstruction. The UN opposed the war, so the UN need not concern itself with dealing with the consequences of the war. It's America's responsibility, right?

...but as i see things coming we will have to participate, for there is no argueing with big boss bush unless we want our country invaded, too...

Oh, please. You can't seriously believe that the US wants to invade Germany. Show some sense.

....you want proof that this war is for money? check the link i gave you in the post you replied to... and read "stupid white men" from micheal moore...

If you are using "Stupid White Men" as a source for facts, you are in trouble. The "information" in that book has been widely disproven, and Moore himself has freely admitted that he bent and twisted facts and actually made up stuff out of thin air in order to increase the entertainment value of the book. As for the other link, there is not a single fact in it that proves that the war was about money.

...or check this link out (since you digged something from focus.de, i suppose you understand a little german)...

Actually, my grasp of German is minimal. The link to the focus.de photo was given to me by a friend who speaks German.

... there are other articles and proofs, but im not going through the work to dig them up right now... not just to convince you from my point of view...

That's okay. There is no way to know what motivated Bush to proceed as he did. It is extremely unlikely that it was for any one single motive.

heh... b&b (bush n blair) twisted that around pretty well... they asked for proof of the destruction fo the weapons, but they never proved that they weren't destroyed...

Incorrect. You have it exactly backwards, but don't feel bad -- almost every anti-war person was fooled by the same Hussein doublespeak.

It was never the responsibility of the UN to find Hussein's hidden weapons, it was Hussein's responsibility to destroy the weapons outlined in the surrender agreement, and then to provide credible proof through acceptable documentation that all such contraband had in fact been destroyed. The job of the inspectors was to verify that the weapons had in fact been destroyed.

even if they would have found weapons, what makes you think saddam would have used them, if he didnt use them for 12 friggin years...

Irrelevant. The terms of the agreement were not that he was allowed to keep them if he promised he wouldn't use them. He agreed to destroy them and provide credible proof of their destruction. He did neither.

...and if saddam would have had such weapons, why doesnt he use them now, that he actually would have a reason?

Several possibilites I can think of right off the top of my head -- maybe he really was killed early in the attack. Maybe the key members of his regime with access to the weapons were killed before they could get to their hidden storage sites. Maybe he decided that it was better for them to remain hidden so he could continue claiming that he had none, hoping to get some sympathy on the international scene. Who knows? Who cares? It's irrrelevant. The agreement doesn't allow him to have some but not use them. It requires him to destroy all of them.

well... first, have you thought about the fact that these people have no friggin idea how a democracy works?

Now that's a racist comment if ever I heard one. Are you saying that the most highly-educated populace in the Arab world are too stupid to figure out how to vote?

they have had a dictator for about 25 years... do you know how much time it takes to form political parties?

There are already several Iraqi opposition parties, as you well know.

...how are you going to make these people see that they are "in control" now?

You really do have an incredibly low opinion of the Iraqi people, don't you?

second, even if the parties are founded and elections take place, who is to show the irakies that you dont shoot someone just because he follows another political party?

Okay, so not only are they too stupid to govern themselves, they are too violent as well? Damn, dude, you better hope there are no exiled Iraqis reading this post.

...and third, do you really think that ANY political party in irak is going to inform the people to what country the oil is beeing selled and at what price?

The price of crude is a matter of public record. There is no way to conceal it. As for which countries decide to purchase it from Iraq, why in the world should that matter? Oil money is oil money.

i dont think so... so everything will work this way: the americans are going to "help" the irakies build a few parties, and show them how to vote (whom to vote)... believe me although officially it will not seem so, the american government will have irak and its oil pretty much under control...

If you choose to believe that the future will unfold according to your cynical, suspicious, and somewhat paranoid way of viewing the world, I can of course not change your mind. However, you have exactly zero evidence that it will be that way -- just your own conviction that the American government is evil.

you are giving me 2 scuds as a justification for the death of thousands of innocent people?

Of course not. I merely point out that Iraq has been claiming loudly for 12 years that it had no SCUDS, just as it has been proclaiming loudly for twelve years that it has no biochem weaponry (except of course when they got caught in the mid 90s and were forced to admit that they had some but now that they have been caught lying they will of course instantly destroy all the stuff they said they never had, honest to Allah). If the inspectors were so easily fooled on the SCUD issue, why are you so convinced they have not been similarly fooled on the biochem issue?

im not going to be final on this, but i dont think they will find any bio-chemical weapons...

Why are you so confident? Iraq has been caught on this issue time and time again, and every time they say, "Oh, but this time we really have finally destroyed it all, we swear by the beard of the prophet!" That is certainly not a track record to inspire confidence in their word. Why are you so cynical about imaginary American motives yet so gullible when it comes to proven Iraqi lies?

...and if they do, who is to say that america didnt put them there to justify what they did?

Ah, the final resort of the terminally blind -- "Even if they do find biochem in Iraq, it had to have been put there by Americans, because Hussein and Al-Sahhaf would never lie to us!"

... just as they financed, armed and trained the taliban to fight the russian...

So sorry, America did no such thing. The Taliban was formed long after the USSR had left Afghanistan. This is easily checked.

...and then they are surprised when those folks come back and bite them in the ass...

So you are saying that the US (and all the many, MANY other countries who provided assistance to the Afghani resistance) should have just sat back and let the Afghanis try to expel the USSR all on their own because just maybe a dozen years down the road some of the ungrateful bastards might decide to hijack some commercial airliners and fly them into some buildings in the country of the very people who made it possible for them to be free? Okay -- if you really feel that it is incorrect to provide asistance to those trying to free themselves, that's fine by me. Just don't ever let me catch you whining that anyone should ever lift a finger to help those in Rwanda or Somalia or Tibet or wherever.

...if the us government was capable of doing that, it is capable of smuggling some biochems into irak and pretend they just found them...

Good grief. Your trust in the word of a brutal dictator (despite all evidence to the contrary) is really quite touching.

and well, i still think this war is a total fiasco...

I can't help what you think. All I can do is shake my head in wonder at your understanding of the word "fiasco".

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1452543 - 04/12/03 03:12 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Here's how it works -- if you invade another country, lose the war, get kicked out of the invaded country

Funny, that's not how it worked when Saddam invaded Iran. Then he recieved full US military backing, Bush defended his use of chemical weapons by insisting it was Iran and a year after the gas attack gave him a billion dollars.

What taxes?

The 100 billion the taxpayer has paid so far for the war. And don't imagine for a second the taxpayer will see a penny of the Oil corporations enormous profits from exploiting iraqi oil. The taxpayer paid for the war, the oil corporations will bank the profits.

The job of the inspectors was to verify that the weapons had in fact been destroyed.

How do you prove a negative? It's pretty obvious there were no WMD. Unless you believe Bush when he says "they've all been moved to Syria...!" :grin: :grin:

He agreed to destroy them and provide credible proof of their destruction. He did neither.

According to whom? Shrub? Certainly Scott Ritter, the UN weapons inspector, was confident Iraq had destroyed at least 98% of it's weapons.

However, you have exactly zero evidence that it will be that way

How is the rebuilding of Afghanistan coming along?  :blush:

we swear by the beard of the prophet!"

Your racism is disgusting.

So sorry, America did no such thing. The Taliban was formed long after the USSR had left Afghanistan.

By the same people the US had armed. You are not seriously denying this are you?

have just sat back and let the Afghanis try to expel the USSR all on their own

The Afghans asked the russians into the country. They stated this at the UN.

Okay -- if you really feel that it is incorrect to provide asistance to those trying to free themselves

Like the contras "freed" the nicaraguans I suppose?

Like the assistance provided to the nightmarish Northern Alliance warlords?

Strange how rape, torture and mass murder translates into "freedom" in your world pink.


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1452560 - 04/12/03 03:19 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Alex, I will refute your usual gibberish, mistatements, off-topic comments and non-sequiturs after In(di)go replies.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1452568 - 04/12/03 03:22 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Amusing to see how quickly you resort to personal insult now pink. Your arguments have been demolished so often personal attack is all you have left.


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1452576 - 04/12/03 03:25 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

How is stating facts resorting to personal insult? You have already deviated off the topic with the first response in the thread.


--------------------
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.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Evolving]
    #1452597 - 04/12/03 03:32 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Pink stated "This is how it works" when you invade a country. I pointed out quite accurately that this is not how it works. The Iraqi invasion of Iran is a clear and undisputable example of this.



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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleIn(di)go
People of the sun.
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/00
Posts: 8,150
Loc: Cologne, Germany
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1453538 - 04/12/03 10:09 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

ok guys... it is 4 am and i just returned home from a party... i also am not in the healthiest state of mind... added to that, i have to work tomorrow (today for that matter)... so if you excuse me, i will respond to your post when i have the time and the concentration to do it... until then!

PEACE


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleIn(di)go
People of the sun.
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/00
Posts: 8,150
Loc: Cologne, Germany
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1455290 - 04/13/03 08:37 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Because Clinton cared more about trying to duck the Monica Lewinsky (and numerous other) scandals than anything else. Let me ask you -- if the decision had been made a few years ago rather than a month ago, would your position have been any different? If so, why?



ok bash it up on mr. clinton... i know he did a lot of shit during his time, but the lewinsky incident should have been the last one to be made into a scandal... it is his private life for god's sake! the americans should be more worried about the poverty and taxes that weren't improving than about a president who may or not be screwing around...

and i really can't answer your question because it would be a speculation... but with my current knowledge and experience i would have had the same position because i think a war is NEVER justified...

Quote:

Incorrect. Bush doesn't "own" an oil company.



ok could you quit hanging up on peanuts? we are trying to have a serious discussion about an important subject here aren't we? if not, just tell me because i have other things to do than to argue with someone who doesnt take this seriously... i know bush doesnt own an oil company, but i couldn't think about the right word to express what i was trying to say... is lobbyist the right word? i meant that he was one of the leading people in one of the worlds biggest oil companies, and he owns a lot of shares of that companies (as do a lot of other people in the white house)... its just a big money-making corporation...

Quote:

Because they didn't have to. Please note that Hussein wouldn't have had to either if he hadn't invaded Kuwait. Here's how it works -- if you invade another country, lose the war, get kicked out of the invaded country, and are let off the hook only if you agree to do certain things, one of which is to destroy certain weaponry; then you have to destroy those weapons -- the liberators of the invaded country don't have to destroy theirs. It's that simple.



im with alex on this one... i know what you are stating is how things are SUPPOSED to work when you invade a country, but everythings different when the states are involved... and in my opinion every single country that owns abc weapons on this planet should have to destroy those weapons even if they didnt invade a country... its just a ticking bomb...

Quote:

Why? If the weapons are never used, how are they preventing people from acting peacefully?



you dont have very much life experience have you? they are preventing people from acting peacefully simply by existing... if a country has such weapons there will be a time when they are going to be enticed to use them... be it for protection... but as a matter of fact we shoul think about protecting our freaking planet from a nuclear holocaust... we are all brothers here... we all are citizens of the beautiful third rock from the sun, and its not going to last long while those weapons are still around... and dont say they will never be used, because they just might be, especially in the hands of a corrupt, greedy government... can you SWEAR that they will never be used? hmmm? can you do that? didnt think so...

Quote:

How are they better?



they are better because it is a matter of shared interests... they at least take some time to think about what is good for the mayority of this planet, instead of plotting out world domination

Quote:

What taxes? All Germany has to do is to tell Iraq it doesn't have to repay its outstanding loans to Germany. Your tax dollars were already spent to provide those loans in the first place.



yup.. all germany has to do NOW is forgive iraq's debt... and im all for it (even though we could really use the money because our financial situation isnt that bright, either) maybe that will bring some smiles to the people who lost their homes and husbands and wifes and children thanks to american bombs... but how do you know that there won't be more to come? besides, as a part of the United Nations, germany will surely have to give some monetarian support...

Quote:

Without the war, there would have been no reconstruction. The UN opposed the war, so the UN need not concern itself with dealing with the consequences of the war. It's America's responsibility, right?



well it should be america's responsability... but it is after all our planet... and this is the chance to show some respect and brotherhood... although i still think bush and blair should be the ones sent with a shovel to rebuild what was lost...

Quote:

Oh, please. You can't seriously believe that the US wants to invade Germany. Show some sense.



i dont think they want... but it is a possibility at hand seeing the lack of common sense in the white house lately... but im not worried for now... iran and north korea would be next... what comes then, nobody can tell...

Quote:

If you are using "Stupid White Men" as a source for facts, you are in trouble. The "information" in that book has been widely disproven, and Moore himself has freely admitted that he bent and twisted facts and actually made up stuff out of thin air in order to increase the entertainment value of the book. As for the other link, there is not a single fact in it that proves that the war was about money.



i am not taking moore's book as a source of facts... i know he bent the information, but there is a solid ground to it, otherwise he wouldnt have written about it... anyways, it just gives you an idea about what is happening... and about the PNCA site... i know there is no proof of the war beeing about money on it... but if you take a look at the people who founded that organization... whoops! its the same folks who're sitting in the white house right now... and there is pretty obvious and straight proof on that site, that america wants world domination at any cost... and well, how do you achieve that... with power... and where does the power lay these days? in oil & money... if you control the flow of oil, you have the power to control entire countries... and you have the money to expand that power...

Quote:

Actually, my grasp of German is minimal. The link to the focus.de photo was given to me by a friend who speaks German.



ok doesnt matter... but if you really want proof so bad, then you should think about learning some more german or having your friend traduce it to you...

Quote:

That's okay. There is no way to know what motivated Bush to proceed as he did. It is extremely unlikely that it was for any one single motive.



agreed

Quote:

It was never the responsibility of the UN to find Hussein's hidden weapons, it was Hussein's responsibility to destroy the weapons outlined in the surrender agreement, and then to provide credible proof through acceptable documentation that all such contraband had in fact been destroyed. The job of the inspectors was to verify that the weapons had in fact been destroyed.



well... i really wont argue about this with you, because i think that agreement is bullshit when you really want peace on this planet... and as it was signed after a war that was a fiasco, too... i dont see any validity in it...

Quote:

Several possibilites I can think of right off the top of my head -- maybe he really was killed early in the attack. Maybe the key members of his regime with access to the weapons were killed before they could get to their hidden storage sites. Maybe he decided that it was better for them to remain hidden so he could continue claiming that he had none, hoping to get some sympathy on the international scene. Who knows? Who cares? It's irrrelevant. The agreement doesn't allow him to have some but not use them. It requires him to destroy all of them.



ok im gonna play your game, because you forgot about a possibility: maybe it is because he doens't own any such weapons... you have to grant that... and since just like i cant proove you dont have any proof there ARE such weapons, were pretty much wasting our time on this point...

Quote:

Now that's a racist comment if ever I heard one. Are you saying that the most highly-educated populace in the Arab world are too stupid to figure out how to vote?



ok fella... you are getting ahead of yourself, and projecting your subjective image of me onto what i say... if i was a racist, would i be concerned about the safety and health of these folks? i would have been all for the war "kill those towelhead-terrorists" as 50% of the american population say... (bacuase they think that saddam is linked to 09/11 ... i NEVER said that the educated folks in irak dont know about democracy... im sure they do... im talking about the population with less money and no education... which i am sure you know are about 90% in such a country, since you live in dom. rep... i happen to know that, too because i spent 13 years in ecuador... but well thats off-topic... my point is that the mayority of iraqi people dont know how exactly a democracy works (most people in ecuador didnt even know about their voting rights, even tho they have had a democracy for over 50 years)... you get my point now?

Quote:

You really do have an incredibly low opinion of the Iraqi people, don't you? Okay, so not only are they too stupid to govern themselves, they are too violent as well? Damn, dude, you better hope there are no exiled Iraqis reading this post.


no i dont have a low opinion of them... i am just stating what i see... will you tell me that they are behaving peacefully? or even that the american soldiers have the situation under control? man! look at the news! for me what is happening now is natural... and it is the proof that iraq wasnt ready for a democracy yet... they arent "ripe"... if they would have been, they would have kicked saddam's ass themsleves...

Quote:

The price of crude is a matter of public record. There is no way to conceal it. As for which countries decide to purchase it from Iraq, why in the world should that matter? Oil money is oil money.



and what about black market? are the prices official there? and it DOES matter which countries will buy oil from iraq... you control the flow... you have the power... you can't grasp it can you?

Quote:

If you choose to believe that the future will unfold according to your cynical, suspicious, and somewhat paranoid way of viewing the world, I can of course not change your mind. However, you have exactly zero evidence that it will be that way -- just your own conviction that the American government is evil.


well thats your view of me... and just as you think i have a prejudice against the american government, i think you have a prejudice against me... i am not cynical... i am not paranoid... and i think that not only the american, but ALL governments at this time on this planet are... well not evil, but not doing the right choices... and as for the way i think things WILL unfold... thats another story altogether... let's just say i see a very happy and enlightening future for this planet, because people are awakening...

Quote:

Of course not. I merely point out that Iraq has been claiming loudly for 12 years that it had no SCUDS, just as it has been proclaiming loudly for twelve years that it has no biochem weaponry (except of course when they got caught in the mid 90s and were forced to admit that they had some but now that they have been caught lying they will of course instantly destroy all the stuff they said they never had, honest to Allah). If the inspectors were so easily fooled on the SCUD issue, why are you so convinced they have not been similarly fooled on the biochem issue?



intuition... and even if there were such weapons, it still doesnt justify a war... NOTHING justifies the killing of ANYONE...

Quote:

Why are you so confident? Iraq has been caught on this issue time and time again, and every time they say, "Oh, but this time we really have finally destroyed it all, we swear by the beard of the prophet!" That is certainly not a track record to inspire confidence in their word. Why are you so cynical about imaginary American motives yet so gullible when it comes to proven Iraqi lies?


not beeing final and thinking about what may be is gullible? i dont think what i do because i believe iraq's government... they are the same lying cocksuckers... it is just what i feel... of course this doesnt fit into your rational view of analizing things, but well...

Quote:

Ah, the final resort of the terminally blind -- "Even if they do find biochem in Iraq, it had to have been put there by Americans, because Hussein and Al-Sahhaf would never lie to us!"


as i said i dont trust thise fuckers either... and note that although you believe so, i NEVER EVER said that i thought what they did to their people was right... but there is a way to overthrow such a government, my friend... and if you say they wouldnt have been able, then it is you who has a pretty low image of the iraki people... i just dont think irak has any biochems... it just doesnt make sense... one way or another the biochems came from america... be it a long time ago when irak was fighting iran, or be it now to justify what they did...

Quote:

So sorry, America did no such thing. The Taliban was formed long after the USSR had left Afghanistan. This is easily checked.



see alex's comment... oh and by the way did you know that george w. bush and the oil company he is affiliated with met quite often with our dear osama bin laden to talk about business? and did you know that this same company got to be the one to build a HUGE oil pipeline through afghanistan? i love how you trust the american government... its really sweet...

Quote:

So you are saying that the US (and all the many, MANY other countries who provided assistance to the Afghani resistance) should have just sat back and let the Afghanis try to expel the USSR all on their own


ok... do you really think that the US would have stepped in if it would have been ANY other country invading afghanistan? remember the cold war and the biggest enemy, the comunist? the states would have done anything to mess up any USSR plan... and all of a sudden it is ok that the states invaded canada and stole land from mexico, but it is NOT ok that the USSR invades a country? puh-leeeeez...

Quote:

because just maybe a dozen years down the road some of the ungrateful bastards might decide to hijack some commercial airliners and fly them into some buildings in the country of the very people who made it possible for them to be free?


hah! you call what afghanistan had beeing free? you call that beeing free? oh! i forgot... you even call what you have in america beeing free... but that is not freedom my friend... but thats another subject altogether... read up on the PATRIOT ACT, and find out how bush and his corporate smegma-sucking chimpanzees managed to strip all americans from a lot of their basic rights such as privacy...

Quote:

Okay -- if you really feel that it is incorrect to provide asistance to those trying to free themselves, that's fine by me. Just don't ever let me catch you whining that anyone should ever lift a finger to help those in Rwanda or Somalia or Tibet or wherever.



i never said that... it is always good to assist someone in freeing himself... but what the american's do is just putting the people in another cage... its different, but quite the same... besides there are SO MANY countries under the same circumstances iraq is in... and yet, america does not aid them... they dont even care... they do it as long as they have a profit out of it...

Quote:

Good grief. Your trust in the word of a brutal dictator (despite all evidence to the contrary) is really quite touching.



there is no evidence to trust any of those leaders... and in fact i dont... as i said, they are ALL LYING COCKSUCKERS...

Quote:

I can't help what you think. All I can do is shake my head in wonder at your understanding of the word "fiasco".



shake your head all you want but be careful, it might get painful in the neck... look at the news man, are you gonna tell me that is what you call a succesful war? its screwed up altogether man... it is a fiasco... EVERY war is a fiasco... when will you see that we are all one? when you kill someone, you kill a part of yourself...

PEACE


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,377
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: For In(di)go [Re: In(di)go]
    #1455360 - 04/13/03 09:22 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

NOTHING justifies the killing of ANYONE...

Amen to that, man!  :smile:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: For In(di)go [Re: trendal]
    #1455388 - 04/13/03 09:38 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

NOTHING justifies the killing of ANYONE...

a man is running around a playground, cutting children's necks with a knife. you have a gun and a clear shot at him.

i disagree with your statement.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1455397 - 04/13/03 09:41 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Amusing to see how quickly you resort to personal insult now pink. Your arguments have been demolished so often personal attack is all you have left.

not a personal insult al. he was attacking your ideas, not you...

wait, i forgot... in your case, the two are inseparable.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1455441 - 04/13/03 10:00 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Your arguments have been demolished so often personal attack is all you have left.

yes al, you've got it right. pinksharkarks ideas are such garbage that the only thing he can do in his frustration at being wrong, again and again and again... is attack you personally. hell... there are two threads just recently... right here, where your ideas BLEW HIM OUT OF THE WATER. i mean.. you totally shut him down man...

"Why didn't saddam...

"We've been suffering... what took you so long?"

:laugh:


Edited by Anonymous (04/13/03 10:02 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1455480 - 04/13/03 10:17 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Pink stated "This is how it works" when you invade a country. I pointed out quite accurately that this is not how it works. The Iraqi invasion of Iran is a clear and undisputable example of this.

the difference here is that in the iran\iraq war, after the iranians pushed the iraqis out of iran, when they tried to invade iraq, saddam's forces were able to hold them off and push them out. he was not soundly defeated and forced to sign a conditional surrender at the end, as he was following his invasion of kuwait.

had saddam hussien been as effective at pushing coalition forces out of his country in the 90's as he was at pushing iranian forces out of his country in the 80's, he wouldn't have had to sign a conditional surrender at the end like he did. instead, he got his ass beat and had to sign a conditional surrender.

make sense?


Edited by Anonymous (04/16/03 01:48 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRadioActiveSlug
addict

Registered: 03/14/03
Posts: 530
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: ]
    #1455499 - 04/13/03 10:23 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

NOTHING justifies the killing of ANYONE...

a man is running around a playground, cutting children's necks with a knife. you have a gun and a clear shot at him.






well that's hardly a fair fight. I'd go at him with a knife.


--------------------
"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one getting burned." -Buddha
www.impeach-bush-now.org


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,377
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: For In(di)go [Re: ]
    #1455566 - 04/14/03 06:50 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

I don't have to kill him to stop him.

Shoot his knees out, that'll stop him. Fuck shoot his hands off if you have to.

It's still not killing.

Killing is wrong. Period.


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: trendal]
    #1455725 - 04/14/03 12:02 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Knees and hands are a lot harder to hit than a torso...


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: For In(di)go [Re: trendal]
    #1455833 - 04/14/03 12:56 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Shoot his knees out, that'll stop him. Fuck shoot his hands off if you have to.



You haven't done much shooting have you? If you have, you haven't done much of it under stress while trying to hit a moving target, have you?

Quote:

Killing is wrong. Period.



I disagree, murder is wrong, killing the innocent is wrong. Killing to defend oneself or an innocent third party is justifiable. Of course I doubt that either one of us could convince the other to adopt the opposing position, so lets agree to disagree.


--------------------
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 (04/14/03 12:59 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/13/99
Posts: 1,617
Re: For In(di)go [Re: trendal]
    #1455911 - 04/14/03 01:33 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

:smile:

Thank you for making that point, Trendal.

How do you know he hasnt shot any moving targets?  I learned how to shoot a gun when I was 8, like a good ole southern daddy's girl.

Maybe Trendal sleeps with a smith and wesson under his pillow.  Heh. 


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: For In(di)go [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #1455984 - 04/14/03 02:13 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Did you ever shoot at a moving human who was wielding a weapon?  It's pretty hard to shoot just the hands or knees (or the head for that matter), prudent combat technique suggests aiming for the center of the body mass.  But then, I'm sure your daddy taught you that. :wink: 


--------------------
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.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/13/99
Posts: 1,617
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Evolving]
    #1456220 - 04/14/03 04:33 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Actually,  my father taught me to never shoot a person without a gun to kill, but to wound and only if there was no other option. Id rather shoot in someone's general direction first.. my daddy taught me pressure points and tai chi too-  we were a life valuing family.  I guess I had a warped sense of humor.. on those moving practice dummy's I prefered to shoot for the nads.  I figured that more then likely, if I ever have to look down the barrel  of a firearm at someone, it will most likely be a man.

But I won skeet shooting champion of my county for age 9 to 11 :smile:  Nope, Ive never shot a live person and Ive never been in a situation where I had to.  But someone who responsibly uses a gun should put some effort into that ownership and do some practice.  In this scenario, being someone who had experience or not, I still would not shoot someone to kill.  I might do something stupid out of confusion or inexperience, but my goal is going to be to get whatever situation that is harmful to end.  Not to "kill"

It is absolutely not that hard to not shoot a vital organ, you dont have to shoot a kneecap.  Infact, it would be best if you shot a thigh or an ass.  You can shoot a shoulder a foot, a hand, a forearm, a bicep.  If I accidently fuck up and miss, that is one thing.. but my ass is aiming for a handicap, not an orphan, widow, or grieving mother. 


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


Edited by PsiloKitten (04/14/03 04:34 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* obamas' supreme dis-appointment...
( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 all )
Annapurna1
8,903 265 06/04/09 07:58 PM
by THC Titan
* Oh no he di'ent! retread 398 7 10/02/04 03:04 PM
by Phred
* Dis-Integration RonoS 448 6 03/01/03 11:54 AM
by carbonhoots
* Newsweek disavows Koran desecration report that led to riots
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
zappaisgod 5,141 105 07/09/05 08:14 PM
by lonestar2004
* A blast from the past Phred 811 18 01/27/08 11:44 AM
by afoaf
* Israel exposing her true colors
( 1 2 all )
Zahid 1,691 36 09/01/04 12:29 AM
by Divided_Sky
* Answers from MAIA
( 1 2 3 4 ... 14 15 all )
Phred 7,457 280 05/05/09 01:31 AM
by ScavengerType
* Shocking Inside DC Scandal Rumor: A Media Ethics Dilemma
( 1 2 3 all )
lonestar2004 2,864 50 02/21/08 04:59 PM
by Gijith

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
5,710 topic views. 3 members, 3 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
FreeSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.173 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 18 queries.