| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/25/2003 10:58:43 AM · #501 |
It's funny to me that you find this amusing. Some guy slinging fowl insults is great comedy?
I just don't get it.
I say that if war is going to occur, the media should show us all angles! Al Jazzera has done just that and there getting blasted by the american goverment.
And when pro war people see those images, they should realise that they are supporting this death.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 11:00:13 AM · #502 |
I think we should return to the old days of battle where the leaders of the battles were at the front of the front lines. I very truly beleive that if bush's life were on the line, we wouldn't be having this "confilct."
Also, i beleive that everyone of you that's supporting this war (in this forum) would be even more cowardly.
Furthermore, i think it's silly that the US is crying Geneva convention when we've been in violation of the Geneva convention since the start of this war.
Message edited by author 2003-03-25 11:02:49.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 11:32:31 AM · #503 |
Oh cry me a river. Lemme guess, you would rather settle these political indifferences by way of Rock-Paper-Scissors? Your stance on non-violence is about as cowardly as it gets.
It's funny how war protesters are very talented at calling Bush a bad man by his actions... all without a single idea of how to better resolve it. It's like, "War is not the answer." "Well, what is the answer?" "Uh, I don't know, I just know that war results in death."
This isn't directed at anyone. I'm just tired of the holier-than-thou folks and the bleeding heart liberal media sucking up to naked, jobless, chained-to-the-streets protesters who are full of name calling without an alternative.
My father once told me, that there are people who take action and there are people who complain about them. The way I see it, complaining without an alternative solution... well, that's just b*tching.
/turns off CNN and clicks on Comedy Central
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 11:45:45 AM · #504 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Ultimate problem: The imaginary lines we use as borders keep us from recognizing or identifying with the victimhood of others in the world. Arguably, it is easier to kill for a cause than it is to die for it. Suppose now, that instead of soldiers equipped with guns, the world were to send in peacekeepers, equipped with banners, pamphlets, et cetera, encouraging non-violence, civil disobedience, and the ousting of Hussein (or insert-name-here). This is not very imperialistic, but if your currency is human life and world peace, it has real economic benefit.[/i] |
okay, ideally i have no problems with this. realistically, it isn't possible. this basically amounts to saddam or whatever dictator allowing people to be influenced by these peacekeepers, which is totally against a dictator's nature. what am i missing
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 12:26:30 PM · #505 |
You know, I bet if we set up Saddam and Dubya on one of those celebrity fight shows, we could sell enough Nike ads to neutralize the national debt this year.
If God's really on our side we should see a TKO, but maybe not until the twelfth round or so -- that Saddam has shown real staying power...
We just have to be sure to schedule it during sweeps week to get the highest ratings and a strong lead-in show...maybe a tag-team match featuring "Greasy" Dick Cheney and Condi "Minute" Rice vs "Mighty" Michael Moore and Arianna "Airhead" Huffington.
(I am trying to be satirical but not insulting.) |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 01:04:19 PM · #506 |
Originally posted by bamaster:
Oh cry me a river. Lemme guess, you would rather settle these political indifferences by way of Rock-Paper-Scissors? Your stance on non-violence is about as cowardly as it gets.
It's funny how war protesters are very talented at calling Bush a bad man by his actions... all without a single idea of how to better resolve it. It's like, "War is not the answer." "Well, what is the answer?" "Uh, I don't know, I just know that war results in death."
This isn't directed at anyone. I'm just tired of the holier-than-thou folks and the bleeding heart liberal media sucking up to naked, jobless, chained-to-the-streets protesters who are full of name calling without an alternative.
My father once told me, that there are people who take action and there are people who complain about them. The way I see it, complaining without an alternative solution... well, that's just b*tching.
/turns off CNN and clicks on Comedy Central |
The correct way about doing this has been clearly outlined by the UN.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 01:07:28 PM · #507 |
Originally posted by bamaster:
Oh cry me a river. Lemme guess, you would rather settle these political indifferences by way of Rock-Paper-Scissors? Your stance on non-violence is about as cowardly as it gets. |
Right, it takes a real man to kill who ever disagrees. Your point is silly.
Gandi, Jesus, Mother Tersa, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr...all cowards huh? wow.
Again, silly.
Message edited by author 2003-03-25 13:14:26.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 01:24:52 PM · #508 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by bamaster:
Oh cry me a river. Lemme guess, you would rather settle these political indifferences by way of Rock-Paper-Scissors? Your stance on non-violence is about as cowardly as it gets. |
Right, it takes a real man to kill who ever disagrees. Your point is silly.
Gandi, Jesus, Mother Tersa, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr...all cowards huh? wow.
Again, silly. |
how does someone that promotes nonviolence propose we get get rid of saddam?
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 01:31:24 PM · #509 |
| Majid Khoei, son of legendary Iraqi Ayatollah at head of 3,000-man US-backed Shiite militia is leading Basra unrest to stir up Shiite anti-Saddam uprising. Basra Shiites riot against Iraqi regime and army Tuesday afternoon. Shiite militias backed by British and American warplanes and helicopters in armed clashes with Iraqi units in city. |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 01:36:15 PM · #510 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by bamaster:
Oh cry me a river. Lemme guess, you would rather settle these political indifferences by way of Rock-Paper-Scissors? Your stance on non-violence is about as cowardly as it gets. |
Right, it takes a real man to kill who ever disagrees. Your point is silly.
Gandi, Jesus, Mother Tersa, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr...all cowards huh? wow.
Again, silly. |
how does someone that promotes nonviolence propose we get get rid of saddam? |
hehe, what would jesus do?
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 01:40:14 PM · #511 |
Originally posted by achiral:
how does someone that promotes nonviolence propose we get get rid of saddam? |
Maybe, it isn't our job (the us̢۪s) to get rid of saddam too.
I'm just suggesting that many consequences will come from being so aggressive. Even the American Gov't is saying that more Sept 11ths are unavoidable. Is this a result of a good decision?
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 02:23:58 PM · #512 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by achiral:
how does someone that promotes nonviolence propose we get get rid of saddam? |
Maybe, it isn't our job (the us̢۪s) to get rid of saddam too.
I'm just suggesting that many consequences will come from being so aggressive. Even the American Gov't is saying that more Sept 11ths are unavoidable. Is this a result of a good decision? |
the terrorist attacks on 9/11 weren't in response to a specific instance, just extreme hatred for the US. of course arab countries are going to be angry and hate the US more. they don't like democracy, they like to suppress their people.
it wasn't our job to do a lot of things militarily in this world, but a lot of times things don't end up as screwed as they would have been if we didn't intervene
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 02:31:12 PM · #513 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Ultimate problem: The imaginary lines we use as borders keep us from recognizing or identifying with the victimhood of others in the world. Arguably, it is easier to kill for a cause than it is to die for it. Suppose now, that instead of soldiers equipped with guns, the world were to send in peacekeepers, equipped with banners, pamphlets, et cetera, encouraging non-violence, civil disobedience, and the ousting of Hussein (or insert-name-here). This is not very imperialistic, but if your currency is human life and world peace, it has real economic benefit.[/i] |
okay, ideally i have no problems with this. realistically, it isn't possible. this basically amounts to saddam or whatever dictator allowing people to be influenced by these peacekeepers, which is totally against a dictator's nature. what am i missing |
A balanced solution. The Security Council might have had a good chance (yes, it's speculation) of adopting a resolution demanding the dismantling of Iraq's current regime, installing a democratically elected government, and bringing Hussein and company to a court to be tried for war crimes. There is great difficulty with this in that the SC does not abide by decisions regarding the removal of heads of state, but there must be a precedent set somewhere and this would have been a good place to start. Enforcing such a decision would require military force in all likelihood, but the point is to have it blessed by the international community, or at least through the lop-sided voting in the SC.
Diplomacy was never given a chance. I know, the common rally around 12 years passing, it being too long already, is produced as counter-argument, but other nation states have had longer to comply with resolutions and still do not. Iraq is not a special case when it comes to incompliance. Diplomacy must be allowed to run its course, not be short-changed through the premature use of military action. This is absolutely critical to the reasoned and measured use of supreme economic and military power; to do otherwise is simply uncivilized.
Ideally: Peace on earth is achieved through the dismantling of all weapons everywhere and love-ins all around the world.
Realistically: Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant.
Somewhere in the middle: Resort to force when absolutely necessary, when all other options are exhausted, not because of impatience, rhetoric, selective target arguments, or resource acquisition. |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 02:44:54 PM · #514 |
Originally posted by achiral:
the terrorist attacks on 9/11 weren't in response to a specific instance, just extreme hatred for the US. of course arab countries are going to be angry and hate the US more. they don't like democracy, they like to suppress their people. |
Wow, when the government was shelling out all of this BS I didn't think that anyone was buying it. But, i guess i was wrong.
First of all, who is "they." Anytime I hear someone use "they" it signals a lack of insight and sensitivity. In other words, it's a sign of bigotry. You are lumping about a 1/4th of the world's population into "they" and they you're saying that "they" hate democracy. It's obvious that you haven't left this country at any point in your life. And if my some chance you did, you didn't bother to meet anyone other than the room service and the taxi drivers.
Perhaps you should join chris123 in the KKK or the Skinheads, or you could try to understand more about cultures in the world and realize "they" aren̢۪t so different after all.
What many cultures dislike about our country is our seeming lack of morality and our overwhelming arrogance. Funny, because when bush was elected he claimed to restore this to the country. Remember we was claiming that he's going get out of foreign issues and bringing compassion to the administration? I do.
You can't fool all of the people all the time....just archial;)
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 02:46:47 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by achiral:
the terrorist attacks on 9/11 weren't in response to a specific instance, just extreme hatred for the US. |
Correction: hatred for the US's foreign policy.
Originally posted by achiral:
of course arab countries are going to be angry and hate the US more. they don't like democracy, they like to suppress their people. |
Please refrain from such over-generalized condemnation of a region rife with historical conflict and rich with cultural history. Your sentiments border on racism and diminish your arguments considerably.
Originally posted by achiral:
it wasn't our job to do a lot of things militarily in this world, but a lot of times things don't end up as screwed as they would have been if we didn't intervene |
Au contraire, it is your job, duty, & privilege, as civilized members of the world community, just as it is for everyone. Borders do not stop any of us from being global citizens. We must each take responsibility for the problems in the world (one task at a time) and address them with our pseudo-civilized, barely enlightened view, if only for the sake of peace.
We only ever drop bombs on ourselves. |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 02:48:50 PM · #516 |
Did anyone else notice that the oil wells were secured long before humanitarian rations were distributed? But it's the civilians that are being protected right????
The true colors are shining though.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 02:50:59 PM · #517 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by achiral:
the terrorist attacks on 9/11 weren't in response to a specific instance, just extreme hatred for the US. |
Correction: hatred for the US's foreign policy.
Originally posted by achiral:
of course arab countries are going to be angry and hate the US more. they don't like democracy, they like to suppress their people. |
Please refrain from such over-generalized condemnation of a region rife with historical conflict and rich with cultural history. Your sentiments border on racism and diminish your arguments considerably.
Originally posted by achiral:
it wasn't our job to do a lot of things militarily in this world, but a lot of times things don't end up as screwed as they would have been if we didn't intervene |
Au contraire, it is your job, duty, & privilege, as civilized members of the world community, just as it is for everyone. Borders do not stop any of us from being global citizens. We must each take responsibility for the problems in the world (one task at a time) and address them with our pseudo-civilized, barely enlightened view, if only for the sake of peace.
We only ever drop bombs on ourselves. |
Well said.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 02:51:23 PM · #518 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
Did anyone else notice that the oil wells were secured long before humanitarian rations were distributed? But it's the civilians that are being protected right????
The true colors are shining though. |
Actually, I think it was necessary to secure the oil wells, because of the huge ecological disaster that occurs every time they are set on fire. If you remember during the first gulf conflict, all the oil wells were set on fire, and that caused serious problems.
I think, beacuse the oil wells were outside cities, and they got to them first, it was prudent to secure them before they went into the cities.
-da |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 02:53:04 PM · #519 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Ultimate problem: The imaginary lines we use as borders keep us from recognizing or identifying with the victimhood of others in the world. Arguably, it is easier to kill for a cause than it is to die for it. Suppose now, that instead of soldiers equipped with guns, the world were to send in peacekeepers, equipped with banners, pamphlets, et cetera, encouraging non-violence, civil disobedience, and the ousting of Hussein (or insert-name-here). This is not very imperialistic, but if your currency is human life and world peace, it has real economic benefit.[/i] |
okay, ideally i have no problems with this. realistically, it isn't possible. this basically amounts to saddam or whatever dictator allowing people to be influenced by these peacekeepers, which is totally against a dictator's nature. what am i missing |
A balanced solution. The Security Council might have had a good chance (yes, it's speculation) of adopting a resolution demanding the dismantling of Iraq's current regime, installing a democratically elected government, and bringing Hussein and company to a court to be tried for war crimes. There is great difficulty with this in that the SC does not abide by decisions regarding the removal of heads of state, but there must be a precedent set somewhere and this would have been a good place to start. Enforcing such a decision would require military force in all likelihood, but the point is to have it blessed by the international community, or at least through the lop-sided voting in the SC.
Diplomacy was never given a chance. I know, the common rally around 12 years passing, it being too long already, is produced as counter-argument, but other nation states have had longer to comply with resolutions and still do not. Iraq is not a special case when it comes to incompliance. Diplomacy must be allowed to run its course, not be short-changed through the premature use of military action. This is absolutely critical to the reasoned and measured use of supreme economic and military power; to do otherwise is simply uncivilized.
Ideally: Peace on earth is achieved through the dismantling of all weapons everywhere and love-ins all around the world.
Realistically: Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant.
Somewhere in the middle: Resort to force when absolutely necessary, when all other options are exhausted, not because of impatience, rhetoric, selective target arguments, or resource acquisition. |
i totally agree with you. what do you think about a position like france's where they basically say they will veto any resolution that has triggers to military action in them. this is hardly being helpful towards the resolution you have in mind. what do you think of the idea that has been brought up before about the UN basically putting intense unanimous pressure on Iraq with the threat of force, knowing that chances are that war could be averted if saddam thinks the whole world is against him. i just think the UN missed an oppurtunity to end it earlier by focusing on the US rush to war. if multilateral pressure was put on saddam, i don't think we would be at war today
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 02:55:54 PM · #520 |
Originally posted by Annida:
Originally posted by Geocide:
Did anyone else notice that the oil wells were secured long before humanitarian rations were distributed? But it's the civilians that are being protected right????
The true colors are shining though. |
Actually, I think it was necessary to secure the oil wells, because of the huge ecological disaster that occurs every time they are set on fire. If you remember during the first gulf conflict, all the oil wells were set on fire, and that caused serious problems.
I think, beacuse the oil wells were outside cities, and they got to them first, it was prudent to secure them before they went into the cities.
-da |
oh, ok. :D
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 02:59:06 PM · #521 |
Originally posted by achiral:
i totally agree with you. what do you think about a position like france's where they basically say they will veto any resolution that has triggers to military action in them. |
It was immediate military action.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 03:07:07 PM · #522 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by achiral:
i totally agree with you. what do you think about a position like france's where they basically say they will veto any resolution that has triggers to military action in them. |
It was immediate military action. |
i think the exact words were automatic use of force, which means there is some kind of trigger involved, such as an ultimatum, or some other strict guidelines for disarmament
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 03:24:27 PM · #523 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by achiral:
i totally agree with you. what do you think about a position like france's where they basically say they will veto any resolution that has triggers to military action in them. |
It was immediate military action. |
i think the exact words were automatic use of force, which means there is some kind of trigger involved, such as an ultimatum, or some other strict guidelines for disarmament |
.
automatic use of force
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 03:25:21 PM · #524 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by achiral:
the terrorist attacks on 9/11 weren't in response to a specific instance, just extreme hatred for the US. |
Correction: hatred for the US's foreign policy.
Originally posted by achiral:
of course arab countries are going to be angry and hate the US more. they don't like democracy, they like to suppress their people. |
Please refrain from such over-generalized condemnation of a region rife with historical conflict and rich with cultural history. Your sentiments border on racism and diminish your arguments considerably.
Originally posted by achiral:
it wasn't our job to do a lot of things militarily in this world, but a lot of times things don't end up as screwed as they would have been if we didn't intervene |
Au contraire, it is your job, duty, & privilege, as civilized members of the world community, just as it is for everyone. Borders do not stop any of us from being global citizens. We must each take responsibility for the problems in the world (one task at a time) and address them with our pseudo-civilized, barely enlightened view, if only for the sake of peace.
We only ever drop bombs on ourselves. |
Don't forget to respond to the above post...
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 03:37:26 PM · #525 |
Originally posted by achiral:
i totally agree with you. what do you think about a position like france's where they basically say they will veto any resolution that has triggers to military action in them. this is hardly being helpful towards the resolution you have in mind. |
I've stated my opinion on France before, but to reiterate, I believe it was a bluff to bring the US back to the diplomacy table, probably in recognizing that the US was mostly decided in the matter themselves. It's difficult, if not impossible, for any democratic-capitalist society that sells weapons to non-such countries to maintain the moral high ground and not seem duplicitous. China and Russia would probably have vetoed in the same cases as France, but they were less confrontational and outspoken about it. All speculation of course.
France is not exactly a prize-winning diplomatic state, but I firmly believe they would simply like to see all diplomatic channels explored exhaustively.
Originally posted by achiral:
what do you think of the idea that has been brought up before about the UN basically putting intense unanimous pressure on Iraq with the threat of force, knowing that chances are that war could be averted if saddam thinks the whole world is against him. i just think the UN missed an oppurtunity to end it earlier by focusing on the US rush to war. if multilateral pressure was put on saddam, i don't think we would be at war today |
Well, this viewpoint certainly presupposes a realistic outlook on Hussein's part. Hussein does not see what we see: a weakened & unsupportive people; an impotent & dismantled military; instability within Iraq; an infrastructure destroyed & decaying. The tyrant does not want to be told these things and wants to be told what they they tell others. There is no reality in Iraq, only the Koran, written in Hussein's blood, and a tyrant, so gripped by his own ego, he only sees himself.
If Iraq were to be on the UN agenda in this way, I do think that military force would have been inevitable. I'm not talking about the dismantling/destruction of weapons; Hussein would have eventually complied as fully as required by the resolutions. However, in the case of overthrowing Hussein, for humanitarian reasons, supposing the UN would even get near such an issue, intervention and co-operation would likely only be achieved through the use of force.
Again, we should certainly and by no means be singling out Iraq in this respect and one must be careful of hypocrisy. The US has its own history with snubbing its nose at the UN/UNSC and other countries have brutal dictators installed.
One task at a time. |
|
