PDA

View Full Version : so if Bush violated the law...


Pages : [1] 2

Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Adam Alexander
06-27-2005, 04:01 PM
all people who continue to support the war do not respect law, right?

Well, that settles everything for me. I just wish he would of come out and said he didn't care about anything but his agenda...regardless of whether it was morally reprehensible.

I tell you. It feels real good to have what I've been saying the whole time validated.

Thank's George.

James Davis
06-27-2005, 04:04 PM
I care about my agenda. :D

Adam Alexander
06-27-2005, 04:19 PM
:) but will you murder people to carry it out? (murder and collaborating murder being the same:) )

James Davis
06-27-2005, 04:23 PM
Who got murdered? :straightf
I'm not being a wiseguy; I just want to know exactly where you're coming from.

Adam Alexander
06-27-2005, 07:11 PM
Who got murdered? :straightf
I'm not being a wiseguy; I just want to know exactly where you're coming from.


Everyone who's died in relation to Iraq. If Bush's war was illegal, then I figure he must be a murderer.

James Davis
06-28-2005, 10:44 AM
Didn't all of the United Nations sanctions that Saddam ignored make it legal for any U.N. member nation to declare war? :confused:

mj
06-28-2005, 12:48 PM
No.

Hogan
06-28-2005, 02:00 PM
Yes it did:

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

".....Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

....Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations..."

Adam Alexander
06-28-2005, 02:40 PM
I don't know:)...I only posed an "if/then" proposition. But, I'd say that Bush getting caught lying to the people is going to be a little questionable:)

And really, even if it's "legal," and he lied...what's the difference? It's still immoral.

LOL. When Clinton was impeached, I heard liberals crying about it. And I'd always say "NO. He lied. That's it." I also heard a lot of other conservatives say the same thing.

It's nice to see that morality comes and goes so conveniently.

Adam Alexander
06-28-2005, 02:44 PM
One other thing...about that link.

IN the opening it says "Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

I think that's a lie:) Come on Hogan. If you're only going to interject occasional--only the occasions which serve for you--atleast give us something practical...You're saying that his acts are legal because of his lie?

As I recall WMD was the clincher.

Hogan
06-28-2005, 02:46 PM
I don't know:)...I only posed an "if/then" proposition. But, I'd say that Bush getting caught lying to the people is going to be a little questionable:)

And really, even if it's "legal," and he lied...what's the difference? It's still immoral.

LOL. When Clinton was impeached, I heard liberals crying about it. And I'd always say "NO. He lied. That's it." I also heard a lot of other conservatives say the same thing.

It's nice to see that morality comes and goes so conveniently.

Jean -

I guess it comes down to ones opinion on whether Dubya lied or not. Some people say yes, some people say no - I don't want to get into another time wasting argument about that....

But what I think EVERYONE can agree on is that Clinton DID lie UNDER OATH, and THAT is againt the law - PERIOD, no matter what the subject matter.

Hogan
06-28-2005, 02:52 PM
One other thing...about that link.

IN the opening it says "Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

I think that's a lie:) Come on Hogan. If you're only going to interject occasional--only the occasions which serve for you--atleast give us something practical...You're saying that his acts are legal because of his lie?

As I recall WMD was the clincher.

Sorry - Iraq WAS in non-compliance with all the resolutions. And remember, this res. was adopted by the UN. So then maybe you should pick your battle with the world.

Remember, WMD was a PART of the reason. NOT the whole part. Is war then justified when only part of the whole turns out to be relevant ? That's for historians to decide.

And given the recent developments that our 'allies' only were against this war so they can continue participating in the Oil-ForFood boondoggle, I don't buy any argument that if the 'allies' didn't support it then we were wrong.

Adam Alexander
06-28-2005, 02:55 PM
Jean -

1)I guess it comes down to ones opinion on whether Dubya lied or not. Some people say yes, some people say no - I don't want to get into another time wasting argument about that....

2)But what I think EVERYONE can agree on is that Clinton DID lie UNDER OATH, and THAT is againt the law - PERIOD, no matter what the subject matter.

1)If reality follows perception, then yes, it depends on what one believes. I, however, believe that perception should be based on reality.

2)Actually, I think Clinton found a potential safe-haven in "depends what the definition of 'is' is." I think Bush is going to do the same thing...technicalities. They both intended to deceive. That makes them both lyers.

Again, it's interesting to see how easy morality goes out the door.

Adam Alexander
06-28-2005, 02:58 PM
Sorry - Iraq WAS in non-compliance with all the resolutions. And remember, this res. was adopted by the UN. So then maybe you should pick your battle with the world.

Remember, WMD was a PART of the reason. NOT the whole part. Is war then justified when only part of the whole turns out to be relevant ? That's for historians to decide.

And given the recent developments that our 'allies' only were against this war so they can continue participating in the Oil-ForFood boondoggle, I don't buy any argument that if the 'allies' didn't support it then we were wrong.

I guess it'll come out in the wash. I agree with the earlier posting: there's no need to carry this out.

Bottome line: Bush and Clinton are no different and those who choose a side...well...it's funny how morality goes out the window.

Hogan
06-28-2005, 03:09 PM
...2)Actually, I think Clinton found a potential safe-haven in "depends what the definition of 'is' is."...

Oh good god..... :disgust:

James Davis
06-28-2005, 04:41 PM
If there aren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then they must have gone somewhere else. Saddam Hussein had WMD's in the past; just ask the Kurds about them. :( We all know that he used to have them. We saw them used on TV during the first gulf war. :confused: He used them to gas the Kurds, who were citizens of his own country. Now, quite a few people want to behave as if they never existed. :drool:
Even if all of the WMD's had been moved/sold out of Iraq well before our entering Iraq, the only thing Bush is guilty of is making the same educated decision that anyone else would make.
I don't like some of the decisions that W has made. He spends way too much of our tax dollars for my liking. :disgust: I just don't think that we should start chanting that "Bush lied!" mantra just because what W thought to be true turned out to be false.

If one is not AWARE that what they are saying is false, then they are NOT lying. They're just misinformed. Blame the genius that cut our intelligence funding. :rolleyes:

mj
06-28-2005, 06:14 PM
Well James I seem to remember an awful lot of protests at the time saying that Saddam did not have WMD and that the war was unjustified. Well he didn't have WMD, he wasn't involved in 911 and he didn't have mobile chemical weapons labs...in fact everything that we were told has turned out to be a lie. As many people were saying at the time.

And when he gassed the Kurds he was our friend...in fact the West was supporting him then, especially America because he was at war with Iran - America wanted to punish Iran for getting rid of the Shah...remember?

Neil Mick
06-28-2005, 08:16 PM
Didn't all of the United Nations sanctions that Saddam ignored make it legal for any U.N. member nation to declare war? :confused:

Yes it did:

No, it didn't. Ignorance is a sad thing.

The Bush Administration's Attacks on the UN (http://www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/0302paxam.pdf)

Articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter specify that UN Security Council resolutions cannot be enforced by military action unless the Security Council as a whole determines that the government in question is in material breach of the resolution, that all non-military means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of force. This was reiterated in Article 14 of UN Security Council resolution 1441 targeting Iraq, that was introduced by the United States last fall, which states that the Security Council "remains seized of the matter." In other words, only the Security Council as a whole, not any single member state, has the right to determine what happens next.

Individual member-states of the SC cannot unilaterally decide what to do in the event of "material breeches." You bring out the same tired old dirge; and STILL you can't dance to it, no matter how many times you repeat the BushCo mantra's.

In short...NEXT!

Neil Mick
06-28-2005, 08:19 PM
1)If reality follows perception, then yes, it depends on what one believes. I, however, believe that perception should be based on reality.

2)Actually, I think Clinton found a potential safe-haven in "depends what the definition of 'is' is." I think Bush is going to do the same thing...technicalities. They both intended to deceive. That makes them both lyers.

Again, it's interesting to see how easy morality goes out the door.

Clinton lied: no one died. Personally, I think that it makes a lot of difference.

Neil Mick
06-28-2005, 08:27 PM
If there aren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then they must have gone somewhere else. Saddam Hussein had WMD's in the past; just ask the Kurds about them. :( We all know that he used to have them. We saw them used on TV during the first gulf war. :confused: He used them to gas the Kurds, who were citizens of his own country. Now, quite a few people want to behave as if they never existed.

Nooo...you're forgetting something. In '91, he declared that he didn't have them, anymore. In '95 Kamal Hussein, at the time in charge of these programs in Iraq, testified that they were all dismantled in '91.

And, what's the big deal, anyway? Israel surely is in greater violation of more UN protocols than Hussein was.


I just don't think that we should start chanting that "Bush lied!" mantra just because what W thought to be true turned out to be false.

The facts revealed in the Downing St Memo indicate otherwise. It was NOT just faulty intel: BushCo massaged the intel to hasten the war, popular opinion bedamned.

Blame the genius that cut our intelligence funding.

Personally, I think it goes a lot further than that. BushCO could have had the best intel in the world (waitaminute! he DID!!! :eek: ), but he still had plans to attack Iraq, hours after he was selected as the President. Good intel is irrelevent, when you have all of the answers figured out in advance (as does our beloved Mass-Murderer-in-Chief).

Neil Mick
06-28-2005, 08:43 PM
Jean -

I guess it comes down to ones opinion on whether Dubya lied or not. Some people say yes, some people say no - I don't want to get into another time wasting argument about that....

Of course not. Because, you cannot (will not) explain yourself. But, by this logic: I suppose that MLK wasn't really murdered; (it's all opinion), or even, I suppose that it's debatable that we are at "war;" or that when I go to get my paycheck--my boss can debate whether or not I actually worked the last two weeks... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Gosh, pure relativity sure is fun...

But what I think EVERYONE can agree on is that Clinton DID lie UNDER OATH.

In your opinion... :hypno: :hypno: :p

Hogan
06-29-2005, 10:10 AM
No, it didn't. Ignorance is a sad thing.

The Bush Administration's Attacks on the UN (http://www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/0302paxam.pdf)



Individual member-states of the SC cannot unilaterally decide what to do in the event of "material breeches." You bring out the same tired old dirge; and STILL you can't dance to it, no matter how many times you repeat the BushCo mantra's.

In short...NEXT!


This same article also says:

"According to the UN Charter, the only other circumstance
in which military force is allowed is under
Article 51, which allows a member state to use force
in the event of "armed attack…until the Security
Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security." In other words, the
United States cannot make war against Iraq unless
there is a direct attack by Iraq against the United
States and only until the Security Council convenes
and decides what to do about it."

HAHHA !!! Yes, only time a nation can repel an attack is with UN approval....

AHAHAHHA !!! That IS good. Sorry Neil, wake up from your nap and smell the real world:
http://www.aikiweb.com/gallery_data/525/1563Dsc00554-thumb.jpg

Hogan
06-29-2005, 10:15 AM
Of course not. Because, you cannot (will not) explain yourself. But, by this logic: I suppose that MLK wasn't really murdered; (it's all opinion), or even, I suppose that it's debatable that we are at "war;" or that when I go to get my paycheck--my boss can debate whether or not I actually worked the last two weeks... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Gosh, pure relativity sure is fun...



Please look in the directionary and look up 'lie'. Then look up what everyone was saying back in the early '90's re Uncle Saddamy and his threat, opionions based on the intelligence out there. Everyone was syaing he was a threat, including your cronies Clinton and his liberal ilk. Given your logic, they all lied.

And bases on your napping in aikido class, I wouldn't question your boss withholding your paycheck.

Hogan
06-29-2005, 10:19 AM
But what I think EVERYONE can agree on is that Clinton DID lie UNDER OATH.



In your opinion... :hypno: :hypno: :p

Again, read the transcripts and the law. Only people who would say he didn't lie are those napping in their lives...

oh, hey wait a minute....
http://www.aikiweb.com/gallery_data/525/1563Dsc00554-thumb.jpg

mj
06-29-2005, 01:02 PM
Hogan no-one disputes that Saddam was a nasty guy. Saddam being a nasty guy was never part of the equation though.

Saddam was a friend of the US when he gassed the Kurds, so you can see why some people question the motives of Americans when they use this argument.

The US went to war with Iraq SPECIFICALLY because they claimed he was in possession of and developing WMD and was about to attack the US and its interests. End of story.

So the US was basically saying it was acting in self defence, which was a lie. When it turned out that there were no WMD (as everyone including the USA knew) the argument changed to 'bringing freedom to Iraq'.

The US lied about Iraq....losing all sympathy that there was over 911. To spend such capital, the death of thousands, so cheaply is an insult to their memory.

And what of Bin Laden, what of the Saudis, what of the root causes of 911? None of these things have been addressed, the US is more hated and loathed than ever before. Up to its ass in trillions of debt, the economy failing, public services being decimated. And still fighting a war based on lies and costing billions upon billions.

And losing the war, it seems - just to rub salt in the wound. :(

Hogan
06-29-2005, 01:22 PM
Hogan no-one disputes that Saddam was a nasty guy. Saddam being a nasty guy was never part of the equation though.

I have to disagree - it was PART of it, but a small part.

Saddam was a friend of the US when he gassed the Kurds, so you can see why some people question the motives of Americans when they use this argument.
Different time, new people.

The US went to war with Iraq SPECIFICALLY because they claimed he was in possession of and developing WMD and was about to attack the US and its interests. End of story.
Again, sorry, but ut was PART of the whole. If people insist on saying that this was the ONLY argument without looking at what was said, then there really isn't anything more to say....

...The US lied about Iraq....losing all sympathy that there was over 911. To spend such capital, the death of thousands, so cheaply is an insult to their memory.
Again, action was taken based on reports that EVERYONE believed at the time, including Clinton, the UN, senate democrats. Just because one part of the whole doesn't pan out yet (just where are they then ? And no one has yet answered that if they were destroyed, then why didn't Saddam prove it ? Why did he let his people suffer ? For Oil for Food money ? Hmmmm...). That argument of stealing the worlds money and letting his own people suffer is alone to invade. If not, then none of the humanitarian military actions, such as Somolia, Kosovo, Haiti, etc... should not have happened. We should have let those dictators continue as well....

And what of Bin Laden, what of the Saudis, what of the root causes of 911? None of these things have been addressed,

Not addresses ? US invaded their home base and overthre them. And Bin Laden is pretty much out of the equation anyway. And who cares is we are hated ? After yrs of being the biggest contributer of humantiarian aid in the region, they still hated us prior to 9/11. And the terrorists have time and time again said the only thing they respect is strength. So who cares ?

Up to its ass in trillions of debt,
As usual. The US has managed to survive so far. And don;t even attempt to link debt to Bush. It existed before and will exist for all of our lives.

the economy failing,
Don't think so. It has been one of continued growth. Just because you don't like the way it grows, doesn't mean it's failing.

public services being decimated.
How about cutting the billions of pork/waste in the budget. Maybe we can have extra money then.


And losing the war

Oh please..... If you think we are losing, then if you were around at any other of our wars you would have thought we were done from day one.

This war on terror will last for GENERATIONS... for the REST OF OUR LIVES. Do you need a formal surrender to say it's a win ?

Neil Mick
06-29-2005, 05:58 PM
HAHHA !!! Yes, only time a nation can repel an attack is with UN approval....

Really, John: take a good look at the UN Charter. Your ignorance of the document is telling.

Not to mention, of course: your maturity level. Sad, rally. :dead:

Neil Mick
06-29-2005, 06:25 PM
Please look in the directionary and look up 'lie'. Then look up what everyone was saying back in the early '90's re Uncle Saddamy and his threat, opionions based on the intelligence out there. Everyone was syaing he was a threat, including your cronies Clinton and his liberal ilk. Given your logic, they all lied.

Good! Now you're starting to get somewhere. But, Clinton is as much a "liberal" as W. And, your logic needs some maturing too, while you're at it.

But, you seem to like to take elements out of context and paste them into your own immature view of the world (my photo, for instance). Here, allow me to assist:

1. Lie:

lie

n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

1. Not everyone said "Saddam was a threat" in the early '90's. I certainly fail to recall Clinton ever stating that Hussein was a threat, to the US. Which, if you'd bothered to read the UN Charter, you'd know that this is the only rationale that the US could legally attack Iraq. I know, I know: you like to play fast and loose with your terms ("threat" to whom, for example): and we certainly won't be expecting any explanations from so lofty a troll as yourself, but at least be clear on whom he was supposed to be a threat to.

Besides, Hussein was his most "threatening" when he was the US's "man in the ME." Funny, but your highly selective memory always seems to brush this significant detail to the side.

2. But even if, as you say, Hussein was widely considered a threat, I seem to remember a certain mass-murdering President (no, not Clinton: the more recent one :p ) announcing that "we cannot wait for verification to arrive in the form of a mushroom cloud." Funny, but I don't seem to recall Clinton going to this extreme, to prove Hussein's threat.

3. But in the end, Clinton had no Judith Miller used as an echo-chamber in the NYT for the Pentagon's policies; he did not have Cheney over at the CIA massaging the intel to fit his policies; he did not intend to invade Iraq hours after he was elected; he did not tie 9-11 to Hussein (as W has done, as recently as last night) without a shred of evidence to prive this contention; he did not lie about fictictious IAEA reports on Iraq's nuclear capability (as W did); he did not go before the American ppl and tell them a plain untruth about copper tubes in his SoTU, purchased by Iraq from Niger and then have Karl Rove, et al, "out" a CIA operative as a form of political back-biting; he did not call Gitmo a "model prison," in spite of the numerous reports of abuse and torture; he did not have a chief council who termed the Geneva Conventions "quaint," elevated to the highest juridical position in the land...

4. Oh yeah: your guy is a real peach. :rolleyes:

If you think we are losing, then if you were around at any other of our wars you would have thought we were done from day one.

This war on terror will last for GENERATIONS... for the REST OF OUR LIVES. Do you need a formal surrender to say it's a win ?

Funny, I always seem to recall that wars were fought for concrete victories, against tangible enemies. A "war on terror" will yield the same results as the "war on drugs..." remember that great idea? And yep: the "war on drugs" HAS gone on for GENERATIONS; and what do we have to show for it?

A bunch of cancer patients, their homes raided and lives disturbed for the crime of using a drug that has no possibility of overdosing.

Or, the "war against the demon liquor." Yeah, that one sure got the alcohol-monkey off American backs, didn't it? :rolleyes:

Adam Alexander
06-29-2005, 07:57 PM
I don't know why you guys keep this up.

Neil, Back when I was a Republican trying to convince Dems that Clinton was wrong, nothing could convince them. This is just the other side of the same coin.

As a Rep, it wasn't perjury that made me angry about Clinton (because technically, he didn't do anything "wrong"). It was that I believed he tried to deceive us.

Same here with Bush. It doesn't matter how much evidence can be cited against Bush. There's people, just like Clinton supporters, who don't care about morality...right now, they're supporting Bush.

I just think it's a shame how easy the conservatives throw morality out the window.

Bush deceived America. Bottom line...he's a lier.

Neil Mick
06-29-2005, 11:29 PM
I don't know why you guys keep this up.

Neil, Back when I was a Republican trying to convince Dems that Clinton was wrong, nothing could convince them. This is just the other side of the same coin.

As a Rep, it wasn't perjury that made me angry about Clinton (because technically, he didn't do anything "wrong"). It was that I believed he tried to deceive us.

Same here with Bush. It doesn't matter how much evidence can be cited against Bush. There's people, just like Clinton supporters, who don't care about morality...right now, they're supporting Bush.

I just think it's a shame how easy the conservatives throw morality out the window.

Bush deceived America. Bottom line...he's a lier.

Good post. I agree with every word.

What makes it different with respect to Clinton is how low we've sunk. The torture-issue is completely new.

Also, is a lie that hurts no one so bad, as a lie that results in the deaths of hundred's of thousands, and rapidly climbing? A lie that is perpetuated today, to cover up the first lie?

Obviously, I am biased. But I don't think that Clinton was such a gem, either.

Hogan
06-30-2005, 08:00 AM
Really, John: take a good look at the UN Charter. Your ignorance of the document is telling.

Not to mention, of course: your maturity level. Sad, rally. :dead:

Ummmmm... I quoted from an article YOU posted.

Hogan
06-30-2005, 08:20 AM
... Not everyone said "Saddam was a threat" in the early '90's. I certainly fail to recall Clinton ever stating that Hussein was a threat, to the US.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/15/un.iraq/

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler claims in a report to the U.N. Security Council that Iraq has failed to cooperate fully with his team of arms experts.

In the report, delivered to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan late Tuesday, Butler said Baghdad has not lived up to its promise to give unconditional access to U.N. inspectors trying to determine if Iraq has abandoned its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

"Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in either the fields of disarmament or accounting for Iraq's prohibited weapons program," Butler wrote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program [13]."

Which, if you'd bothered to read the UN Charter, you'd know that this is the only rationale that the US could legally attack Iraq.
Once again - UN charter does not equal US interests all the time. Wake up and smell the real world.

I know, I know: you like to play fast and loose with your terms ("threat" to whom, for example):
Clinton:The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.



.... Funny, but I don't seem to recall Clinton going to this extreme, to prove Hussein's threat.
Clinton: From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
"Some critics have accused Clinton of leading the United States to war with Kosovo under the false pretense of genocide."

"Others have called Clinton a war criminal for the NATO bombing campaign during the Kosovo war. In the aforementioned article, The Wall Street Journal wrote, "As the war dragged on...NATO saw a fatigued press corps drifting toward the contrarian story: civilians killed by NATO's bombs. NATO stepped up its claims about Serb 'killing fields.'" The actual number of civilian deaths is debated, with the numbers as high as 5,700 claimed by Yugoslavia, and with NATO acknowledging it killed, at most, 1,500 civilians. Critics note that there were more civilian deaths caused by NATO than the amount of deaths Milošević was charged with".




... he did not tie 9-11 to Hussein (as W has done, as recently as last night) without a shred of evidence to prive this contention;
Bush has NEVER said that Saddamy had anything to do with 9/11.

... Oh yeah: your guy is a real peach. :rolleyes:
One of the best....

Funny, I always seem to recall that wars were fought for concrete victories, against tangible enemies.
Wake up and smell the real world - new day and age. It's this old outdated thinking that will lose the war.

Neil Mick
06-30-2005, 03:05 PM
Ummmmm... I quoted from an article YOU posted.

Ummmmm...you misquoted from an article I posted.

Neil Mick
06-30-2005, 03:44 PM
Sorry, John: close, but no cigar (but I do have to give you chops for supplying some sources...gosh, I guess the internet isn't so bad after all, for referencing sources, huh? :p )

"Threats to the world" does not = a threat to the US. This distinction is important when discussing the US's legal obligations to the UN.

Once again - UN charter does not equal US interests all the time. Wake up and smell the real world.

Once again - UN Charter is a document legally binding, according to the US Constitution. Wake up and smell the real world, yourself. Here's a few significant sources for you:

US Constitution; Article 6, Section 2: (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/ac001/lawpres.html)

This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding

and the UN Charter, Chapter 7 (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-chp7.htm) (also, read Chapter 2...it may "wake you up"):

Article 41: The Security Council (not, a member of the SC, note) may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 43: 1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, (not: when the US and GB decide) armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

So, you can talk about the US's "interests," you can cry yourself blue, but it still does not change the fact that the US is legally beholden to uphold the tenets of the UN Charter, as much as we are beholden to the US Constitution.

If you enter into a contract and later decide that it's "not in your interests" to uphold your end: a judge may give you a hanky to cry in, but it won't soften the blow as you're laughed out of court, as you proclaim that the original contract no longer serves your "interests."

Bush has NEVER said that Saddamy had anything to do with 9/11.

Quibble, quibble, quibble. Do you get your marching-orders straight from the Big White Mansion press-corps, or is it filtered through Rush, O'Really, et al?

Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm)

Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.

Yeah, I guess that Bush's speeches had NOTHING to do with the fact that

A recent opinion poll suggests that 70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

Despite his stated rejection of any clear link between Saddam Hussein and the events of that day, Mr Bush continues to assert that the deposed president had ties with al-Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for the 11 September attacks.


One of the best....(referring to Bush)

You must find that "Mass-murdering Liar" quality sexy in a leader: huh, John? :crazy:

Neil: Funny, I always seem to recall that wars were fought for concrete victories, against tangible enemies.

John: Wake up and smell the real world - new day and age. It's this old outdated thinking that will lose the war.

Yeah, that formula worked so well in Vietnam. But, I'm guessing that you have reams of data proving the contrary. Well, fire away, John: I'm all eyes! Let's see all those historic precedents where going after an abstraction yields anything except a body-count (which the US "doesn't do...") Not, as I have pointed out, that we haven't tried it, already...

Yeah, you might call it a "new world:" but I call it a very "old" idea, that so far, has failed to bear positive fruit.

Adam Alexander
06-30-2005, 03:59 PM
Hey, just in case you've forgotten...Bush is dishonest...funny how morality goes out the window.

Neil Mick
06-30-2005, 04:05 PM
OK, onward and upward.

This Statement from the Jury of Conscience emerged from their meeting in Istanbul. I heartily endorse it (for whatever my endorsements are worth), and it centers around much of the topic at hand (I know it's a little long, but it is worth reading). It's also refreshing to hear someone point the finger at the UN, for once. I get so tired defending the existence of the UN; :rolleyes: it's time for all parties to step up and accept responsibility.

World Tribunal on Iraq (http://www.notinourname.net/war/jury-conscience-12may04.htm#statement)

Bush Administration guilty of wide range of war crimes in Iraq
Jury of Conscience demands accountability
Press Release

Final Statement

Preamble

Case One
Was this an illegal war?

Case Two
Have war crimes been committed?

Case Three
Matter of occupation of Iraq

Conclusion


World Tribunal on Iraq-NY
Press Release
May 12, 2004

NEW YORK: An international jury of conscience, including Eve Ensler, Obie-award winning author of “The Vagina Monologues,” issued a statement today finding U.S. civilian leaders to be “responsible and accountable for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions” in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.

The thirteen-member jury considered evidence on a range of violations including the continued arbitrary detention and torture of Iraqi civilians, the use of cluster munitions in heavily populated civilian areas, the extrajudicial killings of Iraqi civilians, and the destruction of vital services.

The jurors found that “instead of caring for Iraqi people, the US authorities have killed, starved, maimed and tortured thousands of Iraqi people, destroying their infrastructure, including their water and health facilities. … This was done by the US government. The people of the US are responsible and must hold their government accountable.”

As outrage over the torture of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. military continues to grow both domestically and internationally, the evidence at the tribunal highlighted the systematic brutality of the U.S. invasion and military occupation for the people of Iraq.

Juror Eve Ensler commented on the impact of Saturday’s tribunal: “The images of bombs falling like grapes from the sky and children playing in barrels of uranium, the language of not calling it torture, and the failure to provide security, water, and health and to preserve the ancient cultural property of Iraq shatters my heart: I hold a human shame, a sorrow that is so vast and so deep there is a physical aching in all of me.”

The Jury’s statement emphasizes that “the responsibility for defining the future of their country has always rested with the people of Iraq and not with any outside power, or external military force, let alone one that previously encouraged and collaborated with Saddam Hussein in some of his most violent escapades.”

Columbia University Professor Hamid Dabashi, Chairman of the Jury, noted, “The fire of the pain we witness our fellow humans endure half-way around the globe tests our mettle. But we will win – we, the ordinary people, have always won.” Fellow juror Eve Ensler concurred: “What gives me hope is the will of the people. We will win this struggle, there is no alternative.”

Global anti-war activists created the World Tribunal on Iraq in 2003 to hold the Bush administration and its allies accountable for their actions, to establish facts about what happened in Washington and Iraq, and to inform the public of those facts. Precedents for this process include the 1967 Russell Tribunal to investigate crimes by the U.S. and allies in Vietnam, and the International War Crimes Tribunal against weapons of mass destruction by the German Green Party in Nuremberg in 1983. Hearings are being held in sixteen cities across the world and will culminate in the final session in Istanbul, Turkey on the second anniversary of the invasion, March 20, 2005.


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


New York Session of the World Tribunal on Iraq
Final Statement of the Jury of Conscience
Rabab Abdulhadi, Sinan Antoon, Dennis Brutus, Hamid Dabashi, Bhairavi Desai,
Eve Ensler, Jenny Green, Lisa Hajjar, Motarilavoa Hilda Lini, Elias Khoury,
Ibrahim Ramey, Kiyoko McCrae, Robert van Lierop

May 8, 2004

Preamble

The war against Iraq has posed one of the most challenging, frustrating and explosive international crises in recent memory.

The World Tribunal on Iraq sitting in session at Cooper Union in New York City on May 8th 2004 and having heard the testimony and evidence presented and having carefully weighed that evidence has reached a series of conclusions.

From its conception to its prosecution and the current occupation, fact, law and logic have been turned on their heads and fabricated to rationalize and justify what can only be considered, by all international standards, an
unjust war of aggression.

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein waged unjust wars of aggression itself against Iran, Kuwait and those Iraqis who did not acquiesce in the regime's reign of terror and corruption. That, however, does not for one minute justify the violence, destruction and degradation visited upon the people of Iraq from the 20th of March 2003 and continuing
today.

The responsibility for defining the future of their country has always rested with the people of Iraq and not with any outside power, or external military force, let alone one that previously encouraged and collaborated with Saddam Hussein in some of his most violent escapades.

International law has always recognized a legitimate right to resist foreign occupation. The people of Iraq cannot be considered an exception to this well-established principle of customary international law.

War is a fundamental collapse of human reason and failure of imagination, and should always be an absolute last resort undertaken only in strict adherence with the charter of the United Nations. The current war and occupation of Iraq were undertaken in disregard of the most fundamental principles of international law and with obvious contempt for truth, posterity, and the morality which should guide all human actions. The result has been the occupation and colonization of Iraq and the destruction of its economy and increased violence and insecurity for the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population. The world cannot sit by passively and watch the continued deterioration of the future of our planet.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) provides an opportunity for the expansion and enhancement of the international rule of law. Unfortunately, the current administration in Washington has not only chosen to separate itself from the evolving international consensus on respect for the rule of law, but has also chosen to undermine the rule of law through its actions against the International Criminal Court and other legal regimes. It must be noted that the majority of professional legal associations in the United States have expressed support for the ICC even while the administration works against it.

Case One

Question posed to the jury: Was this an illegal war?

The laws governing the initiation of hostilities derive from the UN charter.

There are only two situations in which a country can legally go to war:

1. Self defense

2. With the approval of UN Security Council, which is vested with responsibility to make determinations about the ?common interest? for global peace and security.

Our finding based on the evidence presented to this tribunal is: the US government has committed a crime of aggression for the following reasons:

1. There was no legitimate self-defense issue at stake:
a. There was a long period of a pre-planning and aspirations for war on Iraq.
b. The fabrication and falsification was driven by ideological agenda.
c. Fear mongering to gain US public support included false linkages of Iraq with Al-Qai?da and the September 11th attacks.

2. There was no imminent threat at stake:
a. There were many pleas for continued inspections
b. There were many expert statements from inspectors that there were no weapons of mass destruction.
c. The prevalence of the preventive war doctrine dominated the preparatory stages of this war.

3. This war has destabilized Iraq, the region and the world.
a. The UN Security Council did not approve military action.
b. There was unprecedented mass global opposition to this war.

Case Two

In war, has force been used legally?
Have war crimes been committed?
Who is legally accountable for violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)?

Our findings:

Numerous violations of IHL have been committed by the US and coalition forces. Civilian leaders are responsible and accountable for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Protocol I.

1. The US is a party to the Geneva Conventions, which are thus binding on the US .

2. Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions constitutes customary international law and therefore is universally binding.

3. Grave breaches require prosecution.

The evidence on which our conclusions are based:

1. The targeting of Iraqi leaders in ?decapitation? strikes, violating the principles of necessity, proportionality and military values.

2. The use of incendiary weapons and cluster munitions constitute war crimes as these forms of weaponry are inherently indiscriminate and cause unnecessary suffering. Furthermore, their use in heavily populated civilian areas is a violation of civilian immunity.

3. The use of extrajudicial killings at "checkpoints" violates the principles of civilian immunity, distinction, and proportionality.

The US military and the US administration are responsible for these violations and liable under the Geneva Convention for prosecution. The US has violated International Humanitarian Law.

Case Three

Concerning the matter of Iraq under the occupation, the jury addressed a number of questions: the first finding was that the occupation itself was and continues to be illegal.

Under international law countries have the right to self-determination. Under international law the United States as occupying power has obligations to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, to which both the United States and Iraq are parties, and other treaties to which Iraq is a party.

The U.S. has violated all of these requirements. The evidence presented proves that there has been continuing public insecurity including the lack of safety, the continued arbitrary detention and torture, unlawful attacks, the destruction of vital services and economic colonization.

Conclusion

In the name of a preventive strike on Iraq, the US government fabricated a web of lies. We were told that the war on Iraq was waged because there were weapons of mass destruction, and that there were linkages between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qua'ida. We were told that the US authorities were deeply concerned for Iraqi people and their suffering under Saddam Hussein and they longed for their freedom and democracy. If all this were true, then why have no weapons of mass destruction been found? Why instead of finding Al-Qua'ida, have they invited Al-Qua'ida? Instead of caring for Iraqi people, they have killed, starved,maimed, tortured thousands of Iraqi people, destroying their infrastructure, including their water and health facilities. In the name of democracy they have created a corporate tyranny which has essentially stolen Iraq out from under the Iraqi people. They have committed war crimes against Iraqi people in prisons and have made freedom of movement and speech almost impossible. This was done by the US government. The people of the US are responsible and must hold their government accountable.

We the jury of conscience therefore affirm the following conclusions and recommendations:

1. That the US and its coalition partners immediately cease all violations of the civil, political and human rights of the people of Iraq;

2. That the military occupation of Iraq be immediately ended;

3. That all parties guilty of war crimes against the Iraqi people be brought to justice under international law;

4. That reparations be paid by all responsible parties to the people of Iraq for the damages caused by both the war and the occupation;

5. That we work to strengthen the mobilization of the global antiwar movement;

6. That the occupation of Palestine, Afghanistan and all other colonized areas is illegal and should be brought to an end immediately.

For more information:
www.worldtribunal-nyc.org

Hogan
06-30-2005, 04:06 PM
Ummmmm...you misquoted from an article I posted.

Uhhhhhhh, HELLO !

Your article said this:

"According to the UN Charter, the only other circumstance
in which military force is allowed is under
Article 51, which allows a member state to use force
in the event of "armed attack…until the Security
Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security. In other words, the
United States cannot make war against Iraq unless
there is a direct attack by Iraq against the United
States and only until the Security Council convenes
and decides what to do about it."

I said this:
HAHHA !!! Yes, only time a nation can repel an attack is with UN approval....

Where is the misquote ? You just wake up form napping in class again ?

Neil Mick
06-30-2005, 04:07 PM
Hey, just in case you've forgotten...Bush is dishonest...funny how morality goes out the window.

So: how long have you hated America, really? :freaky:

Neil Mick
06-30-2005, 04:14 PM
Uhhhhhhh, HELLO !

(Someone MUST tell this guy that keeping your finger on a keyboard button doth not veracity, make) :)

Your article said this:

"According to the UN Charter, the only other circumstance
in which military force is allowed is under
Article 51, which allows a member state to use force
in the event of "armed attack…until the Security
Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security. In other words, the
United States cannot make war against Iraq unless
there is a direct attack by Iraq against the United
States and only until the Security Council convenes
and decides what to do about it."

I said this:
HAHHA !!! Yes, only time a nation can repel an attack is with UN approval....

Where is the misquote ? You just wake up form napping in class again ?

Oh, I am really not going to enjoy this.

No, not at all. Not even a teeny bit.

(Ok, maybe a little).

1. The article says that "a member state may use force to repel an attack." This is "allowed."

2. YOU claim that the source states "UN approval" is needed, before a nation can repel an attack.

3. Statement 1 does not = Statement 2. In fact, they mean separate things. In statement 1: UN approval is NOT needed, to repel an attack. In statement 2: UN approval IS needed, before a nation can repel an attack.

4. Ergo, your misquote stands, unmasked.

5. NEXT! :p

Hogan
06-30-2005, 04:21 PM
Sorry, John: close, but no cigar (but I do have to give you chops for supplying some sources...gosh, I guess the internet isn't so bad after all, for referencing sources, huh? :p )

"Threats to the world" does not = a threat to the US. This distinction is important when discussing the US's legal obligations to the UN.

Ummmm, threat to world INCLUDES U.S. U.S. is one of many countries that make up the WORLD. Were you napping in geography class, too !?


Once again - UN Charter is a document legally binding, according to the US Constitution. Wake up and smell the real world, yourself. Here's a few significant sources for you:

US Constitution; Article 6, Section 2: (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/ac001/lawpres.html)



and the UN Charter, Chapter 7 (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-chp7.htm) (also, read Chapter 2...it may "wake you up"):



So, you can talk about the US's "interests," you can cry yourself blue, but it still does not change the fact that the US is legally beholden to uphold the tenets of the UN Charter, as much as we are beholden to the US Constitution.

Okay, how many time has any country gone to war with approval from the UN, and how many wars have there been ? Notice a difference ? How many times has a country gone to war, then stopped when the UN said to stop ?

See how the UN charter has no effect on a countries self interest, if said country sees a threat it has to deal with ?

Quibble, quibble, quibble. Do you get your marching-orders straight from the Big White Mansion press-corps, or is it filtered through Rush, O'Really, et al?

Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm)

Do you only get your marhcing orders straight from leftists "news" organizations ?

And HUH !? You said he claimed link to 9/11, I said no, and now you provide link that again proves me right.

"US President George W Bush has explicitly stated for the first time that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

ASSOCIATING with a terrorist group does not mean they were linked in 9/11.

You must find that "Mass-murdering Liar" quality sexy in a leader: huh, John? :crazy:
No, I don't go for that type, I'll leave that for you and your love for Saddam and his cronies. Have you started eating Dorito's, too ?

Hogan
06-30-2005, 04:22 PM
Hey, just in case you've forgotten...Bush is dishonest...funny how morality goes out the window.


Ahahah..you're funny, frenchy....

Neil Mick
06-30-2005, 04:23 PM
Darn this timeout feature, anyway. OK, ignore that last long quote; wrong statement, sorry.

Here's the one I meant: (http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=93)

‘The attack on Iraq is an attack on justice, on liberty, on our safety, on our future, on us all’ – The Jury of Conscience

Istanbul, 27 June, 2005 - With a Jury of Conscience from 10 different countries hearing the testimonies of 54 members of the Panel of Advocates who came from across the world, including Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom, this global civil initiative came to an end with a press conference at the Hotel Armada where the chair of the Jury of Conscience, Arundathi Roy, announced the Jury’s conclusions.

The Jury defined this war as one of the most unjust in history: ‘The Bush and Blair administrations blatantly ignored the massive opposition to the war expressed by millions of people around the world. They embarked upon one of the most unjust, immoral, and cowardly wars in history. The Anglo-American occupation of Iraq of the last 27 months has led to the destruction and devastation of the Iraqi state and society. Law and order have broken down completely, resulting in a pervasive lack of human security; the physical infrastructure is in shambles; the health care delivery system is a mess; the education system has ceased to function; there is massive environmental and ecological devastation; and, the cultural and archeological heritage of the Iraqi people has been desecrated.’

On the basis of the preceding findings and recalling the Charter of the United Nations and other legal documents, the jury has established the following charges against the Governments of the US and the UK:

• Planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles.
• Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure
• Using disproportionate force and indiscriminate weapon systems
• Failing to safeguard the lives of civilians during military activities and during the occupation period thereafter
• Using deadly violence against peaceful protestors
• Imposing punishments without charge or trial, including collective punishment
• Subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
• Re-writing the laws of a country that has been illegally invaded and occupied
• Willfully devastating the environment
• Actively creating conditions under which the status of Iraqi women has seriously been degraded
• Failing to protect humanity’s rich archaeological and cultural heritage in Iraq
• Obstructing the right to information, including the censoring of Iraqi media
• Redefining torture in violation of international law, to allow use of torture and illegal detentions

The Jury also established charges against the Security Council of United Nations for failing to stop war crimes and crimes against humanity among other failures, against the Governments of the Coalition of the Willing for collaborating in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, against the Governments of Other Countries for allowing the use of military bases and air space and providing other logistical support, against Private Corporations for profiting from the war, against the Major Corporate Media for disseminating deliberate falsehoods and failing to report atrocities.

The Jury also provided a number of recommendations that include recognising the right of the Iraqi people to resist the illegal occupation of their country and to develop independent institutions, and affirming that the right to resist the occupation is the right to wage a struggle for self-determination, freedom, and independence as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, we the Jury of Conscience declare our solidarity with the people of Iraq and the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the coalition forces from Iraq.

The Istanbul session of the WTI lasted three days and presented testimony on the illegality and criminal violations in the U.S. pretexts for and conduct of this war. The expert opinion, witness testimony, video and image evidence addressed the impact of war on civilians, the torture of prisoners, the unlawful imprisonment of Iraqis without charges or legal defence, the use of depleted uranium weapons, the effects of the war on Iraq’s infrastructure, the destruction of Iraqi cultural institutions and the liability of the invaders in international law for failing to protect these treasures of humanity.

The session in Istanbul was the culminating session of commissions of inquiry and hearings held around the world over the past two years. Sessions on different topics related to the war on Iraq were held in London, Mumbai, Copenhagen, Brussels, New York, Japan, Stockholm, South Korea, Rome, Frankfurt, Geneva, Lisbon and Spain.

They have compiled a definitive historical record of evidence on the illegality of the invasion and occupation that will be recorded in a forthcoming book.

Adam Alexander
06-30-2005, 04:25 PM
So: how long have you hated America, really? :freaky:

LOL.

Years ago, I had a girlfriend, who I was in love with, who cheated on me. In order to comes to terms with the pursuant split-up, I recognized that I didn't really love her, I loved what I thought she was. Therefore, I was in love with my imagination.

That's what the America that everybody loves is...their imagination...because the country that everyone talks about just isn't real.

Turns out, the more history I read, the more I realize that it's the people who reject the idea of "loving" their country that a the real patriot...the rest are Orwell's sheep:)

BTW, funny how morality goes out the window when roles are reversed. Real nice Republicans, real nice.

Hogan
06-30-2005, 04:25 PM
(Someone MUST tell this guy that keeping your finger on a keyboard button doth not veracity, make) :)



Oh, I am really not going to enjoy this.

No, not at all. Not even a teeny bit.

(Ok, maybe a little).

1. The article says that "a member state may use force to repel an attack." This is "allowed."

2. YOU claim that the source states "UN approval" is needed, before a nation can repel an attack.

3. Statement 1 does not = Statement 2. In fact, they mean separate things. In statement 1: UN approval is NOT needed, to repel an attack. In statement 2: UN approval IS needed, before a nation can repel an attack.

4. Ergo, your misquote stands, unmasked.

5. NEXT! :p



Oh good god, are you actually this dense ?

"According to the UN Charter, the only other circumstance
in which military force is allowed is under
Article 51, which allows a member state to use force
in the event of "armed attack…until the Security
Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security. In other words, the
United States cannot make war against Iraq unless
there is a direct attack by Iraq against the United
States and only until the Security Council convenes
and decides what to do about it."

Hello !!!

Adam Alexander
06-30-2005, 04:27 PM
Ahahah..you're funny, frenchy....

:) "frenchy" must be double-speak for moral.

Adam Alexander
06-30-2005, 04:29 PM
Oh good god, are you actually this dense ?

"According to the UN Charter, the only other circumstance
in which military force is allowed is under
Article 51, which allows a member state to use force
in the event of "armed attack…until the Security
Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security. In other words, the
United States cannot make war against Iraq unless
there is a direct attack by Iraq against the United
States and only until the Security Council convenes
and decides what to do about it."

Hello !!!


Don't tell me...it depends on what the definition of is is?

Neil Mick
06-30-2005, 04:32 PM
Ummmm, threat to world INCLUDES U.S. U.S. is one of many countries that make up the WORLD. Were you napping in geography class, too !?

Sorry, my misquoting troll: but the "world" does not = the US. This distinction, as I mentioned earlier (and you chose to ignore, speaking of napping), is important, when determining the legality of initiating aggression. I know, all of these nasty details are so different than your usual sources (such as Limbaugh, O'Really, et al).


Okay, how many time has any country gone to war with approval from the UN, and how many wars have there been ? Notice a difference ? How many times has a country gone to war, then stopped when the UN said to stop ?

See how the UN charter has no effect on a countries self interest, if said country sees a threat it has to deal with ?

If you're trying to state that a law is not a law, because the UN was lax in the past (and ergo, the law is unimportant): imagine me, sitting here, laughing myself silly.

I suppose that we can sweep aside all of those nasty charges of breech by Hussein in the '90's, then, right? After all: these laws were contravened, plenty of times.


Do you only get your marhcing orders straight from leftists "news" organizations ?

No, we get 'em from the IWW. They beam their orders into our receiving units, cleverly disguised as backpacks. :p

And HUH !? You said he claimed link to 9/11, I said no, and now you provide link that again proves me right.

"US President George W Bush has explicitly stated for the first time that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

ASSOCIATING with a terrorist group does not mean they were linked in 9/11.

Really, you should read the rest of the source, before you fire off an answer. Complete comprehension of a source makes the debater appear more, ahem: "informed."

And, it all depends on how you define "is." See? Jean was right: morality goes out the window, when your guy is on the hotseat.


No, I don't go for that type, I'll leave that for you and your love for Saddam and his cronies.

Au contraire, Mssr: I think that you do. :disgust:

Neil Mick
06-30-2005, 04:34 PM
Don't tell me...it depends on what the definition of is is?

Darn it, Jean! You beat me to the punch! :eek:

Neil Mick
06-30-2005, 04:40 PM
Oh good god, are you actually this dense ?

Hello !!!

Oh good god, are you actually under the illusion that name-calling and multiple key-punching advances your point?

Here, lemme try:

Helllllllllooooooooooo????????????????

There, is my point proven? I understand, John: having your misquotes so bleakly unmasked can unease the most stalwart patriot (cough, cough! Sorry, that last bit was hard to type)

My points stand. You wanted to quibble, and now you wanna cry.

Well, here's a hanky. :sorry:

And, here's me, laughing you out of the virtual court of debate. :D

Bon Chance!

Neil Mick
06-30-2005, 04:44 PM
LOL.

Years ago, I had a girlfriend, who I was in love with, who cheated on me. In order to comes to terms with the pursuant split-up, I recognized that I didn't really love her, I loved what I thought she was. Therefore, I was in love with my imagination.

That's what the America that everybody loves is...their imagination...because the country that everyone talks about just isn't real.

Turns out, the more history I read, the more I realize that it's the people who reject the idea of "loving" their country that a the real patriot...the rest are Orwell's sheep:)

BTW, funny how morality goes out the window when roles are reversed. Real nice Republicans, real nice.

Yes, but I must point out that the Democrat's are/were largely complicit, as well.

Nice point about the disconnect btw reality and imagination.

Hogan
06-30-2005, 05:01 PM
:) "frenchy" must be double-speak for moral.


AHAH!

Hogan
06-30-2005, 05:10 PM
Sorry, my misquoting troll: but the "world" does not = the US. This distinction, as I mentioned earlier (and you chose to ignore, speaking of napping), is important, when determining the legality of initiating aggression. I know, all of these nasty details are so different than your usual sources (such as Limbaugh, O'Really, et al).


Seriously, take another class on comrehension or something. I did not say the world equals the US, I said the US is part of the world, one of many countires that make up the world. A threat to the world means a threat to all that make up the world.

Are you just playing stupid to try to get on my nerves ?

If you're trying to state that a law is not a law, because the UN was lax in the past (and ergo, the law is unimportant): imagine me, sitting here, laughing myself silly.

I suppose that we can sweep aside all of those nasty charges of breech by Hussein in the '90's, then, right? After all: these laws were contravened, plenty of times.
Wake up and smell the world - UN law means nothing to countries when they feel their self-interest threatend, and all your world government, star-trek induced fantasies mean nothing.

No, we get 'em from the IWW. They beam their orders into our receiving units, cleverly disguised as backpacks. :p
Now see how stupid it is to make these comments and accuse someone else of the same thing ?

Really, you should read the rest of the source, before you fire off an answer. Complete comprehension of a source makes the debater appear more, ahem: "informed."

And, it all depends on how you define "is." See? Jean was right: morality goes out the window, when your guy is on the hotseat..

Uh, no. Associating with a group does not mean involved with a groups particular activity. You may have associated with a neighbor who turned out to be a bank robber, or even let him stay in your house a few days, but does that mean you participated in the robbery.

Please go back to that comprehension class. There is a new one starting for 1st graders at your local school next monday. I'll even pay for it....

Au contraire, Mssr: I think that you do. :disgust:

Ouch ! You told me !!!!

Neil Mick
06-30-2005, 06:47 PM
Seriously, take another class on comrehension or something. I did not say the world equals the US, I said the US is part of the world, one of many countires that make up the world. A threat to the world means a threat to all that make up the world.

Are you just playing stupid to try to get on my nerves ?

Nope, just trying to get myself renamed "Dances With Trolls." :p But, it's beginning to get tedious. :dead: :dead:

Lemme type real slow, k, John?

1. The only time a nation--a UN signatory nation--can declare legal hostile action against another is when it is threatened with imminent attack, by another nation.

2. And so, when I said that W was one of the first to declare that Iraq was a threat to the US, I meant it. Clinton's assertion that Hussein was a threat to the "world" (as nonsensical as that statement is) is a different kettle of fish.

3. Can we please move on? The tedium of your argument is making me worry I'll be called "Dirges with Trolls," instead. :eek:

Wake up and smell the world - UN law means nothing to countries when they feel their self-interest threatend, and all your world government, star-trek induced fantasies mean nothing.

I'm sorry, I must be dreaming. Yes, that's it: you're right. Wow.

I must be dreaming because when I went to sleep: the waking world was governed by laws. Certainly, I seem to recall that the waking world's governing bodies did not use such lame notions as "oh well: laws mean nothing to countries; and so we can do what we want." In the waking world, (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/30/1333214) even W and his lawyers are concerned about being charged for breaking laws.

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Well, I think we need justice in this world. We need to make sure that people who commit horrendous crimes are held accountable, and we need to have social justice, as well. But I got to Congress in 1973 when nobody had any clue that Richard Nixon would ever be held accountable in connection with the Watergate break in that took place just before that. And then it was because of a lot of independent and relentless prosecutors and judges and, most important, press, and in the end, the American public, that a President of the United States was held accountable for something that nobody could have dreamed months before that he would be held accountable for, and his top administration officials.

And it seems to me that with the terrible scandal, Abu Ghraib, that we need -- we can't, as they tried in Watergate to do, cut off the investigation at the small fry, at the lowest level. You have to look, and the international law precedence and American law requires it, you look up the chain of command. What I discovered by accident was that -- this is not a concern that I have alone -- President Bush's White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, himself, who is now the Attorney General of the United States, wrote a memo in January 2002 to President Bush saying one of the reasons we need to opt out of the Geneva Conventions wasn't just because they didn't like the Geneva Conventions because they don't like treaties, but he said, we have to worry about prosecutions under the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996. That, it turns out, is a federal statute that applies to any U.S. national, military or civilian, high or low, who violates the Geneva Conventions in certain ways. In other words, who engages in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment. And it's not just those who engage in it, it's those who order it or those who, knowing about it, fail to take steps to stop it. That means higher-ups.

JUAN GONZALEZ: This 1996 law is not very well known.

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: No. It's totally obscure. I only found out about it because Alberto Gonzales was worried about prosecutions of high level officials under it.

JUAN GONZALEZ: What brought this law about? In other words, was Congress reacting to --

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: What happened was in the 1990s, during the, I guess it was the Clinton administration at that time, Congress decided that it wanted to adopt laws to take it into full compliance with its obligations under an international torture statute and an international torture treaty and the Geneva Conventions. And so, it passed two laws. One is a statute making it a U.S. crime to engage in torture. It was passed two years before the 1996 law, and then you have the War Crimes Act of 1996.

And basically, what it does, it makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions a federal crime. Got it? Just like kidnapping or interstate burglary or child pornography, it is a federal crime. And the other thing, that's interesting is that it carries the death penalty. If death results from torture or inhuman treatment, then there is a death penalty, and that means there's no statute of limitations. That means that if any high level official violates the War Crimes Act, and somebody died, they can be prosecuted. They are subject to prosecution for the rest of their lives.

Sooo...I'm guessing that, maybe I'm not the one napping, since my reality-tests prove that yes, corrupt US officials (and their atty's) ARE concerned.

Nappy time over, John. :p


Now see how stupid it is to make these comments and accuse someone else of the same thing ?

It's called "humor:" perhaps you've heard of it?

Uh, no. Associating with a group does not mean involved with a groups particular activity. You may have associated with a neighbor who turned out to be a bank robber, or even let him stay in your house a few days, but does that mean you participated in the robbery.

Please go back to that comprehension class. There is a new one starting for 1st graders at your local school next monday. I'll even pay for it....

Uhh, right. Bush mentions 9-11 and Hussein in the same breath, over and over: a majority of ppl who voted for Bush still think that there's a connection, and you brush this off as...an association?

Well, John: in honour of your desire for my increased education, allow me to edify (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0903-04.htm) you, in turn:

65 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned weapons of mass destruction.

0 Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses.

73 Number of times that Bush mentioned terrorism or terrorists in his three State of the Union addresses.

83 Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses.

$1m Estimated value of a painting the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, received from Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States and Bush family friend.

0 Number of times Bush mentioned Saudi Arabia in his three State of the Union addresses.

1,700 Percentage increase between 2001 and 2002 of Saudi Arabian spending on public relations in the United States.

79 Percentage of the 11 September hijackers who came from Saudi Arabia.

3 Number of 11 September hijackers whose entry visas came through special US-Saudi "Visa Express" programme.

2.5 Number of hours after Rumsfeld learnt that Osama bin Laden was a suspect in the 11 September attacks that he brought up reasons to "hit" Iraq.

237 Minimum number of misleading statements on Iraq made by top Bush administration officials between 2002 and January 2004, according to the California Representative Henry Waxman.

10m Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets on 21 February 2003, in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the largest simultaneous protest in world history.

$2bn Estimated monthly cost of US military presence in Iraq projected by the White House in April 2003.

$4bn Actual monthly cost of the US military presence in Iraq according to Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld in 2004.

$15m Amount of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq.

$80,000 Amount an Iraqi firm spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same factory, after delays prevented the American firm from starting it.

85 Percentage of Americans who can't Name the Chief Justice of the United States.

69 Percentage of Americans who believed the White House's claims in September 2003 that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 11 September attacks.

34 Percentage of Americans who believed in June 2003 that Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" had been found.

22 Percentage of Americans who believed in May 2003 that Saddam had used his WMDs on US forces.

85 Percentage of American young adults who cannot find Afghanistan, Iraq, or Israel on a map.

30 Percentage of American young adults who cannot find the Pacific Ocean on a map.

Ouch ! You told me !!!!

Yeah, I guess I did. No thanks necessary. But, still:

90 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 26 September 2001.

67 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 26 September 2002.

54 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 30 September, 2003.

50 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 15 October 2003.

49 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president in May 2004.

43 % of ppl who believe that Bush should be impeached, if he lied about Iraq (which, if you look at the Downing St Memo: any objective observer could see the obvious)

99.3 Chance of John protesting W's innocence, even armed with photo's, signed confessions and witness testimonies

exceedingly good Chance of John interpreting the last statistic as some sort of insult

makuchg
06-30-2005, 09:35 PM
Neil, Neil, Neil (shaking head and finger in a scolding manner),

Now you're not going to get an "A" on the "plays well with others" section of your report card.

Neil Mick
06-30-2005, 09:47 PM
Neil, Neil, Neil (shaking head and finger in a scolding manner),

Now you're not going to get an "A" on the "plays well with others" section of your report card.

aaaawwww....please? Can't I just have a little "a?" :)

Hogan
07-01-2005, 08:17 AM
Nope, just trying to get myself renamed "Dances With Trolls." :p But, it's beginning to get tedious. :dead: :dead:

Lemme type real slow, k, John?

1. The only time a nation--a UN signatory nation--can declare legal hostile action against another is when it is threatened with imminent attack, by another nation.

2. And so, when I said that W was one of the first to declare that Iraq was a threat to the US, I meant it. Clinton's assertion that Hussein was a threat to the "world" (as nonsensical as that statement is) is a different kettle of fish.

3. Can we please move on? The tedium of your argument is making me worry I'll be called "Dirges with Trolls," instead. :eek:



Do you really think Clinton didn't mean the US when he attacked ? That he attacked because he thought Iraq was threatening everyone else but us ? That he didn't think Iraq wasn't a threat to the US ? Please, even half-wits don't believe that.

You think the only time a nation can declare war if it is threatened with "imminent" attack ? Guess who gets to decide what THAT means... that's right, the nation, not the UN. UN means NOTHING when a country needs to defend itself, and the time you accept that will mean you will have less stress in your life. If you want to live in a world where corrupt, faceless idiots decide for you what's best for you and your own country, move to Europe.

And Neil, get off the meds, dude. Your left-wing, paranoid, biased, unsubstantiated, anti-american theories will hurt you in the long run; when you are on your death bed, you will realize that all your time spent on this earth was a waste, and all your spouting on this site resulted in zilch.

Neil Mick
07-02-2005, 04:31 AM
Do you really think Clinton didn't mean the US when he attacked ? That he attacked because he thought Iraq was threatening everyone else but us ? That he didn't think Iraq wasn't a threat to the US ? Please, even half-wits don't believe that.

Oh, Johnny, Johnny, Johnny.... :o I fear that I'd better get used to being called "Dirges..." :(

What part of "tedious" did you miss, when I discussed this element of the discussion? Let go, John: it's small potatoes.

It's getting down to semantics, and I really hate debating semantics, believe it or not. But, very briefly: it's a semantic issue, in any case. If you honestly belive that Clinton/George HW Bush/George W Bush ever thought Hussein a threat to the US, EVER: then I have some real estate for you, that might interest you. Only had a few dU tests on it...nothing to fear...:p

So, with this understanding made clear: it's obvious that Iraq was a great punching bag for the last 3 President's to take swings at, whenever the polls started to dip.

Threats to the US? Please.

You think the only time a nation can declare war if it is threatened with "imminent" attack ?

I don't think this: I know this. This is called "International Law:" mayhap you've run across this term, in your travels? I know, I know: international law, takes a backseat for you, when it comes to "US Foreign Interests" (read: multi-national corporate interests, pulling on the reins of their paid water-boy).

uess who gets to decide what THAT means... that's right, the nation, not the UN. UN means NOTHING when a country needs to defend itself, and the time you accept that will mean you will have less stress in your life.

The UN certainly means less, when the US decides that it's worthless; and defies international law.

want to live in a world where corrupt, faceless idiots decide for you what's best for you and your own country, move to Europe.

You mean, as opposed to the corrupt, faceless idiots that decide what's best for me and my country, right here in the US? :D

And John, get off the meds, dude.

And John: get off the personal attacks, dude.

And, now: for a lovely rhetorical, double-spin diatribe by his Hoginess, himself....

he steps up to the board....

Your left-wing,

(true enough, guilty as charged)

paranoid,

Huh? :confused:



He launches off the board...a bold move! He spins,,,,woah! DOUBLE GAINER!! The crowd goes WILD!!

biased, unsubstantiated,

Sure. I'll go with biased.

But insubstantiated? OK, now that hurt. Sniff. :(

So, let's just "substantiate," once and for all, OK?

The Downing Street Memo (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html)
Dated: July 23, 2002

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.


We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force"
- George W. Bush,
Radio Address Mar. 8, 2003

"I think that that presumes there's some kind of imminent war plan. As I said, I have no timetable."

- George W. Bush,
Aug. 10, 2002 while golfing

Is that substantial enough?

anti-american

:rolleyes:

theories will hurt you in the long run;

Nah, my theories never hurt me.

when you are on your death bed, you will realize that all your time spent on this earth was a waste, and all your spouting on this site resulted in zilch.


Gosh, Conservatives can now see into the future, as well as read minds!! Where do I sign up, to get these cool super-abilities!!! :eek:

If I ever am unfortunate enough to expire on a bed, I would hope, in my dying moments: to think that I fought a good fight against oppression, and for freedom of speech, civil liberties and environmental justice.

But, your critique is silly, and already misproven. I have accomplished a lot, using the internet, and your implication that I am trying to "gain" something by expressing my opinion here, is also false.

This is your biggest flaw, you know. You, and a lot of other Conservative, NeoLiberal cheerleading post'ers, here and elsewhere. You think that just because I like to express my opinions here, that I have am on some sort of political evangalestics "mission."

There are not enough smiley's allowed here to convey my response, but here you go... :D :D

Hogan
07-02-2005, 08:46 AM
Oh, Johnny, Johnny, Johnny.... :o I fear that I'd better get used to being called "Dirges..." :(

What part of "tedious" did you miss, when I discussed this element of the discussion? Let go, John: it's small potatoes.

It's getting down to semantics, and I really hate debating semantics, believe it or not. But, very briefly: it's a semantic issue, in any case. If you honestly belive that Clinton/George HW Bush/George W Bush ever thought Hussein a threat to the US, EVER: then I have some real estate for you, that might interest you. Only had a few dU tests on it...nothing to fear...:p

So, with this understanding made clear: it's obvious that Iraq was a great punching bag for the last 3 President's to take swings at, whenever the polls started to dip.

Threats to the US? Please.



I don't think this: I know this. This is called "International Law:" mayhap you've run across this term, in your travels? I know, I know: international law, takes a backseat for you, when it comes to "US Foreign Interests" (read: multi-national corporate interests, pulling on the reins of their paid water-boy).



The UN certainly means less, when the US decides that it's worthless; and defies international law.



You mean, as opposed to the corrupt, faceless idiots that decide what's best for me and my country, right here in the US? :D



And John: get off the personal attacks, dude.

And, now: for a lovely rhetorical, double-spin diatribe by his Hoginess, himself....

he steps up to the board....



(true enough, guilty as charged)



Huh? :confused:



He launches off the board...a bold move! He spins,,,,woah! DOUBLE GAINER!! The crowd goes WILD!!



Sure. I'll go with biased.

But insubstantiated? OK, now that hurt. Sniff. :(

So, let's just "substantiate," once and for all, OK?

The Downing Street Memo (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html)
Dated: July 23, 2002





Is that substantial enough?



:rolleyes:



Nah, my theories never hurt me.




Gosh, Conservatives can now see into the future, as well as read minds!! Where do I sign up, to get these cool super-abilities!!! :eek:

If I ever am unfortunate enough to expire on a bed, I would hope, in my dying moments: to think that I fought a good fight against oppression, and for freedom of speech, civil liberties and environmental justice.

But, your critique is silly, and already misproven. I have accomplished a lot, using the internet, and your implication that I am trying to "gain" something by expressing my opinion here, is also false.

This is your biggest flaw, you know. You, and a lot of other Conservative, NeoLiberal cheerleading post'ers, here and elsewhere. You think that just because I like to express my opinions here, that I have am on some sort of political evangalestics "mission."

There are not enough smiley's allowed here to convey my response, but here you go... :D :D


Just trying to help you, Neil. Really....

International law means nothing to a country when it feels it
is threatened. Bush, Clinton, Bush the Elder, most of the UN and the area, all thought Iraq was a threat, and certainly his own people. Accept that... you seem to be stuck in the denial phase of acceptance, maybe even anger. C'mon, you have bargaining, depression and acceptance to get through and life is short.

Acceptance of these facts will make your life much more enjoyable; repeat after me:
UN sucks ass
UN corrupt
UN laughing stock
War on terror is right
Iraq was threat
Saddam was bad
Dictators are bad
Terrorism is bad
Howard Dean is, in fact, stupid
Neil Mick's rants on aikiweb mean nothing and will change nothing, and exist only to satisfy Neil's ego and his love of talking and "sharing"
Bush gets to appt supreme court justices

C'mon, you can do it.....

sutemaker17
07-02-2005, 10:39 AM
Hogan got me lmao.
J

mj
07-03-2005, 10:32 AM
Just trying to help you, Neil. Really....

International law means nothing to a country when it feels it
is threatened. ..
Like when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

John I think what you are saying is that your country doesn't need to obey international law.

Do you know what that sounds like when you try to convince people?

Adam Alexander
07-03-2005, 03:40 PM
Hey, did anyone notice how Bush was doing AWFUL before 9/11 and then he used the patriotic environment for his gain?

That doesn't sound moral to me.

Here's something I read recently...

First Bush: "Read my lips..."
Clinton: "I did not have sexual..."
Bush: "I'm going to bring honor back..."

Intersting.

sutemaker17
07-03-2005, 07:40 PM
Hey guys,
Could someone please explain where international law comes from. I have an idea but I'm not sure I fully understand it.

Secondly, I would like to add that I was also taught that Article VI of the U.S. constitution titled "The United States" dealt specifically with the relationship between the states themselves and between the the states and the federal government under the new constitution. Therefore, 'and all Treaties made' as it is used here refers to treaties between the states themselves (which BTW was expressly forbidden) and the states and federal government. In all other references concerning other countrys and alliances, it appears to me that the distinction was made by using the word "foreign". I could be wrong...

Jason

aikigirl10
07-03-2005, 08:17 PM
Where exactly is the aikido in all of this???

makuchg
07-03-2005, 09:25 PM
Paige this is the open forum where members are free to discuss any issue they feel like. There is no technical aikido however every now and again you can see the blending of combatants in full debate (but you have to watch real close) :)

mj
07-04-2005, 12:00 PM
Where exactly is the aikido in all of this???
This is open discussion mate.

Non-Aikido related topics.

aikigirl10
07-04-2005, 12:56 PM
oooh ok sorry

Hogan
07-04-2005, 07:24 PM
Like when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

John I think what you are saying is that your country doesn't need to obey international law.

Do you know what that sounds like when you try to convince people?


Sorry, nice try, but Kuwait did not behave the way Iraq behaved towards the US and the world before Iraq invaded. And Uncle Saddamy's reasons for invasion were not security related, but a border dispute. They believed Kuwait to be a part of Iraq.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_07.shtml

"Your questions answered
'The author of British Relations with Iraq', Derek Hopwood has been taking questions on his article from readers all over the world. Here is a selection, with his responses.

What is the history behind Iraq's claim to Kuwait?

Matthew - Sweden; Jonathan - USA; Dileepa - New Zealand; Nathan - UK; Bob - USA; Jyrki - Finland

Kuwait owes its importance to its position at the head of the Gulf and to its oil reserves. These advantage led Iraq to claim Kuwait as an integral part of its territory. Iraq's argument is that Kuwait used to be part of the Ottoman province of Basra; since present-day Iraq, as successor to the Ottoman Empire, was created by incorporating Basra along with other provinces, Iraq therefore has a claim on Kuwait, which is really only a part of Basra.
To counter this, Kuwait claims that since the eighteenth century it has been a separate entity ruled by the Arab tribal family of the Al Sabah, which in 1899 signed a treaty with Great Britain to protect it against Ottoman designs. In reality Ottoman Basra had had very little control over Kuwait and the Al Sabah always insisted they were independent. I personally think the Iraqi argument is weak, and rests on a dubious interpretation of that period of imperial history when the Ottomans exercised a very tenuous control over Kuwait."

Neil Mick
07-05-2005, 04:38 AM
Just trying to help you, Neil. Really....

International law means nothing to a country when it feels it
is threatened. Bush, Clinton, Bush the Elder, most of the UN and the area, all thought Iraq was a threat, and certainly his own people. Accept that... you seem to be stuck in the denial phase of acceptance, maybe even anger. C'mon, you have bargaining, depression and acceptance to get through and life is short.


Yes, sir, Big Brother: as you say sir!

Let's break it down, then.

International law means nothing to a country when it feels it
is threatened.

And your point, in reference to whether or not the US should uphold int'l law?

(It's like having a cop come by your house to steal. And when you protest, he explains that, well: everyone else is doing it, so (*shrug*) no biggie, right? And, you go before a judge, and the judge explains that this cop is the arbiter of the law, so what's the problem? )


YESSS, Johnny-boy...whether or not a country feels threatened or NOT--there are laws for a reason. When the boys put down their silly toys, there has to be some way to figure out who is responsible, what crimes were committed, give a process and order to the rule of law.

This is what we often call "progress" and "civilization."

And NO, John: merely feeling "afraid" is no legal defence.

Next!

Bush, Clinton, Bush the Elder, most of the UN and the area, all thought Iraq was a threat, and certainly his own people.

It all depends on what you define as a "threat." :p

Accept that... you seem to be stuck in the denial phase of acceptance, maybe even anger.

Gosh...yes, you're right....! HOW could I have missed it for so long??? :eek:

A rather fringe-right, mindreading fortune-teller on the net with oodles of respect for international law, has suddenly seen through me!!! :crazy: :crazy:

Stop it, John: yer killin' me. :D

Acceptance of these facts will make your life much more enjoyable; repeat after me:
UN sucks ass
UN corrupt
UN laughing stock

OK...if you think that repeating this after you will help...I mean: will it get me those superpowers of yours? The ability to read the future, and minds, and stuff? :D

(Or...ahem....more likely...will it make me a ditto-head) :p

Well...here goes...

UN su,,,no. Sorry. The UN is inefficient, prone to outside meddling, sometimes utterly pointless, a symbol of the failure of international law, at times, but it also is the World Health Organization, and has, at times: even gotten it right.

War on terror is right

Um....define "terror"

If you do, call the State Dept, immediately. Last I checked: they had 3 separate definitions for it.

Iraq was threat

It depends upon when. In the '80's, Iraq was a threat to Iran. In the '90's, Iraq was a threat to some oil companies.

To the US?

Stop snorting the nyquil.

Saddam was bad
Dictators are bad
Terrorism is bad

OK, yes, you have me there. Here we go:

Saddam was bad
Dictators are bad
Terrorism is bad

Howard Dean is, in fact, stupid

"Stupid?" Hmm...I dunno about "stupid." I can't even say that about W: honestly, it's a mystery...but I heard that Bush's IQ was hovering around 100...while Dean's, I'm sure: it's well up over 120.

So, no: I can't exactly call him stupid, either.

Is this one of those mind-reading things, again? :uch:

Neil Mick's rants on aikiweb mean nothing and will change nothing, and exist only to satisfy Neil's ego and his love of talking and "sharing"

Um, see last post. :rolleyes:


Bush gets to appt supreme court justices

C'mon, you can do it.....

Yeah, I bet you're just foaming at the mouth, waiting for that big wash of Conservative judges who will sweep away Roe v Wade, like it never existed.

And won't that be fine? Back to the good old days of back-alley abortions and runaway teen-mom's. Healthcare is in such a wonderful state of affairs...surely a horde of desperate unwed mother's will improve the state of affairs. :disgust:

And yes: our glorious war on terror can continue, unabated. Freedom is on the march, and democracy is triumphant. Iraqi women can safely walk the streets, there is more than 3 hours of electricity a day in Baghdad, clean water, adequate medical facilities, proper labor representation, and no US representatives required to sit on each Iraqi gov't'l board. Papers are allowed to print what they want, ppl are not shot at demonstrations. Iraqi's did not lose most of their cultural and archeological heritage, the ground is not littered with dU, and on the whole: all of W's predictions are going according to schedule.

And, won't it be great when Bolton comes into his own? When Mr. Kiss-up-Kick-Down gets into the UN, he can stand up and declare the UN useless; after Bush accuses Iran (note spelling, John...not "Iraq") of mfg'ing WMD.

You and your ilk can get up onto your chairs, cheer "Go USA!" like it's some sort of football game, wave your nylon flags, and watch on TV, as our planes bomb some more innocent ppl to tiny bits.

Hogan
07-05-2005, 07:38 AM
...Yeah, I bet you're just foaming at the mouth, waiting for that big wash of Conservative judges who will sweep away Roe v Wade, like it never existed.

And won't that be fine? Back to the good old days of back-alley abortions and runaway teen-mom's. Healthcare is in such a wonderful state of affairs...surely a horde of desperate unwed mother's will improve the state of affairs. :disgust:

And yes: our glorious war on terror can continue, unabated. Freedom is on the march, and democracy is triumphant. Iraqi women can safely walk the streets, there is more than 3 hours of electricity a day in Baghdad, clean water, adequate medical facilities, proper labor representation, and no US representatives required to sit on each Iraqi gov't'l board. Papers are allowed to print what they want, ppl are not shot at demonstrations. Iraqi's did not lose most of their cultural and archeological heritage, the ground is not littered with dU, and on the whole: all of W's predictions are going according to schedule.

And, won't it be great when Bolton comes into his own? When Mr. Kiss-up-Kick-Down gets into the UN, he can stand up and declare the UN useless; after Bush accuses Iran (note spelling, John...not "Iraq") of mfg'ing WMD.

You and your ilk can get up onto your chairs, cheer "Go USA!" like it's some sort of football game, wave your nylon flags, and watch on TV, as our planes bomb some more innocent ppl to tiny bits.

My, you're certainly the party pooper aren't you ?

Oh...

Go USA!
Go USA!
Go USA!

Adam Alexander
07-05-2005, 04:13 PM
Eh, what's this about Bush railroading some Rep. who had his legs and an arm blown off? Back in 02.

The story I heard doesn't seem so moral.

Isn't that the way...funny how morality goes out the window.

Hogan
07-05-2005, 04:59 PM
Eh, what's this about Bush railroading some Rep. who had his legs and an arm blown off? Back in 02.

The story I heard doesn't seem so moral.

Isn't that the way...funny how morality goes out the window.

Pssss, hey frenchy, have a secret for you....

Ready ?

Are you sure ?

Okay, here it is..... (now, don't tell anyone....)

Negative campaigning has been part of world history since day one!!!!

Amazing, isn't it ?


Here is another one....

Bush didn't invent negative campaigning.


Ready for more ?

Negative campaigning will go on, beyond your death.


Okay.... more ?

You just participated in negative campaigning in your original post!!! Cool, huh?!


(As Neil Mick likes to say.....)
NEXT !

Adam Alexander
07-05-2005, 05:59 PM
But, negativity against a guy who fought for his country and donated a bunch of limbs. Hmm, I guess for me, the American Ideal would stop me from railroading the guy.

But, eh. I'm moral. Bush isn't. That's why he lied about Iraq.

Neil Mick
07-05-2005, 07:46 PM
My, you're certainly the party pooper aren't you ?

Sorry to rain on your cheerleading, for collective punishment. A dose of reality does tend to spoil a party, I admit.

Oh...

Go USA!
Go USA!
Go USA!

But hey: thanks for playing to type: I knew I could count on you.

My nom de plume of "Dances with Trolls" is assured. Ahhhh. :cool:

makuchg
07-05-2005, 08:57 PM
But, negativity against a guy who fought for his country and donated a bunch of limbs. Hmm, I guess for me, the American Ideal would stop me from railroading the guy.

But, eh. I'm moral. Bush isn't. That's why he lied about Iraq.
Frenchy, I'm with you. As soon as someone donates parts of his body to a cause he gets to speak his mind.

Now for John, please tell me five things that are better in Iraq than before we invaded. Now I'm not talking about things that are "going" to be better, but two and a half years after the cease of hostilities are ACTUALLY better. Good luck. :crazy:

Neil, the uninformed and blind often follow the same path for the same reason, neither sees the where they are going. :freaky:

Neil Mick
07-05-2005, 09:30 PM
Neil, the uninformed and blind often follow the same path for the same reason, neither sees the where they are going. :freaky:

Actually, this discussion has been most illuminating. :straightf

Hogan
07-06-2005, 07:51 AM
....But, eh. I'm moral. Bush isn't. That's why he lied about Iraq.

Ehehe.... well, at least you're consistent.

Hogan
07-06-2005, 07:54 AM
....My nom de plume of "Dances with Trolls" is assured. Ahhhh. :cool:


Ummmmm..... okay....

Again, repeat after me....

Neil Mick's rants on aikiweb mean nothing and will change nothing, and exist only to satisfy Neil's ego and his love of talking and "sharing".

C'mon....one more time...

Neil Mick's rants on aikiweb mean nothing and will change nothing, and exist only to satisfy Neil's ego and his love of talking and "sharing".

Hogan
07-06-2005, 07:55 AM
Actually, this discussion has been most illuminating. :straightf


Yes, for me to....

again....

Neil Mick's rants on aikiweb mean nothing and will change nothing, and exist only to satisfy Neil's ego and his love of talking and "sharing".

Hogan
07-06-2005, 10:23 AM
...Now for John, please tell me five things that are better in Iraq than before we invaded. Now I'm not talking about things that are "going" to be better, but two and a half years after the cease of hostilities are ACTUALLY better. Good luck. :crazy: ...

Well....

1 - Saddam gone
2 - People free
3 - No more torture or rape chambers
4 - Free elections
5 - Neighbors not threatened
6 - Kurds not being gassed anymore
7 - French, German, Russians, Saddam & the UN not benefitting from Oil-For-Food boondoggle.
8 - Iraqi's not being ripped off anymore by said French, German, Russians, Saddam & the UN from Oil-For-Food boondoggle.
9 - Generated 4,518 MW on October 6, surpassing the pre-war level of 4,400 MW.
10 - Conducting water and sanitation projects worth $183 million that will benefit 14.5 million people.
11 - Restored international calling service and activated more than 140,000 subscriber lines in Baghdad.
12 - Vaccinated 3 million children through monthly national immunization days.
13 - Distributed high-protein biscuits to more than 240,000 children and pregnant and nursing mothers.
14 - Renovated 2,356 schools nationwide.
15 - Distributed 1.5 million secondary school student kits, 808,000 primary school student kits, and 81,735 primary school teacher kits.
16 - Printed and distributed 8.7 million revised math and science textbooks to governorates throughout Iraq.
17 - Trained 860 secondary school master trainers, who trained 31,772 secondary school educators nationwide.
18 - Implementing 17 high-priority activities with the CPA to reform Iraq's currency, state-owned enterprises, small businesses, banking system, taxation system, budgeting, and utility administration.
19 - Created more than 77,000 public works jobs through the National Employment Program.
20 - Developed a bank-to-bank payment system that allowed 80 banks to resume business by late October.
21 - Coordinating the Marshlands Initiative to rejuvenate the marshlands ecologically, socially, and economically.
22 - Awarded rapid-response grants worth $13.4 million to allow local governments to deliver essential services.
23 - Rehabilitated nine key central government ministries, Baghdad mayoral buildings, headquarters of nine Baghdad municipalities, and urban water and electric authorities, while providing 40 directorates and agencies with enough furniture, equipment, and basic office supplies to enable them to return to service.
24 - Immediately after the conflict, provided 516,800 metric tons of food worth over $389 million through the World Food Program.
25 - Deployed one of the largest ever Disaster Assistance Response Teams, including doctors, public health professionals, water and sanitation experts, food distribution and agricultural specialists, and other experts.
26 - Pre-positioned substantial amounts of food and supplies before the war: water, hygiene and health kits, blankets, and plastic sheeting.
27 - Repaired water and sanitation facilities quickly and furnished emergency healthcare assistance.
28 - Distributed medical kits containing enough medicine and supplies for 10,000 people for three months.
29 - Nationwide: Repaired various sewage lift stations and water treatment units.
Baghdad: Expanding and rehabilitating one water treatment plant and constructing another to increase capacity by approximately 120 million gallons per day; rehabilitating sewage treatment plants.
- major wastewater treatment plant in Baghdad began operating in June of 2004; this is the first major sewage plant in the country to operate in over 12 years.
- The sewage treatment system in Baghdad, barely functioning for years before the conflict, will be restored to almost 100- percent capacity, serving 80 percent of Baghdad’s population.
- Standby generators are being installed at 41 Baghdad water facilities.

South: Rehabilitated parts of the Sweet Water Canal system, including repairing breaches, cleaning the main reservoir, and refurbished 14 water treatment plants around Basrah serving 1.75 million people.
- South Central: Rehabilitating two water plants and four sewage plants.

- Completed the rehabilitation of a sewage plant in Babil Governorate.
- Sewage plants in An Najaf, Al Qadisiyah, Karbala', and Babil Governorates will serve 440,000 upon completion.
- Water treatment in Najaf and Babil will serve residents and visitors at Iraq’s holiest shrines.

- North: Completed rehabilitation of Kirkuk water plant and continuing refurbishment of sewage plant near Mosul.

Need more ?
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/


Finally, I would like for you to tell me how long it was before the Marshall Plan finally went into effect after hostilites ceased in WWII....

tedehara
07-06-2005, 11:35 AM
Well....<snip>
Need more ?
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/

Finally, I would like for you to tell me how long it was before the Marshall Plan finally went into effect after hostilites ceased in WWII....Can you guarantee hostilities have ceased in Iraq?

All of the advantages of U.S. occupation will cease if the Iraq government loses military/political control of the situation. There are regional forces that:
Want to attack the American presence.
Want to overthrow the elected Iraq government.


Besides paying off a growing war debt, what has the U.S. gotten out of the situation? Finally getting involved in shooting it out in the Middle East?

The focus was taken off a real threat of global terrorism. Bush's policy to overthrow Saddam put all of America's resources on the Oil/Middle East. This gave North Korea time to complete their nuclear arms development.

There is no need to send UN inspectors. The North Koreans will happily tell you that they have "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and they are desperate enough to use them.

Hogan
07-06-2005, 11:45 AM
Can you guarantee hostilities have ceased in Iraq?

All of the advantages of U.S. occupation will cease if the Iraq government loses military/political control of the situation. There are regional forces that:
Want to attack the American presence.
Want to overthrow the elected Iraq government.


Besides paying off a growing war debt, what has the U.S. gotten out of the situation? Finally getting involved in shooting it out in the Middle East?

The focus was taken off a real threat of global terrorism. Bush's policy to overthrow Saddam put all of America's resources on the Oil/Middle East. This gave North Korea time to complete their nuclear arms development.

There is no need to send UN inspectors. The North Koreans will happily tell you that they have "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and they are desperate enough to use them.


That's my point, Ted. Hostilities have not ceased. It was yrs before the Marshall Plan went into effect after WWII ended. Yet, people are complaining we aren't now doing enough, when the war is still going on ! At least we are doing something and not waiting yrs like in WWII. The US is rebuilding during a war in Iraq & Afghanistan - and what other countries have done that ?

And this not being part of the war on terror ? Again, people seem to forget, Bush said that terrorists and nations that support terrorists are one of the same - no difference, and they will be hit. 1st Afghanistan and now Iraq. This was the new Bush doctrine that everyone applauded when he gave it. Now, 'cuz the going gets tough, 'cuz the war hasn't ended in 100 days, people are saying quagmire ? Please....

tedehara
07-06-2005, 12:32 PM
That's my point, Ted. Hostilities have not ceased. It was yrs before the Marshall Plan went into effect after WWII ended. Yet, people are complaining we aren't now doing enough, when the war is still going on ! At least we are doing something and not waiting yrs like in WWII. The US is rebuilding during a war in Iraq & Afghanistan - and what other countries have done that ?

And this not being part of the war on terror ? Again, people seem to forget, Bush said that terrorists and nations that support terrorists are one of the same - no difference, and they will be hit. 1st Afghanistan and now Iraq. This was the new Bush doctrine that everyone applauded when he gave it. Now, 'cuz the going gets tough, 'cuz the war hasn't ended in 100 days, people are saying quagmire ? Please....A U.S. president is only elected for eight years maximum. After that, all governmental policy is in jeopardy. Bush's actions have put the U.S. in a relationship with the Iraq government that will be like its relationship with Israel. For Iraq to succeed, it will need long-term financing and support. The American people have to be willing to commit itself to such a relationship.

Terrorist attacks and low-grade guerrilla warfare have long been predicted as the "warfare of the future". It is now the 21st century and the future is right on schedule.

Saw Gillo Pontecorvo's 1966 movie The Battle of Algiers a few weeks ago. The director is a Marxist, but the movie he made is relevant in today's Iraq as well as French colonial Algeria.

And then there is North Korea - literally an explosive situation.

Adam Alexander
07-06-2005, 12:38 PM
bah-a-a-a-a. bah-a-a-a-a-a....

Sorry if I misquoted. It was intended more of as a paraphrasing.

On the Rep who donated his limbs--maybe even his effective you-know-what--I find it reminiscent of a story I read...

So, Napoleon gets power. Needing a scapegoat for his failings or just to avert the populaces attention (note: Cold War, War on Drugs, War on Terror) he blames Snowball for all problems.

Now, this is where it gets real creepy. Napoleon de-emphasizes the values of Snowball...namely his injuries in battle.


I guess for some people, the end justifies the means. Hmmm, funny, I could of swore that was contrary to Biblical morality...but hey, funny how morality goes out the window.

Hey, what was Bush doing during the war? That's right. He's by no means the hero his Father was/is.

Hogan
07-06-2005, 01:12 PM
Sorry if I misquoted. It was intended more of as a paraphrasing.

On the Rep who donated his limbs--maybe even his effective you-know-what--I find it reminiscent of a story I read...

So, Napoleon gets power. Needing a scapegoat for his failings or just to avert the populaces attention (note: Cold War, War on Drugs, War on Terror) he blames Snowball for all problems.

Now, this is where it gets real creepy. Napoleon de-emphasizes the values of Snowball...namely his injuries in battle.


I guess for some people, the end justifies the means. Hmmm, funny, I could of swore that was contrary to Biblical morality...but hey, funny how morality goes out the window.

Hey, what was Bush doing during the war? That's right. He's by no means the hero his Father was/is.


Bahaaa ? Was that a joke, frenchy ?

So, let me get this straight. Napolean needs someone to blame his bad policies on. He pickes Snowball. THEN he deemphasized Snowball's value ? Wouldn't that then mean Snowball's value to Napolean was reduced, so then Napolean couldn't use him as a scapegoat ? But wasn't that what Napolean wanted to do ? And are you suggesting that Bush, BEFORE he got into office, tried to blame the veteran for his problems in office, BEFORE he got into office, then deemphasized the veteran so that he no longer was a help to him, even though he used him to help him ?

Wha huh ????

Where was Bush ? Probably smokin' dope with Clinton and Hillary, and Dean, and Kennedy, and.....

Adam Alexander
07-06-2005, 02:12 PM
Bahaaa ? Was that a joke, frenchy ?

So, let me get this straight. Napolean needs someone to blame his bad policies on. He pickes Snowball. THEN he deemphasized Snowball's value ? Wouldn't that then mean Snowball's value to Napolean was reduced, so then Napolean couldn't use him as a scapegoat ? But wasn't that what Napolean wanted to do ? And are you suggesting that Bush, BEFORE he got into office, tried to blame the veteran for his problems in office, BEFORE he got into office, then deemphasized the veteran so that he no longer was a help to him, even though he used him to help him ?

Wha huh ????

Where was Bush ? Probably smokin' dope with Clinton and Hillary, and Dean, and Kennedy, and.....


Great, I'm sort of getting it across.

Yeah, Bush attacked an American hero who donated part of his body for his country. I guess Bush thought that an American hero's image to his fellow Americans was less important than Bush's power grab.

Anyway, yeah, it was sort of like that. And then Napoleon starts changing around all this stuff that the others took as fact. For example, going to war because of WMD. Then it all came out that it was about liberating people. And then it came out...oh, who knows?

Yeah, I'd like to say that it might of been an honest mistake. Unfortunately, morality went out the window and I couldn't trust him anymore.

Funny how morality goes out the window, isn't it?

Neil Mick
07-06-2005, 04:32 PM
This really says it all: out of W's mouth, into Johnny-troll's ear.


Need more ?
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/


(Oh, sure: US AID will stomp all over themselves in their rush to blow the whistle on W's lies) :rolleyes:

"Objective" source? :D :D

Ummmmm..... okay....

Again, repeat after me....

Neil Mick's rants on aikiweb mean nothing and will change nothing, and exist only to satisfy Neil's ego and his love of talking and "sharing".

C'mon....one more time...

Neil Mick's rants on aikiweb mean nothing and will change nothing, and exist only to satisfy Neil's ego and his love of talking and "sharing".




again....

Neil Mick's rants on aikiweb mean nothing and will change nothing, and exist only to satisfy Neil's ego and his love of talking and "sharing".

Yawn..you're growing repetitive and tiresome.

Back to "Dirges" again, I suppose. :dead: :dead: :rolleyes:

Hogan
07-06-2005, 04:54 PM
This really says it all: out of W's mouth, into Johnny-troll's ear.



(Oh, sure: US AID will stomp all over themselves in their rush to blow the whistle on W's lies) :rolleyes:

"Objective" source? :D :D


Oh, dear Neil. Talk about growing repetative & tiresome. Every one of those facts are verifiable; either they happened or they didn't. Prove them wrong.

Oh, and one more time:
Neil Mick's rants on aikiweb mean nothing and will change nothing, and exist only to satisfy Neil's ego and his love of talking and "sharing".

Neil Mick
07-06-2005, 06:26 PM
Oh, dear Neil. Talk about growing repetative & tiresome. Every one of those facts are verifiable; either they happened or they didn't. Prove them wrong.

OMG: do you realize how silly this statement is? You're kidding me, right?

OK, maybe your are pulling my leg. But, in case you are seriously deluded and actually believe this spume of spin, let's just knock out a few. Tackling them all would be a waste of my time, as you won't believe it, no matter who says what.

3 - No more torture or rape chambers

Funny, I just posted this new info, (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=110389#post110389) yesterday:

Iraqi Torture Units (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1520186,00.html)

British and American aid intended for Iraq's hard-pressed police service is being diverted to paramilitary commando units accused of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and extra-judicial killings, The Observer can reveal.

2 - People free

Um...you seem to have odd and un-dictionary'esque ideas of what "free" means.

(BTW, I still await some explanation of how "Freedom = US World Domination." You have all the time in the world to spew out miles of USAID statistics, yet suddenly it's all "a waste of time" to explain your own views...hmmm)

I generally don't call getting harassed by soldiers, "free:" Neither, it appears, do some Iraqi's:

Unbelievable... (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/)

We're so free, we often find ourselves prisoners of our homes, with roads cut off indefinitely and complete areas made inaccessible. We are so free to assemble that people now fear having gatherings because a large number of friends or family members may attract too much attention and provoke a raid by American or Iraqi forces.

U.S. Claims Over Siege Challenged (http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000244.php#more)

AMMAN, May 19 (IPS) - As with the siege of Fallujah six months back, U.S. claims over the siege of the Iraqi town Al Qa'im are being challenged now by independent sources.

The U.S. military claims a "successful" end to the weeklong operation earlier this month around Al-Qa'im, a town about 320km west of Baghdad close to the Syrian border. The operation was launched against what the U.S. military saw as the presence of Al-Qaeda fighters in the town.

Iraqi civilians and doctors in the area say no foreign fighters were present in the town. Al Qa'im and surrounding areas have suffered great destruction, and many in the town population of 110,000 were killed, they say.

Abu Ahmed, a resident of Al-Qa'im, told IPS on telephone that "all the fighters here are Iraqis from this area."

He said continuing violations by U.S. soldiers had provoked people into confronting the occupying forces. He said troops had been raiding homes, sending women into the streets without their hijabs and entering areas where women sleep.

"The fighters are just local people who refuse to be treated like dogs," he said. "Nobody wants the Americans here."

8 - Iraqi's not being ripped off anymore by said French, German, Russians, Saddam & the UN from Oil-For-Food boondoggle.

Nor, you forgot to mention, are they being ripped off anymore by the American corporations that also participated in the UN Oil-For-Food boondoggle.

You know, when it comes to the rest of the world: why, they all dictators and corrupt, to you. But when the US gov't or corporations do the same thing (after all, 24 US companies traded with Hussein...some even after the ban was passed in Congress); well then, it's all "opinion," right? :rolleyes:

Wow. Talk about reality disconnect.

24 - Immediately after the conflict, provided 516,800 metric tons of food worth over $389 million through the World Food Program.
25 - Deployed one of the largest ever Disaster Assistance Response Teams, including doctors, public health professionals, water and sanitation experts, food distribution and agricultural specialists, and other experts.
26 - Pre-positioned substantial amounts of food and supplies before the war: water, hygiene and health kits, blankets, and plastic sheeting.
27 - Repaired water and sanitation facilities quickly and furnished emergency healthcare assistance.
28 - Distributed medical kits containing enough medicine and supplies for 10,000 people for three months.
29 - Nationwide: Repaired various sewage lift stations and water treatment units.
Baghdad: Expanding and rehabilitating one water treatment plant and constructing another to increase capacity by approximately 120 million gallons per day; rehabilitating sewage treatment plants.
- major wastewater treatment plant in Baghdad began operating in June of 2004; this is the first major sewage plant in the country to operate in over 12 years.
- The sewage treatment system in Baghdad, barely functioning for years before the conflict, will be restored to almost 100- percent capacity, serving 80 percent of Baghdad's population.
- Standby generators are being installed at 41 Baghdad water facilities.

Numbers and statistics mean squat, by themselves. It's the reality on the ground that matters:

Iraqi Social Conditions Worse under US Occupation than Hussein (http://www.occupationwatch.org/analysis/archives/2005/06/iraqi_social_co.html)

The "Living Conditions in Iraq" study is based on a 2004 survey of more than 21,000 households. It shows the Iraqi people are suffering widespread death and war-related injury, high rates of infant and child mortality, chronic malnutrition and illness among children, low rates of life expectancy, and significant setbacks for women.

The Iraqi people were already suffering serious hardships when the war began - the result of Saddam Hussein's policies and 13 years of UN sanctions. Since the US invasion, the report notes an "alarming deterioration" in living conditions.

The innocent and vulnerable populations of Iraq are suffering the most. Malnutrition among small children is widespread. Nearly one quarter of Iraqi children suffer chronic malnutrition, and 8 percent suffer acute malnutrition.

Illness levels among Iraqi children are also high - due in part to a growing lack of safe drinking water and sanitation. Forty percent of urban households report sewage in the streets of their neighborhoods.

Infant and child mortality rates remain abnormally high in Iraq, though there is much uncertainty about the exact numbers.

The overall trend, however, is unmistakable: a rise in infant and child mortality rates over the past 15 years.

This contrasts with the global trend - reflected by Iraq's neighbors - of steadily falling infant and child mortality rates over the past few decades.

Iraq's alarmingly high child mortality rate translates into thousands of 'excess' deaths every year. These are the quiet, unseen victims of the continuing tragedy in Iraq.

The new report also sheds light on the number of Iraqi deaths directly attributable to the US-led invasion and occupation. As of mid-2004 the war had caused 24,000 Iraqi deaths, the study estimated. This is the number for all deaths, civilian and military, in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 invasion

headquarters of nine Baghdad municipalities, and urban water and electric authorities

means squat, when it's just blown right up, again:

Water Main Attack Affects Two Million in Baghdad (http://www.occupationwatch.org/headlines/archives/2005/06/water_main_atta.html)

"The attack on the water pipes was a shock to all residents. Insurgents are not only killing innocent people but also destroying the daily lives of millions of people," Amer Salman, a senior Baghdad governorate official, said.

Salman added that they were working hard to repair the main but said that it may take up to a week to have it functioning properly again, although small-scale pumping may start within two days.

The Mansoor, Yarmouk, Kadhimiya, Baya'a, Ghazaliya and Hay al-Jame'a districts in Baghdad are the worst affected.

"Every day I have to drive 10 km to reach to a public water pipe where I can get water for washing, cleaning and drinking. My air conditioning [AC] machine needs to be filled with water manually every three hours," Kamal al-Jumaily, a Yarmouk district resident, said.

The AC machines, which have to be filled by hand, are cheap to run and are to be found in most Iraqi homes. They are particularly necessary in the summer when temperatures may reach 50 degrees centigrade.

Local doctors have reported an increase in diarrhoea and other illnesses related to the consumption of dirty water.

"Children have been the most effected, due to the dirty water being consumed now. Some families are using public pipes and unsafe wells, which are known to be contaminated," Dr Ahmed Ibraheem, at Yarmouk general hospital, said.

Ibraheem added that during the last water shortage in the capital in January, more than 200 cases of illness through consumption of contaminated water were reported, but they fear the number could be higher now as sanitation has further deteriorated in the capital.
In a desperate measure, many residents have started to dig wells in their gardens.

"The heat is increasing and in place where we acquire more comfort, Iraqis are suffering even more now from power and water shortages," Mahmoud Abbas, a Bayaa district resident said.

Yep, the devil is in what is unsaid, esp with the US gov't:

Aid Group Sees Crisis Looming in Iraqi Desert (http://www.occupationwatch.org/headlines/archives/2005/07/aid_group_sees.html)

Thousands displaced by fighting are suffering in the 110-degree heat, officials say. A cholera outbreak is feared as bodies lie under rubble.
By Borzou Daragahi
Los Angeles Times
July 1, 2005

As U.S.-led offensives on insurgent strongholds continue, Iraqi humanitarian officials are expressing concern about increasing problems for civilians in cities across the country's vast western desert.

The Iraqi Red Crescent Society says that 6,000 families have been displaced in Al Anbar by the fighting and that they are suffering in temperatures that regularly surpass 110 degrees. The group has dispatched five convoys of relief supplies to the region over the last few days, and medical teams are watching for cholera outbreaks caused by bodies buried in the rubble.

28 - Distributed medical kits containing enough medicine and supplies for 10,000 people for three months.


Generic, feel-good statements, with high-numbers attached, doth not a reconstruction, make. A lot of sound and fury, meaning nothing.

The reality is quite different:

World Tribunal for Iraq, Culminating Session Testimony (http://electroniciraq.net/news/2020.shtml)

In April 2004, an ICRC report stated that hospitals in Iraq are overwhelmed with new patients, short of medicine and supplies and lack both adequate electricity and water, with ongoing bloodshed stretching the hospitals' already meager resources to the limit.

Ample testimony from medical practitioners confirms this crisis. A general practitioner at the prosthetics workshop at Al-Kena Hospital in Baghdad, Dr. Thamiz Aziz Abul Rahman, said, "Eleven months ago we submitted an emergency order for prosthetic materials to the Ministry of Health, and still we have nothing." After a pause he added, "This is worse than even during the sanctions."

Dr. Qasim al-Nuwesri, the chief manager at Chuwader General Hospital, one of the two hospitals in the sprawling slum area of Sadr City, Baghdad and home to 3 million people, added that they, too, faced a shortage of most supplies and, most critically, of ambulances. But for his hospital, the lack of potable water was the major problem. "Of course we have typhoid, cholera, kidney stones...but we now even have the very rare Hepatitis Type-E...and it has become common in our area," said al-Nuwesri, adding that they never faced these problems prior to the invasion of 2003.

Chuwader hospital needs at least 2000 liters of water per day to function with basic sterilization practices. According to Dr. al-Nuwesri, they received 15% of this amount. "The rest of the water is contaminated and causing problems, as are the electricity cuts," added al-Nuwesri, "Without electricity our instruments in the operating room cannot work and we have no pumps to bring us water."

Every one of those facts are verifiable; either they happened or they didn't. Prove them wrong

Your turn, John. "Verify" away...unless, of course: you "haven't the time?" :p

Hogan
07-06-2005, 06:35 PM
OMG: do you realize how silly this statement is? You're kidding me, right?

OK, maybe your are pulling my leg. But, in case you are seriously deluded and actually believe this spume of spin, let's just knock out a few. Tackling them all would be a waste of my time, as you won't believe it, no matter who says what.



Funny, I just posted this new info, (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=110389#post110389) yesterday:

Iraqi Torture Units (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1520186,00.html)





Um...you seem to have odd and un-dictionary'esque ideas of what "free" means.

(BTW, I still await some explanation of how "Freedom = US World Domination." You're ready to spew out miles of USAID statistics, yet suddenly get all shy when asked to explain yourself...hmmm)

I generally don't call getting harassed by soldiers, "free:" Neither, it appears, do some Iraqi's:

Unbelievable... (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/)



U.S. Claims Over Siege Challenged (http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000244.php#more)





Nor, you forgot to mention, are they being ripped off anymore by the American corporations that also participated in the UN Oil-For-Food boondoggle.

You know, when it comes to the rest of the world: why, they all dictators and corrupt, to you. But when the US gov't or corporations do the same thing (after all, 24 US companies traded with Hussein...some even after the ban was passed in Congress); well then, it's all "opinion," right? :rolleyes:

Wow. Talk about reality disconnect.



Numbers and statistics mean squat, by themselves. It's the reality on the ground that matters:

Iraqi Social Conditions Worse under US Occupation than Hussein (http://www.occupationwatch.org/analysis/archives/2005/06/iraqi_social_co.html)





means squat, when it's just blown right up, again:

Water Main Attack Affects Two Million in Baghdad (http://www.occupationwatch.org/headlines/archives/2005/06/water_main_atta.html)



Yep, the devil is in what is unsaid, esp with the US gov't:

Aid Group Sees Crisis Looming in Iraqi Desert (http://www.occupationwatch.org/headlines/archives/2005/07/aid_group_sees.html)






Generic, feel-good statements, with high-numbers attached, doth not a reconstruction, make. A lot of sound and fury, meaning nothing.

The reality is quite different:

World Tribunal for Iraq, Culminating Session Testimony (http://electroniciraq.net/news/2020.shtml)



AHAHA !!! Nice try, Micky Boy. You are the 1sty person I know that maintains people were better off under Saddam....

AHAHAHHA AHAHAHA !!! Oh man... you're so ridiculously stupid funny....

Neil Mick
07-06-2005, 06:40 PM
AHAHA !!! Nice try, Micky Boy. You are the 1sty person I know that maintains people were better off under Saddam....

You see? Watching too much FoxNews dulls the perception.

File this one under "Putting Words in My Mouth." Sorry, never said that; never meant it.

"Iraqi Social Conditions Worse under US Occupation than Hussein"
does not = "people were better off under Saddam"

Next!

Your turn, John. "Verify" away...unless, of course: you "haven't the time?" :p

I guess that this means that you don't have the time to "verify," after all...gosh, now why am I stunningly unsurprised?

(oh, BTW: thanks for mentioning me in your sig. It's nice to be thought of as so important, as to be referred to, with your every post. ;) )

Hogan
07-07-2005, 07:28 AM
You see? Watching too much FoxNews dulls the perception.

File this one under "Putting Words in My Mouth." Sorry, never said that; never meant it.

"Iraqi Social Conditions Worse under US Occupation than Hussein"
does not = "people were better off under Saddam"

Next!



I guess that this means that you don't have the time to "verify," after all...gosh, now why am I stunningly unsurprised?

(oh, BTW: thanks for mentioning me in your sig. It's nice to be thought of as so important, as to be referred to, with your every post. ;) )

"Iraqi Social Conditions Worse under US Occupation than Hussein"
does not = "people were better off under Saddam"

Uh, I'm afraid it does Micky Boy.... You believe people are better off under Castro, too ?

And Neel, you haven't proven my facts wrong at all - you relied on left wing sources for some (yes, you see I can play your game as well - you say my "right wing" sources cannot be taken seriously, well, right back at ya'.... see, isn't this fun ?), and the others you say just because conditions are better (i.e., more electricity, medicine, etc...) doesn't mean people are better off. HA ! Spoken like someone who has been comforted by the USA all his life. What a maroooooooon....


(Continuing my ode' to Micky Boy...)
Next !

Adam Alexander
07-07-2005, 12:44 PM
Good Lord. Yeah, Bush's agenda is really stopping terrorism.

It's a shame. I wonder how many innocent people must die before he stops this madness.

Hogan
07-07-2005, 12:50 PM
Good Lord. Yeah, Bush's agenda is really stopping terrorism.

It's a shame. I wonder how many innocent people must die before he stops this madness.

Are you suggesting that the way to stop terrorism is to let them do what they want ?

Please, tell me how you would stop it.

Adam Alexander
07-07-2005, 12:56 PM
Are you suggesting that the way to stop terrorism is to let them do what they want ?

Please, tell me how you would stop it.


He didn't listen to the authentic intelligence and now more civilians are dying.

Hogan
07-07-2005, 01:17 PM
He didn't listen to the authentic intelligence and now more civilians are dying.

Please tell me how to stop terrorism.

Neil Mick
07-07-2005, 02:03 PM
"Iraqi Social Conditions Worse under US Occupation than Hussein"
does not = "people were better off under Saddam"

Uh, I'm afraid it does Micky Boy.... You believe people are better off under Castro, too ?

No, John: I'm afraid it doesn't.

Sorry, but a statement acknowledging the deteriorating social conditions under occupation, doth not an endorsement for Saddam, make: no matter how hard you try to spin-doctor the statement.

Not surprising, that you cannot see the difference: but I admit I am a trifle disappointed. You were doing so well using a source other than Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al

And Neel, (another cheap attempt to slander...yawn :dead: ) you haven't proven my facts wrong at all - you relied on left wing sources for some (yes, you see I can play your game as well - you say my "right wing" sources cannot be taken seriously, well, right back at ya'.... see, isn't this fun ?),

Sure is: nice of you to actually go back and actually read my last post: instead of your last, usual, non-thinking response (I'm betting that you didn't even bother to read most of the links: just the titles). Amazing, how quickly the uninformed resort to ridicule as a weapon of first choice, isn't it?

But, if you'd bothered to look: some of those "Left wing sources" had good documentation, and good sources. Some of them were Iraqi's or witnesses to the occupation, and countered the usual rosy-picture presented by our lying, mass-murdering President.

Or, perhaps you'd like to deny (and provide) sources that there is currently no water shortage in Baghdad? That my source simply lied? No, you cannot, and you won't. You'll do just what we can count on: you'll jeer, ridicule, and avoid the issue; instead of countering my argument with sources of your own.

In other words: you haven't a rhetorical leg to stand on, and so you do what all trolls do, when pressed--you riducule.

and the others you say just because conditions are better (i.e., more electricity, medicine, etc...) doesn't mean people are better off. HA ! Spoken like someone who has been comforted by the USA all his life. What a maroooooooon....

I'm starting to seriously worry about this tendency to post delusional, phantom statements. Seriously, John: did you hit your head, or something? Can the doctors treat this? Please keep us posted as to your condition: in spite of our differences, it saddens me to see an otherwise rational human being slip into the grip of fantasies.

Sorry, John: but your statements, as I said, prove nothing about how the conditions are bettering. "10,000 medical kits distributed" means zilch, about how it affects the populace.

You could distribute 10,000 medical kits here in Santa Cruz, but if I needed my appendix taken out and there were no operable hospitals running, well I'd be out of luck, unless I can find some friends who want to learn medicine fast, now wouldn't I?

And so, my sources presented an alternate view to your rosy, propagandistic picture of false health for Iraq. A few of them are reputable news sources conducting an investigation; a few are simply points-of-view from blogs.

Lacking any other resource except feel-good gov't propaganda, you resort to trollish type. Sad, that you cannot do anything else: but I expected no less, from someone who thinks debate is a waste of time, who cannot rationally explain his own beliefs, and whose expressed purpose here is to ridicule.

You become tiresome, John. You were an adequate rhetorial foil (I've seen better), but you're beginning to sound like a broken record. :dead: :dead:

Next !

Gods, we can only hope so. This record is wearing thin,

Neil Mick
07-07-2005, 02:18 PM
Good Lord. Yeah, Bush's agenda is really stopping terrorism.

It's a shame. I wonder how many innocent people must die before he stops this madness.

Yes, it is. And, I imagine that the number of his victims means very little, to W.

Adam Alexander
07-07-2005, 02:42 PM
Please tell me how to stop terrorism.


The first step is to recongize there's a problem.

That problem is that George Bush lied to the American people and the people of the world about Iraq.

So, can you do the first step? To see through the clouds of dishonesty perpetrated by this regime?

Hogan
07-07-2005, 02:54 PM
No, John: I'm afraid it doesn't

Sorry, but a statement acknowledging the deteriorating social conditions under occupation, doth not an endorsement for Saddam, make: no matter how hard you try to spin-doctor the statement.

Not surprising, that you cannot see the difference: but I admit I am a trifle disappointed. You were doing so well using a source other than Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al

I will explain a philosophy to you so simply that even a maroooon can understand....
No matter how much conditions deteriorate (and mind, you, the level now is STILL better than they were under Saddam) they are still better off than living under a murderous dictator. If you fail to understand that, or argue for the opposite (which I am sure you will attempt), only shows how small minded and weak you really are.

some of those "Left wing sources" had good documentation, and good sources.
Hey, guess what ? So do so called "right wing" sources, but again, you reject them outright in your knee jerk anti-american / republican / Bush response that really, truly amazes. So, if you fail to take my sources seriously, why should anyone take yours seriously ? But, of course, your small mind would fail to understand such concept.

Some of them were Iraqi's or witnesses to the occupation, and countered the usual rosy-picture presented by our lying, mass-murdering President.
Guess what Neal ? Life during war-time is tough. It was in EVERY war, during and after during any reconstruction, especially when you have insurgents. But guess what ? One of the ways you win is not always harping on the negative. Yes, you learn by mistakes, you adapt and do the best you can, but as usual, your small, vietnam-defeatism mind fails to see the concept. Open your mind and quit always believing the negative on TV and on the net. Why don't you go there ? Have some backbone, and tough it out. Perhaps, just perhaps, this will be all worthwhile in the long run, but you have be tough to win it, not just buckle under the terrorists and cut and run, like you would.

Or, perhaps you'd like to deny (and provide) sources that there is currently no water shortage in Baghdad?
If there is a shortage, then we work to restore it, not say, see it is short today, we failed and lets run ! Day by day will chg - one day there will be a shortage, one day there won't be. But if the problem is terrorists destroying the water pipes, then kill them, not cut and run and say we failed like you do.

In other words: you haven't a rhetorical leg to stand on, and so you do what all trolls do, when pressed--you riducule.
Nice to see you practice what you criticise. Open your eyes, look in the mirror, and see how what you say means nothing, changes nothing.... (you know, look at my siggy)...



I'm starting to seriously worry about this tendency to post delusional, phantom statements. Seriously, John: did you hit your head, or something? Can the doctors treat this? Please keep us posted as to your condition: in spite of our differences, it saddens me to see an otherwise rational human being slip into the grip of fantasies.
See your ridicule comment above....

Sorry, John: but your statements, as I said, prove nothing about how the conditions are bettering. "10,000 medical kits distributed" means zilch, about how it affects the populace.
So, you think they have been distributed but not used ? Talk about fantasies... Notice you are ASSUMING they weren't actually distributed to people - you just assume 'distributed' means given to Iraq and not its people to use. See how those negative waves effect you ?

And so, my sources presented an alternate view to your rosy, propagandistic picture of false health for Iraq. A few of them are reputable news sources conducting an investigation; a few are simply points-of-view from blogs.
Good for you, some of my sources are people who actually live there and have been there working during the war and prior, one of them a good friend, and another a relative.


Lacking any other resource except feel-good gov't propaganda, you resort to trollish type. Sad, that you cannot do anything else: but I expected no less, from someone who thinks debate is a waste of time, who cannot rationally explain his own beliefs, and whose expressed purpose here is to ridicule.
See your ridicule comment above.... keep practicing what you criticise, it is really fun to watch.


You become tiresome, John. You were an adequate rhetorial foil (I've seen better), but you're beginning to sound like a broken record. :dead: :dead:
Ahahah... do I need to say look in the mirror ? Getting the hint ? (See my siggy....)

As Micky Boy would say, again & again, over and over, then when someone else says the same thing he says how tiresome...
NEXT !

Hogan
07-07-2005, 02:56 PM
The first step is to recongize there's a problem.

That problem is that George Bush lied to the American people and the people of the world about Iraq.

So, can you do the first step? To see through the clouds of dishonesty perpetrated by this regime?

How do you stop terrorism. We all know it is a problem; it existed long before Bush, so don't even try to say he started it. Now how do you stop them / it ???

mj
07-07-2005, 05:46 PM
How do you stop terrorism. We all know it is a problem; it existed long before Bush, so don't even try to say he started it. Now how do you stop them / it ???
Well in the UK we opened up political dialogue, made concessions on both sides and got everyone involved in the political process. With the IRA, remember.

It still isn't fixed by a long shot but the deaths have stopped just about totally.

Neil Mick
07-08-2005, 12:34 AM
I will explain a philosophy to you so simply that even a maroooon can understand....
No matter how much conditions deteriorate (and mind, you, the level now is STILL better than they were under Saddam) they are still better off than living under a murderous dictator. If you fail to understand that, or argue for the opposite (which I am sure you will attempt), only shows how small minded and weak you really are.

Sad, really. I guess it's true, what they say about the state of misinformation and lack of comprehension about the world, of regular Fox viewers. They hear what misinformation they want, and no amount of a strong dose of reality, will shake their incorrect views. Lacking a clear and sound source of media-information, they resort to paltry ridicule and character-assassination, to make their point.

Take John here, for example. He cannot even be bothered to stand behind his own statements. Look, for instance, at his claim:

Oh, dear Neil. Talk about growing repetative & tiresome. Every one of those facts are verifiable; either they happened or they didn't. Prove them wrong.

All righty, then. Let's just take one example from his lists, simple to disprove, as it made the news recently.


3 - No more torture or rape chambers

Now, ole' John will try to weasel out of this by claiming "Lefty source!" So, let's use a source considered reputable by all, no matter how he feels about it...say: Reuters.

Iraqi government admits abuses by security forces (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L03428937.htm)

BAGHDAD, July 3 (Reuters) - Iraq's government acknowledged on Sunday that some of its new security forces were resorting to the sort of torture and abuses of detainees seen under Saddam Hussein as they struggle to put down Sunni Arab insurgents.

What bold new strategy will the brave, Bush-faithful warrior employ this time, to weasel out of his claim:

Every one of those facts are verifiable;

Will he employ the old standby ("I don't believe you")? Will he resort to his usual ridicule?

Or, will he actually admit that (no, I cannot even imagine it!) he was wrong!! :eek:

Stay tuned~the collective readership awaits John's verification that torture is a thing of the past, in Iraq (in spite of what the gov't says).

Hogan
07-08-2005, 07:36 AM
Well in the UK we opened up political dialogue, made concessions on both sides and got everyone involved in the political process. With the IRA, remember.

It still isn't fixed by a long shot but the deaths have stopped just about totally.

Do you see a difference with the level of fanatacism between the IRA & Bin Laden's group ?

In other words, it has been said that Bin Laden and his group want americans and westerners dead, period. Every man, woman and child. Is this the same goal as the IRA ? How do you talk with someone who will not accept anything else but your death ?

Hogan
07-08-2005, 07:49 AM
Sad, really. I guess it's true, what they say about the state of misinformation and lack of comprehension about the world, of regular Fox viewers. They hear what misinformation they want, and no amount of a strong dose of reality, will shake their incorrect views. Lacking a clear and sound source of media-information, they resort to paltry ridicule and character-assassination, to make their point.

So, since you didn't even respond to the point I was making, and went into some rant about Fox News (get over it already, Fox News isn't taking over the world...) I guess you really do believe it better to live under a murderous dictator. You were one of those people that subscribed to the slogan, "Better red than dead" weren't you.


Take John here, for example. He cannot even be bothered to stand behind his own statements. Look, for instance, at his claim:



All righty, then. Let's just take one example from his lists, simple to disprove, as it made the news recently.



Now, ole' John will try to weasel out of this by claiming "Lefty source!" So, let's use a source considered reputable by all, no matter how he feels about it...say: Reuters.

Iraqi government admits abuses by security forces (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L03428937.htm)



What bold new strategy will the brave, Bush-faithful warrior employ this time, to weasel out of his claim:



Will he employ the old standby ("I don't believe you")? Will he resort to his usual ridicule?

Or, will he actually admit that (no, I cannot even imagine it!) he was wrong!! :eek:

Stay tuned~the collective readership awaits John's verification that torture is a thing of the past, in Iraq (in spite of what the gov't says).
Just who are you talking to ? You think everyone is waiting ? No, just in your ego-inflated miond that thinks people care what you think.

And anyway, let me again try to explain to the simple minded (uh, that would be YOU, Micky). There is / was a difference between the state sponsored rape / torture rooms that your dear friend Saddamy (that you wish was back in power) had and what may be going on with some people left over after 20 yrs of living with it. Just like there was a difference with state sponsored murder and torture the nazi's had as opposed to what some hard line germans did after the war that were used to it. Do you think that overnight they will become angels ? HA ! Again, showing your 'we want results now, forget hard work!' mentality, Micky Boy....

As Micky Boy would say, again & again, over and over, then when someone else says the same thing he says how tiresome...
NEXT !

mj
07-08-2005, 10:04 AM
Do you see a difference with the level of fanatacism between the IRA & Bin Laden's group ?

In other words, it has been said that Bin Laden and his group want americans and westerners dead, period. Every man, woman and child. Is this the same goal as the IRA ? How do you talk with someone who will not accept anything else but your death ?
Away and don't talk so much rubbish eh?

Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, IRA, ETA and everyone else all have specific demands that can be approached politically.

Hogan
07-08-2005, 12:05 PM
Away and don't talk so much rubbish eh?

Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, IRA, ETA and everyone else all have specific demands that can be approached politically.

You think Al-Qaeda can be bargained with ? Talk about rubbish.... They want to destroy you - no ifs ands or buts. Good bye to you and yours. That's all they want. You dead. Your family dead. No negotiation. Wake up.

Repeat after me:
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist

Dirk Hanss
07-08-2005, 01:46 PM
You think Al-Qaeda can be bargained with ? Talk about rubbish.... They want to destroy you - no ifs ands or buts. Good bye to you and yours. That's all they want. You dead. Your family dead. No negotiation. Wake up.

Repeat after me:
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist

I am sorry, John but this is not the way, I see aikido. And it is not mine.

Yes, there are violent people out there and I do not want to argue for them.
But by killing one terrorist, you will create two new ones. And by killing one innocent civilian as collateral damage, you will create ten terrorists.
I cannot give easy advice how to do it right. But we have to find a better way.

Maybe because we are aikidoka, maybe because we are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists or whatever. But maybe just because we want to live. We want our friends and neighbors and all the other people stay alive in peace.

And now I turn a little bit to sarcasm, but this series is not "Hogan's Heroes"

Regards Dirk

Adam Alexander
07-08-2005, 01:51 PM
Repeat after me:
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist

See, John. That's part of the first step. By renouncing Bush and the poisons of this philosophy, a solution can be found.

MJ and Dirk, very, very fine posts. I'm happy to see that the whole world hasn't gone mad.

BTW, nice post John. The end justifies the means? Funny how that morality goes out the window.

Hogan
07-08-2005, 04:44 PM
See, John. That's part of the first step. By renouncing Bush and the poisons of this philosophy, a solution can be found.

MJ and Dirk, very, very fine posts. I'm happy to see that the whole world hasn't gone mad.

BTW, nice post John. The end justifies the means? Funny how that morality goes out the window.

End justifies the means ? The only end is a dead terrorist. The means are a bullet.

So, OK, you're right.

Hogan
07-08-2005, 04:51 PM
I am sorry, John but this is not the way, I see aikido. And it is not mine.

Yes, there are violent people out there and I do not want to argue for them.
But by killing one terrorist, you will create two new ones. And by killing one innocent civilian as collateral damage, you will create ten terrorists.
I cannot give easy advice how to do it right. But we have to find a better way.

Maybe because we are aikidoka, maybe because we are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists or whatever. But maybe just because we want to live. We want our friends and neighbors and all the other people stay alive in peace.

And now I turn a little bit to sarcasm, but this series is not "Hogan's Heroes"

Regards Dirk


Well, I see these terrorists as not having any interest in negotiation. Negotiation & weakness only encourages them - history has shown this. And this new 'muslim' fanatics that are members of Uncle Binny and his ilk have NO interest other than killing you. This is their stated purpose, they have gone ON RECORD as stating this. They want to have a world where their kind rules, period. That is not acceptable, in any way shape or form. Look at the taliban in Afghanistan - this is the world they want. They use religion to fuel their fanaticism and nothing will stope them but a bullet.

Yes this isn't Hogan's Hero's where you get along with people that are your 'enemy'.... this is the real world. Terrorism is the biggest threat to the free world, to any world, and the sooner people realize that the better.



The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist

Adam Alexander
07-08-2005, 05:16 PM
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist

Sad part is, you're willing to throw morality out the window to accomplish it.

makuchg
07-08-2005, 08:46 PM
As much as this hurt, I have to agree with John about terrorists and negotiating. Having spent many years studying the Islamic extremist movement, you must understand they truly believe they are acting under the direction of God. Although misguided, the word of man cannot persuade the thoughts of someone who believes God is directing them.

There is a definite difference between religious fanaticism and other terrorist who are politically or ideologically motivated and how you deal with them. There are different levels of terrorism and understanding the motivations of these fanatics can help undermine their efforts, but negotiations will not work.

spinecracker
07-08-2005, 10:17 PM
From my understanding, these Islamic 'fundamentalist' terrorist groups consider themselves at war with everyone who does not share their beliefs, even if those beliefs are based on an interpretation not followed by the majority of believers. The Egyptian ambassador to Iraq has just been executed by a militant Islamic group because, in their opinion, his Islamic beliefs were different from theirs. The Islamic group claiming responsibility for the London bombings used the term ' blessed military raid' in their internet post. Like it or not, we are at war. Civilians in Iraq, and in many other Islamic countries, are being slaughtered by these Islamic militants, all in the name of Allah. Morality is not an issue for these individuals - they just want us dead.

Neil Mick
07-08-2005, 11:36 PM
So, since you didn't even respond to the point I was making, and went into some rant about Fox News (get over it already, Fox News isn't taking over the world...) I guess you really do believe it better to live under a murderous dictator.

Nope. Wrong, again.

Since you haven't the least clue about what goes on in my head (in spite of your claims to the otherwise): allow me to elaborate.

When someone fills their posts with vituperatives aimed at yours truly, I get to a certain level of tolerance before I simply shut down, and stop reading.

But, I also noticed that your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired, as you totally missed the boat on MY last post.

You were one of those people that subscribed to the slogan, "Better red than dead" weren't you.

There are many states better off than death. Living under a Communist regime is probably one of them. Not that I'd know, or desire it: given my druthers, I guess I'd prefer an autonomous collective. (*shrug*)

Just who are you talking to ? You think everyone is waiting?
No, just in your ego-inflated miond that thinks people care what you think.

Well, YOU seem to care, since you so readily respond: so that blows your theory (if you can call it that) out of the water.

And anyway, let me again try to explain to the simple minded (uh, that would be YOU, Micky).

Pot. Kettle. Black.

There is / was a difference between the state sponsored rape / torture rooms that had and what may be going on with some people left over after 20 yrs of living with it.

OK, with feeling:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

Can you believe this guy?? "OUR" torture is BETTER than "Saddam's torture! :D :D :D

Still, this is hardly verifying your original statements. Torture is torture, no matter how you, and Gonzales, try to qualify it otherwise.

Go to the back of the class, Johnny-boy: Reading-comprehension grade of ZERO for you!

Next!

P.S.

your dear friend Saddamy (that you wish was back in power)

This is an idiotic statement. Coming from a troll, it's hardly surprising, tho.

Neil Mick
07-08-2005, 11:58 PM
Like it or not, we are at war. Civilians in Iraq, and in many other Islamic countries, are being slaughtered by these Islamic militants, all in the name of Allah. Morality is not an issue for these individuals - they just want us dead.

Hello Robert:

Mostly, I agreed with your post...except for the first line, above.

If you were to compile a list of the world's terrorists and supporters: you'd have to include the US. We've been at it for quite some time. And, we aren't alone. France blew up the "Rainbow Warrior;" Brazil has done some terrible things to their indigenous ppl's.

You cannot declare war on a tactic. Terrorism is a tactic used to frighten a group of ppl into doing/not doing something. Just as the US's "War on Drugs" failed: so too will this "War on Terror" fail, because it has no clear-cut objectives. In short, it allows the US to declare war on whomever it wants, whenever it wants.

How is the war in Iraq a part of the war on terror? All the Bush horses and all the Bush-men cannot explain this one. No, IMO: the best way to combat terrorism is to treat it as an international crime and deal with extremists blowing up innocents as lawbreakers, rather than as opposing militia.

Away and don't talk so much rubbish eh?

Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, IRA, ETA and everyone else all have specific demands that can be approached politically.

Yes. Exactly.

spinecracker
07-09-2005, 03:06 PM
Neil, I agree that you cannot declare war on a tactic. but that was not the point of my post. War has been declared on us (i.e. everyone who doesn't belong to the terrorist group involved). The IRA always considered it's terrorist attacks as military operations. So do almost every terrorist group out there. I will say this again - The actions of terrorist groups are military in conception, planning and execution. I agree that calling something a war doesn't make it a war (would you prefer police action?), but the actions of the people involved make it clear that is what is going on. I think that considering terrorism as an international crime is an excellent idea, but you have to concede that enforcing such legislation would require the use of deadly force as and when necessary. Would you say that implementing the death penalty for convicted terrorists was necessary? Or do we put them in prison for a few years, then let them back out into the same society they want to destroy? How the heck are we going to cope with prisons full of terrorists when we can't even deal with the prisons we have full of criminals???

As for the behaviour of supposedly good, moralistic countries, I know that none of us should, or could, cast the first stone. the US supported Saddam and Bin Laden when they were useful. Great Britain created the first 'concentration' camps during the Boer War. The Puppet government in France during the 2nd World War actively participated in the persecution and slaughter of Jews and other 'undesirables' (the Allies during this time also helped by turning away Jewish refugees, forcing them to return to Germany and almost certain death). I could go on giving examples, but it would take all day. If you want to go back in history you will find plenty of examples where almost every 'civilised' country has been just as bad, cruel and evil as the next one. I'm not proud of parts of my own country's heritage, but someone has to step up to the plate and say 'enough is enough'.

Mark Johnston wrote:

Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, IRA, ETA and everyone else all have specific demands that can be approached politically.

I would not agree with this statement - Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda want Americans and their allies dead, and are not open to negotiation. How do you want to approach that one politically? Hand them the gun that they put to the back of your head?

Adam Alexander
07-09-2005, 03:31 PM
How many lies and civilians must die to kill the terrorists? I've always believed that two wrongs don't make a right...particularly when the first wrong was the the President telling a string (nuclear, chemical, terrorist links, post-war clean-up...I'm sure I'm forgetting some) of lies to take us to war.

So, I guess, if I wanted to start a charitable organization geared towards freeing felons, I could ask for money saying that it's for mothers of starving children...hey, I think I'm onto something here...because, certainly, some felon is the husband of a mother of a starving child and I'd expect him to help her when he get out.

Son of a ....I think I've got something here. Er, wait, that'd be immoral in my book. But hey, what's morality?

Dirk Hanss
07-09-2005, 04:01 PM
As much as this hurt, I have to agree with John about terrorists and negotiating. (...)
There are different levels of terrorism and understanding the motivations of these fanatics can help undermine their efforts, but negotiations will not work.

Totally agree. Terrorism is crime and terrorists are murderers. And they should be treated like what they are.

But John's phrases sound nearly as fanatic as theirs. And though I don't think that John wants to go further than penalize pr oven terrorists, his way of arguing supports people who bomb people who they think they sympathize with terrorists, or imprison suspicious people for years by neglecting any law and any right they would have claimed for the worst and meanest murder of their own country.

And while this way one is fighting against a few terrorists and many probably innocent people, one is NOT fighting terrorism but feeding it.

Dirk

Neil Mick
07-09-2005, 10:07 PM
Neil, I agree that you cannot declare war on a tactic. but that was not the point of my post. War has been declared on us (i.e. everyone who doesn't belong to the terrorist group involved). The IRA always considered it's terrorist attacks as military operations. So do almost every terrorist group out there. I will say this again - The actions of terrorist groups are military in conception, planning and execution.

Let me clarify: you cannot have a war between a nation-state and a small, paramilitary organization. As I understand war, the whole purpose of it is to eliminate the other side's motivation to fight.

Declaring war on a terrorist group is elevating their status. In effect, you are stating that a small group is capable of seriously injuring a nation. A terror-group that is in a war with a nation-state will have no end of willing fighters, eager to die for the cause. No, the best method for dealing with such a group is to incarcerate the leaders. Jail-time with a due-process of legal judicial proceedings is far less inspiring to new recruits, than a nation-state at war with the group.

I agree that calling something a war doesn't make it a war (would you prefer police action?),

Not quite sure what I'd prefer to call it.

but the actions of the people involved make it clear that is what is going on. I think that considering terrorism as an international crime is an excellent idea, but you have to concede that enforcing such legislation would require the use of deadly force as and when necessary.

No, I have no problems with using deadly force to apprehend terrorists, so long as the operation abides by local, or international, law. And yes: I admit that in many cases, this won't be easy.

Take the bombing of MOVE, in Philadelphia, for example. The police dropped a bomb on the roof of their home, ostensibly because the MOVE members had a lot of munitions stored in their house. Well, I guess you know the outcome of that SNAFU...a lot of innocent ppl and homes were destroyed.

Would you say that implementing the death penalty for convicted terrorists was necessary? Or do we put them in prison for a few years, then let them back out into the same society they want to destroy? How the heck are we going to cope with prisons full of terrorists when we can't even deal with the prisons we have full of criminals???

No, I am opposed to the death penalty. And remember: I am typing from the state with the fastest growing prison-industrial complex, in the nation...possibly the world. Prisons are filling up, even as the crime rate is going down.

But, wouldn't you agree that it is far better to find some way to convince the terrorist-members to stop what they're doing, rather than lock them up or put them to death?

That's the trick, IMO. At the base of many terrorist actions is a legitimate grievance. Look at Palestinian suicide bombers, the IRA, or the Weather Underground. All had some legitimate bone to pick with their respective enemy.

As for the behaviour of supposedly good, moralistic countries, I know that none of us should, or could, cast the first stone. the US supported Saddam and Bin Laden when they were useful. Great Britain created the first 'concentration' camps during the Boer War. The Puppet government in France during the 2nd World War actively participated in the persecution and slaughter of Jews and other 'undesirables' (the Allies during this time also helped by turning away Jewish refugees, forcing them to return to Germany and almost certain death). I could go on giving examples, but it would take all day. If you want to go back in history you will find plenty of examples where almost every 'civilised' country has been just as bad, cruel and evil as the next one. I'm not proud of parts of my own country's heritage, but someone has to step up to the plate and say 'enough is enough'.

Yes, I think you make my point, here.

I would not agree with this statement - Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda want Americans and their allies dead, and are not open to negotiation.

You don't know this. In fact, bin Ladin himself said otherwise. His avowed purpose (and I accept that this could well have been a lie) is to get the US to stop meddling in the MidEast; to stop bombing innocents. Clearly, some political solution is possible, if this is true.

Neil Mick
07-09-2005, 10:09 PM
So, I guess, if I wanted to start a charitable organization geared towards freeing felons, I could ask for money saying that it's for mothers of starving children...hey, I think I'm onto something here...because, certainly, some felon is the husband of a mother of a starving child and I'd expect him to help her when he get out.

Good idea. I think giving them their voting rights back would be a great start.

Son of a ....I think I've got something here. Er, wait, that'd be immoral in my book. But hey, what's morality?

OK, now you're confusing me. :hypno:

mj
07-10-2005, 05:36 AM
Mark Johnston wrote:

Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, IRA, ETA and everyone else all have specific demands that can be approached politically.

I would not agree with this statement - Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda want Americans and their allies dead, and are not open to negotiation. How do you want to approach that one politically? Hand them the gun that they put to the back of your head?
I'm afraid you're going to have to back that statement up with some proof, Robert. Or withdraw it.

You are the 2nd American on this thread to say that the only demand that Al-Qaeda has is to kill Westerners. This is not true - they have stated many times that they want control of their countries returned to them, US military bases removed, Western influence removed from their economies and cultures (and other demands).

So there you go - you have at least a small opening for dialogue. Or you can keep on with the mantra that the only way to deal with the problem is to kill them all. But as you slowly run out of friends and the troubles get worse instead of better (as they ahve been from the 'start') then you are only foolishly setting yourself up to learn the hard way.

The American people are gaining nothing from this misadventure. Running along on a sense of injustice and patriotism, it's hard to tell who exactly are the terrorists these days.

Adam Alexander
07-10-2005, 03:19 PM
OK, now you're confusing me. :hypno:

I was just being sarcastic. Just saying that the ends justifies the means...You know, like Bush has done.

Hogan
07-11-2005, 07:48 AM
Sad part is, you're willing to throw morality out the window to accomplish it.

Ya' fight fire WITH fire, frenchy....

Hogan
07-11-2005, 07:51 AM
Nope. Wrong, again.

Since you haven't the least clue about what goes on in my head (in spite of your claims to the otherwise): allow me to elaborate.

When someone fills their posts with vituperatives aimed at yours truly, I get to a certain level of tolerance before I simply shut down, and stop reading.

But, I also noticed that your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired, as you totally missed the boat on MY last post.



There are many states better off than death. Living under a Communist regime is probably one of them. Not that I'd know, or desire it: given my druthers, I guess I'd prefer an autonomous collective. (*shrug*)



Well, YOU seem to care, since you so readily respond: so that blows your theory (if you can call it that) out of the water.



Pot. Kettle. Black.



OK, with feeling:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

Can you believe this guy?? "OUR" torture is BETTER than "Saddam's torture! :D :D :D

Still, this is hardly verifying your original statements. Torture is torture, no matter how you, and Gonzales, try to qualify it otherwise.

Go to the back of the class, Johnny-boy: Reading-comprehension grade of ZERO for you!

Next!

P.S.



This is an idiotic statement. Coming from a troll, it's hardly surprising, tho.

Shhhhhhh... you are irrelevant. Go back to bed.

Hogan
07-11-2005, 07:53 AM
How many lies and civilians must die to kill the terrorists?

How many deaths ? Why don't you ask the terrorists whose main claim to fame is killing civilians, huh ?

Hogan
07-11-2005, 07:55 AM
As much as this hurt, I have to agree with John about terrorists and negotiating.....


Ahahah... it's OK....

Hogan
07-11-2005, 08:14 AM
I'm afraid you're going to have to back that statement up with some proof, Robert. Or withdraw it.

You are the 2nd American on this thread to say that the only demand that Al-Qaeda has is to kill Westerners. This is not true - they have stated many times that they want control of their countries returned to them, US military bases removed, Western influence removed from their economies and cultures (and other demands).

So there you go - you have at least a small opening for dialogue. Or you can keep on with the mantra that the only way to deal with the problem is to kill them all. But as you slowly run out of friends and the troubles get worse instead of better (as they ahve been from the 'start') then you are only foolishly setting yourself up to learn the hard way.

The American people are gaining nothing from this misadventure. Running along on a sense of injustice and patriotism, it's hard to tell who exactly are the terrorists these days.

Proof:
http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp

In 1998, bin Laden issued a religious edict to his followers, "to kill the Americans and their allies, civilians and the military." Bin Laden has made no secret of his anti-American, anti-Western and anti-Israel sentiments.

Summer 2001 - A videotape circulating in the Middle East features bin Laden reciting a victory poem about the USS Cole bombing, and then issues a call to arms: "To all the Mujah: Your brothers in Palestine are waiting for you; it's time to penetrate America and Israel and hit them where it hurts the most."

# January 1999 – In an interview with bin Laden published in Newsweek: "Muslim scholars have issued a fatwa [a religious order] against any American who pays taxes to his government. He is our target because he is helping the American war machine against the Muslim nation."

"The [International Front of Islamic Movements, an alliance of extremist organizations created by bin Laden] is an umbrella to all organizations fighting the jihad against Jews and the crusaders. The response from Muslim nations has been greater than we expected. We are urging all of them to start fighting, or at least to start preparing to fight, against the enemies of Islam."

May 1998 - Bin Laden issued a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Fighting the Jews and Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."

August 1996 In an interview with The Independent, a London daily, bin Laden calls the June 1995 truck bomb in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia" the beginning of war between Muslims and the United States."

http://www.time.com/time/asia/news/interview/0,9754,174550-3,00.html

TIME: If the targets of jihad are Americans, how can you justify the deaths of Africans?
bin Laden: This question pre-supposes that it is me who carried out these explosions. My answer is that I understand the motives of the brothers who act against the enemies of the nation. When it becomes apparent that it would be impossible to repel these Americans without assaulting them, even if this involved the killing of Muslims, this is permissible under Islam.

TIME: The U.S. says you are trying to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons. How would you use these?
bin Laden: Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims.

http://www.ellen-bomer.com/Osama/ABCNEWS.html

“We don’t differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians. They are all targets in this fatwa.”

mj
07-11-2005, 08:55 AM
Well no offence but if you're going to back up the statement that Al-Qaeda/Bin Laden want every Westerner dead I'm not going to accept that particular site, it can hardly be called unbiased.

Anyway that site quotes this: We have focused our declaration of jihad on the U.S. soldiers inside Arabia
..which was what I was saying, certainly not what you are claiming.

A news site will do just fine thanks - preferably the BBC or some such :)

Hogan
07-11-2005, 10:14 AM
Well no offence but if you're going to back up the statement that Al-Qaeda/Bin Laden want every Westerner dead I'm not going to accept that particular site, it can hardly be called unbiased.

Anyway that site quotes this:
..which was what I was saying, certainly not what you are claiming.

A news site will do just fine thanks - preferably the BBC or some such :)

AHAHAHH!!!! You won't accept the site of TIME & ADL ? Why, too jewish for you ?

And the BBC ?! Please, the BBC is an org. that prhibits its reporters from using the term 'terrorists' because they are afaraid of hurting the feelings of the terrorists.

AHAHAH!!!.

Again -
"In 1998, bin Laden issued a religious edict to his followers, "to kill the Americans and their allies, civilians and the military."

He said it. Whether the ADL quotes it or not, he said it.

Ahahhahha... you won't 'accept' it..... that's funny. Hint for you - ALL news sites are biased, including BBC. But it doesn't negate the fact that your friend Bin Laden said it. Accept it - he wants you DEAD.

Or would ABC News be OK ? Search the other thread about the war; I gave Neilly a link to an ABC News site where he said the same thing....

mj
07-11-2005, 11:48 AM
The anti-defamation league is not a news site, don't try to slur me as anti-Jewish please.

The BBC doesn't say terrorists in Iraq because they are insurgents.

Having said that, please don't reply to me (find the inner strength, or borrow it). I really have no time for someone who thinks that mass murder is the answer to their problems.

Hogan
07-11-2005, 12:57 PM
The anti-defamation league is not a news site, don't try to slur me as anti-Jewish please.

The BBC doesn't say terrorists in Iraq because they are insurgents.



Bin Laden still said it. Accept it.

http://www.mediaforesight.org/Impartial.htm
"...While American TV readily echoes the administration's description of the September 11 attackers as "terrorists," BBC-TV uses the term sparingly, and its international radio arm, BBC World Service, uses it even less, preferring "attackers." (The British news agency Reuters has banned the word "terrorists" altogether from stories about the September 11 attack.)..."

If the BBC refers to the terrorists attacks against civilians on 9/11, or to the terrorists in Iraq as insurgents than I guess the BBC doesn't even follow its own rules.... I guess they think civilians in Iraq & NY & DC are member of the official security forces...
To Whit:
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/T/htmlT/terrorism/terrorism.htm
"The BBC's News Guide for example, advises reporters that "the best general rule" is to use the term "terrorist" when civilians are attacked and" guerrillas" when the targets are members of the official security forces."


Having said that, please don't reply to me (find the inner strength, or borrow it). I really have no time for someone who thinks that mass murder is the answer to their problems
Yet you want to take the time / have the time to negotiate / talk with the terrorists that USES mass murder to solve their problems ? Interesting.

mj
07-11-2005, 01:24 PM
If the BBC refers to the terrorists attacks against civilians on 9/11, or to the terrorists in Iraq as insurgents than I guess the BBC doesn't even follow its own rules.
See you added in the words 9/11 there. The BBC calls the 911 attacks terrorist, so you've got your facts wrong. Attacks against the coalition in Iraq are called Insurgent attacks.

The Iraqi attacks are called insurgent because they are.

If the general rule is to say that it is terror when civilians are targeted then we agree there :)

Especially Falujah.

Hogan
07-11-2005, 02:35 PM
... then we agree there :).

Good god, no.

Adam Alexander
07-11-2005, 03:40 PM
Ya' fight fire WITH fire, frenchy....

Well, if there's really "Pearly Gates," I wouldn't want to be in your shoes when you're standing there.

Being called unpatriotic just doesn't mean so much coming from you now.

Thanks for confirming that morality really did go out the window.

Adam Alexander
07-11-2005, 03:44 PM
How many deaths ? Why don't you ask the terrorists whose main claim to fame is killing civilians, huh ?

I see the answer everyday in the paper. The real question is how many civilians is Bush responsible for killing...that's not getting into my news-paper every day. Another question...how do you justify the torturing by the U.S.?


Also, I guess that answers the original question...what if Bush violated the law? It doesn't matter to you, because getting Hussein out is/was more important than law (if the case is true that he violated the law). Yes?

Hogan
07-11-2005, 04:28 PM
Well, if there's really "Pearly Gates," I wouldn't want to be in your shoes when you're standing there.

Being called unpatriotic just doesn't mean so much coming from you now.

Thanks for confirming that morality really did go out the window.

Don't really remember calling you unpatriotic.

And you might not like it, but you DO fight fire with fire, not only literally (in the fire world), but in war, as well. How do you think we won WWII (through death & destruction AND UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER - i.e., no negotiation), or Gulf War I (through death & destruction), or any other war ? Negotiation is appeasement and only gets you more pain & suffering & terror.

Hogan
07-11-2005, 04:48 PM
I see the answer everyday in the paper. The real question is how many civilians is Bush responsible for killing...that's not getting into my news-paper every day. Another question...how do you justify the torturing by the U.S.?


Also, I guess that answers the original question...what if Bush violated the law? It doesn't matter to you, because getting Hussein out is/was more important than law (if the case is true that he violated the law). Yes?


Are you talking about 'torture' at GITMO ? Sorry, but whatever they do there is NOT torture in my book. Making them stand for long periods ? Handcuffing them for long periods ? Making them listen to Christina Aguilara for long periods ? Soccer matches ? Gaining weight because the eat so well ? Getting free limbs if you're an amputee (and then getting caught back on the battlefield after your released, with that new limb) ? Getting prayer time ? Nope, not torture.

The only wars that have increased civilian deaths as a proportion of thw wars recently have been wars of terror by terrorists (and by dictators against there own people). Terrorists go after civilians purposefully, whereas in war-time by nations, civilian deaths have been by accident, in general. Now I don't to get into a debate whether or not soldiers have targeted civilians purposefully as I am sure you can think of one (WWII carpet bombing of cities, for example), but what I am saying is in the general sense, and in the stated goals of terrorists. To get what they want, they go after civilians. This is why you cannot reward them by giving them what they want - that only teaches them to to get what they want is to kill civilians, and who wants to encourage that ?

But what you will never get is that Bush has not violated the law, period. Is it your opinion he violated the law by invading a country that didn't attack the US ? If so, the US has done that for ages. Clinton in Europe (without UN support, remember), Somolia (Clinton changing the policy of helping with relief to taking sides in a conflict and trying to get one of the warlords), Panama in '89 & other times, Haiti, Grenada, Germany in WWII (remember, Hitler didn't attack us, we declared war upon them first without them attacking us), and countless others.

Neil Mick
07-11-2005, 06:26 PM
Shhhhhhh... you are irrelevant. Go back to bed.

Of course I am. Rhetorically, I just knocked you out of the ring, and your argument is face-down, muttering monosyllables to itself. I suppose if my ego were so tied to being "right" all the time: I'd downplay my loss, as well.

But, let us re-cap, to bring the casual viewer up to speed.

1. Gregory gave you a challenge:

Now for John, please tell me five things that are better in Iraq than before we invaded. Now I'm not talking about things that are "going" to be better, but two and a half years after the cease of hostilities are ACTUALLY better.

2. You responded with a huge list of "improvements" in Iraq, mostly vomited from a USAID list that has empty figures that prove nothing.

3. So, as expected, you completely defended your sources (even as you did not identify them):

Every one of those facts are verifiable; either they happened or they didn't. Prove them wrong.

4. Now, here's the crux of it. You very specifically stated that there were

3 - No more torture or rape chambers

while I pointed out that not only were there torture units operating in Iraq under the aegis of the Iraqi gov't; but that the US was providing these units with aid.

Iraqi government admits abuses by security forces (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L03428937.htm)

5. So NOW that you've been shown the error of your ways: do we get a humble, tacit (and wise) acknowledgement that the Occupation is not coming up all rosy?

Oh, please. No, what we get is first an attempt at apology (liberally dosed with insult):

There is / was a difference between the state sponsored rape / torture rooms that your dear friend Saddamy (that you wish was back in power) had and what may be going on with some people left over after 20 yrs of living with it.

followed by John's double-secret rhetorical weapon:

Shhhhhhh... you are irrelevant. Go back to bed.

Just like the knights in Monty Python: when faced with an insurmountable problem, they employ the unstoppable defence....

RUN AWAAAAAYYY!!!! :uch: :D

Nice try, John: but if I am so irrelevant: why put my name in your sig? No, my friend: you are my strongest argument against irrelevancy. Thank you. :cool:

In fact, my good man: I am planning to make you President of my Fan Club! Whaddaya say? The pay's terrible: but the benefit's rock! :p

Hogan
07-11-2005, 06:39 PM
Of course I am. Rhetorically, I just knocked you out of the ring, and your argument is face-down, muttering monosyllables to itself. I suppose if my ego were so tied to being "right" all the time: I'd downplay my loss, as well.

But, let us re-cap, to bring the casual viewer up to speed.

1. Gregory gave you a challenge:



2. You responded with a huge list of "improvements" in Iraq, mostly vomited from a USAID list that has empty figures that prove nothing.

3. So, as expected, you completely defended your sources (even as you did not identify them):



4. Now, here's the crux of it. You very specifically stated that there were



while I pointed out that not only were there torture units operating in Iraq under the aegis of the Iraqi gov't; but that the US was providing these units with aid.

Iraqi government admits abuses by security forces (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L03428937.htm)

5. So NOW that you've been shown the error of your ways: do we get a humble, tacit (and wise) acknowledgement that the Occupation is not coming up all rosy?

Oh, please. No, what we get is first an attempt at apology (liberally dosed with insult):



followed by John's double-secret rhetorical weapon:



Just like the knights in Monty Python: when faced with an insurmountable problem, they employ the unstoppable defence....

RUN AWAAAAAYYY!!!! :uch: :D

Nice try, John: but if I am so irrelevant: why put my name in your sig? No, my friend: you are my strongest argument against irrelevancy. Thank you. :cool:

In fact, my good man: I am planning to make you President of my Fan Club? Whaddaya say? The pay's terrible: but the benefit's rock! :p


Reliving past arguments is a sign of mental instability.... shhhhh... it'll be OK. Do you talk to your-self at home at night, too ? Need some meds ?

Neil Mick
07-11-2005, 06:42 PM
Need some meds ?

Why? Are you attempting to add "drug-pusher" after "poltroon," to your list of achievements?

Neil Mick
07-11-2005, 06:54 PM
But what you will never get is that Bush has not violated the law, period.

But what you will never get is that Bush DID violate the law, period.

And, unless you are an international lawyer ( :D :D ) : I'm guessing that you are talking more from your own opinion, than anyone else here.

Is it your opinion he violated the law by invading a country that didn't attack the US? If so, the US has done that for ages.

And see, here's where you go off the rails, again.

"The US has invaded countries, for ages" does not mean that

"Bush did not violate international law."

At BEST, this waffling apology is a meager rationale for a crime. "Others did it, so it's OK," does not mean that W did not violate international law.

Here's another challenge for you (which, I have no doubt that you will either duck out of it, or employ insult): document an international law (heck: ANY law, ANYWHERE) that says that if a crime has been done in the past, then it's no longer a crime, if committed by someone else, later.

This ought to be rich... :freaky:

makuchg
07-12-2005, 05:28 AM
Neil you have much more patience than I. After John's laundry list from USAID, a .gov that I'm sure is providing non-government biased reporting and your more than adequate rebut I thought we were going to move on....but no. It is obvious that some viewers have no desire to "debate" just to self-edify and defame others.

John, you have a lot of opinions about what we are doing in Iraq, do you have an knowledge? I mean real knowledge (first hand)? No, why not? If you believe in this cause so deeply why are you not willing to step up and aid in it? The military is always looking for volunteers. Don't want to join the military, okay how about one of dozens of charity organizations that are always looking for help? I'm sure you have some tangible skills that would aid in the rebuilding of Iraq. Then you could speak from what you've witnessed and experienced not from what the government has fed you.

It's easy to believe and support a cause from the safety of your computer terminal or your living room, it's another to believe so fully you give of yourself to help the cause.

Hogan
07-12-2005, 07:53 AM
Why? Are you attempting to add "drug-pusher" after "poltroon," to your list of achievements?

Not at all - just trying to help you, as always. I do know some doctors in the mental health field in California, however. They have seen your rants and have agreed to help - for free; they are concerned as well.

Let me know.....

Hogan
07-12-2005, 07:57 AM
But what you will never get is that Bush DID violate the law, period.

And, unless you are an international lawyer ( :D :D ) : I'm guessing that you are talking more from your own opinion, than anyone else here.

THEN, arrest him !


And see, here's where you go off the rails, again.

"The US has invaded countries, for ages" does not mean that

"Bush did not violate international law."

At BEST, this waffling apology is a meager rationale for a crime. "Others did it, so it's OK," does not mean that W did not violate international law.

Here's another challenge for you (which, I have no doubt that you will either duck out of it, or employ insult): document an international law (heck: ANY law, ANYWHERE) that says that if a crime has been done in the past, then it's no longer a crime, if committed by someone else, later.

This ought to be rich... :freaky:

I can understand what you are saying; however, it does not change the fact that in the REAL WORLD, there exists no law if people do not follow it. This means it is unenforceable. Like it never existed. And there will always be the argument from countries that have "violated" international law (in your opinion), that they DIDN'T violate law. Soooooooo, you cannot prove violation becuase international law is written to always provide an 'out' for countries.

Hogan
07-12-2005, 08:00 AM
...John, you have a lot of opinions about what we are doing in Iraq, do you have an knowledge? I mean real knowledge (first hand)? No, why not? If you believe in this cause so deeply why are you not willing to step up and aid in it? The military is always looking for volunteers. Don't want to join the military, okay how about one of dozens of charity organizations that are always looking for help? I'm sure you have some tangible skills that would aid in the rebuilding of Iraq. Then you could speak from what you've witnessed and experienced not from what the government has fed you.

It's easy to believe and support a cause from the safety of your computer terminal or your living room, it's another to believe so fully you give of yourself to help the cause.

If you have read this post and others, you know my 'sources' in Iraq. And, unfortunately, I am too old to rejoin the great US military now.

makuchg
07-12-2005, 08:49 AM
If you have read this post and others, you know my 'sources' in Iraq. And, unfortunately, I am too old to rejoin the great US military now.

John there are many other ways to besides the military, such as humanitarian groups, red cross, contractor support, etc. Age is only a limiter if you let it. Oh, in case you didn't know, the Army raised the age limit for national guard to 39 (still to old?) :hypno:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58028-2005Mar22.html

"Sources" make your information second hand. Both Neil and I have worked directly with the Iraqis, albiet in different capacities. My opinions, as well as Neil's, are not formed solely on other people's interpretation of events or attitudes (news, government, "sources"), but from interaction with Iraqis.

Hogan
07-12-2005, 09:55 AM
John there are many other ways to besides the military, such as humanitarian groups, red cross, contractor support, etc. Age is only a limiter if you let it. Oh, in case you didn't know, the Army raised the age limit for national guard to 39 (still to old?) :hypno:

Yep, still too old.


"Sources" make your information second hand. Both Neil and I have worked directly with the Iraqis, albiet in different capacities. My opinions, as well as Neil's, are not formed solely on other people's interpretation of events or attitudes (news, government, "sources"), but from interaction with Iraqis.
Neil has been to Iraq ? Doubtful. He has contact with Iraqiis ? Me too. Sources are people, as are Neil's and yours.

makuchg
07-12-2005, 10:05 AM
Look at the gallery. Neil worked in Jordan (I believe) training with Iraqi police officers. He can better explain it.

Hogan
07-12-2005, 10:44 AM
Look at the gallery. Neil worked in Jordan (I believe) training with Iraqi police officers. He can better explain it.

And I have lived in the middle east [and what kind of work you think I do that would allow me to live and visit the middle east, and over 50 countries total, and to live in a half-dozen countries over the past 20 yrs ?] ....have had friends work in Iraq.... and have contact with Iraqiis as well. Are we going to get into whose sources are better, or something ?

Taliesin
07-12-2005, 11:05 AM
Hi Guy's

Been away from the thread while distracted by the biggest farce in the world's greatest sport. (That's rugby to the uninitiated).

However I must respond to John's philosophy - Kill them all - VI Lenin once said that "The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize".(Michael Collins' favorite quote) Given the US government's tactics of bombing and obliterating anywhere they think insurgents may be, their REPORTED practice of torture - can you honestly claim that the US are not terrorists.

BTW can you also explain why Timothy McVeigh was tried and executed as a criminal not a terrorist.

It's therefore clear that the definition of terrorist has as more to do with political convenience than actual actions.

The action in London were criminal acts and should be recoginized and prosecuted as such (the same way as we dealt with the IRA) we should not legitimise their actions by calling it war. It is murder plain and simple.

makuchg
07-12-2005, 11:58 AM
John,

I was not looking to get into a whose sources are better than whose. What I was trying to gain was insight into where your information was coming from. Based on your posts, I did not see any indication you were gaining information from people on the ground in Iraq now only from media sources. If I misunderstood your posts or did not go about my inquiry in a clear manner-I apologize.

There is an ongoing change in sentiment in Iraq. I left in January and setiment on the ground has changed since then. The media is not always forthcoming with information and information straight from the "horses mouth" is always more reliable. Anytime we get into the my friend in Iraq told his brother who told me.... it dillutes or distorts the message. On the other hand, a person in Iraq right now has the unique ability to provide insights the media may neglect. I have seen the campaign of disinformation, all of which I can only assume (I know, I know) was deliberate. The American people are not getting a clear indication of Iraqi sentiment or U.S. soldier sentiment. It is easy to always interview those who agree with you and make it appear they represent all.

As for your work, John I can only guess the nature of your work and I have no doubt you understand the intricate relations ongoing in the Middle East, even between allies. As such, you should understand better than most just how dynamic that environment is and how attitudes from a month ago may no longer exist. You should also understand how jaded the U.S. media can be toward actions in the region. It always amazes me the difference in BBC and CNN or FOX when they report on the same event.

Hogan
07-12-2005, 12:31 PM
John,

I was not looking to get into a whose sources are better than whose. What I was trying to gain was insight into where your information was coming from. Based on your posts, I did not see any indication you were gaining information from people on the ground in Iraq now only from media sources. If I misunderstood your posts or did not go about my inquiry in a clear manner-I apologize.

There is an ongoing change in sentiment in Iraq. I left in January and setiment on the ground has changed since then. The media is not always forthcoming with information and information straight from the "horses mouth" is always more reliable. Anytime we get into the my friend in Iraq told his brother who told me.... it dillutes or distorts the message. On the other hand, a person in Iraq right now has the unique ability to provide insights the media may neglect. I have seen the campaign of disinformation, all of which I can only assume (I know, I know) was deliberate. The American people are not getting a clear indication of Iraqi sentiment or U.S. soldier sentiment. It is easy to always interview those who agree with you and make it appear they represent all.

As for your work, John I can only guess the nature of your work and I have no doubt you understand the intricate relations ongoing in the Middle East, even between allies. As such, you should understand better than most just how dynamic that environment is and how attitudes from a month ago may no longer exist. You should also understand how jaded the U.S. media can be toward actions in the region. It always amazes me the difference in BBC and CNN or FOX when they report on the same event.

Understood...

And even though we may not agree, I appreciate the tone of your writings here (as they tend to stray away from the Mickdomization style of writing)....

Adam Alexander
07-12-2005, 01:42 PM
Don't really remember calling you unpatriotic.

And you might not like it, but you DO fight fire with fire, not only literally (in the fire world), but in war, as well. How do you think we won WWII (through death & destruction AND UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER - i.e., no negotiation), or Gulf War I (through death & destruction), or any other war ? Negotiation is appeasement and only gets you more pain & suffering & terror.

I'll respond to both posts here...

Regarding unpatriotic: I pretty certain you're calling my "frenchy" for a reason other than my heritage.

Regarding torture: Abu Ghraib came from the top. We've been seeing reports of the U.S. transfering prisoners to countries for torture.

Regarding Bush's violation of the law: There's no more questions about it, Hogan, you believe that the law doesn't matter in contrast to Bush's agenda.

I'll tell you the same thing I told those Clinton supporters who didn't care about what he did:

I understand that there was a time when Americans did the "right" thing...regardless of the good or bad consequences. Those people were brave.

That time has passed. The brave left the door open and in it came cowards who would rather turn their heads than to accept the consequences of being wrong.

Bush was wrong. All those who supported him were wrong. And those who refuse to accept the responsiblity are simply cowards.

End of story.

Hogan
07-12-2005, 02:29 PM
I'll respond to both posts here...

Regarding unpatriotic: I pretty certain you're calling my "frenchy" for a reason other than my heritage.
I never equated 'frenchy' with being unpatriotic. But you seem to since you think I did. I like nicknames.... Micky Boy for Neil Mick, frenchy for you.... call me Hogey if you like....

Regarding torture: Abu Ghraib came from the top. We've been seeing reports of the U.S. transfering prisoners to countries for torture. Thought we were talking about GITMO. Besides. I still don't think Abu Ghraib was torture.... being naked chained up ? Sorry, not torture.... Beating and beheading ? Yes, torture..

Regarding Bush's violation of the law: There's no more questions about it, Hogan, you believe that the law doesn't matter in contrast to Bush's agenda.
No, you are missing my point. I am talking about nations and international law in general, when it fits there interests. Internantional law ALWAYS allows an out, that is why it was approved in the 1st place, and that is why it can always be said it is not illegal. You have to understand this point.

And those that suport Bush are cowards ? Wow, strong language there. Did you break down just now ? How about this: Bush was right, and anyone who doesn't support him are cowards... Like that ? See, I can do that to.... This is why there is violence in the world - resorting to personal attacks and such... it's a shame, really....

Neil Mick
07-12-2005, 04:45 PM
....have had friends work in Iraq.... and have contact with Iraqiis as well. Are we going to get into whose sources are better, or something ?

Too much to comment on, all at once. But this point about sources keeps popping up, and so I shall comment.

No, John: this is not about "whose sources are better." But, contrary to what you might think (or state), you have been a bit cagey about your sources.

The clearest statement you made so far about your sources has been murky, at best:

Good for you, some of my sources are people who actually live there and have been there working during the war and prior, one of them a good friend, and another a relative.

Now, frankly: I couldn't care less if you spent your life locked in a shed in Minnesota, and are typing from the attic, as far as "good sourcing" is concerned.

However, I AM interested in your sources, because several times you have conveyed inaccurate information about current world events. I would like, more than anything else, to know where you get your information, as well as in what context you lived abroad. "A friend and a relative" is hardly a clear identification.

Living life from the perspective of a military base (for example) bestows a completely different context than the view from Gaza, Rafah, or Fallujah. It would help me and others to understand your perspective better if we knew where you get your information, specifically.

I'm certainly willing to divulge MY sources and experience: how about you?

as they tend to stray away from the Mickdomization style of writing)....

Don't you mean "Hogandumization?" After all, you MUST have the record for flaming here, at the very least. :p

Hogan
07-12-2005, 05:01 PM
...After all, you MUST have the record for flaming here, at the very least. :p

Ahahah... flaming ? And associating my name with the word dumb ? At least I hadn't done that with your name, Micky. C'mon, you can be more creative than that.

And let us remember, I have not been the one that has been asked to stop posting threads from another site because of that nature of your posts. A couple of people on that part. site even posted copies of harrasing PM's that you sent them, asking you to stop. Several of the posts here have entered the fighting stage, and all because of your tone, Micky, not anyone elses. Threads have been locked because what you have said leads to the locking. Perhaps you do this on purpose, I don't know (but like I said, I have mental health employees standing by in CA should you need). I even remember one poor girl here who started a thread asking why you were so mean to her on another post, a girl that had a soldier relative or something like that, if I remember. You reamed her a new one for no reason, and as a result she no longer posts here (only after a couple of posts, no less - your negativety and threats scared that poor girl away; well, it won't work with me...). Good god, I do really feel for your aikido students, if you really do teach.

Hogan
07-12-2005, 05:15 PM
[quote]
However, I AM interested in your sources, because several times you have conveyed inaccurate information about current world events. I would like, more than anything else, to know where you get your information, as well as in what context you lived abroad. "A friend and a relative" is hardly a clear identification.

My sources information is more than you have provided (and I am not talking web sites). In what context I have lived abroad is none of your business (suffice it to say that you, the taxpayer, has been paying my salary - thanks !). A friend and relative is more than you have told me. What, you want to prove you their names ? Please, Neil, c'mon.... Although I understand it would provide you with further fuel in which to debate, it serves no PURPOSE. Any web sites you or I have posted are the complete opposite - you believe what you want, and I believe what I want.

And frankly, you did make a point of it - you asked me if I have ever been out of the country, alluding to the fact I am probably some bumb who isn't 'privy' to the outside world. Well, accept the fact that there are people that have information and have a different view of the world than you.

My information is accurate to me; inaccurate to you, as your information is inaccurate to me. See the useless point of this ? Of these 'RANTS' [see !! Get the hint ??...]

Dirk Hanss
07-12-2005, 05:17 PM
@Neil Mick & John Hogan

About flame competition.

From the few posts I recall, I thought you rank both equal. Hope both of you have fun.

I just think Neil is right but that is no excuse.

As one evil does not rectify another one, good arguments are not a reason for flaming.

O shit, was it me about "Hogan's Heroes"? Well John, I am not sorry, but maybe even that was not appropriate.

Have a Nice Day

By the way, to my knowledge George senior did not, George W. did definitely.

Dirk

Neil Mick
07-12-2005, 06:08 PM
Ahahah... flaming ? And associating my name with the word dumb ? At least I hadn't done that with your name, Micky. C'mon, you can be more creative than that.

Oh, why thank you so much. However, I was referring to the number to times you flame: which, going by your sig, is now every time you post.

Surely, I cannot hold to the same record.

And, yet AGAIN: I notice you totally dodged the issue, preferring instead to comment upon one sentence. But more on that, later.

And let us remember, I have not been the one that has been asked to stop posting threads from another site because of that nature of your posts.

Yes, let's remember: that there are two sides (at least) to every story. You like to enjoy posting, ad nauseum: only one side.

Funny, but this seems to have an eerie resemblance to the slant of your posts...hmm.

But in brief: the last time I posted on Aikidojournal: it was a simple publishing of a poll about troops in Iraq: (http://www.aikidojournal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6517&highlight=)

Stanley Pranin (in a blatantly partisan move, for reasons too tedious to go into, here) asked me to stop posting politics, and so I did. End of story.

Why you seem to want to make this into some kind of "banishment," is pretty obvious...think "fishing expeditions."

A couple of people on that part. site even posted copies of harrasing PM's that you sent them, asking you to stop.

Again, one-sided. You forgot to mention the threats to report me to Congressmen for violating the WW-1 era Alien Act; the frequent violent threats (yes, believe it or not); the false accusations that I posted under another name; even, the attempts to get me silenced, here (luckily, Jun is not as easily influenced, as Mr. Pranin), and the "harassing PM's" these, ahem: "couple of ppl" were in response to the harassing PM's I posted, of their's.

It takes two to tangle, after all.

Several of the posts here have entered the fighting stage, and all because of your tone, Micky, not anyone elses.

Yes, John poor you (and the rest). Big, bad me has spoiled everyone's polite debating thread, with my mean ole' flame-baiting.

Funny, but I seem to recall someone ELSE here, who at various times has suggested that I am a moron, asleep, taking drugs, irrelevant, has published my picture (without my permission, and since removed), am ineffectual as a teacher and as an Aikidoist...

As a close friend of your's likes to say, elsewhere:

"Goose and gander, my brutha..."

Threads have been locked because what you have said leads to the locking.

While you, wide-eyed and innocent: stood by in horror as yet another thread was shut down. :D :D

Perhaps you do this on purpose, I don't know (but like I said, I have mental health employees standing by in CA should you need).

And I suppose you call this a compliment??

I even remember one poor girl here who started a thread asking why you were so mean to her on another post, a girl that had a soldier relative or something like that, if I remember. You reamed her a new one for no reason, and as a result she no longer posts here (only after a couple of posts, no less - your negativety and threats scared that poor girl away; well, it won't work with me...).

Wrong again. But it is too tedious to go into detail, here.

Good god, I feel for your aikido students, if you really do teach.

Rounding it up nicely, by implying that I am a liar.

Can we come down to earth, now?

I am talking about your actions within this thread, alone. Why is it, John: that every time I mention your flaming, you seem to want to put it all on me, in every other thread, on every other site, I have ever written?

Please: try to maintain your composure, focus on the present (THIS thread, THIS site), and quit trying to foist your poor netiquette, on someone else.

I suppose (if I were to follow suit): I could point out that the past half dozen threads here with you participating all seemed to end with you declaring that other ppl are "terrorist-lovers" (self included), merely for the crime of disagreeing with you (Shall I call up deepsoup and Taliesin, for their testimonies of your "polite" netiquette?)

Get a new record, John: this one's broken, irrelevent, and out of context.

Now, to my previous (and politely asked) question (which, I see, you did not return the courtesy, in the spirit in which I asked the question):

My sources information is more than you have provided (and I am not talking web sites).

OK, here goes:

My main source of news is DemocracyNow! I listen to it every day. I also listen to NPR, Pacifica News and my local micro-radio station.

I read all the mainstream papers in my area: the SJ Mercury, the SF Chronicle, and the SC Sentinel (not all, on every day, as they are often repetitive).

Over the internet, I will read/watch Commondreams.org , mediametters.com , truthout , dahrjamailiraq.com , CNN, FoxNews, and Reuters. Personally, I am partial to Dahr Jamail and Robert Fisk, as I have listened to their reports and gone to their talks, and I will cross-check a lot of my info gleaned from these sources, to verify their accuracy.

On Haiti, I listen a lot to the reports of Kevin Pina, also on Pacifica.

For background, I have received interesting accounts from firsthand testimony. I have chatted with contractors and soldiers currently stationed there.

In short: I am a news-junkie. I listen to news-radio in the car, at home, and in my office. I read a LOT of information from several sources, and I admit that my first sources to which I turn are Left-biased (surprise, surprise).

In regards to my personal experience in Iraq: no, I have not spent any time there, but if you bothered to read my blog (instead of using a photo out of context), you'd see that I recently worked and practiced with Iraqi (Palestinian, Israeli, Jordanian, Serbian, Cypriot, Turkish, Greek, Swiss, German, and Ethiopian) Aikidoists to run an international seminar on a contested "Green Zone," in Cyprus.

In what context I have lived abroad is none of your business (suffice it to say that you, the taxpayer, has been paying my salary - thanks !).

Oh, please. I am not trying to pry: a generic description would suffice.

A friend and relative is more than you have told me. What, you want to prove you their names ? Please, Neil, c'mon.... Although I understand it would provide you with further fuel in which to debate, it serves no PURPOSE.

Wrong again (sheesh). I don't wanna know your friends' names, ad nauseum. Just, what they DO. If you weren't so defensive: we'd spend a lot less time, miscategorizing each other.

And frankly, you did make a point of it - you asked me if I have ever been out of the country, alluding to the fact I am probably some bumb who isn't 'privy' to the outside world.

Wrong. Again.

I said that I DIDN'T CARE, if you WERE a provincial rube, OK?

Oy.

Well, accept the fact that there are people that have information and have a different view of the world than you.

OK.

I accept the fact that there are people that have information and have a different view of the world than me. Can we move on? :rolleyes:

[quote]My information is accurate to me; inaccurate to you, as your information is inaccurate to me. See the useless point of this ? Of these 'RANTS' [see !! Get the hint ??...]

Once more...very slllowwwly:

1. I couldn't care less, if you use a "Super-8" ball, to get your information.

2. This does not mean that I am suggesting, that this is where you get your info. :rolleyes:

3. I want to know your news-sources, because it will explain where you get your information, and why you think the way you do, about issues.

4. Am I trying to find out personal info? No.

5. Am I trying to convert myself, to your opinion? No.

6. Do I think that knowing your sources is a waste of time? If I did, I wouldn't bother writing to you.

7. Why do I want to know this? As I said, it helps me understand your perspective, better.

8. Your defensiveness and your aversion to discuss innocuous questions about your views (NOT clearly personal questions, like your friends' names, et al), forces me to "fill in the blanks."

Your declaration that "US world domination =Freedom," for example, suggests to me that this is simply racist jingoism, wrapped in different clothing.

Or, your idea that Bush could not POSSIBLY have broken the law, suggests to me that you think the President is completely above the law, and all int'l laws do not apply to him, or to US soldiers, by extension.

Why? Search me: and so far, searching John will turn up no clear answers, either.

Neil Mick
07-12-2005, 06:10 PM
I just think Neil is right but that is no excuse.

I tend to disagree: but for the sake of argument...sure, I'll admit that I am little better than John's flaming. Yeah, guilty as charged.

Now, I'm happy to put down the flame-games if John will...whaddaya say, John?

Are you up to the task?

Neil Mick
07-12-2005, 06:34 PM
My sources information is more than you have provided (and I am not talking web sites).

No, John: you have provided nothing. No info as to your primary news media source; nothing except one vague reference to a relative, and a friend, who "work over there," zilch.

If I am wrong: simply supply a link, to prove it.

So, now I have divulged: it's your turn. Let's hear it.

Hogan
07-12-2005, 06:40 PM
...Funny, but I seem to recall someone ELSE here, who at various times has suggested that I am a moron, asleep, taking drugs, irrelevant, has published my picture (without my permission, and since removed), am ineffectual as a teacher and as an Aikidoist...
ahahah... okay, okay...guilty as charged (but all reponses to your rants - what's good for the goose - reap what you sow - trying to make you your own behavior against you - get it ?)... But the picture was from THIS site, that YOU posted. You post here, it's public.


"Goose and gander, my brutha..."
Word.

Oh, please. I am not trying to pry: a generic description would suffice.
Federal government.

...Wrong again (sheesh). I don't wanna know your friends' names, ad nauseum. Just, what they DO.
Federal government; contractors; Iraqi civilians; military, etc.

...Or, your idea that Bush could not POSSIBLY have broken the law, suggests to me that you think the President is completely above the law, and all int'l laws do not apply to him, or to US soldiers, by extension.
No; re-read my response to Frenchy above re int'l law.

Hogan
07-12-2005, 06:42 PM
I tend to disagree: but for the sake of argument...sure, I'll admit that I am little better than John's flaming. Yeah, guilty as charged.

Now, I'm happy to put down the flame-games if John will...whaddaya say, John?

Are you up to the task?

Certainly. I will flame no more with you. You do the same.

Hogan
07-12-2005, 06:44 PM
No, John: you have provided nothing. No info as to your primary news media source; nothing except one vague reference to a relative, and a friend, who "work over there," zilch.

If I am wrong: simply supply a link, to prove it.

So, now I have divulged: it's your turn. Let's hear it.


Neil - I have provided several links, but they have all been dismissed by you as "right wing" and biased, and have deemed them unacceptable by you. I have also links to sources (materials/subjects) that you do not have access to; and no, I cannot tell you (yes corny, but true).

Neil Mick
07-12-2005, 06:51 PM
Neil - I have provided several links, but they have all been dismissed by you as "right wing" and biased, and have deemed them unacceptable by you. I have also links to sources (materials/subjects) that you do not have access to; and no, I cannot tell you (yes corny, but true).

No, that is not what I am asking.

I am not asking for a specific info-link: I am asking

1. What is your main source of news-info (periodical)?
2. What is your main source of TV-news?
3. How do you "fact-check," if you do?
4. If your sources are "classified" (and yes, I have one source of info, that is, as well): can you give general details (military, contractor, UN, etc)?

General stuff, like that.

Neil Mick
07-12-2005, 06:53 PM
Certainly. I will flame no more with you. You do the same.

Fair enough. Works for me (um, your ah, sig?...).

Neil Mick
07-12-2005, 07:01 PM
Federal government; contractors; Iraqi civilians; military, etc.

Ah, OK. Thanks.

makuchg
07-12-2005, 08:45 PM
John,

Judging by your posts, I'm assuming what you did in the Middle East. The community you are implying you belong to has some very generic descriptions they use to convey authority without jeopardizing confidentiality, you could always use those. For example, a Titan contractor working in the Green Zone, Baghdad, Iraq tells nothing other than how that person may have access to the information (plus there are thousands of contractors). Additionally, those who have been there know what information people actually have access to and could add validity to your unnamed sources.

Please don't think I'm questioning your integrity, but unnamed sources with no other information is hard for us to judge.

Secondly John if you worked with the federal government in the Middle East you should know not to trust the media better than anyone here. You should have first hand knowledge of their misinformation (whether deliberate or not). I question why you would use media sources with a vested interest in promoting views in their best interest not necessarily unbiased.

Hogan
07-13-2005, 09:57 AM
John,

Judging by your posts, I'm assuming what you did in the Middle East. The community you are implying you belong to has some very generic descriptions they use to convey authority without jeopardizing confidentiality, you could always use those. For example, a Titan contractor working in the Green Zone, Baghdad, Iraq tells nothing other than how that person may have access to the information (plus there are thousands of contractors). Additionally, those who have been there know what information people actually have access to and could add validity to your unnamed sources.

Please don't think I'm questioning your integrity, but unnamed sources with no other information is hard for us to judge.

Secondly John if you worked with the federal government in the Middle East you should know not to trust the media better than anyone here. You should have first hand knowledge of their misinformation (whether deliberate or not). I question why you would use media sources with a vested interest in promoting views in their best interest not necessarily unbiased.

Greg -
Let me correct any misconception; although fun to make people belive one works for the CIA, I do not. I am in a law enforcement capacity for a federal agency. This has allowed me to travel and live in foreign lands (including the ME). And any cable, posts, pouches, or security briefings by the RSO I may have access to remain for me and no one else to share with - sorry.

Hogan
07-13-2005, 10:17 AM
...Secondly John if you worked with the federal government in the Middle East you should know not to trust the media better than anyone here. You should have first hand knowledge of their misinformation (whether deliberate or not). I question why you would use media sources with a vested interest in promoting views in their best interest not necessarily unbiased.

Oh, missed this. This was an attempt to provide 180 views to Mick, that are in the public arena. One side bias, the other side as well.

Adam Alexander
07-13-2005, 01:25 PM
1)I still don't think Abu Ghraib was torture.... being naked chained up ?

2)Internantional law ALWAYS allows an out, that is why it was approved in the 1st place, and that is why it can always be said it is not illegal. You have to understand this point.

3)And those that suport Bush are cowards ? Wow, strong language there. Did you break down just now ? How about this: Bush was right, and anyone who doesn't support him are cowards... Like that ?

1) Degrees of torture vary. I think that's why the U.S. isn't supposed to use inhumane ways to punish it's citizens...torture is torture...just varying degrees.

2)Excellent. This is what I mean by "cowards." Never committing...except to always having an "out."

That's what I was saying about Clinton before. His attempted out was "the definition of is."

I don't understand how in one post you'll imply that Clinton was wrong, and in another you'll say that "always having a way out" is ok?

3)Nope. I didn't break down. It just became so clear to me...I'm saying the same type of stuff when the reality is that what it boils down to is what I said under 2.

I figure that the only reason someone wouldn't be willing to adhere to something concrete (law for example), is because not only are they afraid of the consequences, but also unwilling to accept consequences if not in their favor.

That's a coward in my eyes.


Hmmm...so more of the stuff coming out of the administration. So, who's the leak?

My guess is that you don't get that high unless you know how to play the game and you'll risk taking a hit for the team...I wonder who ordered it.

mj
07-13-2005, 01:36 PM
Degrees of torture...how about child rape?

respectable news link (http://www.sundayherald.com/43796)

Hogan
07-13-2005, 01:43 PM
...I don't understand how in one post you'll imply that Clinton was wrong, and in another you'll say that "always having a way out" is ok?

You're talking about Clinton lying under oath ? There is a difference between int'l law written by nations in a way that allows them an 'out' and the laws of the US which clearly states lying under oath is illegal. The ABA also has rules against this, in that one can be disbarred. Clinton was indeed sanctioned, and impeached.

Adam Alexander
07-13-2005, 01:45 PM
You're talking about Clinton lying under oath ? There is a difference between int'l law written by nations in a way that allows them an 'out' and the laws of the US which clearly states lying under oath is illegal. The ABA also has rules against this, in that one can be disbarred. Clinton was indeed sanctioned, and impeached.

Actually, I'm talking about right and wrong.

Hogan
07-13-2005, 02:16 PM
Actually, I'm talking about right and wrong.


And I implied Clinton was wrong about what ?

(Well, I know he was wrong about a lot of things, but I want to know what you are referring to when you say I implied Clinton was wrong....).

Adam Alexander
07-13-2005, 03:37 PM
And I implied Clinton was wrong about what ?

(Well, I know he was wrong about a lot of things, but I want to know what you are referring to when you say I implied Clinton was wrong....).

Definition of "is." IN one of these threads, I said something about Clinton having a "safe-haven" in the definition. Your response..."geeze" (If I recall correctly.).

Hogan
07-13-2005, 04:42 PM
Definition of "is." IN one of these threads, I said something about Clinton having a "safe-haven" in the definition. Your response..."geeze" (If I recall correctly.).

Oh got it - his defense of whether he lied under oath....

Adam Alexander
07-13-2005, 05:44 PM
Oh got it - his defense of whether he lied under oath....

Then you understand where I'm coming from? There's no moral difference between Clinton and Bush...or their supporters. The only significant difference I see is groups of words..."is" for Clinton..."terrorist links, etc." and how the intelligence was compiled for Bush.


Regarding your statement "fighting fire with fire." When we have a fire around here, the firecrews usually use water...Kind of like Aikido. When someone advances with force we don't respond with force.

Hogan
07-13-2005, 06:42 PM
Then you understand where I'm coming from? There's no moral difference between Clinton and Bush...or their supporters. The only significant difference I see is groups of words..."is" for Clinton..."terrorist links, etc." and how the intelligence was compiled for Bush.

Ok, one more time. NO, international law written by the "perps' themselves (i.e., nations) always allows an out so as to provide them with an excuse and to make it difficult to convict. US law, AND ABA rules, on the other hand, is very clear on lying UNDER OATH, esp. by the chief law enforcement officer.


Regarding your statement "fighting fire with fire." When we have a fire around here, the firecrews usually use water...Kind of like Aikido. When someone advances with force we don't respond with force.
Have you seen how fire fighters use fire to put out fires that have become out of control, when water doesn't work ? Water (negotiation) does not work with these nuts. Fire (strength) does.

You don't think aikido uses force ?

mj
07-14-2005, 04:28 AM
Water (negotiation) does not work with these nuts. Fire (strength) does.
Ah...so you're winning then?

Hogan
07-14-2005, 07:52 AM
Ah...so you're winning then?

MJ, I am not going to get in this whole debate again about whether we are winning or not. I clearly believe we are, you don't; you prefer to take small cases of attacks and believe it is the norm and it is going bad or losing. I hate to have seen you if you had lived in WWII - good god, you would have given up day one because of bad news. But there is no evidence that negotiation has ever worked, especially with Bin Laden and his brand of brothers - and it has been tried. In fact, negotiation only encourages them. You inability to see this throughout history and in the present case only cements the fact in my mind that you have nothing to offer in dealing with terrorists.

mj
07-14-2005, 10:26 AM
Right..so you're losing.

And exactly how much experience do you have compared to us Brits?

Not much, we are better at it than you (no offence). You come across as very single-minded but you have no experience with terrorism (apart of course from being terrorists around the world) and your 'kill em all and let god sort it out' attitude will just get more of your people killed.

Do you really think that you can kill all your enemies? Does that seem a realistic position to take? Your enemies don't seem to have a problem with it, do they? The trouble with killing them is - they don't seem to mind, it doesn't put them off or dissuade them.

The guys who bombed London - they weren't fanatics (well not last year anyway) - the whole thing is turning people into fanatics....the more you kill the more you create....see?

Hogan
07-14-2005, 11:07 AM
Right..so you're losing.
Um, ok.

and your 'kill em all and let god sort it out' attitude will just get more of your people killed.
If more terrorsts die, why is that bad ? Also, your attitude of, oh, lets hug them and give 'em tea & crumpets ain't gonna' work either. You have failed to show me one instance where negotiation and appeasement has worked with these fanatical terrorists.

Do you really think that you can kill all your enemies? Does that seem a realistic position to take? Your enemies don't seem to have a problem with it, do they? The trouble with killing them is - they don't seem to mind, it doesn't put them off or dissuade them.
Does the death penalty really work, i.e., dissuade crime ? Hmmm, don't know. But I know of many instances where suicide bombers (or, 'homicide bombers') have been cought before the act, and afterwards they were ashamed they tried to do what they were attempting to do - they 'saw the light' and error of there ways. And what would think would dissuade a terrorist persuaded by religion, hoping to get 'salvation' and 72 virgins in the aftermath, from doing what they do best ? More aid ? Sorry, they get tons. Terrorists need a good home ? Sorry, many of the terrorists already come from good homes. The terrorism that these nut cases practice is a terrorism of total victory over the west and of establishing a world in which there is no freedom or religous tolerance. They have been blinded by their type of 'religion'. They will not be stopped with money, talk or hugs. Why ? Beacue they don't care if they die in pursuit of their goals. They are willing to die for their fight, much like many in the west are willing to die for freedom. Are you willing to die for freedom and your way of life ?

The guys who bombed London - they weren't fanatics (well not last year anyway) - the whole thing is turning people into fanatics....the more you kill the more you create....see?

On the contrary, they WERE fanatics. Religous fanatics who want to establish.... oh, just read what I wrote above.

Dirk Hanss
07-14-2005, 11:40 AM
(...) only cements the fact in my mind that you have nothing to offer in dealing with terrorists.

John, I agree.
The major discrepance between us is how to fight them and how to support peaceful behaviour of those people where terrorists and especially religious fanatics mostly recruit from.

But while both of us agree upon not dealing with terrorist and dictotors of terror and torture, can you tell me why so many of them were supported or even installed by Western democratic gouvernments?
Mobutu Sese Seko, Pinochet, Marcos, Somoza, Kim Dae Jung, Ngo Dinh Diem, Saddam Hussein (against IRAN), Osama Bin Laden and other fanatic Mudjaheddin in Soviet controlled Afghanistan, just to mention a few of them.

Remark it was easier to find some supported by the U.S., but I could provide some supported by France, UK and even Germany.

Regards Dirk

Adam Alexander
07-14-2005, 01:23 PM
1)Ok, one more time. NO, international law written by the "perps' themselves (i.e., nations) always allows an out so as to provide them with an excuse and to make it difficult to convict. US law, AND ABA rules, on the other hand, is very clear on lying UNDER OATH, esp. by the chief law enforcement officer.



2)Have you seen how fire fighters use fire to put out fires that have become out of control, when water doesn't work ? Water (negotiation) does not work with these nuts. Fire (strength) does.

You don't think aikido uses force ?

1)Apparently, we're not talking about the same thing...I'm talking about Iraq (you know, the war that intelligence was "fixed" around)...you're talking about terrorists (the scapegoat used to try to justify the Iraq war).

I'm talking about the morality of deciding to go to war and then lying across the airwaves to the constituency to gain support...You're talking about how best a powerholder can manipulate the system so that it doesn't have to face the consequences of it's immoral behavior.

I thought I had expressed that...I don't know law, but I do know right from wrong. I'm just saying that lying is wrong and the the death that is the result of that lying is on the shoulders of the lyer...Bush.

2)Yeah, I watched a pretty cool John Wayne movie where they fight oil fires...Yeah, I guess Bush is fighting a lot of oil fires right now.

I don't think the question is so much about whether to use force (my bad wording) but what kind of force...and who's doing the forcing. In relation to the Aiki analogy, I'd say Bush ran head first into a fight he started...now that doesn't seem Aiki to me...particularly being a HUGE lyer...not a little lyer which is bad...but a HUGE lyer.

Neil Mick
07-14-2005, 03:38 PM
You don't think aikido uses force ?

No, it doesn't. Nage might blend with an encroaching force; but nage does not use force, to execute technique.

Funny, how eerily familiar this statement sounds. I remember several Conservative's here who said (pre-invasion) that sometimes a "strong atemi" (meaning, a pre-emptive attack on Hussein) is necessary, before executing a blend.

But, of course now we know that Hussein hardly qualified as an enemy, or an immediate threat. He was a weak, tinpot autocrat: dangerous to his ppl (at the height of his US support), but a far cry from "the next Hitler," or all the other demonizing labels used to justify attacking and starving Iraq.

So, usage of these abstract metaphors confuses, or muddies the issue, IMO. It is so easy to transpose confusing abstractions on ppl and events, in which the abstraction does not reflect the reality.

Neil Mick
07-14-2005, 03:39 PM
I clearly believe we are.

What makes you believe that we are winning?

Hogan
07-14-2005, 03:59 PM
No, it doesn't. Nage might blend with an encroaching force; but nage does not use force, to execute technique.
Neil - no matter whether you use the force of the uke or nage, you still use force. And by the way, I didn't say in my prior pst that NAGE uses force, I said 'force'.

Funny, how eerily familiar this statement sounds. I remember several Conservative's here who said (pre-invasion) that sometimes a "strong atemi" (meaning, a pre-emptive attack on Hussein) is necessary, before executing a blend.

But, of course now we know that Hussein hardly qualified as an enemy, or an immediate threat. He was a weak, tinpot autocrat: dangerous to his ppl (at the height of his US support), but a far cry from "the next Hitler," or all the other demonizing labels used to justify attacking and starving Iraq.

So, usage of these abstract metaphors confuses, or muddies the issue, IMO. It is so easy to transpose confusing abstractions on ppl and events, in which the abstraction does not reflect the reality.
And Neil - even though I didn't agree with what you just said, other than your atemi comment in the top para., I want to congratulate you on having a flame free post to me. (And no, my compliment is not a flame).

Hogan
07-14-2005, 04:02 PM
... can you tell me why so many of them were supported or even installed by Western democratic gouvernments?
Mobutu Sese Seko, Pinochet, Marcos, Somoza, Kim Dae Jung, Ngo Dinh Diem, Saddam Hussein (against IRAN), Osama Bin Laden and other fanatic Mudjaheddin in Soviet controlled Afghanistan, just to mention a few of them....Regards Dirk


Well, I bet many of them can be 'explained' away by being during the time of the cold war chess match.

James Davis
07-14-2005, 04:12 PM
No, it doesn't. Nage might blend with an encroaching force; but nage does not use force, to execute technique.



This is only partially related to the thread, but it's difficult to blend with an attack when someone else is the target. Aikido is effective for self defense, but if someone's after my wife I'd probably end up using force. IMHO, aikido doesn't have much to do with roadside bombs and automatic weapons. :confused:

Play nice, fellas. :)

Neil Mick
07-14-2005, 04:19 PM
John, I agree.
The major discrepance between us is how to fight them and how to support peaceful behaviour of those people where terrorists and especially religious fanatics mostly recruit from.

You know, it's funny- as more and more ppl come to realize what a huge mistake the Iraqi Occupation is: how many Conservatives write opinions with which am beginning to agree. Scary it is, downright scary. :eek:

Yesterday, I came across this article by Patrick Buchanan, of all ppl. With the exception of the last paragraph (in the article, not the supplied quote), I agree with every word. The article is relevant to the topic at hand (i.e., Does the Occupation help in the war on Terror?), and so I link it, here.

Why Are They Killing Us? (http://www.theamericancause.org/)

President Bush says that the terrorists are attacking our civilization. At Fort Bragg, N.C., he explained again why we are fighting in Iraq, two years after we overthrew Saddam Hussein. "Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war," he said, in "a global war on terror."

"Many terrorists who kill ... on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home."

But is this true?

Few Americans have given more thought to the motivation of suicide-bombers than Robert Pape, author of "Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism." His book is drawn from an immense database on every suicide-bomb attack from 1980 to early 2004. Conclusion: The claim that 9-11 and the suicide-bombings in Iraq are done to advance some jihad by "Islamofascists" against the West is not only unsubstantiated, it is hollow.

"Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think," Pape tells the American Conservative in its July 18 issue. Indeed, the world's leader in suicide terror was the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. This secular Marxist group "invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the vest from the Tamil Tigers."

But if the aim of suicide bombers is not to advance Islamism in a war of civilizations, what is its purpose? Pape's conclusion:

[S]uicide-terrorist attacks are not so much driven by religion as by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide terrorist campaign -- over 95 percent of all incidents -- has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

The 9-11 terrorists were over here because we were over there. They are not trying to convert us. They are killing us to drive us out of their countries.

So, let's get this idea of "they hate us, so they'll blow themselves up, in their rush to get to paradise," nonsense, OK? It's contrary to human behavior to suggest that ppl will blow themselves up for no reason, other than that some guy told them that "our" freedom is heinous to their way of life, followed by tortured, ignorant revisions of the Quran, promising 72 virgins and other such nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that they attack us, because we attacked them. OBL has reiterated this in his most recent speeches: he targets American's because they are occupying the Middle East, not because they "hate freedom."

Neil Mick
07-14-2005, 04:24 PM
This is only partially related to the thread, but it's difficult to blend with an attack when someone else is the target. Aikido is effective for self defense, but if someone's after my wife I'd probably end up using force.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree, here.

I well remember one mudansha at my first dojo (Baltimore Aikikai) relating to me one night where she was in the process of going home, and she saw several men harassing a woman across the street.

She yelled: "Hey! Don't bother her: take me!" They gave pursuit, giving the first victim time to run away; while she ran into her house and called the police. The would-be robbers/rapists fled.

Yes, you CAN blend when someone else is the target. But, also remember that a good strong atemi is not out of the question, Aikido-wise. ;)

IMHO, aikido doesn't have much to do with roadside bombs and automatic weapons.

IMHO, Aikido has EVERYTHING to do with roadside bombs and automatic weapons, if that is your daily reality. Aikido stresses martial awareness, and I imagine that awareness in these circumstances is a survival trait.

Aikido is much more than good footwork, bowing well and grabbing nage's wrist, after all.

Adam Alexander
07-14-2005, 05:11 PM
...1)I'd probably end up using force.

2) IMHO, aikido doesn't have much to do with roadside bombs and automatic weapons.

1)That's not an issue with Aikido, that's an issue with you or your training. Aikido offers--from what I've seen--everything you need to handle energy directed in more than head-on energy.

2)It's an analogy. Aikido shows us how to handle the world...the techniques are analogies.

3)Funny how morality goes out the window? Nice lies George Bush.

Adam Alexander
07-16-2005, 02:53 PM
Well, Hogan, I guess your silence is acknowledgement of the Republicans immorality...yup, funny how morality goes out the window.

Dirk Hanss
07-16-2005, 03:16 PM
Neil and John,
I don't want to be misunderstood. The only point, I agreed, was that one cannot negotiate with (active) terrorists.

That does not mean that I would ever agree upon one country being allowed to attack another country on behalf of the UN, without being authorized.
And it strongly against my idea of fairness, when a country is forced to destroy all weapons going further than 150 km (some 100 miles) and then being attacked with cruise missiles from 1500 km (some 1000 miles) distance.

And to fight someone "out there" as mentionned in the article to prevent them from fighting here is not an argument either. There are innocent civilians in Iraq as well as in the US and Uk and other European countries. Who has the right to impose all the burden of terrorism on them?

I better stop for tonight. Otherwise I would loose again the control on my behaviour and would change to unqualified flame.

Regards Dirk

Hogan
07-17-2005, 12:16 PM
Well, Hogan, I guess your silence is acknowledgement of the Republicans immorality...yup, funny how morality goes out the window.


Sorry - been away from the computer....

My silence about what ? Was there an open question from you to me ? If not, do I have to respond to everytime you mention that Bush has let morality out the window, either in a p.s., or as part of you text ? If so, then let me give you this blanket response - you're nuts....

Neil Mick
07-17-2005, 08:50 PM
And to fight someone "out there" as mentioned in the article to prevent them from fighting here is not an argument either. There are innocent civilians in Iraq as well as in the US and Uk and other European countries. Who has the right to impose all the burden of terrorism on them?

Dirk,

Yes, you've touched upon a good point that I've been meditating on for awhile, but it hasn't really come up as a direct point, yet: this assumption that

"terrorist," MUST = "Islamic," or "Muslim"

I hear that underlying refrain whenever I read about (not here) such nonsense as the "clash of civilizations." You can almost hear the underlying rationale that terror is some internal component of being Islamic (try it: google "clash of civilizations," and see what comes up)..

Big newsflash, for those of us who swallow this assumption: it just isn't so. This isn't about civilizations "clashing:" it's just another day in the life of a big, polluting, energy-hogging, plutocratic superpower, flexing its muscles and falling flat on its face (politically, but not economically) because it's being run by a bunch of greedy ideologues, who seem to have a crucial disconnect between reality, and their ideology. The "other civilization" just so happens to be considered backward, favoring violence (as if the Old Testament were some exhortation to peace), and living atop of all of our oil. Eerie, how similar this degrading of the "other side," is to the cries for war, from the past. Remember how we got the Phillipines, to save "our little brown brothers?"

Let's face it: this isn't a war on terror: it's a war of terror. "Our" side makes deals with terrorists and warlords, drops cluster bombs and dU munitions on civilian populaces, jails thousands without due process, employs mass-starvation as a political tactic, goes on city-to-Iraqi city "operations," with a clear news-block (can you say "collective punishment?" Sure you can) and what defence do you hear, from the other side?

"Well, we aren't cutting heads off!"

Well, hooray for that, I guess. :crazy: Otherwise, I'd REALLY need a score-card to know who were the "good guys." :dead:

Terror is a tactic, used by both sides. It's why the term is so elusive and hard to define. It makes it all so easy to pin terrorism on an ethnicity, and a religion.

Just as, I imagine: it once was to pin a whole set of negative values on a person, by the color of his skin.

makuchg
07-18-2005, 05:52 AM
Having spent a great deal of time in Saudi Arabia, a country often misaligned with terrorism, the nonsense about them hating us is just that-nonsense. I went there with apprehension, but this apprehension was soon swayed by genuine hospitality. I learned much about the nomadic lifestyle of the Arabs and the requirement to aid a traveler (this was necessary in the harsh desert environment). I was greeted with openness and friendliness, although a little apprehension. Over tea, Turkish coffee (that'll wake you up), and traditional Arab foods, I was introduced to their point of view and their anger. Their anger was not toward me but toward what they felt was an unappreciative and forgetful government.

While I was there car bombs were detonated in Riyadh, British and American compounds were attached, and suicide bombers were killing themselves in Israel. What was the reaction in Saudi Arabia? They were generally sorrowful for the destruction and innocent loss of life. Notice I said INNOCENT! There was no sorrow for those who died if they were linked to what the Saudis consider the illegal occupation of Palestine (soldiers, officials, police, etc). The Muslims I have met are not hateful of westerners, but our often one-sided political agenda which seems to favor everyone but Muslims. Saudis resent our involvement in what they consider a dispute between them and Israel. They consider the American government hypocrites because they take from Saudi to give to Israel.

So how do Saudis show their contempt? They donate tens of millions of dollars to charities which support the causes they believe in, like a free Palestine or relief funds for those killed by Israeli troops or U.S. forces in Afghanistan or Iraq. Does this money end up in the hands of terrorists? Yes, some of it is illegally funneled to them, and that is why so many accuse Saudi of cooperating with terrorism. While the Kingdom may have ignored fundamentalist movements within their borders at one time, this is no more. A crackdown on religious fundamentalism and the mullahs (I think I used this word correctly, I've been away from the area awhile now) who preach these hateful messages is being initiated. However Saudis continue to do what they can to help other Muslims, usually financially.

What does all this have to do with this post? Well many are passing judgment on Iraq and their link to terrorism because the government told us it was the "right" thing. This blind obedience is dangerous. Many Americans (95%-my estimate) have no idea what Muslims are really for or what their faith teaches, and most don't even care. They associate the differences in culture with oppression, fundamentalism, and terrorism; often with no more than an imaginary link. Look at the Indians (from India not native Americans) who where attacked following 9-11 because of their head wrap. Ignorance runs rampant in the U.S. How can we expect people like this to form an intelligent opinion about invading a sovereign nation? Thankfully for the Bush administration, you can't.

Hogan
07-18-2005, 09:28 AM
Having spent a great deal of time in Saudi Arabia, a country often misaligned with terrorism, the nonsense about them hating us is just that-nonsense.....

Greg - the Islamic TERRORISTS hate us. I have, as you, met very friendly natives in the ME. But when people refer to them as 'hating us', it is a reference to the TERRORISTS that hate us. This is part of their recruitment and base.

makuchg
07-18-2005, 09:56 AM
My point is many American don't differentiate between terrorist and muslims. Sadly they view one as the other. And I still don't believe terrorists hate us, they hate our actions and our politics. These same individuals didn't hate us when we were funding and training them to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. If the U.S. pulled out of the Middle East and began supporting the Palestinian cause, the views toward America would change by these groups. Of course others would find reasons to hate us. But make no mistake, these terrorists hate our actions not us. Whether they mask their actions in religion or not, they are politically motivated. Recently Bin Laden targeted the Saudi government because they haven't thrown out the Americans from the holy land. Terrorists target for political gain, not ideology (despite the image they try to portray).

Adam Alexander
07-18-2005, 12:45 PM
Sorry - been away from the computer....

My silence about what ? Was there an open question from you to me ? If not, do I have to respond to everytime you mention that Bush has let morality out the window, either in a p.s., or as part of you text ? If so, then let me give you this blanket response - you're nuts....

LOL. Yeah, in a sense, I suppose I'm not quite right on some of this stuff.

I just think it's funny that you were so adament about defending the legality of his actions...but haven't said a word about the morality of it. I figured with the arrogance of 'let's go over this one more time...' you'd atleast offer some sort of ridiculous rationalization for doing the 'wrong' thing--if for no other reason, to not be principally identical to Clinton supporters during the "is" era.

Hogan
07-18-2005, 02:26 PM
LOL. Yeah, in a sense, I suppose I'm not quite right on some of this stuff.

I just think it's funny that you were so adament about defending the legality of his actions...but haven't said a word about the morality of it. I figured with the arrogance of 'let's go over this one more time...' you'd atleast offer some sort of ridiculous rationalization for doing the 'wrong' thing--if for no other reason, to not be principally identical to Clinton supporters during the "is" era.


Ahahaha.... nah' frenchy...... morals are different to everyone. I just guess you and I have different definitions of lying.

Neil Mick
07-18-2005, 04:46 PM
Not to beat a dead horse, but...


4 - Free elections

is offset, by this recent news:

Get Out the Vote (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact)

As the election neared, the Administration repeatedly sought ways—including covert action—to manipulate the outcome and reduce the religious Shiite influence. Not everything went as planned.

Yes, I know what you're going to say..."biased source." But, the Bush Administration has acknowledged that they tried to fix the election.

So, John: no "free" or "fair" elections, after all.

I have to ask again (respectfully): how do you gauge that the US Occupation is winning? After we went through the worst suicide bombings last week: how can you suggest that this is a sign of victory?

Hogan
07-18-2005, 05:03 PM
Not to beat a dead horse, but...



is offset, by this recent news:

Get Out the Vote (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact)



Yes, I know what you're going to say..."biased source." But, the Bush Administration has acknowledged that they tried to fix the election.

So, John: no "free" or "fair" elections, after all.

I have to ask again (respectfully): how do you gauge that the US Occupation is winning? After we went through the worst suicide bombings last week: how can you suggest that this is a sign of victory?


Neil -

The terrorists will increase their attacks when (i) elections near, (ii) the US & Iraq are becoming more effective against then, (iii) when other ways or attacks have failed to do what they want (i.e., they become bigger and dramatic), (iv) their prior behaviour hasn't worked, (v) when they think that public opinion can be swayed by the news. They think they can pull a 'vietnam' - win the war be winning the hearts & minds of the public in america, despite losing militarily. Do you want to be part of thier plan ?

I measure victory not by the number of attacks on the news.

And Neil - why do you think everything must be perfect ? These people have lived under Saddamy and his dictatorship for decades - and they are trying to live in / learn freedom.... Why don't you give them some time ? Is their a time limit for you ? US gives them 2 yrs and if they aren't ready, then we failed and move out ? This will condemn them.

Neil Mick
07-18-2005, 05:49 PM
Neil -

The terrorists will increase their attacks when (i) elections near, (ii) the US & Iraq are becoming more effective against then, (iii) when other ways or attacks have failed to do what they want (i.e., they become bigger and dramatic), (iv) their prior behaviour hasn't worked, (v) when they think that public opinion can be swayed by the news. They think they can pull a 'vietnam' - win the war be winning the hearts & minds of the public in america, despite losing militarily. Do you want to be part of thier plan ?

But, this does not answer my questions: neither the one implied, or the one spoken, outright.

The implied question is that since you earlier called the Occupation a victory, partly due to free elections: how can you suggest that this occurred when we now know that Bush tried to fix the Iraqi elections?

In short: how can you say that Bush does not continually lie, when even his description of the elections is, in itself, a deception?

The outright question is how you measure this as some sort of US victory?

I measure victory not by the number of attacks on the news.

Well, then...how do you measure victory?

And Neil - why do you think everything must be perfect ? These people have lived under Saddamy and his dictatorship for decades - and they are trying to live in / learn freedom.... Why don't you give them some time ?

Fine, I expect some measure of corruption within the Iraqi bureaucracy...but when my President says that the elections are "free and fair:" I expect that to mean that his Admin didn't attempt to slant the results.

I guess I'm kind of silly, that way...expecting a leader's words to convey some measure of what is actually happening, and what he is trying to accomplish.

Is their a time limit for you ? US gives them 2 yrs and if they aren't ready, then we failed and move out ? This will condemn them.

"Mission Accomplished" was hardly that, either.

But if you're asking for my idea of a good time limit to pull out: how about next Thursday? That would give the US diplomats a little time to clear their desks, at least.

I know that you don't believe this, but here goes: the US Army's presence in Iraq is causing the terrorist attacks. The US Army leaves: the attacks go away. You think that those 20+ kids blown up last week would be dead, if the US soldiers weren't there distributing candy? No, the suicide bomber was targeting the soldiers: the kids became "collateral damage;" they weren't the target.

I was listening to the radio when this little tidbit came up:

New Studies Show Fighters in Iraq Radicalized by US Policy This comes as 2 new studies are casting serious doubt on President Bush's claims that the resistance in Iraq is made up of career jihadists who have seized on the opportunity to make Iraq their central front. The two investigations--one by the Saudi Arabian government and the other by an Israeli think tank--have found that the vast majority of foreign fighters in Iraq are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself. Both studies analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States.

You see: the US Occupation, IMO, is causing and generating terrorism, in Iraq. During Hussein's rule there was very little terrorism. The US Occupation brought in a motive and vehicle for terrorism to bloom, and offered up manpower by dismissing the Iraqi Army, after the invasion. The US Army, and US gov't'l policy (not just W: Clinton, Bush 1...the whole lot) does more to recruit Al Qaeda footsoldiers and further its goals than Al Qaeda itself could ever do. Bin Laden acknowledged this, in stating that he was going after America for its bombing Arab cities. Do you think that he'd get anywhere if the US didn't hoist him up so high?

As bin Laden said: why do you think al Qaeda is not attacking Sweden?

makuchg
07-18-2005, 09:23 PM
Neil, I saw this and thought of you:

http://www.4dave.com/files/misc/jokes/11.29.02.htm

Enjoy!!!

Neil Mick
07-18-2005, 11:12 PM
Neil, I saw this and thought of you:

http://www.4dave.com/files/misc/jokes/11.29.02.htm

Enjoy!!!

Too funny.

OK, that was worth a few laughs, lol.

But, why you thought of me, is a little disconcerting. :crazy:

makuchg
07-19-2005, 05:12 AM
Neil I just thought you'd like the ability to speech write for G.W. (oh the other reason-look at your sig block). :)

Adam Alexander
07-19-2005, 12:58 PM
Ahahaha.... nah' frenchy...... morals are different to everyone. I just guess you and I have different definitions of lying.

LOL. That is hillarious...Clinton had a different definition of lying too.

Hogan
07-19-2005, 01:57 PM
LOL. That is hillarious...Clinton had a different definition of lying too.

Yep - he did....

Adam Alexander
07-19-2005, 02:43 PM
Yep - he did....

I just wish all you guys would get together and define it so that the rest of us knew when you were lying,..er, I mean,...whatever.

Hogan
07-19-2005, 04:21 PM
I just wish all you guys would get together and define it so that the rest of us knew when you were lying,..er, I mean,...whatever.

As William Rehnquist said recently, "that's for me to know and you to find out".

Adam Alexander
07-20-2005, 12:52 PM
As William Rehnquist said recently, "that's for me to know and you to find out".

Oh, that's alright. I think I put it together...For folks of that mind (I mean who's definition of lie is questionable to us moral folks) the definition is akin to "whatever the law doesn't state as wrong."

The only thing I don't get about that is, wasn't it wrong before they made the law?...just not criminally illegal?

I'm slow to catch on...but one day...maybe not far off...those of us with some sense of morality will start to vote. Although I'm by no means a Dem (nor to I approve of their agenda), I'm looking forward to their awakening...atleast then, we'll know that we're putting a lyer in the White House--we'll not find out by him sending out people to die and our money to waste.

Neil Mick
07-20-2005, 08:42 PM
But, this does not answer my questions: neither the one implied, or the one spoken, outright.


Ehem..hellooo? ...John?

Neil Mick
07-20-2005, 08:45 PM
Neil I just thought you'd like the ability to speech write for G.W. (oh the other reason-look at your sig block). :)

I imagine it'd be the best job in the world, for me....but, I'd slip in a lot more than fake information about aluminum tubing and yellowcake, lol.

makuchg
07-21-2005, 06:24 AM
Ok, Neil now I know why you were confused and it is becuase I'm an idiot. I received two links and I pasted the wrong one. While the first was funny, this is more for you. I think you'll understand why I though of you for this link (not the other one)!

http://www.4dave.com/files/flash/bushspeech.swf

Hogan
07-21-2005, 08:52 AM
Ehem..hellooo? ...John?

Hello.

You said: "After we went through the worst suicide bombings last week: how can you suggest that this is a sign of victory?"

I said: "The terrorists will increase their attacks when (i) elections near, (ii) the US & Iraq are becoming more effective against then, (iii) when other ways or attacks have failed to do what they want (i.e., they become bigger and dramatic), (iv) their prior behaviour hasn't worked, (v) when they think that public opinion can be swayed by the news. They think they can pull a 'vietnam' - win the war be winning the hearts & minds of the public in america, despite losing militarily. Do you want to be part of thier plan ?"

In other words - yeah, attacks have increased recently. I gave you reasons why. In other words - so what ? Does not mean we are losing. In war, there are more attacks one day, and less others. You may want to interpret that as us 'losing', but I don't. Did you think the US lost the Tet Offensive, too ?

makuchg
07-21-2005, 09:23 AM
They think they can pull a 'vietnam' - win the war be winning the hearts & minds of the public in america, despite losing militarily. Do you want to be part of thier plan ?"

John this statement is misleading. The terrorists are not trying to win the hearts and minds, and neither were the Vietnamese. In Vietnam the American people hated war more than the spread of communism. The protests were a result of our foreign policy, not actions by the Vietnamese to win our hearts and minds.

In the GWOT, the terrorists and not trying to win hearts and minds either. The disdain for terrorism isn't waivering, however American's willingness to allow U.S. service members to die for that cause may be. Also the premise for the war has been shaken. The terrorists had nothing to do with this, it was our foreign policy and politics (again) that made this occur. Terror tactics do the opposite of win hearts and minds, they demoralize and create fear.

How can you even insinuate that terrorists are trying to win hearts and minds to weaken our war cause? :freaky:

Hogan
07-21-2005, 10:23 AM
John this statement is misleading. The terrorists are not trying to win the hearts and minds, and neither were the Vietnamese. In Vietnam the American people hated war more than the spread of communism. The protests were a result of our foreign policy, not actions by the Vietnamese to win our hearts and minds.

In the GWOT, the terrorists and not trying to win hearts and minds either. The disdain for terrorism isn't waivering, however American's willingness to allow U.S. service members to die for that cause may be. Also the premise for the war has been shaken. The terrorists had nothing to do with this, it was our foreign policy and politics (again) that made this occur. Terror tactics do the opposite of win hearts and minds, they demoralize and create fear.

How can you even insinuate that terrorists are trying to win hearts and minds to weaken our war cause? :freaky:


'Hearts and Minds' as in trying to convince the american public the war is lost / a lost cause / losing, etc. Not to convince the americans to come to their 'cause'. This is what I meant, and I think you knew that. The protests were a result of them watching the war on TV nightly. If WWII was on TV, the same protests would have occurred. People don't like to see dead bodies, but sometimes war is unavoidable.

Neil Mick
07-21-2005, 01:59 PM
Does not mean we are losing. In war, there are more attacks one day, and less others. You may want to interpret that as us 'losing', but I don't.

But, you forgot the rest of my question.

What indicators do you use, to suggest that we are winning? You keep suggesting that the US is winning: how do you know this?

This is a different question than "how do you know that we are not losing?"

Did you think the US lost the Tet Offensive, too ?

We lost the Vietnam War...remember?

mj
07-21-2005, 02:08 PM
People don't like to see dead bodies, but sometimes war is unavoidable.
Yeah like if you are attacked..er no wait

if they have WMD....er no hang on

if they were training terrorists...oh damn it hold on

to stop them fighting with each other?

Neil Mick
07-21-2005, 02:13 PM
Yeah like if you are attacked..er no wait

if they have WMD....er no hang on

if they were training terrorists...oh damn it hold on

to stop them fighting with each other?

Um, no. More like: "to fight terrorism that didn't exist before we were there; but now that it is (and is increasing, by factors, monthly), it is "unavoidable" that we must fight, um...to establish a democracy (that our President called "free," but tried to send money, to fix), to provide security while the private, sole-source contractors rebuild (within an atmosphere of corruption), for the grand and hopeful day when, er, the grateful Iraqi's will shower us with flowers and music, within the shadow of our 14, permanent military bases. Jump in, if I missed something, John. ;)

These rationales for this fight being "unavoidable" are getting harder to fathom, by the day, I imagine.... :hypno:

Hogan
07-21-2005, 02:52 PM
..We lost the Vietnam War...remember?

We lost it politically, remember ? We won every major military engagement. We lost it in the public arena / public opinion. That is why the restrictions on the media coverage in wars has been increased since then. I am not defending Vietnam, but you have to know why the war was lost. You want to repeat it in Iraq ?

Hogan
07-21-2005, 02:54 PM
Yeah like if you are attacked..er no wait

if they have WMD....er no hang on

if they were training terrorists...oh damn it hold on

to stop them fighting with each other?

Oh please....

Hogan
07-21-2005, 02:59 PM
Um, no. More like: "to fight terrorism that didn't exist before we were there; but now that it is (and is increasing, by factors, monthly), it is "unavoidable" that we must fight, um...to establish a democracy (that our President called "free," but tried to send money, to fix), to provide security while the private, sole-source contractors rebuild (within an atmosphere of corruption), for the grand and hopeful day when, er, the grateful Iraqi's will shower us with flowers and music, within the shadow of our 14, permanent military bases. Jump in, if I missed something, John. ;)

These rationales for this fight being "unavoidable" are getting harder to fathom, by the day, I imagine.... :hypno:


Oh Neil - time and time again we go over this. The reasonS were given - you don't agree with them, I do. Why do you bother wanting to keep debating ? Really.... Why don't you focus on getting the US to finish, get Iraq back on its feet securely, and gettiung the US out succussfully ? I get the feeling you just want to get out to hurt the US, no matter what it does to Iraq. Do you really want to see Bush hurt that badly ? Focus on the end result. What is the end result to you want to happen ? How do you think we should go about it ? If it is immediate pull-out of US and allied troops, what will happen to the Iraqiis ? Do you care ?? You can't change what happened. (And please don't start with, "Oh, well what has the invasion done to Iraq? The Iraqiis were better off with Saddam, etc...").

Neil Mick
07-21-2005, 03:45 PM
We lost it politically, remember ? We won every major military engagement. We lost it in the public arena / public opinion. That is why the restrictions on the media coverage in wars has been increased since then. I am not defending Vietnam, but you have to know why the war was lost. You want to repeat it in Iraq ?

To put it in the words of Robert McNamera, we lost the war because we misjudged the nature and history of Vietnam. We lost the war because we thought it was a war against communism, when it was actually a war for national liberation.

You might suggest that we lost the war solely because of the media, but you'd be oversimplifying the issue.

Oh Neil - time and time again we go over this. The reasonS were given - you don't agree with them, I do.


I am putting the question in a different perspective. I can certainly answer why I think we are not winning, and how I know that we are losing. Why can't you?

Why do you bother wanting to keep debating ? Really.... Why don't you focus on getting the US to finish, get Iraq back on its feet securely, and gettiung the US out succussfully?

Because, nothing so far suggests that our gov't wants any of these goals. We are establishing permanent military bases, so we really don't ever want to leave. You know how touchy the military (and Con's) get about foreign military de-commissions. And I'm sorry: but if we truly wanted Iraq to get back, we'd have offered Iraqi reconstruction to Iraqi companies, first. This war is a thinly disguised cash cow, for Halliburton, et al.

I get the feeling you just want to get out to hurt the US, no matter what it does to Iraq.

The US IS hurting; HAS BEEN hurting, since this folly began.

Do you really want to see Bush hurt that badly?

If you study the results of Bush's endeavors in the past, you'd accept that a safe and secure Iraq (or the US) is not in his interest. His programs in Texas have largely failed.

Focus on the end result.

A good question. What do you see, as the end-result? For me, all I see is a rough, puppet-gov't (where all ministers have to report to a US rep, before they can do any actions); an "Asst Minister" Axhmad Chalabi who seems to be very active in the current gov't, who alternately was a Pentagon source, an Iranian plant, a NYT leak, and a criminal wanted for embezzling; military bases permanently planted to further our plan for "full spectrum dominance," as well as control the flow of oil.

In other words, I see the same-old, same-old Cold-War expansionist idea transplanted into the 21st, wherein I have no doubt that it will succeed in securing world peace about as well as it did, in the 20th C.

Alternately, I see (AM seeing) a colossal miscalculation where Bush, at every step of the way, misjudged the consequences of his actions, yet those consequences were all but spelled out in the sky for him. I see an Iraq increasingly sliding closer to the Iranian mullah's where the US, in fear for its precious oil/military security, goes, once again, to war against Iran or Iraq, within the next five years.

Hooray for our side, huh? :rolleyes:

What is the end result to you want to happen?

After starving, bombing, dropping radiation and (finally) occupying a ppl for 13+ years: the best result I can envision is a full and impartial hearing of all US leaders involved, full reconstruction money, oil and responsibilities returned to the Iraqi's, and a full withdrawal of US forces. God, wouldn't THAT be a day?

Pouring good money and lives after a bad idea, on the other hand, is what is going on today.

How do you think we should go about it?

Follow international law; withdraw immediately.

If it is immediate pull-out of US and allied troops, what will happen to the Iraqiis?

Lives will be lost; ppl will be disrupted.

But what is happening today? Lives are lost; ppl's order is disrupted.

Do you care??

Well, duh.

You can't change what happened.

No, but I can fight illegality and defend the Constitution, as best I can. I can vote with my feet, participate in rallies, write my Congressmen, and never let ppl forget that (for good or ill) we are causing lives to be lost, by this extended occupation.

Hogan
07-21-2005, 05:00 PM
To put it in the words of Robert McNamera, we lost the war because we misjudged the nature and history of Vietnam. We lost the war because we thought it was a war against communism, when it was actually a war for national liberation.

You might suggest that we lost the war solely because of the media, but you'd be oversimplifying the issue.


Like I said, I won't debate Vietnam, but the main reason we 'lost' is because we lost public supprt and opinion.

I am putting the question in a different perspective. I can certainly answer why I think we are not winning, and how I know that we are losing. Why can't you?
You think we are losing because of increased attacks and becase some people are having a tough time and because you refuse to believe any good came out of this ? One can't debate someone like that - your opinion will never chg.

Because, nothing so far suggests that our gov't wants any of these goals. We are establishing permanent military bases, so we really don't ever want to leave. You know how touchy the military (and Con's) get about foreign military de-commissions. And I'm sorry: but if we truly wanted Iraq to get back, we'd have offered Iraqi reconstruction to Iraqi companies, first. This war is a thinly disguised cash cow, for Halliburton, et al.
I highly doubt we are going to have PERMANENT bases in Iraq in the long term. And firstly, although some I am sure can NOW, the Iraqi cos. would NOT have been able to handle reconstruction to the extent you would have liked. It would take longer, be more inefficient, etc., simply due to the fact that they have lived under Saddam all these yrs.

A good question. What do you see, as the end-result? For me, all I see is a rough, puppet-gov't (where all ministers have to report to a US rep, before they can do any actions); an "Asst Minister" Axhmad Chalabi who seems to be very active in the current gov't, who alternately was a Pentagon source, an Iranian plant, a NYT leak, and a criminal wanted for embezzling; military bases permanently planted to further our plan for "full spectrum dominance," as well as control the flow of oil.

In other words, I see the same-old, same-old Cold-War expansionist idea transplanted into the 21st, wherein I have no doubt that it will succeed in securing world peace about as well as it did, in the 20th C.

Alternately, I see (AM seeing) a colossal miscalculation where Bush, at every step of the way, misjudged the consequences of his actions, yet those consequences were all but spelled out in the sky for him. I see an Iraq increasingly sliding closer to the Iranian mullah's where the US, in fear for its precious oil/military security, goes, once again, to war against Iran or Iraq, within the next five years.

Hooray for our side, huh? :rolleyes:
I see no hope in your answer. What about hope that the seeds of democracy some way may have been planted ? That elections are going through that area like wildfire (although not perfect elections, granted, but it'll take time...) (an 'wildfire' as in compared to the areas history...) ? What about hoping that freely elected countries in the region can MAYBE reduce the risk of conflict there ?

Huh ?? Maybe ????



After starving, bombing, dropping radiation and (finally) occupying a ppl for 13+ years: the best result I can envision is a full and impartial hearing of all US leaders involved, full reconstruction money, oil and responsibilities returned to the Iraqi's, and a full withdrawal of US forces. God, wouldn't THAT be a day?

Pouring good money and lives after a bad idea, on the other hand, is what is going on today.
You must believe, of course, in the Easter Bunny ?


No, but I can fight illegality and defend the Constitution, as best I can. I can vote with my feet, participate in rallies, write my Congressmen, and never let ppl forget that (for good or ill) we are causing lives to be lost, by this extended occupation.

Well, god speed John Glenn....

makuchg
07-21-2005, 06:51 PM
'Hearts and Minds' as in trying to convince the american public the war is lost / a lost cause / losing, etc. Not to convince the americans to come to their 'cause'. This is what I meant, and I think you knew that. The protests were a result of them watching the war on TV nightly. If WWII was on TV, the same protests would have occurred. People don't like to see dead bodies, but sometimes war is unavoidable.

John there is a HUGE difference between breaking someone's will to fight or support the fight and winning their hearts and minds. I try not to assume what some one meant, just what they said.

I agree they are using terrorism to break the american spirit and our will to continue this campaign. Of course if you look at the other side, the insurgents can be viewed as freedom fighters because we invaded a sovereign nation. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

You are right, Americans don't like seeing dead bodies, but they will tolerate this necessity if they believe it is advancing a noble cause or effort. WWII was just that, a noble cause. When GWOT began it was viewed that way also and America tolerated the death in Afghanistan and Iraq. As the misrepresentation of facts and information spread the American will weakened also.

Neil Mick
07-22-2005, 12:38 AM
I am putting the question in a different perspective. I can certainly answer why I think we are not winning, and how I know that we are losing. Why can't you?


You think we are losing because of increased attacks and becase some people are having a tough time and because you refuse to believe any good came out of this ? One can't debate someone like that - your opinion will never chg.

John: You seem to have this bad habit of "filling in the blanks" of another's reasoning, while leaving out significant chunks of your own.

So, let me fill in a few of your assumptions, here:

1. I know, not think, that we are losing for a bunch of reasons. And, I also think that your mentioning Vietnam is apropos because we are engaging in a similar type of folly. Many ppl are fooled into thinking that this is some kind of continuation of the "war on terror" (even tho, you and others are hard-put to explain exactly how).

Many insurgents (in fact, the majority, according to the latest polls) are fighting for their liberation, from the occupiers.

Our inability to understand the latter is what will cause us to ultimately fail.

2. Some ppl are not having a tough time: it's spread all over the country. As I pointed out, your facts and figures about all of the great strides we are making are misleading, at best.

Iraq is in terrible shape, and it's not just the antiwar movement that is saying it. Military, intelligence, legal and humanitarian experts are are coming forward. Sure, there is disagreement (where isn't there disagreement, except in global warming), but the polly-anna statements about 10,000 medical kits sound pretty hollow, when you hear about outbreaks of typhus and cholera (due to unclean water), a 600-900% increase of leukemia and cancers (can you say dU?), and a nationwide shortage of electricity, water, and medical supplies for hospitals to run properly.

I didn't hear this from "a few ppl:" I hear about it, almost daily, from a widening body of sources. The US can try to shut up the news, but it has a tendency to leak out.

3. This part is most important, so I'll bold it--online debate is not about "changing minds:" it's about seeking understanding.


I highly doubt we are going to have PERMANENT bases in Iraq in the long term. And firstly, although some I am sure can NOW, the Iraqi cos. would NOT have been able to handle reconstruction to the extent you would have liked. It would take longer, be more inefficient, etc., simply due to the fact that they have lived under Saddam all these yrs.

Well, considering that we've accomplished squat in getting the electricity and clean water running (after 3 years), and considering that the Iraqi's could have accomplished what we didn't do without suicide bombers plaguing them, daily: let's just agree, to disagree.


A good question. What do you see, as the end-result? For me, all I see is a rough, puppet-gov't (where all ministers have to report to a US rep, before they can do any actions); an "Asst Minister" Axhmad Chalabi who seems to be very active in the current gov't, who alternately was a Pentagon source, an Iranian plant, a NYT leak, and a criminal wanted for embezzling; military bases permanently planted to further our plan for "full spectrum dominance," as well as control the flow of oil.

In other words, I see the same-old, same-old Cold-War expansionist idea transplanted into the 21st, wherein I have no doubt that it will succeed in securing world peace about as well as it did, in the 20th C.

Alternately, I see (AM seeing) a colossal miscalculation where Bush, at every step of the way, misjudged the consequences of his actions, yet those consequences were all but spelled out in the sky for him. I see an Iraq increasingly sliding closer to the Iranian mullah's where the US, in fear for its precious oil/military security, goes, once again, to war against Iran or Iraq, within the next five years.

Hooray for our side, huh?


I see no hope in your answer. What about hope that the seeds of democracy some way may have been planted? That elections are going through that area like wildfire (although not perfect elections, granted, but it'll take time...)

If you believe that this is in some way related to the Iraqi elections, I have some more dU land, to sell. The Palestinian elections were a regular event, not their first. The Lebanese elections were hardly a mandate for US-style democracy, and the Iraqi election was a corrupt, bloody affair that solved very little. Ppl voted as they were told, casting their ballots for a generic list that meant very little.

Did you cheer when Hussein got 99% of the vote, too?

What about hoping that freely elected countries in the region can MAYBE reduce the risk of conflict there ?

Huh ?? Maybe ????

Yeah, maybe. And, maybe: we can keep repeating the same murderous, self-centered policy over and over, in the hope that, this time: we'll "get it right."

YOU might call that "being hopeful:" OTHERS call expecting a different result from the same, repeated violent action "insanity."

You cannot spread democracy at the point of a gun: it doesn't work.


No, but I can fight illegality and defend the Constitution, as best I can. I can vote with my feet, participate in rallies, write my Congressmen, and never let ppl forget that (for good or ill) we are causing lives to be lost, by this extended occupation.

Well, god speed John Glenn....

Nope, just doing what any other typical American patriot is doing...defending the Constitution, in my own, unique style.

Hogan
07-22-2005, 01:20 PM
John there is a HUGE difference between breaking someone's will to fight or support the fight and winning their hearts and minds. I try not to assume what some one meant, just what they said.
Then my mistake....

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Terrorists target civilians, ON PURPOSE. There may be people who equate this with fighting for freedom, but I don't. If you are fighting for freedom, then you are fighting against an entity other than civilians (because the civilians didn;t take away your freedom). If the terrorists are fighting for "freedom" (ahaah... I know, I know.... funny concept), then they should not be targeting civilians but military or governments of their enemies.

You are right, Americans don't like seeing dead bodies, but they will tolerate this necessity if they believe it is advancing a noble cause or effort. WWII was just that, a noble cause.
There wasn't many options available to see dead bodies as there is today in combat. If there was today's media then, we would've been in trouble.

Hogan
07-22-2005, 01:27 PM
...Nope, just doing what any other typical American patriot is doing...defending the Constitution, in my own, unique style.


Ahahaha...

If you really want to be a patriot, donate here:

http://www.operationiraqichildren.org/Mission.asp

Adam Alexander
07-22-2005, 02:43 PM
Ahahaha...

If you really want to be a patriot, donate here:

http://www.operationiraqichildren.org/Mission.asp


That's retarded. He didn't say Iraqi patriot.

Here, John, you can be a patriot by donating here...

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage


John, nice demonstration of new-speak...so now, to be a U.S. patriot, we're not only required to support a war the U.S. was lied into, NOT question the snake who lied us into war, PAY the tax to fund the war, donate the casualties to fight the war and, even better than all of that, finance this war with the tax money of our children...but in addition to all that:) :) :) you're saying that it's also patriotic to, again, in addition to the taxes to fund Bush's war, pay MORE to help the kids.

Tell you what John, write Bush a letter and tell him to save four or five missiles for a few million...that should buy the school supplies.

Neil Mick
07-22-2005, 03:50 PM
John, nice demonstration of new-speak...so now, to be a U.S. patriot, we're not only required to support a war the U.S. was lied into, NOT question the snake who lied us into war, PAY the tax to fund the war, donate the casualties to fight the war and, even better than all of that, finance this war with the tax money of our children...but in addition to all that:) :) :) you're saying that it's also patriotic to, again, in addition to the taxes to fund Bush's war, pay MORE to help the kids.

Tell you what John, write Bush a letter and tell him to save four or five missiles for a few million...that should buy the school supplies.

Yes, well-said. And, don't forget, we should be good little patriots by not thinking about the costs of money, life and limb this war has caused us (I recently heard a report~unverified as yet, as I only caught the tail end of it~that US casualties are actually TWICE that of the official US Army counts.

But who cares, right John? Any thought given to the costs of this war is clearly unpatriotic, a clear assault on American morale).

Yes, let's all be good little goose-stepping patriots by supporting No Child Left with Funds, drilling in the fragile ANWR for National Security, and the UnClean Skies Initiative. It's ALL for National Security, after all.

Hooray for OUR side! My Country, Right or Wrong!! :hypno: :hypno: :hypno: :hypno:

P.S. You ignore a whole post full of thoughts, in your rush to lampoon the last line...tsk. You can do better.

makuchg
07-22-2005, 10:45 PM
Then my mistake....


Terrorists target civilians, ON PURPOSE. There may be people who equate this with fighting for freedom, but I don't. If you are fighting for freedom, then you are fighting against an entity other than civilians (because the civilians didn;t take away your freedom). If the terrorists are fighting for "freedom" (ahaah... I know, I know.... funny concept), then they should not be targeting civilians but military or governments of their enemies.


There wasn't many options available to see dead bodies as there is today in combat. If there was today's media then, we would've been in trouble.

How many military targets did we look for in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Sometimes targeting civilians is a legitimate military objective. Please don't think I'm agreeing with terrorists, but who is innocent is a matter of perspective. The terrorists don't view our citizens as innocent. We viewed the loss of civilian life in Nagasaki and Hiroshima as necessary to advance our cause, they feel the same way when they attack our civilians.

Dirk Hanss
07-23-2005, 06:40 AM
How many military targets did we look for in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Sometimes targeting civilians is a legitimate military objective.

Gregory, I do NOT agree!!!!
There is no excuse for attacking civilians on purpose and bombing whole cities or housing areas like in Japan and Germany is disgusting. The criminal actions, Germans and Japanese did during WWII might be a reason but no excuse.

But the question is where to find the border line. If you aim for military target, but as you cannot hit it directly, you know you kill 10 civilians for one combattant or thousands for one missile launch base, in which circumstances is that OK?
When does collateral damage end and attacking civilians on purpose begin?

I am not a military expert, but I guess attacking civilians is mostly done because:

it is easier or cheaper.
It is one of a few things one can target on
One is totally desperate

I know the reasons are overlapping. And they are the same, regardless wether they are done by ordinary military force, terrorists, liberation "armies" or regime supporting intelligence services however you call them.

And now think about other posts in "Aikido vs. anything else", when our fellows argue:
"in real fight, I would grap his jewels, go for the eyes, bite or would do anything I can do.." Somehow it sounds very similar, doesn't it?
O yes, I would do the same, If I am cinvinced that it is rectified, for example as the only way to save my life.
But the thoughts were the same, when I had my last great Karate competition. No I did not try to hurt someone on purpose. But I tried anything, more and more uncontrolled techniques to get at least one or two pioints, knowing that the chance for injuries grew dramatically. Realizing that - afterwards - was one - and a very important reason for me to stop Karate training or any martial art competition.

So we all agree upon the terrorists being the bad ones. But how can we find out how the good ones should behave, and when they loose (lost) their path and turned bad as well?

Regards Dirk

makuchg
07-23-2005, 08:37 AM
Gregory, I do NOT agree!!!!
There is no excuse for attacking civilians on purpose and bombing whole cities or housing areas like in Japan and Germany is disgusting. The criminal actions, Germans and Japanese did during WWII might be a reason but no excuse.

Dirk

Dirk, I'm a afraid you took my comments out of context. I was in no way justifying the attack on civilians. I was trying to point out to John how the tactics terrorists use may not seem so different from our own if you change your perspective. I'm not condoning the targeting of civilians by either side. Look at the American Civil War, some of the most respected generals in American History targeted civilians and civilian targets.

What I do agree is that targeting legitimate military targets may result in collateral damage and civilian casualties, which is terrible but sometimes unavoidable. Can civilians ever be viewed as legitimate military targets, YES! Whether we like it or not the strength of a people and their will to fight can often affects the outcomes of battles. As such, affecting the civilians is crucial. In past years, this was accomplished by destruction. Vietnam actually changed that with the "win the hearts and minds" attempts. This was really the first time the U.S. tried to influence an entire population in a positive fashion. Today we continue this practice but terrorist continue to use old tactics to alter people's mindset.

Hogan
07-23-2005, 03:09 PM
That's retarded. He didn't say Iraqi patriot.

Here, John, you can be a patriot by donating here...

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage


John, nice demonstration of new-speak...so now, to be a U.S. patriot, we're not only required to support a war the U.S. was lied into, NOT question the snake who lied us into war, PAY the tax to fund the war, donate the casualties to fight the war and, even better than all of that, finance this war with the tax money of our children...but in addition to all that:) :) :) you're saying that it's also patriotic to, again, in addition to the taxes to fund Bush's war, pay MORE to help the kids.

Tell you what John, write Bush a letter and tell him to save four or five missiles for a few million...that should buy the school supplies.

No, you miss the point.... again. If he is an merican patriot, then he feels as american patriots do - helping the unfortunate. Saddam did squate for his own children and country, so the americans come in and help with the schools, 'cuz who else would ? Certainly not the UN, or the French, or the Germans - they were busy counting their oil for food money reaped from the dictator busy killing his own people and making them suffer instead of using said money to help them like he was supposed to.

But you go ahead and criticise a charity created to help children and schools destroyed by a dictator....

Hogan
07-23-2005, 03:11 PM
How many military targets did we look for in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Sometimes targeting civilians is a legitimate military objective. Please don't think I'm agreeing with terrorists, but who is innocent is a matter of perspective. The terrorists don't view our citizens as innocent. We viewed the loss of civilian life in Nagasaki and Hiroshima as necessary to advance our cause, they feel the same way when they attack our civilians.


Come into the present time. Talking of TERRORISTS NOW. Who do they target ON PURPOSE ?

Please don't even dare to compare the actions of the allies in WWII to the terrorists. Don't make excuses for them. If you don't see a difference, or that they're wrong, then there is no hope for you.

Hogan
07-23-2005, 03:15 PM
Yes, well-said. And, don't forget, we should be good little patriots by not thinking about the costs of money, life and limb this war has caused us (I recently heard a report~unverified as yet, as I only caught the tail end of it~that US casualties are actually TWICE that of the official US Army counts.

But who cares, right John? Any thought given to the costs of this war is clearly unpatriotic, a clear assault on American morale).

Yes, let's all be good little goose-stepping patriots by supporting No Child Left with Funds, drilling in the fragile ANWR for National Security, and the UnClean Skies Initiative. It's ALL for National Security, after all.

Hooray for OUR side! My Country, Right or Wrong!! :hypno: :hypno: :hypno: :hypno:

P.S. You ignore a whole post full of thoughts, in your rush to lampoon the last line...tsk. You can do better.

Neil - you ignore boatloads as well, give it up. But you keep on comparing America with Naziis ang goostepping....and trying to link nazi actions to Bush's domestic agenda.... You're reaching, buddy.

Neil Mick
07-23-2005, 05:55 PM
Neil - you ignore boatloads as well, give it up.

I thought that "well, HE does it, TOO." went out as a viable defence in the 2nd grade. Please. This isn't a contest.

And, if you feel that I skip something that you wanted me to address, simply repeat your question. Simple as that.

Neil Mick
07-23-2005, 06:05 PM
If he is an merican patriot, then he feels as american patriots do - helping the unfortunate. Saddam did squate for his own children and country, so the americans come in and help with the schools, 'cuz who else would ?

Yes, all those long years of starving and slowly killing children during the Sanctions must get SO boring, after awhile.

It's a wonder all of the true-blue American patriots didn't step up to the plate, sooner (or perhaps, maybe not). Maybe we were too busy rooting Our Man In Iraq (http://unquietmind.com/tburger/tb120-129/rumsfeld_hussein.jpg) on.


Certainly not the UN, or the French, or the Germans - they were busy counting their oil for food money reaped from the dictator busy killing his own people and making them suffer instead of using said money to help them like he was supposed to.

Oh stop. This willful ignorance of reality is getting too much.

Quick Quiz: what member nation in the UN Security Council knew of, and allowed, all of the oil for food scandals to proceed, even while the Secty-General's office issued 6 complaints about improprieties, while it was going on?

Hint: Begins with a "U:" second letter "S"....

If you want to cap on other nations and the UN (falsely, I might add. Flawed tho it is, the UN does a lot of good with schooling and 3rd World healthcare (compare it to W's non-promises of aid to Africa, or his assault on the poor by gagging healthcare facilities that even mention abortion)), at least be honest.

This "US good; UN bad" makes for passable science fiction, but it wilts in the face of reality.

makuchg
07-23-2005, 09:21 PM
Come into the present time. Talking of TERRORISTS NOW. Who do they target ON PURPOSE ?

Please don't even dare to compare the actions of the allies in WWII to the terrorists. Don't make excuses for them. If you don't see a difference, or that they're wrong, then there is no hope for you.

John your tone is bordering on disrespectful. While I've tried to maintain this on a civilized level, your language is bringing this discussion to a lower one.

Please don't believe that understanding how someone thinks is accepting or excusing. One of the biggest reasons the U.S. has failed in EVERY Middle East peace policy is the fail to understand how the other side thinks. To try and make foreign policy without understanding is foolish. To try and make war without understanding the enemy is even more foolish. Sun Tzu knew this and effective leaders know this.

Now if you could please rephrase your question "who do they target on purpose?" I'll be happy to answer, or at least try to. I don't know who you mean by "they." Are you referring to the terrorists or the U.S.?

aikigirl10
07-23-2005, 10:20 PM
LMAO i just got done reading this thread. It really sounds like a lost cause to me. No ones ever going to change the other persons opinion. Sry, i just had to butt in . You guys can tear my head off now if you want. lol

(thoroughly amused)
-paige

Neil Mick
07-23-2005, 10:55 PM
LMAO i just got done reading this thread. It really sounds like a lost cause to me. No ones ever going to change the other persons opinion. Sry, i just had to butt in . You guys can tear my head off now if you want. lol

(thoroughly amused)
-paige

Glad you're amused, Paige. Welcome.

Ahem: Once more, with feeling:

--online debate is not about "changing minds:" it's about seeking understanding. ;)

Neil Mick
07-24-2005, 06:20 PM
Oh, and one more thing:

Ahahaha...

If you really want to be a patriot, donate here:

http://www.operationiraqichildren.org/Mission.asp

Thanks, but the idea of shelling up a few bucks to pay for a few "medical supply kits" while an illegal and brutal occupation is ongoing and Iraqi hospitals are failing due to a lack of supplies, seems to me to be a grand gesture of absurdity. But hey: if it makes you sing the Star Spangled Banner...well, it takes all kinds.

P.S. What is Gary Sinise doing in a military uniform??

and

Ok, Neil now I know why you were confused and it is becuase I'm an idiot. I received two links and I pasted the wrong one. While the first was funny, this is more for you. I think you'll understand why I though of you for this link (not the other one)!

http://www.4dave.com/files/flash/bushspeech.swf

Actually, my fave anti-Bush e-toy is the Dishonest Dubya Action Figure! (http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/dishonestdubya/)

Make him say something stupid, and have him choke on a pretzel, at the same time. :D

Adam Alexander
07-24-2005, 06:37 PM
No, you miss the point.... again. If he is an merican patriot, then .....

Then he needs John Hogan's latest copy of the New-Speak Dictionary. Available at Border's courtesy of the Conservative (which, you'll need to consult your new dictionary for this term to...because, at one time the conservative ideal had nothing to do with imperialism.) Right...er, Wrong...depending on your other copy of the New-Speak Dictionary...but don't worry if you can't get up there to pick up the new one...the definitions will change as needed.

Hogan
07-25-2005, 08:05 AM
I thought that "well, HE does it, TOO." went out as a viable defence in the 2nd grade. Please. This isn't a contest.

And, if you feel that I skip something that you wanted me to address, simply repeat your question. Simple as that.

N'ah.... I don't really care.

Hogan
07-25-2005, 08:09 AM
John your tone is bordering on disrespectful. While I've tried to maintain this on a civilized level, your language is bringing this discussion to a lower one.

Please don't believe that understanding how someone thinks is accepting or excusing. One of the biggest reasons the U.S. has failed in EVERY Middle East peace policy is the fail to understand how the other side thinks. To try and make foreign policy without understanding is foolish. To try and make war without understanding the enemy is even more foolish. Sun Tzu knew this and effective leaders know this.

Now if you could please rephrase your question "who do they target on purpose?" I'll be happy to answer, or at least try to. I don't know who you mean by "they." Are you referring to the terrorists or the U.S.?


Greg - there is a right and there is a wrong. Doesn't really matter how / why the terrorists think it's ok to kill women and children and innocents ON PURPOSE, thinking it will make a point and think it is in the name of some god. We do understand them - they kill in the name of god and want to establish an islamic dream land; that's all - ain't gonna' happen...

Hogan
07-25-2005, 08:10 AM
...Now if you could please rephrase your question "who do they target on purpose?" I'll be happy to answer, or at least try to. I don't know who you mean by "they." Are you referring to the terrorists or the U.S.?

Take a guess.... and your answer will speak volumes about you....

Hogan
07-25-2005, 08:12 AM
LMAO i just got done reading this thread. It really sounds like a lost cause to me. No ones ever going to change the other persons opinion. Sry, i just had to butt in . You guys can tear my head off now if you want. lol

(thoroughly amused)
-paige


Isn't this fun ?? I tried to get that across to Neil, that it 'doesn't matter and will change no ones' opinion", but he continues,...