Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9  [ show all ]
OfflineMisterKite
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/24/02
Posts: 655
Loc: Montreal, QC
Last seen: 16 years, 1 month
Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War?
    #2058586 - 10/30/03 08:11 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Seriously-this war seems to have angered both parties. For the more compassionate of us, thousands have died, and for the more Republican of us, the economy has gone to shit. American soldiers are still dying, and the U.S. has been made a global mockery. Who here truly feels NOW that this war was worth it?


--------------------
"But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewingnutx

Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,283
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: MisterKite]
    #2058613 - 10/30/03 08:16 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Me.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: MisterKite]
    #2058639 - 10/30/03 08:22 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Depends on wether the situation in Iraq actually improves or not. If it collapses back into another totalitarian regime, then no.


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLearyfanS
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,083
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 8 hours, 51 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: MisterKite]
    #2058714 - 10/30/03 08:43 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Me.





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


Mp3 of the month:  The Apple-Glass Cyndrome - Someday



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLe_Canard
The Duk Abides

Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: MisterKite]
    #2058736 - 10/30/03 08:51 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

I don't know...it's turning into a real mess. I feel sorry for all parties involved. (I.E. U.S servicemen/women and the average Iraqi citizen)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Learyfan]
    #2058757 - 10/30/03 08:58 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

I'm sticking by my origional concept: Democrats and Republicans both have certain groups that they like to shit on. The Dems got 8 years to shit on their victims, it was time to give those people a break and let the Republican's choice victims carry the weight for a while.

But since Republicans shit twice as hard as Democrats, it's time for a democrat president for another 8 years.

This is assuming that a third party won't win, a safe assumption.


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/12/99
Posts: 1,617
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: MisterKite]
    #2059209 - 10/30/03 11:01 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

People here are pretty hard headed. Plus, they sit behind a computer screen all day hawking for the war.

It's hard to feel compassion when you rarely have human contact in meaningful ways. Places like this make it easier for people to not care about reality.. only their engineered perception.

Sadly, you'll get alot of yeas on this one.

Jacob's Ladder
by Chumbawamba

Like the sermon on the mountain
Says the dumber got dumb
Hellfire and brimstone
Swapped for oil and guns
When we re pushing up daisies
We all look the same
In the name of the Father, maybe
But not in my name

On this Jacob's Ladder
The only way up is down
One step from disaster
Two to make the higher ground
Jacob's Ladder

A million lifetimes
Left dying in the sun
In the streets down in Whitehall
Dog's picking at the bones
9/11 got branded
9/11 got sold
There'll be no-one left to water
All the seeds you sowed

On this Jacob's Ladder
The only way up is down
One step from disaster
Two to make the higher ground
Jacob's Ladder

On this Jacob's Ladder
The only way up is down
One step from disaster
Two to make the higher ground
On this Jacob's Ladder
The only way up is down
One step from disaster
Two to make the higher ground
Jacob's Ladder


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #2060090 - 10/31/03 08:41 AM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

PsiloKitten said:
People here are pretty hard headed. Plus, they sit behind a computer screen all day hawking for the war.

It's hard to feel compassion when you rarely have human contact in meaningful ways. Places like this make it easier for people to not care about reality.. only their engineered perception.

Sadly, you'll get alot of yeas on this one.




Would you say that stopping a madman from gassing his own people is something that people who have "human contact in meaningful ways" would support, or be against?


--------------------
In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen
PsiloKitten said:
Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewingnutx

Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,283
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #2060139 - 10/31/03 09:26 AM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

they sit behind a computer screen all day hawking for the war.

It's hard to feel compassion when you rarely have human contact in meaningful ways.




Last week I was working in a trauma center getting way more human contact in one night than most people get in a month. I have a pretty good idea what people are like when they have bullet holes in them, broken femurs, or other assorted boo-boos.

I did a little work in the ped section, which is kind of hard to take. You have to do things that you know scare and hurt the kids you are working on.

I think most of the people here probably have some sort of life aside fromt he internet.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/12/99
Posts: 1,617
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: wingnutx]
    #2060620 - 10/31/03 01:02 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

I agree, most being the keyword in that last sentence.

Not all, unfortunately.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleZippoZM
Knomadic
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/17/03
Posts: 13,227
Loc: Pongyang, North Korea
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #2060697 - 10/31/03 01:24 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

you can not create peace thorough war, i never supported it and never will, nor will i ever support any sort of armed forces or armies of any sort,


--------------------
PEACE

:mushroom2:zippoz:mushroom2:



"in times of widespread chaos and confusion, it has been the duty of more advanced human beings - artists, scientists, clowns, and philosophers - to create order. In such times as ours however, when there is too much order, too much m management, too much programming and control, it becomes the duty of superior men and women and women to fling their favorite monkey wrenches into the machinery. To relieve the repression of the human spirit, they must sow doubt and disruption"

"People do it every day, they talk to themselves ... they see themselves as they'd like to be, they don't have the courage you have, to just run with it."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 19 years, 26 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: ZippoZ]
    #2060739 - 10/31/03 01:40 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Exactly, war can never be "worth it". :thumbdown:


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewingnutx

Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,283
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Azmodeus]
    #2060755 - 10/31/03 01:44 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

England should have surrendered rather than fought in WWII?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #2060760 - 10/31/03 01:45 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

and you know about the day-to-day lives of the people that post here how?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 19 years, 26 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: wingnutx]
    #2060775 - 10/31/03 01:49 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

honestly wingtux does it matter?! one dictator replaces the other, empires rise and fall, there is always someone repressing those who don't stand for themselves. Look at the waste that was ww2, it was NOT worth it....not to imply the alternitive to be better.
But usa developed nuclear weapons in that war....we may yet anihilate ourselves with them,...ist that worth it?


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: ]
    #2060787 - 10/31/03 01:52 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

and you know about the day-to-day lives of the people that post here how?

Because they post about it?

We know inny enjoys shooting at animals for example because he's said so.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/12/99
Posts: 1,617
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: ]
    #2060808 - 10/31/03 01:57 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

How about cause alot of em arent even smart enough to turn off their listing on the Who's Online portion of the site and you can see that they are constantly here? I mean, if yer gonna be here that much, you should atleast have some dignity as to not advertise it.



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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2060821 - 10/31/03 02:01 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

i wasn't talking to you alex.

i asked psilokitten how she knows that "not all" of the people that post here have a life away from their computer.

seems like a rather presumptous statement to me.

much like saying that people here "sit behind their computers all day hawking for the war" and "rarely have human contact in meaningful ways".


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/12/99
Posts: 1,617
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: ]
    #2060831 - 10/31/03 02:05 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

I call em as I see em.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: MisterKite]
    #2060835 - 10/31/03 02:07 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

i think the war will probably end up being a good thing for most of the population of iraq.

i don't think it has been, and i doubt it will be, a good thing for americans... and if it does end up being a good thing, it will probably be because it makes us richer, not safer (if profit is indeed the motive, i don't see how the iraq war represents a good investment of $87 billion, but maybe it is...).

i don't think hussein was a threat to the united states, and i don't think our military should have been called up against him.

that said, he was a nasty dude and the world is better without him. he should have been dealt with by his neighbors and\or the people of iraq. it wasn't our business.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #2060838 - 10/31/03 02:08 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

England should have surrendered rather than fought in WWII?




I think fighting fascism is an individual responsibility. I support self-defense. War by an organized government... well, thats a different story. If there were no English military, but every private home was well equipped for self-defense, wouldn't it have been just as hard for Germans to overtake the English? Assuming that the private citizens had balls and hadnt been indoctrinated by the government into accepting oppression, that is.

Of course, organizing a defense in response to a highly organized threat is totally logical, but making that organization permenant is an invitation to disaster.

That having been said, I don't see how you could compare the English defending against the Nazis to America pre-emptively invading Iraq... unless, of course, you are comparing America to the Nazis...



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: ]
    #2060847 - 10/31/03 02:12 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

i wasn't talking to you alex.

Sorry mush but this is a public messageboard. Use PM's if you want it to be private.

she knows that "not all" of the people that post here have a life away from their computer.seems like a rather presumptous statement to me.

But that's not what she said is it. She said:

It's hard to feel compassion when you rarely have human contact in meaningful ways.

and

People here are pretty hard headed. Plus, they sit behind a computer screen all day hawking for the war.

Both of those statements are fair comment and are very easily deduced from various peoples postings. I don't think lysergic has any meaningful human contact with any of his "sand niggers" for example.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/12/99
Posts: 1,617
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2060868 - 10/31/03 02:18 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Alex, you're my sand nigga. :smile:

They do not read my words.

They read their opinions. 

I find it interesting how the right always likes to say that the left is so emotional.  Well, Id like to contend that the right is awfully egocentric.

But that is neither here nor there, Alex is right. If you have a personal question for me, that has nothing to do with the topic...  It would be much better served with PMs instead of the dissolution of a perfectly valid threat.

That is all Ive got to say about that.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #2061037 - 10/31/03 03:21 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Well, I can personally say that I've touched the lives of a number of "sand niggers" (A phrase I use mainly in jest, and to offend liberal jackasses) when I was in Iraq, a very meaningful communication :smile:



--------------------
In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen
PsiloKitten said:
Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2061049 - 10/31/03 03:24 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:
I think fighting fascism is an individual responsibility. I support self-defense. War by an organized government... well, thats a different story. If there were no English military, but every private home was well equipped for self-defense, wouldn't it have been just as hard for Germans to overtake the English? Assuming that the private citizens had balls and hadnt been indoctrinated by the government into accepting oppression, that is.





Private citizens would have stormed Normandy? Would they have build the boats in their backyards? How about defending against the Nazi bombing of London? Again, private citizenry?

Quote:


That having been said, I don't see how you could compare the English defending against the Nazis to America pre-emptively invading Iraq... unless, of course, you are comparing America to the Nazis...




Hitler was segreating the residents of Germany into groups, those that were gassed, and those that were not. Saddam did the same. No American president, recently at least, has done this.

Hitler FIRST invaded his neighbor, claming that it was their "right" to have that territory. Saddam FIRST invaded his neighbor, claming that it was their "right" to have that territory" No american president, recently at least, has done this.

i'm nto sure exactly what you are using to liken the US people/government to the Naziss, but it sounds much more like Saddam would fit that profile.


--------------------
In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen
PsiloKitten said:
Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: ZippoZ]
    #2061062 - 10/31/03 03:30 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

zippoz said:
you can not create peace thorough war, i never supported it and never will, nor will i ever support any sort of armed forces or armies of any sort,




"never" is a strong word. Would you say that the European Jews are better or worse off now? Would you sit idly by and watch and entire race of people be exterminated? If their is a madman that is hurting large amounts of innocent people, and you can stop him (and his forces) only via destruction of them, then institute a government toreplace him that ISNT hellbent on gassing / mass extermination, is't that better than sitting by?


I think their is a word for what you described, cowardly.


--------------------
In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen
PsiloKitten said:
Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 19 years, 26 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: lysergic]
    #2061192 - 10/31/03 04:19 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

at least thats a nicer word than the one used to describe the validity of your arguments. :smirk:


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: ZippoZ]
    #2061203 - 10/31/03 04:28 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

you can not create peace thorough war,

yes you can. this happens every time a defending army defeats an aggressor.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: ]
    #2061214 - 10/31/03 04:34 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

yes you can. this happens every time a defending army defeats an aggressor.



Yes, defending yourself is acceptable. A war of aggression is not.


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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2061556 - 10/31/03 07:14 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Silversoul7 writes:

Yes, defending yourself is acceptable.

And defending others?

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2061563 - 10/31/03 07:18 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Silversoul7 writes:

Yes, defending yourself is acceptable.

And defending others?



Questionable


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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2061566 - 10/31/03 07:20 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

How so? Details, man, details.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2061572 - 10/31/03 07:21 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

If someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons is it right or wrong?


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2061602 - 10/31/03 07:38 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

I mean it depends on the circumstances. Defending other nations from a genocidal dictator bent on world destruction and elimination of non-Aryans: good. Defending the non-Communist southern part of a country from Communists in the north when the majority of the people actually support the north: bad.


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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2061612 - 10/31/03 07:46 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Baby_Hitler asks:

If someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons is it right or wrong?

Now we are getting into philosophy rather than politics, but to answer your question, generally motivations are irrelevant. What counts is the action.

By "right" in this context, I presume you mean "moral" or "ethical"? If so, let's take a look at an example or two --

A man comes to the aid of a beautiful rich woman being mugged, chasing off the assailant. He has defended another, even though the assailant was no threat to him personally. Did he do a good thing or a bad thing? I say he did a good thing -- whether he came to her aid in the hopes of :

a) impressing his watching girlfriend (ego gratification)
b) in the hopes of scoring with the victim later (sexual gratification)
c) in the hopes the victim would reward him by making him her bodyguard (monetary gratification)
d) because the mugger was Hispanic and he hates Hispanics (racial prejudice)
e) because he is a violent Kung Fu fanatic who gets his kicks out of whupping people and he saw a chance to get away with full contact ass-kicking in a real life situation (expression of violent urges)
f) He recognized the assailant as someone who had ripped him off in a previous drug deal (personal revenge)
g) I'm sure you can think of many other scenarios.

The motivation was irrelevant. The action was what was relevant.

Now let's look at the flip side of the same coin. I say the action the mugger took was bad, regardless of his motivations. He initiated violence against a peaceful individual (the beautiful woman). His action becomes no less bad if his motivation for it was:

a) because he knew she had just purchased two tickets to a rock concert, and he was stealing them so he could take his dying-of-cancer twelve year old buddy to see his favorite band before he becomes too weak to leave the house
b) the woman was wearing a mink coat, and he is a member of PETA
c) she owns a dry-cleaning business which hires illegal Hispanics at less than minimum wage
d) fill in your own motivation here.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2061616 - 10/31/03 07:48 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Silversoul7 writes:

I mean it depends on the circumstances. Defending other nations from a genocidal dictator bent on world destruction and elimination of non-Aryans: good.

And what about the people within the borders of said dictator's country? They're on their own?

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2061662 - 10/31/03 08:10 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

I just finished reading A History Of The Twentieth Century and I now I think I have a decent grasp of both world wars.

WW1 was the most meaningless and unjustified war ever fought. It got to the point where soldiers didn't even know what they where fighting for,they were just shooting so they didn't get shot. Alliances changed so often that soldiers on both sides would be shooting at each other one day,and having lunch the next. Hardly any territory was gained by any country. It was a total "my dick is bigger than yours" scenario.

And while I think America was justified in MOST of its actions in WW2, it was just a continuation of WW1.

My point being that any kind of physical violence should be a total last resort. It may improve things in the short term sometimes,but I think it just usually leads to even greater long term instability. The war in Iraq was not a last resort situation.Even if the people in Iraq do benefit somewhere in the future,the whole war will just lead to greater world wide instability in the long run.

No offense Mark (I really do mean that,I respect you),but your analogies of very small term events and wars are just stupid.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2061678 - 10/31/03 08:19 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)





Machine Gun
Words and Music by Jimi Hendrix
Copyright ? 1970, 1996 Experience Hendrix, L.L.C.

JIMI:
"HAPPY NEW YEAR FIRST OF ALL. I HOPE WE'LL HAVE
A MILLION OR TWO MILLION MORE OF THEM... IF WE
CAN GET OVER THIS SUMMER, HE HE HE. RIGHT I'D
LIKE TO DEDICATE THIS ONE TO THE DRAGGIN' SCENE
THAT'S GOIN' ON ALL THE SOLDIERS THAT ARE FIGHTIN'
IN CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE AND NEW YORK... OH YEAS, AND
ALL THE SOLDIERS FIGHTIN' IN VIETNAM. LIKE TO DO
A THING CALLED 'MACHINE GUN'."

MACHINE GUN
TEARING MY BODY ALL APART

MACHINE GUN
TEARING MY BODY ALL APART

EVIL MAN MAKE ME KILL YA
EVIL MAN MAKE YOU KILL ME
EVIL MAN MAKE ME KILL YOU
EVEN THOUGH WE'RE ONLY FAMILIES APART

WELL I PICK UP MY AXE AND FIGHT LIK A BOMBER
(YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN)
HEY AND YOUR BULLETS KEEP KNOCKING ME DOWN

HEY I PICK UP MY AXE AND FIGHT LIKE A BOMBER NOW
YEAH BUT YOU STILL BLAST ME DOWN TO THE GROUND

THE SAME WAY YOU SHOOT ME DOWN BABY
YOU'LL BE GOING JUST THE SAME
THREE TIMES THE PAIN
AND YOUR OWN SELF TO BLAME
HEY MACHINE GUN

OOOOOOOOOO

I AIN'T AFRAID OF YOUR MESS NO MORE, BABE
I AIN'T AFRAID NO MORE
AFTER A WHILE YOUR YOUR CHEAP TALK DON'T EVERN CAUSE ME PAIN
SO LET YOUR BULLETS FLY LIKE RAIN

'CAUSE I KNOW ALL THE TIME YOU'RE WRONG BABY
AND YOU'LL BE GOIN' JUST THE SAME
YEAH MACHINE GUN
TEARING MY FAMILY APART
YEAH YEAH ALRIGHT
TEARING MY FAMILY APART

DON'T YOU SHOOT HIM DOWN
HE'S ABOUT TO LEAVE HERE
DON'T YOU SHOOT HIM DOWN
HE'S GOT TO STAY HERE
HE AIN'T GOING NOWHERE
HE'S BEEN SHOT DOWN TO THE GROUND
OH WHERE HE CAN'T SURVIVE NO NO

YEAH THAT'S WHAT WE DON'T WANNA HEAR ANY MORE, ALRIGHT
NO BULLETS
AT LEAST HERE, HUH HUH
NO GUNS, NO BOMBS
HUH HUH
NO NOTHIN', JUST LET'S ALL LIVE AND LIVE
YOU KNOW INSTEAD OF KILLIN'




--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2061700 - 10/31/03 08:29 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Silversoul7 writes:

I mean it depends on the circumstances. Defending other nations from a genocidal dictator bent on world destruction and elimination of non-Aryans: good.

And what about the people within the borders of said dictator's country? They're on their own?

pinky



Hard to say. Where do you draw the line? Would another country be justified in invading the US because of the way we treat drug users be justified? If not, then at what point is it justified?


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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2061747 - 10/31/03 08:58 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

monoamine writes:

WW1 was the most meaningless and unjustified war ever fought.

Pretty much, yeah.

And while I think America was justified in MOST of its actions in WW2, it was just a continuation of WW1.

And you say you feel you have a pretty good grasp of both wars? Sorry, you've got some work still ahead of you. WWII in no way was "just a continuation" of WWI. Not even close.

My point being that any kind of physical violence should be a total last resort.

Of course. And even then, it must be only in retaliation to violence already initiated by another.

It may improve things in the short term sometimes,but I think it just usually leads to even greater long term instability.

Ah. The mantra of the Democrats, the Europeans, and the UN. They would prefer the "stability" of murderous tyrants to the instability of free people. Much more predictable, huh?

The war in Iraq was not a last resort situation.

It sure was to hundreds of thousands or millions of Iraqis.

Even if the people in Iraq do benefit somewhere in the future...

"Even if"? "Somewhat"? Please, guy. Your personal prejudices are getting in the way of your perception of reality. You may have good reasons for opposing the war, but at least acknowledge the results that came from it.

...the whole war will just lead to greater world wide instability in the long run.

And I say the reverse is true. Let's have this same conversation a couple of years from now.

No offense Mark (I really do mean that,I respect you),but your analogies of very small term events and wars are just stupid.

No offense, mono, but those who are unable to grasp fundamental principles are at a disadvantage. Either it is ethical to lend a hand to someone unable to defend himself from a stronger aggressor or it isn't. Whether it is a single woman being mugged or a continent being overrun or a single country held in thrall by a murderous madman, the fundamental principle remains the same. It is just a matter of scale.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2061754 - 10/31/03 09:05 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:


WW1 was the most meaningless and unjustified war ever fought.

Pretty much, yeah.






Really? How so?


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2061758 - 10/31/03 09:09 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Silversoul7 writes:

Would another country be justified in invading the US because of the way we treat drug users be justified?

Sorry, but using the whole "treatment of drug users" thing in every argument is getting old, and is not relevant. There is an enormous difference between imprisoning people after a fair trial which determines whether or not someone has broken the law of the land. Especially when said law, like it or not, is still supported by a majority of Americans -- or does your precious "democratic will of the majority" only count on issues where you happen to be in the majority?

If not, then at what point is it justified?

There are arguments about exactly where the line should be drawn. But I think it fair to say that anyone who holds power illegitimately, allows no dissent, no freedom of speech or press, makes a habit of: invading neighboring countries, using chemical weapons repeatedly, murdering hundreds of thousands of people through some of the most grisly methods imaginable, having people who displease him raped and tortured and forcing the family of the victims to watch the videos of the process, signing a ceasefire agreement to save his own hide then refusing to abide by even a single term of said ceasefire for a dozen years, would be on the "needs elimination" side of that line.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2061763 - 10/31/03 09:15 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

And you say you feel you have a pretty good grasp of both wars? Sorry, you've got some work still ahead of you. WWII in no way was "just a continuation" of WWI. Not even close.




The world was in a economic depression,Germany was pissed off and on a war path,the Balkins were in shit,Russia was getting too big for it's britches,England was hysterical and building a war machine...close enough. It may have not been a direct continuation,but old grudges took the limelight. Slightly different players,same game.

Quote:

And even then, it must be only in retaliation to violence already initiated by another.




Retaliation just leads to more retaliation. Like I said,it often gets to the point where people don't even remember what they were originally fightig over.

Quote:

It sure was to hundreds of thousands or millions of Iraqis.




Yeah,it sucks,but certain people are going to suffer for the worldwide picture. There are other things we could have done,like I dunno...lift the sanctions?

Who knows the Iraqi's are going to be better off anyway? You don't know that,I don't know that. For all we know,the secular regime will just be changed to a fundalmentalist one.

Quote:

Even if"? "Somewhat"? Please, guy. Your personal prejudices are getting in the way of your perception of reality. You may have good reasons for opposing the war, but at least acknowledge the results that came from it.




Sorry,I didn't know you could predict the future. Perhaps all Iraqi's will have puppy dogs and candy caines too?

Quote:

And I say the reverse is true. Let's have this same conversation a couple of years from now.





/uses magical crystal ball

I see the same Crusades that have been going on for the last thousand years or so continuing.

Quote:

offense, mono, but those who are unable to grasp fundamental principles are at a disadvantage.




And what fundamental principles are those,Mark? That greedy,evil fucks ruin the world and the cycle of violence continues?

Because the U.S. cares so much about the world that aren't in it's own interests and all. Tell that to the four marines we sent to Liberia and the countless evil regimes that we didn't overthrow because they weren't economically viable.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2061787 - 10/31/03 09:34 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

monoamine writes:

Retaliation just leads to more retaliation.

Really? How much retaliating has Germany done in the last 58 years? Or Japan? How much retaliating has North Korea done in the last half century?

Who knows the Iraqi's are going to be better off anyway? You don't know that,I don't know that.

Yeah, we do. Not only will they be better off ayear from now, they are already. We don't need a crystal ball to tell us that... we just need to read the news.

For all we know,the secular regime will just be changed to a fundalmentalist one.

Fundamentalist governments need not necessarily be worse for the citizens of a country than life under the Ba'athists was.

Sorry,I didn't know you could predict the future. Perhaps all Iraqi's will have puppy dogs and candy caines too?

I'm not even talking about the future. I'm talking about today.

And what fundamental principles are those,Mark?

That the initiation of force in human affairs is forbidden, therefore those who initiate it may be stopped.

That greedy,evil fucks ruin the world and the cycle of violence continues?

See my comments re the greedy evil fucks who used to run Germany and Japan. Key phrase here being "used to".

Because the U.S. cares so much about the world that aren't in it's own interests and all.

The US had the right to aid the Iraqi people. They didn't have the obligation to.

Tell that to the four marines we sent to Liberia and the countless evil regimes that we didn't overthrow because they weren't economically viable.

So you are saying that unless someone comes to the aid of everyone, he may come to the aid of no one?

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2061797 - 10/31/03 09:43 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Really? How much retaliating has Germany done in the last 58 years? Or Japan? How much retaliating has North Korea done in the last half century?



How much retaliation have the Palestinians done to Israel?

Quote:

Yeah, we do. Not only will they be better off ayear from now, they are already. We don't need a crystal ball to tell us that... we just need to read the news.



Ya, but what about the long term? Everybody knows what's going to happen next, but no one knows what's going to happen after that.

Quote:

Fundamentalist governments need not necessarily be worse for the citizens of a country than life under the Ba'athists was.



True, but they're often just as bad.

Quote:

I'm not even talking about the future. I'm talking about today.



So is it ok to invade a country if it will make the people temporarily better off?


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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2061826 - 10/31/03 09:53 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Really? How much retaliating has Germany done in the last 58 years? Or Japan? How much retaliating has North Korea done in the last half century?





That's a few exceptions. They're are dozens of other places that we have meddled in that are worse (Balkins).

Somebody gets knocked out of the race,someone else jumps in.

Remember when Berlin got cut in two by the Allies and the Ruskies? They were our best friends for a few months and a couple years later they were Satan himself.

Quote:

Yeah, we do. Not only will they be better off ayear from now, they are already. We don't need a crystal ball to tell us that... we just need to read the news.





It's highly variable in what part of the country it's in and who you ask. For every Iraqi that I've seen that was in favor of regime change,there is another that is not. Our bombing also knocked out a lot of infastructure and led to shortages of water,food,etc. Some of these problems have been fixed,some have certainly not.
Gee,they're so damn happy that they're launching RPG's at our tanks.

Quote:

Fundamentalist governments need not necessarily be worse for the citizens of a country than life under the Ba'athists was.




That was my point.YOU or anybody else doesn't know what will happen.

Quote:

I'm not even talking about the future. I'm talking about today.




Oh,screw the future. I've met heroin junkies with a better outlook than that.

Quote:

That the initiation of force in human affairs is forbidden, therefore those who initiate it may be stopped.




U.S.,kettle,black.

Quote:

See my comments re the greedy evil fucks who used to run Germany and Japan. Key phrase here being "used to".




They're still there,they just don't wear stars and cool uniforms and stuff anymore.

Quote:

The US had the right to aid the Iraqi people. They didn't have the obligation to.




They didn't have the right. There was no international approval. The U.N. was invented for a reason,maybe it would work if superpowers actually followed it.

There was no oil in Cammbodia though,so I guess we didn't have that right.

Quote:

So you are saying that unless someone comes to the aid of everyone, he may come to the aid of no one?




No,I'm saying that any halfway intelligent individual should see right through is philantropy crap for what it is.





--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2061884 - 10/31/03 10:56 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Silversoul7 writes:

How much retaliation have the Palestinians done to Israel?

Irrelevant. Monoamine's stance appears to be that it is never correct to defend one's self or others, because that is retaliation, and "retaliation just leads to more retaliation". My point was that it doesn't need to.

Ya, but what about the long term?

What about it? You can't seriously be suggesting the Iraqis would have been better off in the long term if the Ba'athists had been left in power, so what is it you are trying to say?

Everybody knows what's going to happen next, but no one knows what's going to happen after that.

Welcome to reality, little friend. It has been like that since the dawn of time.

True, but they're often just as bad.

As bad as Ba'athist Iraq? Nonsense. Not even the Taliban was as bad as that. Besides, if the majority of Iraqis decide they would be happier under a fundamentalist theocratic government than any other kind, and vote to install one, would you not be pleased that your precious "democratic will of the majority" triumphed? The point is, under the Ba'athists they had no chance to vote themselves anything but more Saddam Hussein. If they choose to live under a religious theocracy, everybody must submit -- even the minority, right?

So is it ok to invade a country if it will make the people temporarily better off?

Don't be obtuse. Any liberation, internal, external, or a combination of the two, has no guarantee of lasting forever -- see the American Revolution. Freedom must be worked at to be maintained. If the Iraqis choose to squander their freedom, so be it.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2061943 - 10/31/03 11:18 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

monoamine writes:

That's a few exceptions. They're are dozens of other places that we have meddled in...

Such as?

... that are worse (Balkins).

The Balkans have been fucked for over 600 years. It wasn't American "meddling" that screwed the Balkans. Are you saying that whatever is going on in the Balkans now (despite the presence of the oh-so-respected UN peacekeepers) is in retaliation to Clinton's bombing campaign? Nonsense. By the way, exactly what is the nature of the retaliation that is going on in the Balkans now? It's been a while since I heard of any ethnic cleansing going on there. Am I missing something?

Remember when Berlin got cut in two by the Allies and the Ruskies? They were our best friends for a few months and a couple years later they were Satan himself.

The Soviets were bad. The Fascists were worse. Stalin's conquering of Eastern Europe was not in retaliation to the Allied liberation of it.

For every Iraqi that I've seen that was in favor of regime change,there is another that is not.

Not according to the polls coming out of Iraq. It's not even close to a 50-50 split.

Our bombing also knocked out a lot of infastructure and led to shortages of water,food,etc.

Which bombing was that? The bombing in 1991? Twelve years was long enough to skim billions from the Iraqi people and build several dozen palaces but not long enough to repair a few miles of water pipe? Uh huh.

Oh,screw the future. I've met heroin junkies with a better outlook than that.

A deliberate misrepresentation of my words. I said I am not even talking of the future. To make it more plain, not only will things get better in the future, they are already better today. When I talk about the future, you sneer that I must have some kind of crystal ball, therefore I can be ignored. Yet when I speak of the present, you accuse me of ignoring the future. That's some real honest debating technique, dude. Heads you win, tails I lose.

They're still there,they just don't wear stars and cool uniforms and stuff anymore.

Clumsy dodge. Are they or are they not initiating violence against others anymore, regardless of their clothing? No, they are not. Who gives a damn if they might secretly wish they could -- the reality is they are not.

They didn't have the right.

Of course they did.

There was no international approval.

By whom? Have you read resolution 1441?

The U.N. was invented for a reason...

Yes it was. I suggest you read their charter and see if they have come anywhere close to living up to it in the case of Iraq -- or for that matter in the case of a few dozen other countries around the world since the UN was created.

No,I'm saying that any halfway intelligent individual should see right through is philantropy crap for what it is.

Who said anything about philanthropy? Did you read my answer to Baby_Hitler re: motivations vs actions? Do you think the Iraqi who was next headed for the wood chipper gives a damn whether his life was spared because the US felt sorry for him or because Bush wanted to make a political statement? Somehow I doubt it.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2061955 - 10/31/03 11:22 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Monoamine's stance appears to be that it is never correct to defend one's self or others, because that is retaliation, and "retaliation just leads to more retaliation".




Perhaps you should reevaluate what you think my stance is. There is nothing wrong with defending oneself or others,but I don't think that's the case in this instance.

If their motivations for the war were so pure,they should have sold it on the liberating the people theme and worked with the U.N., instead of all the other malarky they pitched.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2062006 - 10/31/03 11:38 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

monoamine writes:

If their motivations for the war were so pure,they should have sold it on the liberating the people theme...

Re-read every single address Bush made on the subject, every single speech made at the UN on the subject by Powell and others, and every single one of the seventeen resilutions, then get back to us about how liberating the people was not "sold".

The fact is, most of the countries in the world couldn't give two shits about liberating others -- if it means a bomb might be dropped somewhere along the way.

... and worked with the U.N....

They tried that. France's promise to use their veto no matter what the outcome of the vote made that route useless.

...instead of all the other malarky they pitched.

See, here we have the standard dichotomy I have seen so many times in this forum. If Bush gives a whole list of reasons as to why Hussein should be deposed, he is accused of using a "scattergun" approach -- "Dude, make up your mind! Which is it?" But if he focuses more on one reason than the others, he is accused of being a "one-issue" idealogue who has no grasp of nuance.

There were always multiple reasons given for deposing Hussein. The media chose (for whatever reason) to focus almost exclusively on the WMD issue and ignore the other reasons. In my opinion, Bush would have done better emphasizing the humanitarian issue more strongly than he did, and let the media twist in the wind, but we all know Bush is not as good as Slick WIllie was at saying what people want to hear. But the fact that some of the reasons were more compelling than others doesn't change the fact that were multiple reasons why Hussein should be removed from power.

In my opinion, the humanitarian issue alone was good enough -- it certainly was in Kosovo and Liberia -- but not everyone agrees with me. Certainly the majority of the other countries in the world thought it better to leave Hussein in power indefinitely, humanitarian issues or no.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2062022 - 10/31/03 11:47 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

The rest of the world is a bunch of pussies.

WTF is up with them anyway? Why would they rather see a country exist under a totalitarian bloodbath regeime than do something about it? If "the world" came to another country's rescue, I'm sure they'd feel alot better about it than they would being liberated by dumb ol' America.


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2062024 - 10/31/03 11:50 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Yeah,the Balkins wasn't great example.My point is that we shouldn't meddle anywhere.If we want to help,we can send humanitarian aid,not soldiers and weapons. And if it comes down to brass tacks,any troops should be mulitnational.

Quote:

The Soviets were bad. The Fascists were worse. Stalin's conquering of Eastern Europe was not in retaliation to the Allied liberation of it.




I was referring specifically to '45 when Berlin was cut in half by the Allies and Soviets.Both danced in the streets together,and a couple years later were mortal enemies. This flip flop occured dozens of times by many countries in both wars.

I was using it as an example to show that this shit is like a big fucking game of Monopoly and Risk fueled by money and military prestige,only with millions of lives on the line.

Quote:

Not according to the polls coming out of Iraq. It's not even close to a 50-50 split.




What poles,conducted by whom and how exactly? Links?

We have an administration with a vested interest in keeping this war as positive looking as possible. Until I see a lot of indepedent, scientific studies and polls convincing me otherwise,I'll assume they didn't exactly welcome us with open arms.

Quote:

Which bombing was that? The bombing in 1991? Twelve years was long enough to skim billions from the Iraqi people and build several dozen palaces but not long enough to repair a few miles of water pipe? Uh huh.




I think you have in your head that I'm trying to defend Hussein. I am not. I perfectly aware of his atrocities.

A lot of schools and hospitals and not to mention many Iraqi's jobs and wages were rendered moot from the invasion.

Quote:

A deliberate misrepresentation of my words. I said I am not even talking of the future. To make it more plain, not only will things get better in the future, they are already better today. When I talk about the future, you sneer that I must have some kind of crystal ball, therefore I can be ignored. Yet when I speak of the present, you accuse me of ignoring the future. That's some real honest debating technique, dude. Heads you win, tails I lose.





The law of unintended consequences,my friend.

Even if things are better now or the near future (questionable),it may destabalize the region even more. Notice the influx of recent Jihadis?

Quote:

Do you think the Iraqi who was next headed for the wood chipper gives a damn whether his life was spared because the US felt sorry for him or because Bush wanted to make a political statement?




That's irrelevant to the worldwide consequences of this war.

Quote:

or because Bush wanted to make a political statement?




Honestly,I don't know. I think Bush and co. are megalomaniacs that wanted revenge for what daddy didn't finish in '91.

Again,if freeing the Iraqui people was thier main goal,why wasn't it there biggest selling point? (which it conviently became after the WMD thing was rendered horseshit)


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2062201 - 11/01/03 01:46 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Why would they rather see a country exist under a totalitarian bloodbath regeime than do something about it?

I guess you should ask this of Reagan and Bush who were so close to Saddam during the 80's that it was dubbed "the love affair".

They only got concerned about the "totalitarian bloodbath regime" when he wouldn't follow their orders anymore.

BTW, Saudi Arabia's "totalitarian bloodbath regime" is still going strong with heavy US backing.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSquattingMarmot
Inquiring Mind
Registered: 08/19/03
Posts: 418
Last seen: 9 years, 7 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2062220 - 11/01/03 01:56 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Good point Alex.


--------------------
"In the United States anybody can be president. Thats the problem."

"The gray-haired douche bag, Barbara Bush, has a slogan: "Encourage your child to read every day." What she should be is encouraging children to question what they read every day."

- George Carlin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2062251 - 11/01/03 02:23 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

So if you don't want to do anything about it now, how can you sit back and complain that other people didn't do anything about it in the past? You would have had a point if we were talking about Bush and Regan, but as it stands at the moment all you did was spout pointless rhetoric.

For example: If I had said "Boy howdy Bush and Regan sure did a good job preventing atrocities in Iraq in the 1980's" and you came back with "Reagan and Bush were so close to Saddam during the 80's that it was dubbed "the love affair". "

You really would have had me there.

Instead I complain that not enough gets done, and nobody really seems interested in accomplishing anything. You then come back with "Not very much has been done in the past. BTW , I hate Regan and Bush"

Not a particularly effective counterpoint really.

If Someone were to ask Regan and Bush" that question what would be the answer? (Asuming the answer was truthfull)

Are you suggesting that the answer to that question would be the same as the answer to the question "Why would (the world) rather see a country exist under a totalitarian bloodbath regeime than do something about it? "

In other words, are you suggesting that "The World" has the same motivations for opposing the war that America had for supporting Iraq (with Saddam as it's leader) during that period of history?


I would like to know more about the goings on in Saudi Arabia, actually. If you have any links to information about recent atrocities commited by the current regeime in that country I would be interested in reviewing them.


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2062262 - 11/01/03 02:29 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

If their motivations for the war were so pure,they should have sold it on the liberating the people theme and worked with the U.N., instead of all the other malarky they pitched.

The only way a blatant war of aggression could be waged and have the faintest semblance of legality would be if the country posed a direct and immediate threat. The myth of WMD was created solely for that purpose. The codshit about "we will bring you freedom" was just there for the right-wingers to spoon up - it was a joke.

The legality of the war rests on the existence of WMD, and even then it's highly questionable.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2062268 - 11/01/03 02:35 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

It's all about looking at history and learning lessons from it. I guess you're too young to remember much about Reagan and Bush but they had their wars to bring "freedom" and "liberation" too - that's what supporting nightmarish terrorists like the contras was sold as. That's what supporting Bin Laden and the fundamentalists in Afghanistan was sold as. You eventually learn it's often best not to take someone saying "We're waging war for freedom and liberty" at face value.

It's the same story, don't let yourself be conned.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2062280 - 11/01/03 02:43 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I don't take it at face value, I just think that what we have done is more likely to make the situation better than it is to make it worse. As it was the situation wasn't going to get any better.

Now it has a real chance. I just hope people don't start whining about how much money it's costing us and drop the ball, and let Iraq slip back into another tyranical regime.


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2062292 - 11/01/03 03:04 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

No offense Mark (I really do mean that,I respect you),but your analogies of very small term events and wars are just stupid.

No offense, mono, but those who are unable to grasp fundamental principles are at a disadvantage. Either it is ethical to lend a hand to someone unable to defend himself from a stronger aggressor or it isn't. Whether it is a single woman being mugged or a continent being overrun or a single country held in thrall by a murderous madman, the fundamental principle remains the same. It is just a matter of scale.


but the fundamental principle is not the same in those situations. it is not just a matter of "scale". when an individual defends another from an agressor, he is retaliating only against the agressor. but when we bomb Iraq to save the Iraqis, we are not only "retaliating" against Saddam and his thugs, we are also knowingly killing innocent civilians in the process. this is the key difference that seems to have escaped you.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2062296 - 11/01/03 03:09 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

so are you saying that no matter what they did to get it done, as long as everything turns out well in the end, it was justified?

even if they had to lie to the American people, even if they killed thousands of innocent civilians? motivations and methods do not matter as long as things are "better off" in the end?

let me ask a simple question:

do the ends justify the means?



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2062316 - 11/01/03 04:12 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Do the ends justify the means when nothing is done?


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2062352 - 11/01/03 06:10 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

For every Iraqi that I've seen that was in favor of regime change,there is another that is not.



Actually every poll shows the majority of Iraqi's being in favor of the regime change, Unless you can point out one I may have missed?


Quote:

Gee,they're so damn happy that they're launching RPG's at our tanks.



And how many are shooting compared to the total population?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2062356 - 11/01/03 06:24 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

monoamine writes:

My point is that we shouldn't meddle anywhere.

Anywhere? Such as Korea in 1950, Europe in 1945, the Pacific in 1944, Kuwait in 1991, Kosovo in the Nineties, Liberia in 2003? Fair enough.

If we want to help,we can send humanitarian aid,not soldiers and weapons.

Yep. Those Unicef workers and Red Cross folks and Amnesty International dudes were pretty effective at keeping Hussein from killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who got on his wrong side, weren't they?

And if it comes down to brass tacks,any troops should be mulitnational.

Why? What difference does it make where the troops are from?

It may have escaped your notice that there were troops from the UK, Australia, Spain, Italy and others who took part in the invasion. Is this not multinational?

What poles,conducted by whom and how exactly? Links?

Don't be lazy. Look them up yourself. Links have been posted here by others. There was a Yougov poll of Baghdad, a Gallup poll of Baghdad, and a poll (I think by Zogby but I wouldn't swear to it) of Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk, and one other area I can't remember.

A lot of schools and hospitals and not to mention many Iraqi's jobs and wages were rendered moot from the invasion.

There was no invasion in 1991, which is what I assume you are referring to. No schools or hospitals were bombed in 2003. There are more schools and hospitals functioning now than there were in February of this year, and teachers and other Iraqi government employees are now making 15 to 20 times the salaries they had in February. I honestly fail to see your point here.

Even if things are better now or the near future (questionable)...

How is it questionable? Tell me specifically how the life of Achmed Iraqi is worse now than it was a year ago.

...it may destabalize the region even more.

Destabilize how? How do you define "destabilize"? Syria and Iran and even Saudi Arabia are now acting much more cautiously than they were two years ago. You think that's a coincidence? Again, are you saying it is better for Iraqis to have "stability" maintained by the routine murder of those who irritate Hussein?

That's irrelevant to the worldwide consequences of this war.

And those are?

Again,if freeing the Iraqui people was thier main goal...

Who says it was their main goal? For that matter, who says there needs to be a main goal? There were multiple justifications for deposing Hussein. Why must we pick one (any one) and insist that it was more valid than all the rest?

why wasn't it there biggest selling point?

Why must there be a "biggest" selling point? See above. But to answer, maybe it was because Bush is not as good a salesman as Slick Willie would have been.

Again, the motivation for performing an action is not what determines whether an action is ethical or moral or good or whatever word you feel most comfortable with. Either it was right to invade or it was wrong. This is something that those who hold the curious view that it was wrong to invade because a majority didn't approve, but would have been right if a majority had approved, can't grasp. If it was wrong to invade Iraq, it was wrong whether 96 out of the 190 countries in the world (a majority) approved or 94 approved (a minority). Do you believe it is wrong to imprison someone for smoking dope or eating mushrooms? Is it wrong no matter what the law says and no matter how many Americans disagree with you?

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2062357 - 11/01/03 06:29 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

infidelGOD writes:

when an individual defends another from an agressor, he is retaliating only against the agressor. but when we bomb Iraq to save the Iraqis, we are not only "retaliating" against Saddam and his thugs, we are also knowingly killing innocent civilians in the process.

So wars may only morally be fought with handheld weapons such as swords and cudgels? So much for the morality of the Allied liberation of Europe in 1945.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2062374 - 11/01/03 06:56 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

And if it comes down to brass tacks,any troops should be mulitnational.



Ah... an affirmative action army.


Quote:

We have an administration with a vested interest in keeping this war as positive looking as possible.



And that differes how from any previous administration?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2062377 - 11/01/03 07:07 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

So wars may only morally be fought with handheld weapons such as swords and cudgels?

um. no. where did you pull that out of?

So much for the morality of the Allied liberation of Europe in 1945.

lol. you really need to stop applying the "same standards" to everything regardless of context, because there are clearly different principles at work here. in your view, helping a woman getting attacked = saving Iraqis = liberating Europe. uh huh. in principle they're all the same right? that's some nuanced worldview you got there.

since you apparently didn't get it the last time I'll explain to you again the differences between WWII and our invasion of Iraq.

in WWII,

1. Nazi Germany declared war on us first and we "retaliated"
2. they were a direct threat to the United States
3. they were treaty allies with Japan
4. they had initiated force against other countries
5. we were asked to intervene

I don't endorse the bombing of civilian centers in WWII, but I believe our involvement in the war was justified because we were mainly acting in self-defense. and in case you are unaware of this, we never went into WWII for the purpose of liberating Europe, that was not the original intent, so it certainly wasn't a moral war. if that was the case, we would have intervened earlier, like when London was getting bombarded. remember that it took an actual attack on the US by the axis for us to finally get involved. we had been resisting involvement for years before that, even as Hitler was rampaging across Europe.

it's completely ridiculous to compare our involvement in WWII to the invasion of Iraq. they're two completely different situations. I'm sure even you recognize that.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2062381 - 11/01/03 07:16 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Do the ends justify the means when nothing is done?

what the heck is that supposed to mean?

did we actually try anything to help the Iraqis?
like maybe lifting the sanctions? or giving better support to domestic opposition? sure, Bush sr. encouraged them to revolt but when the time came, he abandoned them...

we did nothing for decades while he was murdering his people, we even supported Saddam in the 80's. we didn't give a fuck about the Iraqi people back then, did we?

but now, oh we gotta save the poor Iraqis! so let's invade!
I mean, if we really, genuinely cared about the plight of the Iraqi people, shouldn't a full-scale invasion be the last resort?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2062401 - 11/01/03 07:59 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

infidelGOD writes:

um. no. where did you pull that out of?

Your objection to the Iraq war was that civilians would die by being too close too bomb blasts intended for targets other than themselves. It is not just bombs that go astray. So do artillery rounds, rockets, mortar rounds, RPGs grenades, bullets, arrows, crossbow bolts, javelins, boomerangs. The only kind of weaponry which doesn't is handheld weaponry -- swords and cudgels.

you really need to stop applying the "same standards" to everything regardless of context, because there are clearly different principles at work here.

No, there are not. The principle is the same. Either it is ethical to assist others in defending themselves or it is not. It makes no difference in principle if it is a single individual assisting another individual or a group of individuals assisting another group.

Nazi Germany declared war on us first and we "retaliated"

A declaration of war unaccompanied by an actual act of hostility is words, nothing more. Please provide for us an example of Germany attacking America.

they were a direct threat to the United States

No, they were not. Please explain to us how the Germans could cross the Atlantic and kill American citizens.

they were treaty allies with Japan

Irrelevant. More words, nothing more. Did they attack the US? Nope. Did they have the ability to attack the US? Nope. The US could have warred exclusively with Japan and never had to worry about a German invasion.

they had initiated force against other countries

And this makes them different from Iraq how?

we were asked to intervene

And this means the US had the obligation to intervene?

Asked by whom? Do you believe no Iraqis asked the US to intervene?

I don't endorse the bombing of civilian centers in WWII, but I believe our involvement in the war was justified because we were mainly acting in self-defense.

Clearly the US was not. There was no way Germany could have invaded the US. Self-defense had nothing to do with it.

and in case you are unaware of this, we never went into WWII for the purpose of liberating Europe, that was not the original intent, so it certainly wasn't a moral war.

I didn't say it wasn't correct to declare war on Germany. I asked if it was correct to invade Europe. Not the same thing at all.

it's completely ridiculous to compare our involvement in WWII to the invasion of Iraq.

No, it's not. If it was incorrect to liberate Iraq, why was it correct to liberate Europe?

they're two completely different situations.

No they are not. The only difference is that Europe was enslaved by a foreigner. Iraq was enslaved by an Iraqi.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2062451 - 11/01/03 09:48 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

um. no. where did you pull that out of?

Your objection to the Iraq war was that civilians would die by being too close too bomb blasts intended for targets other than themselves


you misundertood me. you said: "So wars may only morally be fought with handheld weapons such as swords and cudgels?". I never said using modern weapons was not justified. there are certainly exceptions (like self-defense) where this is acceptable. but you were saying that our invasion of Iraq was analogous to a man coming to the aid of a woman being attacked. I was merely pointing out that this is a flawed analogy because he isn't killing any innocent civilians in the process of helping her.

you really need to stop applying the "same standards" to everything regardless of context, because there are clearly different principles at work here.

No, there are not. The principle is the same. Either it is ethical to assist others in defending themselves or it is not. It makes no difference in principle if it is a single individual assisting another individual or a group of individuals assisting another group.


no the principle is not the same.

your analogy of the woman being attacked isn't really accurate, it leaves out a key piece of the moral equation. a better analogy would be this: lets say a woman is being attacked and you're about to intervene, but you know that in doing so you will be killing an innocent bystander. do you still have the right to intervene to save her? this is a more accurate portrayal of the situation than your simplistic morally clear scenario and this is the principle at play in the Iraq war. and as you can see, this presents a greater moral dilemma. I mean, of course we would have all supported the war if we could have removed Saddam Hussein without killing any innocent civilians. but the situation is much more complex than that. this isn't just about defending others. it's about sacrificing innocent people to defend others. I'm sure you see the difference here.

A declaration of war unaccompanied by an actual act of hostility is words, nothing more. Please provide for us an example of Germany attacking America.

a declaration of war means nothing?
are you saying that we were not justified in attacking Germany even though they declared war on us? even though their ally attacked us? ok then.

they were a direct threat to the United States

No, they were not. Please explain to us how the Germans could cross the Atlantic and kill American citizens.


yes they were a direct threat to the United States. read some history. German U-boats were operating just miles off the East coast. They had the most technologically advanced armed forces in the world at the time, they had a nuclear program, as well as chemical and bio weapons. they had ballistic missiles and jet powered cruise missiles (yes, in 1942), they had a much more advanced military than the Japanese who managed to attack us, so they were certainly capable of reaching us. and once they had conqured Europe, England, the Soviet Union, North Africa and the Middle East, you think maybe, just maybe they would have turned their attention to America? I mean, they were hellbent on world domination. I don't think they would have been content to conquer Europe and sit on their laurels. it would have been extremely naive and irresponsible for our leaders to think that. even though Germany didn't attack us directly, our involvement would have been a legitimate use of the pre-emptive use of force because they were a direct threat to the United States.

they had initiated force against other countries

And this makes them different from Iraq how?


well, I don't remember Iraq invading anyone in the last decade.

No, it's not. If it was incorrect to liberate Iraq, why was it correct to liberate Europe?

oh please. if you honestly can't see the difference between WWII and Iraq, I can't help you.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2062515 - 11/01/03 10:45 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

this is a more accurate portrayal of the situation than your simplistic morally clear scenario and this is the principle at play in the Iraq war.



No, a more accurate portrayal would be....

A group of people is being assaulted, tortured and killed by a smaller yet more powerful group. You can stop this second group yet you know doing so will possibly kill a minority of those you are trying to save.

This is the principle at play in the Iraq war.

Not much of a moral dilemma at all. Allow the murder, rape and torture of a lot, or stop it possibly killing a few.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2062576 - 11/01/03 11:32 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

yeah that's pretty accurate. except one thing. we won't possibly kill a few Iraqis, we will certainly kill them by intervening.

I'm glad that you and pinky have such moral clarity on this but for most of us, this is indeed a moral dilemma. those people didn't volunteer to be sacrificed for the greater good.

the question is: do we have the right to "volunteer" them to be sacrificed to save their countrymen?
what if they never asked for our help?
what if we simply replace the threat of Saddam Hussein with the threat of terrorism?
in case you haven't noticed, Baghdad wasn't getting rocked by terrorist bombs on a daily basis before the war.
if it was really our intention to protect the Iraqis, why did Bush say "bring 'em on" to the terrorists, who seem to have taken his advice and descended on Iraq?
If we're using Iraq to battle international terrorism (which didn't exist in Iraq before), how is this good for the Iraqi people?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2062610 - 11/01/03 12:07 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

infidelGOD said:
yeah that's pretty accurate. except one thing. we won't possibly kill a few Iraqis, we will certainly kill them by intervening.



Still far less than the status quo would have.

Quote:

I'm glad that you and pinky have such moral clarity on this but for most of us, this is indeed a moral dilemma. those people didn't volunteer to be sacrificed for the greater good.


neither did they volunteer to be Saddam and crews playthings.

Quote:

the question is: do we have the right to "volunteer" them to be sacrificed to save their countrymen?



Do we have the right to allow thousands more to die before acting? Both are debatable.

Quote:

what if they never asked for our help?



I'm reasonably sure many did.

Quote:

what if we simply replace the threat of Saddam Hussein with the threat of terrorism?



The threat of terrorism was, and remains there. Saddam is gone.

Quote:

in case you haven't noticed, Baghdad wasn't getting rocked by terrorist bombs on a daily basis before the war.



I noticed. The Iraqis possibly realize that we won't wipe out the families and friends of those who act. The price to pay if caught is now much smaller.

Quote:

if it was really our intention to protect the Iraqis, why did Bush say "bring 'em on" to the terrorists, who seem to have taken his advice and descended on Iraq?



Why does anyone say stupid things?

Quote:

If we're using Iraq to battle international terrorism (which didn't exist in Iraq before), how is this good for the Iraqi people?



Perhaps because they have less to fear from terrorists than from Saddam and Co.

As I said repeatedly before we went into Iraq, I hoped we wouldn't have to. The benefits of having done so outweigh the negatives, in my opinion.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGrandpa
Oh, my achingback

Registered: 07/22/03
Posts: 265
Loc: Springfield
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2062838 - 11/01/03 02:13 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:

the question is: do we have the right to "volunteer" them to be sacrificed to save their countrymen?



Do we have the right to allow thousands more to die before acting? Both are debatable.




Yes, we have that right. We had the right to not interfere in several other situations just like iraq occuring in other countries.


--------------------
I don't intend for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs.
--Nancy Reagan, former First Lady


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2062846 - 11/01/03 02:17 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

infidelGOD said:
if we really, genuinely cared about the plight of the Iraqi people, shouldn't a full-scale invasion be the last resort?





Yes. Yes it was.


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2062912 - 11/01/03 02:54 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Utilitarianism - The action that is undertaken that is the greatest good for the greatest number of people is the action that is deemed morally correct.

If we could save the entire population of earth from a certain death, but the causal effect of our action would kill, say, 150,000 totally innocent human beings, wouldn't that judged as a moral action? If not, why not?


--------------------
In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen
PsiloKitten said:
Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2063146 - 11/01/03 04:34 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

infidelGOD writes:

I never said using modern weapons was not justified.

Yeah you did. Your objection to the Iraq war was that civilians would die by being too close too bomb blasts intended for targets other than themselves. It is not just bombs that go astray. So do artillery rounds, rockets, mortar rounds, RPGs grenades, bullets, arrows, crossbow bolts, javelins, boomerangs. The only kind of weaponry which doesn't is handheld weaponry -- swords and cudgels.

there are certainly exceptions (like self-defense) where this is acceptable.

Let me get this straight. I can defend myself with weapons other than handheld, thereby putting innocents at risk, but I may not defend others? How does that figure?

but you were saying that our invasion of Iraq was analogous to a man coming to the aid of a woman being attacked. I was merely pointing out that this is a flawed analogy because he isn't killing any innocent civilians in the process of helping her.

So you are saying that one may assist others with their self-defense only if there is no possibility of killing non-combatants? In practice, this means one may not defend others, since the first thug smart enough to use hostages becomes invulnerable.

a better analogy would be this: lets say a woman is being attacked and you're about to intervene, but you know that in doing so you will be killing an innocent bystander. do you still have the right to intervene to save her?

"Will", or "may"?

I mean, of course we would have all supported the war if we could have removed Saddam Hussein without killing any innocent civilians. but the situation is much more complex than that. this isn't just about defending others. it's about sacrificing innocent people to defend others. I'm sure you see the difference here.

So you are saying there is no way to prevent a dictator who understands the concept of "human shields" from taking over not just his own country, but the entire world.

are you saying that we were not justified in attacking Germany even though they declared war on us? even though their ally attacked us? ok then.

Sigh. Do you bother to read what I write? Who said anything about not attacking Germany? Here it is again --

"So much for the morality of the Allied liberation of Europe in 1945."

To follow your exact argument, it was immoral for the Allies to invade Hitler's Europe by landing at Normandy because the Allied commanders knew without a shadow of a doubt that thousands and thousands of non-combatants would be killed in the process.

German U-boats were operating just miles off the East coast.

And these U-boats landed an invasion force in New Jersey?

They had the most technologically advanced armed forces in the world at the time, they had a nuclear program, as well as chemical and bio weapons.

None of their weapons had the capability of crossing the Atlantic ocean. By late 1941, they had no aircraft carriers, no invasion craft, the Bismarck was sunk. All they had left were U-boats.

they had ballistic missiles and jet powered cruise missiles (yes, in 1942)...

With a range of a few hundred miles.

they had a much more advanced military than the Japanese who managed to attack us, so they were certainly capable of reaching us.

The Japanese just barely made it to Hawaii -- out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, thousands of miles from the US.

...and once they had conqured Europe, England, the Soviet Union, North Africa and the Middle East, you think maybe, just maybe they would have turned their attention to America?

They had no way of conquering the Soviet Union. Many here have argued that the Allied effort wasn't even necessary -- that the USSR alone would have captured Berlin and ended the war.

I mean, they were hellbent on world domination. I don't think they would have been content to conquer Europe and sit on their laurels.

No? Hitler said he would have been. Why should we not have believed him? We believed Hussein, after all.

it would have been extremely naive and irresponsible for our leaders to think that.

But it would have been wise and responsible for our leaders to believe that Hussein had secretly destroyed all his WMDs and WMD programs with no documentation whatsoever to back his claim? Okay then.

even though Germany didn't attack us directly, our involvement would have been a legitimate use of the pre-emptive use of force because they were a direct threat to the United States.

Germany was never a direct threat to the United States.

well, I don't remember Iraq invading anyone in the last decade.

Do you remember Iraq abiding by any of the terms of the conditional ceasefire agreement which was signed after their last invasion? Neither do I. If the terms of a treaty ending hostilities are never met, hostilites may be resumed at any time. You are the one claiming that some treaties (i.e. a declaration of war where a single shot has yet to be fired) justify military action. Why not this one as well?

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2063407 - 11/01/03 06:15 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Oligarchy :wink:.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Crobih]
    #2063517 - 11/01/03 06:48 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

You sank my scrabbleship.


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2063686 - 11/01/03 08:03 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Anywhere? Such as Korea in 1950, Europe in 1945, the Pacific in 1944, Kuwait in 1991, Kosovo in the Nineties, Liberia in 2003? Fair enough.





Besides WW2,I don't think we should have taken part in any of those wars. (BTW,that second A-bomb was not needed.)

Quote:

Yep. Those Unicef workers and Red Cross folks and Amnesty International dudes were pretty effective at keeping Hussein from killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who got on his wrong side, weren't they?




I was talking about feeding a starving population,not political dissidents.

Quote:

Why? What difference does it make where the troops are from?




We don't live in a vacuum,when one country fucks around with another country,other countries get involved.

We learned this the hard way in WW1 and to a lesser extent in WW2. This is why the League of Nations and later the U.N. were formed.
Perhaps if countries took a more global approach and actually used the U.N. for diplomacy every once in a while,we could advoid some unnessary bloodshed. Nationalism (oh sorry,I mean "patriotism") tends to get in the way.


Quote:

It may have escaped your notice that there were troops from the UK, Australia, Spain, Italy and others who took part in the invasion. Is this not multinational?




As far as I see,the only countries really taking part in this conflict are the U.K. and the U.S. The other countries (you left out several countries the size of New Jersey),are brown nosers.

Quote:

There was no invasion in 1991, which is what I assume you are referring to. No schools or hospitals were bombed in 2003. There are more schools and hospitals functioning now than there were in February of this year, and teachers and other Iraqi government employees are now making 15 to 20 times the salaries they had in February. I honestly fail to see your point here.





You missed the mark entirely,Mark.

Contrary to what Bush and co. may have you believe,Saddam did not sit around and eat babies all day. They had a system that was destroyed.Many,many people are now out of work because of this.
It's getting better,but there is still a lot their economic system in shambles.

Quote:

How is it questionable? Tell me specifically how the life of Achmed Iraqi is worse now than it was a year ago.




Questionable as in we can't predict the future. For the blue collar Achmed in Iraq,things are probably pretty much the same (provided is source of income and family didn't get wiped out during the invasion).

Quote:

Destabilize how? How do you define "destabilize"? Syria and Iran and even Saudi Arabia are now acting much more cautiously than they were two years ago. You think that's a coincidence? Again, are you saying it is better for Iraqis to have "stability" maintained by the routine murder of those who irritate Hussein?




Oh let's see...those countries hate us even more now (along with a large portion of the rest of the world). Again,you miss the bigger picture.

Quote:

And those are?




They're called Jihadis,look it up.

Quote:

Who says it was their main goal? For that matter, who says there needs to be a main goal? There were multiple justifications for deposing Hussein. Why must we pick one (any one) and insist that it was more valid than all the rest?





Oh yeah,I forgot.Their reasons changed every other day.







--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Edited by monoamine (11/01/03 08:08 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2063691 - 11/01/03 08:05 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Ah... an affirmative action army.




Yes,that's exactly what I was talking about you rhetorical bastard.
For every blue-eyed white boy,I want a retard,a parapelgic,a Mexican,a black guy, and an asian kid.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2063714 - 11/01/03 08:27 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Why is it that most of the so called "libertarians" on this board are in favor of this war when one of the central tenets of the libertarian party and libertarian literature is "protect our own borders"?


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Edited by monoamine (11/01/03 08:32 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2063826 - 11/01/03 09:27 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Most of the "libertarians" on this board just call themselves that because it sounds cooler than "Republicans."


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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/12/99
Posts: 1,617
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2063842 - 11/01/03 09:35 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

You win first prize. :smile:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewingnutx

Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,283
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2063850 - 11/01/03 09:39 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I belong to the Libertarian Party of AZ, not the national one owned by Harry Brown.

Do you people registered as democrats support everything in that party's platform?

I am ideologically impure. Sue me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2063853 - 11/01/03 09:40 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I know I'm a libertarian because I took their little test and it told me I was.

That test is accurate right?



--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: wingnutx]
    #2063856 - 11/01/03 09:42 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

That's called hypocracy. All liberals support communism.

Didn't you know that?

For shame!


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewingnutx

Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,283
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2063861 - 11/01/03 09:44 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I suppose I could go reregister as a republican, but then I'd be out of step with the party's platform there, too.

I guess I am just screwed.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: wingnutx]
    #2063876 - 11/01/03 09:54 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

You could form the wingnutxarians.


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2063882 - 11/01/03 09:57 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Or he could just register as an independent.


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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2063887 - 11/01/03 10:04 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Yeah, I bet all you silversoul7ocrats say that.


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2063910 - 11/01/03 10:17 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

monoamine writes:

Why is it that most of the so called "libertarians" on this board are in favor of this war when one of the central tenets of the libertarian party and libertarian literature is "protect our own borders"?

1) I have explained before that I am not exactly a "Libertarian". That definition is too broad for me. I am a Laissez-faire Capitalist, or a minarchist. Since virtually no one in this forum has any idea of what either of those two terms means, I find it easier to let myself be thought of as a Libertarian. It's close enough to use most of the time.

2) Nowhere in this forum, ever, have I said I was in favor of the invasion. As a matter of fact, I have said dozens of times and I will say it again now -- I remain unconvinced it was the right thing for the US, the UK, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland and others to depose Hussein through military action at the time they did. My reasons for holding this position are different from the reasons the anti-war crowd gives, though.

The thing is, the reasons given for letting Hussein remain in power are less convincing than the reasons given for removing him, the Monday morning quarterbacking is ludicrous, virtually none of the things the anti-war crowd predicted would happen did happen, and the Iraqis are undeniably better off than they were before.

Go back in this thread to my first post. Read it. Then read the next ones and the next. It all started when I asked Silversoul7 if it was okay to defend others. It moved from there to a comparison between WWII and the Iraq invasion.

I have said countless times in the past and I will say it again now -- one has the right to defend one's self and to assist others in defending themselves. One does not have the obligation (short of a contractual obligation) to do either.

If you choose to be a pacifist and not resist those who attempt to kill you, that is your business and no one else's. If you choose to be a pacifist and let others be murdered rather than come to their aid, that is likewise your business and no one else's. On this, mushmaster and I are in agreement -- it was not the obligation of any of the countries I named above (or any other country for that matter) to come to the aid of the Iraqi people. Those countries could quite properly have let the Iraqis deal with it on their own. This was the stance taken by all the other countries in the world -- "Too bad, so sad, Achmed Iraqi. We feel your pain, we really do, but y'all will have to handle it on your own. Shit happens. Not our problem."

However, to claim that those countries had no right to come to the aid of the Iraqi people is another thing entirely. They certainly did have the right.

What I object to is the insistence of virtually every anti-war poster here on claiming that the US/UK/et al broke "international law", or -- even more ridiculous -- that it was not permissable because only 30 some countries publicly approved, but the invasion would magically have become okay if 90 some countries had approved. Ethical principles aren't decided by what the whim of the majority happens to be on any given day of the week. Either it was ethically permissible for other countries to come to the aid of the Iraqis or it wasn't. I ask again, by what logical principle can one pretend that if 96 countries say it's okay, then it's okay, but if only 94 say it's okay, then it's a no go?

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2064113 - 11/02/03 12:48 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I doubt that any sane person ever "favours" going to war. However, there are ppl in America more mature than myself who honestly believe that we are faced with a choice between the agressive and genocidal seizure mideast oil (starting with Iraq) vs. allowing millions of American families to freeze and/or starve to death as a result of lack of affordable energy. The question of whether or not we should have invaded Iraq is actually a question of whether such a condition of scarcity -- which requires killing or being killed -- is iminent, and if so, whether we have enough time -- let alone the willpower -- to turn the Titanic and abandon our oil-intensive lifestyles before agression really does become a matter of survival.


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


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...


Edited by Annapurna1 (11/02/03 12:49 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2064215 - 11/02/03 02:17 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Now it has a real chance. I just hope people don't start whining about how much money it's costing us and drop the ball, and let Iraq slip back into another tyranical regime.

So you genuinely believe that Donald Rumsfield has shifted in the last 20 years from flying thousands of miles to shake Saddams hand and do buisness with him - not giving the faintest fuck about the freedom of the Iraqi people, to being so concerned he has to invade to "free" them?

All I'm saying is just consider the possibility that Donald hasn't changed at all. And that the freedom of the Iraqi people is as important to him now as it was 20 years ago.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2064292 - 11/02/03 03:30 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I never said using modern weapons was not justified.

Yeah you did. Your objection to the Iraq war was that civilians would die by being too close too bomb blasts intended for targets other than themselves. It is not just bombs that go astray. So do artillery rounds, rockets, mortar rounds, RPGs grenades, bullets, arrows, crossbow bolts, javelins, boomerangs. The only kind of weaponry which doesn't is handheld weaponry -- swords and cudgels.


wtf? re-read the orginal exchange, post #2062292. I never said anything about mortar rounds, javelins, boomerangs or cudgels. you thought I did, and went off on a tangent. I was only pointing out that your moral equation is incomplete when you compare our invasion of Iraq to an individual giving aid to another individual because you leave out a key variable - the innocent civilians. I was merely explaining that when you pronounce that "the fundamental principle remains the same. it is just a matter of scale." you are making an error in logic and that you are completely and utterly wrong. the fundamental principle is not the same and it isn't just a matter of scale. once again I see that your posts could use less words and more logic because writing is easy... but logic is a bitch.

and not surprisingly, you go off on another tangent with your ridiculous argument that "in principle" WWII was the same as the invasion of Iraq. do you honestly not recognize that those are DIFFERENT SITUATIONS? is this too hard a concept for you to grasp? maybe it takes a nuanced mind to see these things... don't you feel the least bit silly having been cornered into defending Hitler? or making the grand statement - in an appalling display of historical ignorance - that "Germany was never a direct threat to the United States." do you not see how sticking to your same principles in fundamentally different situations leaves you in indefensible and ridiculous positions? try to see the big picture.

and please don't bore us with another 10 page response. less words, more critical thinking.. please.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2064383 - 11/02/03 05:28 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

monoamine said:
Quote:

Ah... an affirmative action army.




Yes,that's exactly what I was talking about you rhetorical bastard.
For every blue-eyed white boy,I want a retard,a parapelgic,a Mexican,a black guy, and an asian kid.



Yes but what of the Eskimos?

And the children. For the love of all that's sacred... don't forget the children!


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2064387 - 11/02/03 05:31 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Methinks you confuse the ability to realize that the war was of a benefit to the Iraqi people with being in favor of the war.

I didn't wish for a war, yet good has come from it.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2064527 - 11/02/03 08:45 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

infidelGOD writes:

wtf? re-read the orginal exchange, post #2062292. I never said anything about mortar rounds, javelins, boomerangs or cudgels. you thought I did, and went off on a tangent. I was only pointing out that your moral equation is incomplete when you compare our invasion of Iraq to an individual giving aid to another individual because you leave out a key variable - the innocent civilians. I was merely explaining that when you pronounce that "the fundamental principle remains the same. it is just a matter of scale." you are making an error in logic and that you are completely and utterly wrong. the fundamental principle is not the same and it isn't just a matter of scale.

Here is what you wrote in the referenced post -- when an individual defends another from an agressor, he is retaliating only against the agressor. but when we bomb Iraq to save the Iraqis, we are not only "retaliating" against Saddam and his thugs, we are also knowingly killing innocent civilians in the process.

You are saying the difference between an individual defending another individual and a group defending another group is that in the course of defending the individual, the likelihood of third parties being injured is normally small, yet in the course of defending groups (especially with modern weaponry), the likelihood of third parties being injured is normally greater. Do I have that right?

Is this difference in likelihood not a matter of scale?

you go off on another tangent with your ridiculous argument that "in principle" WWII was the same as the invasion of Iraq.

For the third time, I did not compare the invasion of Iraq with WWII. I compared the invasion of Iraq with the invasion of Hitler's Europe. I don't know how much plainer I can make this.

You pointed out that in the course of liberating Iraq, Iraqi civilians were killed. I pointed out that in the course of liberating Europe, European civilians were killed. The only difference is one of scale. Far more European civilians were killed in the liberation of Europe than Iraqi civilians in the liberation of Iraq. If we are to condemn the one for this reason, we must therefore condemn the other for the same reason.

do you honestly not recognize that those are DIFFERENT SITUATIONS? is this too hard a concept for you to grasp?

Do you honestly not recognize that in principle, these are identical situations? Is this too hard a concept for you to grasp?

maybe it takes a nuanced mind to see these things... don't you feel the least bit silly having been cornered into defending Hitler?

Please point out to us the part where I defend Hitler.

...or making the grand statement - in an appalling display of historical ignorance - that "Germany was never a direct threat to the United States."

But Germany wasn't a direct threat to the United States. This was one of the arguments the "America First" crowd used for staying out of the war prior to Pearl Harbor. That particular argument of theirs was correct.

You speak of historical ignorance, yet you seem to believe Germany had some (as yet undisclosed) method for delivering troops or missiles or bombs across the ocean to American soil. They didn't. By December of 1941, the Atlantic was an American ocean, save for the U-Boats. And U-Boats could launch no missiles, no bombs, and deliver precious few infantry.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2064543 - 11/02/03 09:02 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

monoamine writes:

I was talking about feeding a starving population,not political dissidents.

So it is okay to let Hussein continuing murdering thousands of Iraqis, as long as they are well-fed first? Okay then. Note that the food distribution was controlled by the Ba'athists, not the NGOs. You do recall the warehouses stuffed to bursting with hoarded food that were discovered, don't you?

We don't live in a vacuum,when one country fucks around with another country,other countries get involved.

True. When Iraq "fucked around" with Kuwait, other countries got involved. But when Iraq "fucked around" with its own people, no one got involved, and everyone did their damndest to make sure the US/UK/et al didn't either. If this answer seems to be missing your point, it is probably because I can't tell from your vague answer exactly what your point was. Can you expand on it?

Perhaps if countries took a more global approach and actually used the U.N. for diplomacy every once in a while,we could advoid some unnessary bloodshed.

The thing is, the leaders of countries where the bloodshed is going on ignore the UN. How is this the fault of the countries who pay attention to the UN? By what specific method can said countries force the miscreants to pay attention to the UN?

Contrary to what Bush and co. may have you believe,Saddam did not sit around and eat babies all day. They had a system that was destroyed.

Destroyed by whom? Read the reports. The mess in Iraq's infrastructure is more from neglect than from any remaining bomb damage of twelve years ago.

Oh let's see...those countries hate us even more now (along with a large portion of the rest of the world).

Which countries? How specifically does their "hatred" decrease whatever stability there was prior to the invasion?

Oh yeah,I forgot.Their reasons changed every other day.

Oh yeah, I forgot -- some people seem incapable of grasping the fact that there may be multiple reasons for choosing a specific course of action.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: wingnutx]
    #2066368 - 11/02/03 09:25 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

I am ideologically impure. Sue me.




I took that in to account,I really did,but with the exception of Mark (who's opinion I'm not really sure of),I can't think of one self proclaimed Libertarian on this board that opposed the war.

I hate to be a pompous jackass,but I think what Silver said about "Libertarian" sounding better than "Republican" rings true.

P.S. I have a lawsuit against you pending. I don't like your opinions or your unhealthy food.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Edited by monoamine (11/02/03 09:27 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2066537 - 11/02/03 10:31 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I can't think of one self proclaimed Libertarian on this board that opposed the war.

me. i believe evolving may fall into that category as well.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2066891 - 11/03/03 01:02 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I didn't wish for a war, yet good has come from it.

Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself that Bush is the "best of bad choices" again for the next election..


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2067216 - 11/03/03 03:31 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

After study, which I've been doing all along.... he is.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2067235 - 11/03/03 03:48 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I have a better idea,don't vote for either fuckfaces. There probably isn't a snowballs chance in hell of a third party winning this election,but if more people took my attitude,it will snowball so big that one day the Republicrats will be crushed.

I'm still not sure if I'm going to vote democrat.As much as I despise Bush,I may vote third party depending on who runs.

At least I'll be able to sleep a little better at night and I know I did my part,anyway.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2067250 - 11/03/03 04:10 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

monoamine said:
I have a better idea,don't vote for either fuckfaces.



Gotta vote.


Quote:

There probably isn't a snowballs chance in hell of a third party winning this election



Sadly, you're right.


Quote:

,but if more people took my attitude,it will snowball so big that one day the Republicrats will be crushed.



Hopefully someday that will pass.


Quote:

I'm still not sure if I'm going to vote democrat.



I don't understand why anyone would.


Quote:

As much as I despise Bush



Say it isn't so!


Quote:

,I may vote third party depending on who runs.



I can understand your desire to do so.


Quote:

At least I'll be able to sleep a little better at night and I know I did my part,anyway.



As will I. For you see, if I vote for the libertarian, and if as a result of mine and others doing so one of the 9 stooges get elected, I'll feel I let both myself and the country down.

Hopefully you don't think I woke up one morning and just decided to start voting for the lesser of two evils? I gave it thought for a very long time before I was comfortable with the idea. (well as comfortable as can be anyway)

It would feel great to vote for the best man, and when I can safely do so that's how I vote. Sadly, when the race is as close as in 2000, I can't. Feeling good on election day isn't worth feeling a fool for 4 years if some jackass like Gore gets in.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2067317 - 11/03/03 05:47 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

just decided to start voting for the lesser of two evils?

Hang on luv, we've got Bush butchering thousands of innocent people on the basis of a lie and he's the "lesser of two evils"?

Is the democrat candidate Beelzebub?


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2067342 - 11/03/03 06:22 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Hey Alex Beelzebub is bad but he aint that bad!


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2068220 - 11/03/03 02:51 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

It's a war zone Alpo. I don't lose any sleep over what happens there.

I have many concerns.

Taxes. Gun laws. Social handouts. Criminal penalties. Defense. Judges. And many more. I have to base my decision on who I think will be best for the majority of these concerns.

I don't give a fuck what you think of Bush, I care what I think of him and the 9 stooges.

Edit: Besides.... no-one has proved he lied. If and when someone does, I'll re-evaluate and go from there.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Edited by luvdemshrooms (11/03/03 02:53 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2069478 - 11/04/03 03:21 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

It's a war zone Alpo. I don't lose any sleep over what happens there.




Yeah and who turned it into a fucking warzone? Oh thats right, Saddam for not giving up WMDS that he didnt have.....


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2069523 - 11/04/03 04:21 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
Quote:

It's a war zone Alpo. I don't lose any sleep over what happens there.




Yeah and who turned it into a fucking warzone? Oh thats right, Saddam for not giving up WMDS that he didnt have.....



So you're finally waking up as to who's to blame. Well better late than never.

And we still don't know he didn't have them.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2069524 - 11/04/03 04:21 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

once again you completely missed the point. read the post again. the whole thing. not just the part regarding the bombs, because it doesn't matter if innocent civilians are killed by bombs or javelins or arrows, as you like to say, in principle it is the same - innocent civilians being killed. I wasn't saying anything about specific weapons. my point was that your analogy of the woman getting attacked didn't mention innocent civilians at all. it was probably unintentional - they probably don't even enter your thought process.
and since you seem genuinely unable to see the difference here, I'll explain it one more time.

in your example you said:
"A man comes to the aid of a beautiful rich woman being mugged, chasing off the assailant. He has defended another, even though the assailant was no threat to him personally"

this is how you presented the moral situation in the war and if this was really accurate, I don't think anyone would have been against it. it's a situation of perfect moral clarity is it not? and this is how you see the war? that explains a few things, but unfortunately, this is an incomplete picture.

a better example would be:
A man comes to the aid of a group of people being murdered, chasing off the assailant. but in the process of defending them, he knows he will kill some innocent bystanders.

this would be a more accurate analogy to the war (heck, even luvdemshrooms had this straight!). a completely different situation that presents a greater moral dilemma. yet you compare your first scenario to the war and proclaim that "the fundamental principle remains the same. it is just a matter of scale."

you are obviously incorrect here. the fundamental principle is not the same and it is not just a matter of scale. you simply made another error in logic. no big deal, but you go on to say: "No offense, mono, but those who are unable to grasp fundamental principles are at a disadvantage" LOL!

well I say that those who are unable to grasp fundamental differences are at a severe disadvantage.

and since you have this demonstrated propensity to compare unlike things and claim that they are the same "in principle", it doesn't surprise me in the least to see you comparing WWII to the Iraq war.

For the third time, I did not compare the invasion of Iraq with WWII. I compared the invasion of Iraq with the invasion of Hitler's Europe. I don't know how much plainer I can make this.

wait a minute. so you're extracting an event (the invasion of Hitler's Europe) from its context (WWII) and comparing it to the invasion of Iraq??? context doesn't matter? is everything the same "in principle" to you? can there possibly be DIFFERENT principles at work in DIFFERENT situations?

You pointed out that in the course of liberating Iraq, Iraqi civilians were killed. I pointed out that in the course of liberating Europe, European civilians were killed

context! we were not there "liberating Europe", we were driving back Hitler's army and we happened to take back some land in the process. if we had killed millions of Germans in a "war of liberation", I would raise the same moral issues there as well. but clearly, the situation was different.

The only difference is one of scale

incorrect. it isn't just a matter of scale. there are different principles at work, such as self-defence. as I already explained to you, Germany declared war on us. you could ignore this point all you want, but it makes a HUGE difference. when a country formally declares war on you (for whatever reason), you are justified in attacking it.

You speak of historical ignorance, yet you seem to believe Germany had some (as yet undisclosed) method for delivering troops or missiles or bombs across the ocean to American soil. They didn't. By December of 1941, the Atlantic was an American ocean, save for the U-Boats. And U-Boats could launch no missiles, no bombs, and deliver precious few infantry.

again, you miss point the point. why this fixation on specifics? can't you see the big picture? the reason I mentioned German weapons is not because any specific one was capable of reaching us. I was only pointing out that there was military and technological parity (more or less) between the major powers during WWII. it was an epic struggle for world domination between major world powers. it was a DIFFERENT SITUATION than the one we faced in Iraq. why is this so hard to understand?




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2069527 - 11/04/03 04:24 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Give it a rest, you lost yet another battle.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2069529 - 11/04/03 04:32 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

^^^
this from the paragon of objectivity here in the PA&L forum

:rolleyes:
 


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: ]
    #2069534 - 11/04/03 04:44 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
I can't think of one self proclaimed Libertarian on this board that opposed the war.

me. i believe evolving may fall into that category as well.




what catagory would that be? "self proclaimed Libertarians"?

there are quite a few of those around here...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2069540 - 11/04/03 04:57 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

So you're finally waking up as to who's to blame. Well better late than never.

LOL!

Yeah, Saddams to blame for having WMD that he didn't have.

:lol:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinest0nedphucker
Rogue State
Male
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2069668 - 11/04/03 07:42 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

The number of innocent civilains killed by Saddam is much greater than the number of innocents the coalition have "killed"...




--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #2069709 - 11/04/03 08:02 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Factor in deaths caused by sanctions etc and it might be a much closer run thing.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2069719 - 11/04/03 08:07 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

infidelGOD said:
^^^
this from the paragon of objectivity here in the PA&L forum

:rolleyes:
   




Yeah, I love his gimpy attempts at psychological warfare. :lol: 


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2069834 - 11/04/03 09:00 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

infidelGOD said:
Quote:

mushmaster said:
I can't think of one self proclaimed Libertarian on this board that opposed the war.

me. i believe evolving may fall into that category as well.




what catagory would that be? "self proclaimed Libertarians"?



The category would be 'self proclaimed Libertarians on this board that opposed the war.'


--------------------
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
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Evolving]
    #2069877 - 11/04/03 09:15 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

maybe it should have been 'self proclaimed Libertarians on this board that can't take a joke'


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2069884 - 11/04/03 09:17 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I can take a joke, try making one. :smile: 


--------------------
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
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2070155 - 11/04/03 03:25 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

No, he's to blame for not compying with the surrender agreement.

Still as disingenuous as always I see.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2070227 - 11/04/03 03:50 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Nope, try again.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2070233 - 11/04/03 03:52 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
Nope, try again.



There's nothing to try Alpo.

He didn't comply, he's out of power.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMazzyStar
C4LC

Registered: 10/12/03
Posts: 1,426
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: ]
    #2070238 - 11/04/03 03:55 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

no one sane....."if you're still free, start running away"


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2070283 - 11/04/03 04:20 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:

GazzBut said:
Quote:

It's a war zone Alpo. I don't lose any sleep over what happens there. 




Yeah and who turned it into a fucking warzone? Oh thats right, Saddam for not giving up WMDS that he didnt have..... 



So you're finally waking up as to who's to blame. Well better late than never.

And we still don't know he didn't have them. 



And how do we know YOU don't have them?  I demand inspections of all your property.  Otherwise I'll be forced to invade.  :wink:


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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2070302 - 11/04/03 04:35 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

He didn't comply, he's out of power.

What are you talking about? Comply with what?


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2070321 - 11/04/03 04:43 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Should I ever invade another home (country), and then sign a surrender agreement and fail to comply with it, invade away. Besides, I've already shown you guys where the WMD's are.



--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Edited by luvdemshrooms (11/05/03 03:41 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2070332 - 11/04/03 04:48 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

infidelGOD writes:

wait a minute. so you're extracting an event (the invasion of Hitler's Europe) from its context (WWII) and comparing it to the invasion of Iraq??? context doesn't matter? is everything the same "in principle" to you? can there possibly be DIFFERENT principles at work in DIFFERENT situations?

Of course there can. However, the fundamental principle in these two situations is identical -- in the act of defending others (the people of the enslaved countries) innocent civilians were killed. You keep claiming there are different principles involved, but I can't help but notice you fail to identify the principles to which you refer. Which principle was operating in the Allied invasion of Europe which was not operating in the coalition's invasion of Iraq?

we were not there "liberating Europe", we were driving back Hitler's army and we happened to take back some land in the process.

Why even bother driving back Hitler's army? If it was Germany we were at war with, why did we not invade Germany rather than invading France? Germany has a coastline. Why fight your way through the entire German army and press hundreds and hundreds of miles inland, killing thousands of civilians in the process rather than going straight to the source?

it isn't just a matter of scale. there are different principles at work, such as self-defence.

What self defense? When did Germany attack America? We weren't defending America or Canada or Australia from the Germans. We were defending those Germany had already conquered. In other words, we were defending others. That is the only principle under discussion here -- whether or not it is ethical to defend others even if in so doing non-combatants may be killed. If you are talking about some other principle, please outline it for us. Thanks.

as I already explained to you, Germany declared war on us. you could ignore this point all you want, but it makes a HUGE difference. when a country formally declares war on you (for whatever reason), you are justified in attacking it.

So the declaration of a megalomaniac with no way of backing up his hollow declaration with actual acts of war makes it morally permissible to kill civilians? Fine. What other declarations make it morally permissible to kill civilians? Would a violated conditional agreement ceasefire fit the bill? If not, why not?

why this fixation on specifics? can't you see the big picture?

You are the one insisting (correctly) that we look at context. Fine. Let's look at the context. Germany was an ocean away, with no way of delivering any kind of military power against the United States -- with the possible exception of some commando teams landed by U-boat.

the reason I mentioned German weapons is not because any specific one was capable of reaching us.

If none could reach us, then there was certainly no need to defend ourselves from them, let alone travel all the way across the ocean and involve ourselves in a dispute between European nations.

I was only pointing out that there was military and technological parity (more or less) between the major powers during WWII.

What has that to do with the morality of killing civilians?

it was an epic struggle for world domination between major world powers.

Actually, no it wasn't. It was a struggle for the domination of Europe and Russia by the Fascists and the Communists. America could have (and many argued at the time should have) let the Europeans sort it out, and protected itself from invasion.

it was a DIFFERENT SITUATION than the one we faced in Iraq. why is this so hard to understand?

Of course the specifics of the two situations are not identical. But the principle involved is identical -- the Americans made a conscious decision to take action they knew would involve the deaths of innocents in order to depose a ruthless dictator that posed no direct threat to America.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2072002 - 11/05/03 01:06 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Should I ever invade another home (country), and then sign a surrender agreement and fail to comply with it, inspect away

Inspecting is fair enough luv, it's the invasion part we're having trouble with.

Besides, I've already shown you guys where the WMD's are.

Then you should take this information to the authorities and earn yourself 25 million dollars today.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2072300 - 11/05/03 03:41 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I would have thought even you would realize I used the wrong word in my sentence. I'll correct it for you since you seem unable to make the leap in your mind.

As for the 25 mil, you take my "proof" and show it to whomever you wish.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2072334 - 11/05/03 04:15 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I would have thought even you would realize I used the wrong word in my sentence

You are unclear even when using the "right" words luv.

And I've repeatedly asked you to show me precisely where the "surrender agreement" says anyone can invade Iraq.

As for the 25 mil, you take my "proof" and show it to whomever you wish.

No, because I know it's bullshit. If you think it's "proof" go and collect your 25 million. You owe it to yourself.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2072346 - 11/05/03 04:22 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

You've never asked me that question Alpo. Unless you can show me where you did?

Of course it's bullshit Alpo. It's a cartoon.

Shall I explain cartoons to you?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2072351 - 11/05/03 04:28 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

When you said "He didn't comply, he's out of power".

I asked you to try again. Explain to us how you got from "he didn't comply" to "he's out of power".

Comply with what? Invade on the basis of what?

Of course it's bullshit

I'm glad you agree.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinest0nedphucker
Rogue State
Male
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Evolving]
    #2072367 - 11/05/03 04:54 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Factor in deaths caused by sanctions etc and it might be a much closer run thing.




Sanctions that were put in place because of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, by the UN (The UN and Coalition are seperate entities).
Although the US and UK used their "political muscle" to stop the sanctions being lifted or "reformed", as the French and Russians would call it, they were in place so they could be used as leverage for Iraqi disarmament. Which was the UNSC's idea....




--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #2072413 - 11/05/03 05:45 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

As you yourself say, the US was the driving force behind the sanctions. Everyone knows the Russians and the French were interested in doing business with Iraq so they would more than likely have agreed to relaxing the sanctions. There is no doubt that the sanctions crippled the country and caused the death of a huge amount of Iraqis. Just because Iraq invaded Kuwait (After consulting the US and being given the ok) does not mean it is ok to cripple a country and kill its people through sanctions.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2073650 - 11/05/03 02:45 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Really Al, lame.

He didn't comply with the surrender agreement or 1441.

He's now out of power.

I can't dumb it down any more for you


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2074077 - 11/05/03 05:02 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

How exactly did Saddam not comply with 1441? Can we have a few specifics, my memory is not really great and I cant be bothered to do a search as you seem to know anyway.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2074132 - 11/05/03 05:17 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Nah, you'll get more from it by reading it yourself.

I'll be glad to provide a link if you need help. As your reading bear in mind the other resolutions mentioned.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2075602 - 11/05/03 11:43 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

He didn't comply with the surrender agreement

Could you inform us what this "surrender agreement" is that you are referring to? Precisely who signed it, who formulated it.

He's now out of power.

Once again, I ask you to explain why you relate breaking a UN resolution with being "out of power".



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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2075640 - 11/05/03 11:53 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Nah, you'll get more from it by reading it yourself.

To be honest it sounds like Gazz knows infinitely more about this topic than you.

Anyone who refers to a "surrender agreement" without knowing what it consisted of makes me highly suspicious.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2076681 - 11/06/03 10:21 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

the fundamental principle in these two situations is identical -- in the act of defending others (the people of the enslaved countries) innocent civilians were killed.

the fundamental principle is not the same. you are showing your prejudice and ignorance. any student of history would see that there are huge differences between WWII and the invasion of Iraq. your comparisons are meaningless.

You keep claiming there are different principles involved, but I can't help but notice you fail to identify the principles to which you refer. Which principle was operating in the Allied invasion of Europe which was not operating in the coalition's invasion of Iraq?

I failed to identify the different principle?!?! did you actually bother to read what I wrote? does "self-defense" mean anything to you?

What self defense?

you got it here. so apparently, I didn't "fail to identify" the principle. maybe you just didn't like the answer. or didn't understand.

When did Germany attack America?

U.S. Owned or Chartered Ships Attacked Before Pearl Harbor
At least 240 mariners were killed in action before Pearl Harbor.

SS City of Flint was seized by a German warship but her captain's diplomacy, and the intervention of Norway eventually freed the ship. Oct. 9, 1939
El Sonador (Panama flag under U.S. charter) was torpedoed and sunk near the Shetland
Islands on February 18, 1940. Casualties unknown.
SS City of Rayville struck a German mine off the Australian coast. Nov. 9, 1940. Crew 1 killed
SS Charles Pratt torpedoed on Dec. 21, 1940 (Panamanian flag, U.S. owned and crewed) Crew 2 killed
SS Robin Moor torpedoed by a U-Boat in the South Atlantic. May 21, 1941. No casualties
SS Iberville mine dropped by German aircraft in Red Sea. August 11, 1941. No casualties
Longtaker [former Danish Sessa, Panama] torpedoed and sunk in North Atlantic on August 17, 1941. Crew 24 killed, 3 survived
SS Steel Seafarer attacked by German aircraft in the Gulf of Suez. Sept. 5, 1941. No casualties
Montana [former Danish Paula, Panama] torpedoed and sunk in North Atlantic on Sept. 11, 1941. Crew 26 killed
Pink Star [former Danish Landby, Panama] torpedoed and sunk in North Atlantic on Sept. 19, 1941. Crew 13 killed
I. C. White (Panama) torpedoed and sunk in South Atlantic on Sept. 27, 1941. Crew 3 killed
Bold Venture (Panama) torpedoed and sunk in North Atlantic on Oct 16, 1941. Crew 17 killed, 17 survived. This was a former Danish vessel taken over by the U.S.
SS Lehigh torpedoed and sunk off the African coast. Oct. 19, 1941. No casualties
Meridian (Panama flag under U.S. charter) was torpedoed and sunk in North Atlantic on Nov. 11, 1941. The entire crew of approximately 38 was lost (4 of the crew were Canadian, citizenship of others unknown).
SS Astral, a tanker, vanished, torpedoed in the North Atlantic. Dec. 2, 1941. Crew 37 killed
SS Sagadahoc torpedoed in the South Atlantic. Dec. 3, 1941. Crew 1 killed
SS Cynthia Olson torpedoed in pacific one hour before attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941. Crew 33 killed. 2 Army passengers killed

http://www.usmm.org/casualty.html
.....

the fact is Germany fired the first shots in WWII. and any one of these incidents could have been cause for war, but we resisted involvement for years while the Nazis were conquering Europe. and when we finally did get into the war, it wasn't for humanitarian reasons, it was for self-defense.

We were defending those Germany had already conquered. In other words, we were defending others.

are you really this ignorant of history? or are you pretending to be for sake of argument? do you really believe that we were only "defending those Germany had already conquered"?!? wtf? WWII was not fought solely in order to defend others, in fact, we did NOTHING while Europe was being overrun by the Nazis. it was only when Germany formally declared war on us that we decided to get involved in Europe.

That is the only principle under discussion here

no, that's the only principle that you choose to see. get a clue. these are DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.

So the declaration of a megalomaniac with no way of backing up his hollow declaration with actual acts of war makes it morally permissible to kill civilians? Fine. What other declarations make it morally permissible to kill civilians? Would a violated conditional agreement ceasefire fit the bill? If not, why not?

no, you missed the point. all I'm saying is that a formal declaration of war changes the principles involved. when someone declares war on you for whatever reason, you are entitled to fight back in self defense. it's too bad you're having trouble understanding this. you keep saying that "the principle involved is identical", so can you tell me when Iraq declared war on us?

why this fixation on specifics? can't you see the big picture?

You are the one insisting (correctly) that we look at context. Fine. Let's look at the context. Germany was an ocean away, with no way of delivering any kind of military power against the United States -- with the possible exception of some commando teams landed by U-boat.


LOL! what a classic response. I ask you to forego specifics and see the big picture and you respond by mentioning "commando teams landed by U-boat" lol. that's not exactly what I meant. I'm talking about CONTEXT, do you understand? - the Big Picture - as in WWII, the Big One, being a war between world powers lasting six years and taking millions of lives, and maybe it's just a little bit different (in principle and in context) than what happened in Iraq, where a superpower completely overwhelmed a helpless country that posed no threat. maybe it's different because our ships were attacked by Germany prior to our involvement in WWII, maybe it's different because Germany actually declared war on us, or because Germany's ally Japan attacked us, or because Germany actually posed a credible threat to us. do historical facts matter to you? still you say: "Do you honestly not recognize that in principle, these are identical situations? Is this too hard a concept for you to grasp" :lol: uh huh, yeah identical situations :rolleyes:.

I'm sorry that you have to go to such ridiculous lengths to justify the Iraq war in your mind. I almost wish that we would find some WMD. then, we would at least be spared this BS about waging war to save the Iraqis, and how it's morally justified "in principle" :lol:
   


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2077512 - 11/06/03 03:28 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

infidelGOD writes:

the fundamental principle is not the same. you are showing your prejudice and ignorance.

And you are showing your bullheadedness. The fundamental principle is identical -- in the act of defending others, actions were deliberately taken that resulted in the deaths of non-combatants.

any student of history would see that there are huge differences between WWII and the invasion of Iraq.

Of course there were differences. No two wars are ever identical. There were, however, no differences in principle between invading Europe (an action which was not required in order to protect Americans from German attacks) and invading Iraq (an action which was not required in order to protect Americans from Iraqi attacks). Both invasions were unnecessary from the standpoint of self defense.

I failed to identify the different principle?!?! did you actually bother to read what I wrote? does "self-defense" mean anything to you?

Yes, it does. However, you seem to be denying the connection between self-defense and defense of others. Your position is that it is okay to kill innocents in the course of defending yourself, but it is not okay to kill others in the course of defending a friend or ally. If you want to treat the corollary of the principle as an entirely separate principle, we can do that.

I point out that the US did not kill innocents in the course of defending itself, it killed innocents in the course of defending others -- specifically the others in occupied Europe. According to your principles, this is not allowable.

U.S. Owned or Chartered Ships Attacked Before Pearl Harbor
At least 240 mariners were killed in action before Pearl Harbor.


How does the right to defend convoy ships in international waters which were engaged in bringing supplies to Germany's enemies justify invading mainland Europe? Clearly the US had the right to attack the German warships responsible. Further, they had the right to declare war and then proceed to attack on sight any German warship found anywhere. They even had the right to blockade any ports those German ships were using. Note the common thread here -- warships manned by combatants.

Do you grasp the principle involved here? One action involves combatants. The other action involves non-combatants.

are you really this ignorant of history? or are you pretending to be for sake of argument? do you really believe that we were only "defending those Germany had already conquered"?!? wtf?

Rant and rave all you want. The act of invading Europe had nothing to do with protecting America or Americans. As we have already seen, the worst Germany was able to do was to sink American ships. Ships can be defended by other ships and by aircraft. It is not necessary to invade a continent to prevent enemy warships from leaving port. Simply blockading the ports and bombing port facilities is all that is required.

WWII was not fought solely in order to defend others...

Nor was the war in Iraq fought solely to defend others.

in fact, we did NOTHING while Europe was being overrun by the Nazis.

Correct. Do you believe the US should have taken pre-emptive action? When? After the first country was invaded? The second? At what point before Germany formally declared war on the US did it become permissable for the US to invade Europe?

it was only when Germany formally declared war on us that we decided to get involved in Europe.

So what made it moral for the US to kill non-combatants was not the attacks on US ships, but a formal declaration of war by Germany? Okay, then.

no, that's the only principle that you choose to see. get a clue. these are DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.

You appear to have a hard time grasping the difference between a principle and the set of circumstances by which that principle is illustrated.

when someone declares war on you for whatever reason, you are entitled to fight back in self defense.

To defend one's self (in this case the United States of America), sure. We are both agreed on that. But you seem convinced that in order to defend the United States of America from Germany's military might, it was necessary to invade Europe, killing thousands of innocents in the process. Clearly, it was not necessary.

you keep saying that "the principle involved is identical", so can you tell me when Iraq declared war on us?

Iraq invaded Kuwait -- a clear declaration of war on Kuwait. A coalition of countries came to the aid of Kuwait, entering an ongoing war. Iraq was now not only at war with Kuwait, but with Kuwait's allies as well. Those allies defeated Iraq's military forces, and a conditional ceasefire was signed by representatives of Iraq, conditionally ending hostilities -- putting the war on hiatus until such time as the conditions of the ceasefire were met. None of the conditions of the ceasefire were met after a dozen years. The war resumed.

LOL! what a classic response. I ask you to forego specifics and see the big picture and you respond by mentioning "commando teams landed by U-boat" lol.

If Germany had capabilities of landing more than small commando teams in America by transportation other than U-boat, feel free to list them for us.

I'm talking about CONTEXT, do you understand? - the Big Picture - as in WWII, the Big One, being a war between world powers lasting six years and taking millions of lives, and maybe it's just a little bit different (in principle and in context) than what happened in Iraq, where a superpower completely overwhelmed a helpless country that posed no threat.

I'm talking about context as well. Like it or not, the context at the time was that Germany had no chance whatsoever of posing a direct military threat to the United States of America. All of Germany's military might was an ocean away, with no hope in hell of crossing that ocean. That's context.

maybe it's different because our ships were attacked by Germany prior to our involvement in WWII, maybe it's different because Germany actually declared war on us, or because Germany's ally Japan attacked us, or because Germany actually posed a credible threat to us.

As I have demonstrated, Germany actually posed no credible military threat to the United States of America.

And I repeat, the differences you mention don't change the fundamental principle involved in both the invasion of Europe and the invasion of Iraq -- is it or is it not allowable to put non-combatants at risk in the course of defending others?

do historical facts matter to you?

Apparently they matter to me more than they do to you. It is a historical fact that Germany posed no direct threat to the United States of America. America could quite rightly have limited itself to attacking German warships. That's all it took to keep Germany from posing a threat to the United States of America.

uh huh, yeah identical situations.

In principle, they are identical -- when it comes to the principle you are discussing; self defense. Germany had no way of directly targeting its weaponry against American soil. Neither did Iraq. America could have let the Europeans liberate themselves. America could have let the Iraqis liberate themselves. America could have adopted purely defensive measures in WII -- i.e. blockading ports and attacking German shipping. America could have adopted purely defensive measures in Iraq -- i.e. keeping troops stationed nearby and/or maintaining UN sanctions and UN inspection teams.

Face it, there was no need to invade Europe on D-Day in order to defend America. The action was taken for reasons other than self defense -- at least self defense the way you define it.

I'm sorry that you have to go to such ridiculous lengths to justify the Iraq war in your mind.

All I point out (correctly), is that by the same principle (self defense) you cite, if it was immoral to invade Iraq in 2003, it was also immoral to invade Hitler's Europe on D-Day. If you still claim it was moral to invade Europe, you therefore must provide a justification other than self defense, because the self defense argument just doesn't hold water.

then, we would at least be spared this BS about waging war to save the Iraqis, and how it's morally justified "in principle"

Since I have demonstrated that the invasion of Europe was not justified by "self defense", by what other ethical principle do you justify it?

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2079577 - 11/07/03 02:03 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

The fundamental principle is identical -- in the act of defending others




Germany had invaded several countries, were commiting genocide against an entire religion and were close to developing real WMDs with which they could have easily wreaked havoc in mainland America. To compare the Iraq situation is ridiculous. It is obvious that the differences far outweigh the similarities. To try and make out that the defence of the Iraqi people was primary in the US/UK minds is either cynical or stupid.

Quote:

Both invasions were unnecessary from the standpoint of self defense.





Wrong. As I have already pointed out it is common knowledge the Germans were close to developing nuclear weapons which could have been used against America if the German threat was not countered. That pretty much renders the rest of your post pointless so I wont bother commenting on it.

EDIT:
*=thankyou to Stonedphucker for pointing out that the Germans were not actually close to making a nuclear weapon. But as this was not known until after the US had entered the war it does not affect the point I am making.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Edited by GazzBut (11/07/03 04:49 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinest0nedphucker
Rogue State
Male
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2079937 - 11/07/03 04:31 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

and were close to developing real WMDs with which they could have easily wreaked havoc in mainland America.




Quote:

Wrong. As I have already pointed out it is common knowledge the Germans were close to developing nuclear weapons which could have been used against America if the German threat was not countered.




The Nazi nuclear program was primitive at best, the man in charge (Heisenberg who also helped discover fission) had serious ethical objections to the project hence he only asked for a couple of million marks from Speer for the entire project. Coupled with the sabotage of the heavy water producing factory in Norway the Nazi A-Bomb was never going to become a reality. Even if they did ever develop a nuclear weapon America would have been safe as the Nazi's would have had no way to deliver it, as the USA was way beyond the range of any nazi aircraft and the third reichs lack complete lack or aircraft carriers....
The closest the Nazi's got to a nuclear weapon was a large dirty bomb, the V4, it was never launched and the material it contained was sent to Japan but never made it due to Germany's surrender..

So all in all, Germany never posed a direct threat to the USA and your above statements were wrong..


--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #2079970 - 11/07/03 04:47 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

This is all well and good in hindsight but I doubt the Americans were fully aware of this when world war 2 was still raging.

Link

Heres is the pertinent section...

"The Allies knew that Werner Heisenberg, one of the great scientific minds of the twentith century, was the head of the German nuclear effort. During the war, those working on the Manhattan project, many of whom had known Heisenberg and his colleagues before the war, were convinced that they were in a close race with the Germans to develop an atomic bomb. As the Allies advanced on Germany, the Alsos Mission, whose scientific director was Samuel Goudsmit, was sent to Europe to gain information about the progress of the German nuclear efforts. In France, at the University of Strasbourg, Goudsmit was able to examine the papers left behind by one of Heisenberg's colleagues, Carl Friedrich Von Wezsacker. Goudsmit discovered that the Germans had made little progress toward the construction of an atomic bomb. In fact, as it turned out, the Germans had made little progress obtaining a fission chain reaction and they never constructed a working nuclear reactor, which is the first step to producing plutonium for nuclear weapons."

So it would appear the Americans would not have been aware of the shortcomings of the Nazi nuclear program at the time they entered WW2. Nice try though.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2080255 - 11/07/03 07:57 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

GazzBut writes:

Germany had invaded several countries, were commiting genocide against an entire religion and were close to developing real WMDs with which they could have easily wreaked havoc in mainland America. To compare the Iraq situation is ridiculous.

Iraq had invaded three countries, launched missiles against another, were committing genocide against the Kurds and had actually developed and repeatedly used WMDs with which they could easily have wreaked havoc on mainland America. Gee, no similarities there.

You want to rethink your statement?

And, like infidelGOD, you ignore the fact that in principle, the invasion of Hitler's Europe and Hussein's Iraq were the same. If you're going to try to pooh-pooh a statement which reads "The fundamental principle is identical -- in the act of defending others, actions were deliberately taken which resulted in the deaths of non-combatants," you had better try to address the actual principle.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2080446 - 11/07/03 09:22 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

No I dont want to rethink my statement. The Iran-Iraq war had been going on with the support of the US government. I dont think that the UK and the rest of Europe were approving of Germany's invasions nor were they lending them vast sums of money whilst they were invading these countries. You are drawing upon superficial similarities and are struggling to make any valid points.

As I have already pointed out, the US werent merely defending others in WW2 they were defending themselves as they believed the Germans to be close to gaining nuclear weapons. Anyway you are contradicting yourself because you say: "Germany had no way of directly targeting its weaponry against American soil. Neither did Iraq. "

Then you say refering to Iraq that they "had actually developed and repeatedly used WMDs with which they could easily have wreaked havoc on mainland America."

It is obvious that you are trying to portray America as some noble force for peace and humanity in the world because they supposedly act in the defense of others with no thoughts for themselves. It has been adequately shown that this is not the case and we havent even touched upon economic motivations yet.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #2080497 - 11/07/03 09:45 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Even if they did ever develop a nuclear weapon America would have been safe as the Nazi's would have had no way to deliver it, as the USA was way beyond the range of any nazi aircraft and the third reichs lack complete lack or aircraft carriers....

I think you misunderstand the nature of wars. They arn't fought solely to prevent your own country being "invaded". They are fought to protect your countries interests and spheres of influence. A world consisting of a Nazi reich from Europe to the middle east, with Japan mopping up the rest of south east asia would have effectively written off the US economically.

It really isn't about being "out of range" of Nazi aircraft.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2080500 - 11/07/03 09:46 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Exactly.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2080670 - 11/07/03 10:50 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

*=thankyou to Stonedphucker for pointing out that the Germans were not actually close to making a nuclear weapon. But as this was not known until after the US had entered the war it does not affect the point I am making.




Nazi Germany was a leader of theoretical physics. A large portion of their scientists defected to the US after WW2 to work on cold war nuclear projects to advoid war crime charges. I'll even name some names of anyone is interested.

They certainly had the brainpower and resources to develop these weapons and probably would have done so within a few years.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2080761 - 11/07/03 11:23 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

GazzBut writes:

As I have already pointed out, the US werent merely defending others in WW2 they were defending themselves as they believed the Germans to be close to gaining nuclear weapons.

Ah! The key word here is "believed". The US had no hard evidence that Germany was close to gaining nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, in December of 1941, no one in the entire world even knew it was possible to build a functioning nuclear bomb.

But in the case of Iraq, not only did the US believe Iraq had possessed functional WMDs, they knew it -- and so did every other intelligence agency in the world. Not only that, but Hussein had actually used his chem weaponry on several occasions.

If you are going to justify the invasion of Europe on "beliefs", you must therefore also justify the invasion of Iraq on beliefs.

Anyway you are contradicting yourself because you say: "Germany had no way of directly targeting its weaponry against American soil. Neither did Iraq. "

Then you say refering to Iraq that they "had actually developed and repeatedly used WMDs with which they could easily have wreaked havoc on mainland America."


Speed up. I was mocking your own claim in the second sentence.

In actual fact, Germany had no way of delivering their existing weaponry (artillery shells, aerial bombs) against American soil. But things are different today. It is simplicity itself to smuggle a cannister of VX into the US and introduce it into the ventilation system of a subway or a theater or whatever.

t is obvious that you are trying to portray America as some noble force for peace and humanity in the world because they supposedly act in the defense of others with no thoughts for themselves.

You are reading into my statements things that aren't there. I never said the US had no thoughts for themselves. Of course they do. I merely point out (and both you and infidelGOD keep evading) that the invasion of Europe was completely unnecessary from the point of view of America's self defense.

The best you can come up with to justify that invasion is that maybe one day Germany might have developed an atomic bomb and found some way to deliver it to American soil, therefore it was necessary not to just protect America from Germany's actual military capabilities, but to pre-emptively engineer a regime change in Germany to protect America from Germany's possible future capabilities.

pinky

*edited for spelling mistake


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


Edited by pinksharkmark (11/07/03 11:29 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2080773 - 11/07/03 11:27 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

But in the case of Iraq, not only did the US believe Iraq had ossessed functional WMDs, they knew it -- and so did every other intelligence agency in the world.




:nut:    :shake:


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2080774 - 11/07/03 11:27 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

monoamine writes:

Nazi Germany was a leader of theoretical physics.

"A" leader, yes. Not "the" leader. America was the leader in theoretical physics at that time, in large part due to German scientists and other European scientists who had fled Europe.

A large portion of their scientists defected to the US after WW2 to work on cold war nuclear projects to advoid war crime charges. I'll even name some names of anyone is interested.

This is true. It doesn't change the fact that the best minds in theoretical physics were already located in the US during the war.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2080834 - 11/07/03 11:49 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I actually have a distant relative that was a mathemitician that defected when Germany invaded Poland.

Quote:

It doesn't change the fact that the best minds in theoretical physics were already located in the US during the war.




That's hard to say. Germany was up there. The physics used to build the bomb was allready about twenty years old when the Manhattan project started.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Edited by monoamine (11/07/03 11:52 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2081009 - 11/07/03 12:51 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

But in the case of Iraq, not only did the US believe Iraq had possessed functional WMDs, they knew it -- and so did every other intelligence agency in the world.




So how come Colin Powell said the exact opposite in 2001, as did Condy Rice? Perhaps they were using extra-planetary intelligence services...who it now appears were right all along.

The US and the UK lied through their teeth and it is plain for all to see.



--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2081042 - 11/07/03 01:01 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Amen  :thumbup:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/12/99
Posts: 1,617
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2081091 - 11/07/03 01:17 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Glory glory hallelujiah! I was listening to the local rap station the other day. They are playing one of those "Right Thurr" songs and right after it is done.. in busts in a black preacher, his voice, the complete opposite of the rap that was just playing.

He does a little mini sermon.
He says hell alot.

It is very southern baptist..

You know..
beautiful hymn, little white church quaint. And then, back on comes the rap after a mix of "When the Saints Go Marching in". This time it's the ghetto rap of my youth, all Bone Thugs Harmonies.

I was thinking about how we have fought wars for religion and morality in virtually every war since the civil war. Civil wars seem to be the only wars worth fighting. The only just wars.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2086354 - 11/09/03 10:57 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

you are showing your bullheadedness. The fundamental principle is identical -- in the act of defending others, actions were deliberately taken that resulted in the deaths of non-combatants.

you haven't really addressed any of my points and you're just repeating yourself. I've already shown that we were not merely "in the act of defending others" when we invaded Hitler's Germany. we were also retaliating against attacks on American ships and responding to a formal declaration of war and yes, we were also defending ourselves from a serious threat to our own security.

you keep saying that "the principle involved is identical", so can you tell me when Iraq declared war on us?

Iraq invaded Kuwait -- a clear declaration of war on Kuwait. A coalition of countries came to the aid of Kuwait, entering an ongoing war. Iraq was now not only at war with Kuwait, but with Kuwait's allies as well. Those allies defeated Iraq's military forces, and a conditional ceasefire was signed by representatives of Iraq, conditionally ending hostilities -- putting the war on hiatus until such time as the conditions of the ceasefire were met. None of the conditions of the ceasefire were met after a dozen years. The war resumed.


gee, all that and you didn't even answer the question. when did Iraq declare war on us? you're the one saying that the "the principle involved is identical". so are you saying that invading a country after it attacks you and after it declares war on you is indentical in principle to invading a country that has NOT attacked us and has NOT declared war on us? these are "identical situations"???



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2086361 - 11/09/03 11:00 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

yes, we were also defending ourselves from a serious threat to our own security.

Unquestionably. A third reich from europe to the middle east with Japan mopping up south east asia would have have given the axis powers just as much control of the US as an invasion of the country itself.

that has NOT attacked us and has NOT declared war on us?

But you're forgetting the threat posed by WMD...


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2086362 - 11/09/03 11:01 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

You are reading into my statements things that aren't there. I never said the US had no thoughts for themselves. Of course they do. I merely point out (and both you and infidelGOD keep evading) that the invasion of Europe was completely unnecessary from the point of view of America's self defense.

actually, you're not merely pointing that out. your position is a bit more extreme than that: you're saying that because I accept the morality of the allied invasion of Europe, I must also accept the morality of the invasion of Iraq, because the situations are "identical" in princple.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2086390 - 11/09/03 11:20 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Nazi Germany was a leader of theoretical physics. A large portion of their scientists defected to the US after WW2 to work on cold war nuclear projects to advoid war crime charges. I'll even name some names of anyone is interested.

They certainly had the brainpower and resources to develop these weapons and probably would have done so within a few years.


good point. another logical error for pinky is that he's considering what actually happened to try to show that Germany was not a threat, forgetting the fact that things turned out the way they did because the US got involved in the war. it would make more sense here to consider what would have happened if we didn't get involved.
if all those Nazi scientists continued to work for Germany, the history of the 20th century would have been completely different. consider the example of Wernher Von Braun, who designed the V2 rocket as a Nazi scientist. after the war he and his team came to the US to continue their work and he became the head of the US military's ballistic missile program. later in life, he also "became director of NASA?s Marshall Space Flight Center and the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that would propel Americans to the Moon."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinest0nedphucker
Rogue State
Male
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2086394 - 11/09/03 11:23 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Unquestionably. A third reich from europe to the middle east with Japan mopping up south east asia would have have given the axis powers just as much control of the US as an invasion of the country itself.




Speculation it never happened. What about the Soviet Union? Any way you look at it Germany was incapable of defeating the USSR in the long term, the best the nazi's could have hoped for was the cessation of USSR's western provinces, lebensraum for the german people. Italy's armies in Africa were about as effective as an army of OAP's armed with nostalgic stories. But none of this has any real relevance anyway

Quote:

that has NOT attacked us and has NOT declared war on us?




Britain and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, neither had been attacked and Germany didn't declare war on either. Its how alliance treaties work.


--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #2086400 - 11/09/03 11:27 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Speculation it never happened.

Wake up. We're talking about potential "threats" here.

Any way you look at it Germany was incapable of defeating the USSR in the long term

The right-wing americans arn't going to like that. They're pretty much convinced they won the war.

Britain and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, neither had been attacked and Germany didn't declare war on either.

Yeah but it was a helluva good fucking bet they were going to be attacked sooner or later wasn't it.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinest0nedphucker
Rogue State
Male
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #2086425 - 11/09/03 11:43 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

good point. another logical error for pinky is that he's considering what actually happened to try to show that Germany was not a threat, forgetting the fact that things turned out the way they did because the US got involved in the war. it would make more sense here to consider what would have happened if we didn't get involved.
if all those Nazi scientists continued to work for Germany, the history of the 20th century would have been completely different. consider the example of Wernher Von Braun, who designed the V2 rocket as a Nazi scientist. after the war he and his team came to the US to continue their work and he became the head of the US military's ballistic missile program. later in life, he also "became director of NASA?s Marshall Space Flight Center and the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that would propel Americans to the Moon."




Then your logical error would be you seem to believe you know what would have happened had the USA not been involved. Like I have stated Germany's nuclear weapon project was far from complete. Although German scientists were some of the most well versed in the world, the majority of them had fled before the war, it was Einstein that actually warned the USA of the possibility of a bomb more powerful than anyone could imagine.
If America had not entered the war, I dont see how this is possible as you really didn't have a choice, it would have taken Germany years to develop a nuclear weapon especially one with anything near the required range.
Couple this with the economic instability, the mammoth task of occupying practically a whole continent and the lack of resources (hence erzats) along with the reasons I explained in my earlier posts it seems extremely unlikely the Nazi's would have developed a nuke by the end of the decade and that's being incredibly optimistic. As for Wernher von Braun he was excellent scientist but the majority of his intercontinental ballistic and space work was accomplished in America which had the economic and industrial power with which to accomplish this.


--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #2086432 - 11/09/03 11:49 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Speculation it never happened

of course it never happened... :rolleyes:
it didn't happen because America did enter WWII. remember?

Britain and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, neither had been attacked and Germany didn't declare war on either. Its how alliance treaties work.

they had their own justifiable reasons to declare war (mostly for self defense).
but I don't get your point here. what does this have to do with Iraq declaring war on us? did Iraq declare war? or attack our citizens? or provoke us in any way as Germany did in WWII?

 


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinest0nedphucker
Rogue State
Male
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #2086435 - 11/09/03 11:51 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Unquestionably. A third reich from europe to the middle east with Japan mopping up south east asia would have have given the axis powers just as much control of the US as an invasion of the country itself.




Still, you're above statement is incorrect, your terminology should reflect your discussing a possibility, it doesn't...

Quote:

The right-wing americans arn't going to like that. They're pretty much convinced they won the war.




The allies won the war, America's involvement not only after pearl harbour but before was vital. If America had not entered the war who knows, it could be the third reich (encompassing the UK) fighting the communists.....

Quote:

Yeah but it was a helluva good fucking bet they were going to be attacked sooner or later wasn't it.




True France would have undoubtly been attacked, as for Britain who knows negotiations could have taken place. Like I have mentioned a lot of top Nazi's hoped war with Britain could be avoided, they believed we were both from normadic descent... How nice.





--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #2086456 - 11/09/03 12:04 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

As for Wernher von Braun he was excellent scientist but the majority of his intercontinental ballistic and space work was accomplished in America which had the economic and industrial power with which to accomplish this.

we had the economic and industrial power because we entered the war, won it and reaped the technological spoils.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinest0nedphucker
Rogue State
Male
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2086480 - 11/09/03 12:16 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

True, the USA reaped huge benfits from the war it finally killed off the depresion in effect. However we are mxing points, I commented on Germanys nuclear weapon development, which thus far has been misused.

Germany declared war on Poland
Britain and France declared war on Germany
Germany declared war on the USA

Iraq declared on Kuwait
UK & US declared war on Iraq
*conditional surrender signed, Iraq violated agreement*
UK & US declare war on Iraq

Where we seem to disagree is validity of going to war for the defense of others, the best example of this can be seen in bold. If you believe the only justifications for going to war are either a declaration of war against you or if there is an imminent threat ( :lol: thought i'd throw it in for good measure) to the population, then Amercia has a lot of apologising to do....

edit: Mistake


--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.


Edited by st0nedphucker (11/09/03 12:18 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #2086501 - 11/09/03 12:28 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Still, you're above statement is incorrect, your terminology should reflect your discussing a possibility, it doesn't...

actually his statement did just that, or did you miss the "would have" part there?

The allies won the war, America's involvement not only after pearl harbour but before was vital. If America had not entered the war who knows

so if America didn't get involved, would you agree that the allies would have most likely lost the war? that would leave America surrounded by technologically advanced enemies with almost limitless resources wouldn't it? is it so fartetched to think that America was acting in self-defense in WWII?

Like I have mentioned a lot of top Nazi's hoped war with Britain could be avoided

apparently not the same top Nazis that decided to bomb civilians in London and lob V-2 rockets across the channel.

Iraq declared on Kuwait
UK & US declared war on Iraq
*conditional surrender signed, Iraq violated agreement*
UK & US declare war on Iraq


are you saying violating a surrender agreement is identical to a declaration of war? in that case, Germany declared war on the world long before 1941, because they repeatedly violated the treaty of Versailles.

Where we seem to disagree is validity of going to war for the defense of others, the best example of this can be seen in bold.

you mean this: "Germany declared war on Poland
Britain and France declared war on Germany"?

I don't think Britain and France declared war on Germany to defend Poland. I think they were looking after their own asses.

then Amercia has a lot of apologising to do....

no not really. we just have to be honest with our justifications for war. we invaded Iraq for perceived self-interest, not because we wanted to save the Iraqis. and we fought in WWII for self-interest, not to defend the French or the Poles.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
PsiloKitten 11,185 93 11/02/13 08:08 PM
by Yogi1
* John Kerry's War Vote: Profiles in Political Calculation? Ancalagon 759 3 08/22/04 07:18 PM
by zappaisgod
* Support for War in Iraq Hits New Low RandalFlagg 336 0 01/19/05 05:50 PM
by RandalFlagg
* Poetry about politics and war PsiloKitten 574 3 04/11/03 06:41 AM
by PsiloKitten
* Kerry Favored Over Bush 47%-43% In Multi-Candidate Race fft2 1,065 11 08/19/04 08:03 PM
by Ed1
* All the evidence to indict Sharon on War Crimes nugsarenice 1,241 4 06/15/02 09:10 PM
by nugsarenice
* A preacher's view on The War on Drugs Phred 1,185 2 07/19/01 10:52 PM
by fuzzysquirelnuts
* Oh Brave leader....take us to war whiterasta 1,090 9 11/13/03 07:42 AM
by whiterasta

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,217 topic views. 3 members, 4 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.07 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 12 queries.