Karma and Bush, and also the WTC
Pages
| Author | Topic: Karma and Bush, and also the WTC |
|---|---|
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, May 30 2005 20:11
Profile
Homepage
I find your unthinking blanket opposition to genocide disturbing. When conducted in a sympathetic manner, government-mediated mass killing is one of the most fast-acting, efficient and humane forms of population control. After all, people can't just expect to keep breeding forever without consequences, and being shot in the head sure beats starving to death. [ Monday, May 30, 2005 20:12: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4590
|
written Monday, May 30 2005 20:12
Profile
quote:That's not the point, though, there's nothing illegal about it. And even in theory, there's nothing you can do about it, because even if they represent the people exactly, the people can still think whatever crazy things they want to, and some people will always not voice their oppinions. Also, people are in general, not knowledgable enough about most topics to be able to make a decision, for example, if someone wants to make a freeway through a certian area, you can't expect the public to understand how things like earthquake hazards or flooding or every other issue in the area affect it. Where, in theory, politicians can hire teams of scientists to report on these kinds of things, and the politician can make an informed decision (no matter how hard you try, you can't inform all, or even most, of the people about issues). quote:True. And that's why there need to be serious precautions against those kind of things happening. And it's why things like tear gas are only supposed to be used as a last resort, when people are getting violent and could start to cause deaths anyway. quote:Well, they won't be for long, will they? :) quote:The US has plenty of trains, thank you. We use trucks more because we are much bigger than places like Japan, and we can't afford to have rail roads going everywhere like that. Not to mention, the enviornmentalists would never let us make that many tracks through through forests and mountians! Moving on to the next person, quote:Yes, I mentioned not too long ago that I'm a republican, and atheist. So I'm mostly conservative, but not about everything. quote:Yes, I was purely speaking theoretically :P . If it can reasonably happen, or is affordable, thankfuly, is not the topic of this, uhh, topic. But yeah, things don't work perfectly, and that's why we end up with things not working out to make sense all the time. And smoked salmon is awesome, it's one of my favorite things to eat. -------------------- I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation. - George Bernard Shaw Posts: 103 | Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4590
|
written Monday, May 30 2005 20:19
Profile
quote:As I mentioned before, Clinton did attack them. The UN agreed then, and nothing had gotten better by the time Bush was in office (mainly, because lobbing a few cruise missiles doesn't have much of an affect when you have learned to burry your stuff under the sand!) The UN, as far as I can tell, went completely insane as soon as Bush went in office, and plenty of times have refused continue to do for Bush what they did for Clinton. I find this fairly disturbing. quote:I remember him mentioning it plenty of times, but that may have been because I knew about it in advance, so he didn't have to more than mention it in passing for me to know what he was refering to. quote:I will remember this the next time I am hungry. -------------------- I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation. - George Bernard Shaw Posts: 103 | Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, May 30 2005 20:23
Profile
Homepage
quote:That's funny, because I knew about it, too, and I don't remember him mentioning it more than once or twice. But given the amount of time that he spent on justifying the Iraq War, if he merely mentioned the only legal justification "in passing," I think that may be evidence of a problem in itself. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, May 30 2005 20:31
Profile
Homepage
Your shouting is irritating. If you want to retort extra-well against something, respond to it in a clever way. Furthermore, your prevalence of sequential exclamation points is profoundly degrading to the points you're trying to make!!!!!! By the way, I find the fact that you have an avowed fascist in your signature amusing. "International law, that Saddam personally agreed to said he was required to let them search! What's so hard to underestand about this? And YES, if the UN comes over here and says something like "we have evidance you're developing biological weapons" then, YES, we have to let them search, and if they don't, YES, it would be a breach of international law, and YES they can attack us for it!" Mu. Well, okay. Maybe that's TOO esoteric of a response. What I'm saying is that the law ain't going to always be correct, but Saddam followed the spirit of it anyway. I would like to think that among the two commands of "destroy your gas" and "let us see if you destroyed your gas," the former is more imperative. Saddam removed the need for inspectors by destroying the nukes. If I jaywalk to gun down an innocent bystander, I won't be arrested for the jaywalking. "Again, what the hell? Did you read what I said?" Yeah. Do you understand its consequences? (And BTW, it doesn't help that its wording is incredibly vague.) "Let me say it again: they can BASE their decisions on whatever ideology they want, they can't FORCE you to follow one." Like I said! Making us kneel on mats facing a specific direction is something Abdullah Walker Mohammad can make us do within the law, insomuch as he can't force us to specifically utter praise for Mohammed. "You can complain all you want about him believing in God, and basing decisions on religious thoughts, but that is not illegal! Find me one law that says it is!" So? "He cannot say "you have to believe the same thing I do," he can't institute "national pray to Jesus day" and he hasn't done anything like that!" Right. He just makes us follow all of Jesus'® tenets soely on the basis that they are His™. "He can base decisions and policies on Star Trek if he wants to, as long as he doesn't require all Americans to watch it at 9:00 every night!" But if he can only base his forcing-us-to-wear-jumpsuits legislation with the hyper-coolness of Mr. Spock, then he lets religion control legislation and therefore curbs freedom! "Democracys are not inherently good, that question doesn't make sense. Any democracy can be made bad, by definition of a democracy!" So then why is it a valid moral measuring stick? This isn't a debate about legality- if it was, we could conveniently crack open our blue books and find all of the answers. "WFT? "Barely killed?!" You try telling that to someone who lost a loved one and see if you are still physically cabable of making an argument against it after that!" Why don't you go to Iraq and try the same thing? For the sake of 3,000 people, we killed well over 20,000. (And that is a very conservative- in multiple definitions of the word- estimate.) Unless you assume that an American person's death is worth over six Iraqi persons' deaths, then the war was not a reciprocal action. "That doesn't mean anything!!!!!!!! That's totally insane!!" OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "That's like saying that in World War 2, there were 61 million casualties, but not nearly that many were killed by Germans!" See, the Axis powers also attacked us first. (And before you say it, I don't want to HEAR any patented misfactuality about Iraq and Al Qaeda, who are sworn enemies.) See, the Axis powers killed what makes Saddam's punishments look like a pittance. See, Saddam's favorite method of killing (air-gassing) was never feasible before the war because he couldn't fly there. See, the majority of people who died in Iraq did so due to UN food sanctions. There are a few differences. "That is INSANE!!" WOW!!!!!!!! "You want to try to get moral on us? What matters here is that every weak in Iraq, they uncover another mass grave with hundreds of men, women, and CHILDREN, who were tied up and shot in the head!!" Then please, justify making more of these on our behalf. "Yes, call me crazy, but I don't have a problem with some army guys being killed to save CHILDREN FROM BEING SHOT IN THE HEAD!!! In fact, of all the things a soldier could die from, I think the best is to stop children from being killed! If I had to die, but a few hundred children wouldn't have their parents executed in front of them and tossed into a hole full of bodies before being shot and thrown in themselves, I would feel pretty damned good about it being me dying!!" ROAR!!!!! BTW, my civilian count is only civilians, not army officials. In fact, "coalition" (ie. Britain + America, now that Japan and Spain have left) casualties are minimal. What you are saying, on the other hand, is that it's okay for women and children to be shot in the head (or maybe just blown up) to prevent women and children from being shot in the head. I like your logic, Mr. Goebbels. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Monday, May 30 2005 20:38
Profile
Homepage
quote:Why should people not be allowed to breed forever? The people of the US certainly seem to have that right as do those in Canada or Australia. Perhaps ending ones life seems humane under certain circumstances. But who's to pull the trigger? Are those who have wealth to decide what happens to those without. Maybe those that are starving need only shot the wealthy and take their resources so as to live longer. There are always mitigating circumstances which lead to poverty overpopulation and so on. Such circumstances are what must be addressed. People are not the problem. They are but a product of the problem. Mexico city is severely short on water therefore should we simply thin the population. Perhaps that may work. But no more than placing a small bandage on a large wound. I do agree that populations should be maintained at lower numbers. But we cannot go backwards. The problem exists. Thus only concentrated measures to root out the causes will truly be successful. No one organization is omniscient and thus may not make decisions such as who is worthy of life. -------------------- I stop rubber at 160km/h, five times a week. CANUCKS RESPEK! My Style The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 05:32
Profile
Whoo-ey! It's getting kinda thick in here. The misinformation being thrown around is breathtaking. Let's focus though on a few facts: -Saddam did not have any WMDs. The UN inspectors pretty much verified this, and wanted more time to be certain. -Terrorist connections with Saddam's regime were spurious. -Montana is a coal producing state. ...so what flavor was the kool-aid, anyway? Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 05:53
Profile
I wish there was a little bit more honesty on this. The reason which we went to war with Saddam was 1) He was a genocidal maniac. 2) He threatened his neighbors with invasion. 3) He attempted in the invasion of Kuwait to open an overland route to export oil which could not be blocked by UN sanctions, or directed by OPEC. 4) He threatened the United States oil supply by burning oil wells and threatening neighboring countries in how they supplied oil through OPEC. 5) He probably had used poison gas and other things on his own people. Even if he didn't use WMDs on his people, he killed them in droves. 6) He may have had WMD-- this was not proven. I think if he had any, he exported all of his WMDs to Syria a couple years earlier. 7) He attacked the United States ally Israel. 8) He harbored terrorists-- not Al Qaeda terrorists but Palestinian terrorists. This is proven. 9) The Kurdish problem became unmanageable after the gulf war and his neighbors needed a way to manage them. 10) He prompted increasing weapons research and military expenditures by Iran. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 08:46
Profile
quote:These are all justifications for the first war, not the current one. quote:Not a strictly illegal, let alone intervenable offense. The world's treatment of the Sudanese genocide is answer enough for you on this one. quote:There is no proof of either of these claims. quote:So have lots of countries, and Israel has attacked them in turn. No one has clean hands here. quote:And were they a threat to our national security? I have yet to hear of any credible Palestinian threats on the U.S. Does that make this justification for war on Iraq? quote:These also are not good justifications for a "just" war. We and our allies develop new weapons systems all the time. The more I think about it, the more I arrive at a perceived need to try to reshape Middle Eastern government and culture in an image more to our liking as the justification for the war. Good old imperialistic nation-building. While the motivation behind this may have been good, if wrong-headed, the justifications used to sell the war are completely disingenuous, and it's in no way a "just" war. The way that the war has been executed is another story entirely, and likely a criminal one at that. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 09:58
Profile
quote:What did Saddam Hussein need their help for? I wish to hear facts, not mere assumptions. [ Tuesday, May 31, 2005 09:58: Message edited by: Inferior ] Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 10:13
Profile
Homepage
Oh, Saddam was definitely hiding terrorists. Not Al-Qaeda terrorists (who, again, are bitter enemies), but terrorists nevertheless. I'm just not sure that generating corpse piles for the sake of preventing corpse piles on wild assumptions is a good reason for going to war is all. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 11:47
Profile
Lets see the most prominent is Abu Nidal, also various "freedom fighters" who didn't like his neighbors --"Mujhadeen- Khalq" anti-Iranian, "Kurdistan Workers Party" -- anti-Turkish. Various Palestinian splinter groups. He is supposed to have paid bounties for suicide bombers against Israel. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 16:12
Profile
Homepage
quote:I'm not interested in getting involved in this argument, but I found this quote deeply amusing. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 16:24
Profile
Homepage
What we are doing in this war is preventing another September 11, which was a threat to our national security. Why did we go to Iraq? Because it was becoming more of a threat. Why? WMDs. But we didn't find any. True. So why did we go there? There was a threat of WMDs. But this was not a direct threat to our national security. Terrorists of any kind, especially these Muslims, are a threat to any nation's security. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 16:32
Profile
Except for the fact that Iraq wasn't actually threatening us at all, and neither were the terrorists they were harboring. -------------------- The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) Famous Last Words - A local pop-punk band They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 16:41
Profile
There's also the unspoken threat from us on toward the rest of the world every day. Ask anyone from any other country whom they're more afraid of, the US or Al Qaeda, and they'll tell you the US. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 16:59
Profile
Homepage
quote:September 11 was not a threat to national security. 3000 people dying is not a threat -- the nation could easily compensate for that many people dying every day just by having more kids. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Too Sexy for my Title
Member # 5654
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 17:15
Profile
quote:I agree with you. I do understand how tragically was 9/11 (I live in NY, I know how horrible it was), yet we also have to consider how many innocents the United States has killed throughout the years (we are neither angels nor saints). Everyone knows how horrible was saddam; nevertheless, the reason why Bush went to war with Iraq was the WMD (not anything else), and I think it is low and stupid to blame it on something else. A president must consider every point of view thoroughly and carefully, which Bush did not do. The United States destroyed the economy of an entire country because "We thought that Iraq had WMD", which the UN proved they did not have. Yes, there was a horrible government but we are not one's to judge. Ps. have any of you watched the movie Fahrenheit 9/11? Posts: 1035 | Registered: Friday, April 1 2005 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 17:31
Profile
Homepage
From what I've heard, it's horribly biased toward Michael More's left-wing viewpoint. Also, there's no telling what could have happened after September 11 in the way of terrorist attacks had we done nothing about it. [ Tuesday, May 31, 2005 17:33: Message edited by: 4.808 x 10^3 ] -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Too Sexy for my Title
Member # 5654
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 17:35
Profile
quote:It is bias, but it shows good material. Such as when several iraquis were killed (including kids) and their relative stating that they never wanted the United States to come to Iraq in the first place. Also, it has funny parts like George Bush being unable to say "You fool me once, shame on you, you fool me twice, shame on me". It's a must see Posts: 1035 | Registered: Friday, April 1 2005 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5523
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 18:12
Profile
No matter what your oppinion is, a documentry is a documentry, it gives the facts. [ Tuesday, May 31, 2005 18:12: Message edited by: Harlequin ] -------------------- “Medicine, Law, Business, Engineering - These are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But Poetry, Beauty, Romance, Love-These are what we alive stay for.” Posts: 150 | Registered: Sunday, February 20 2005 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 19:25
Profile
quote:Um, no. A documentary shows you what the director wants you to see. Fortunately for Michael Moore, many of his clips speak for themselves. Unfortunately for the nation, many voting citizens were too busy drinking the kool-aid to pay attention. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Too Sexy for my Title
Member # 5654
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 19:44
Profile
quote:True. I couldn't agree more. New Yorkers were so angry at the elections. I mean, it took Bush 10 minutes to act after he knew that the twin towers were attacked. what kind of president is that? Anyways, this subject is too old, he is governing for 3 more years and we can't do nothing about it. Fortunately, he won't be in power ever again. Posts: 1035 | Registered: Friday, April 1 2005 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 20:19
Profile
Homepage
quote:We can nail the Republicans in the mid-term elections, which is entirely possible at this point. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5667
|
written Tuesday, May 31 2005 21:41
Profile
quote:"Um, Mr. Bush, there's been a plane crash in New York." You are the president, what do you do? 1) Jump up right away and run to the warroom, "this must be a terrorist attack," you say "it's not like a plane ever crashes in the U.S. unless piloted by insane America-hating jihadists." 2) Realize that there's nothing you can do about a plane crash, and then leave once you learn that there is more going on then a simple accident. Really, Moore, connects the dots that simply aren't there in his failed attempt to discredit the president. The only thing scarry about Farenheit 911 was that so many people were willing to accept the wild conspiracy theories it presented, just because it made for an entertaining film. -------------------- Whatever happens, happens. Posts: 48 | Registered: Monday, April 4 2005 07:00 |