|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/29/2004 03:09:35 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
It's interesting that a huge fundraiser/advertiser for the Democratic Party is called MoveOn.org, but that, contrary to their name, spend an inordinate amount of time arguing for dwelling in the past and not moving on.
Ron |
I'm pretty sure that MoveOn.org was originally founded for the purpose of encouraging the Congress to quit spending all of its time (and our money) looking into a former President's private sexual (and financial) escapades and get back to governing the country. As I recall they spent some $50 million dollars to prove that Presidents get horny -- heck, I could have told you that for the price of a brief phone call .... :) |
My point exactly. They didn't want us to spend time, effort, energy, and resources examing that past in excruciating detail. But that was when the president was a Democrat. Now that a Republican sits in the White House, their tune has changed - let's not drop our attention from the 9/11 investigation, let's not drop our focus on Abu Ghraib abuses, let's NOT move on ( except, we need to stop examining Kerry's voting record - let's move on from that and focus on the issues )?
Ron |
Their point was that there were/are plenty of actual abuses of power to investigate, instead of wasting the country's time and attention with tittilating topics for the evening news. Talk about something clearly designed and executed to "appeal to the public's prurient interests ..." -- I'd say the Republican's orchestration of that whole episode amounts to "obscenity" under the Supreme Court's definition. |
|
|
|
05/29/2004 04:34:39 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Interesting. Are you saying that the U.S. should not have an investigation into 9/11, or prisoner abuse, or the Plame affair, or the lies told to the U.S. during the State of the Union speech to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Or are you just saying that there is a moral equivalency between a president having a sexual affair and not being forthcoming about it, and a president who deliberately lies to justify an invasion where thousands of woman and children arer slaughtered?
I'm confused. Because to me, the Monica thing was a political witch hunt over nothing important, while the other issues I just listed have to do with life and death, social justice, and treason. |
I'm confused, too. Because as many time as someone says that Bush lied, and I challenge them, or anyone, to substantiate that charge, I have yet to see anyone deliver the proof of that charge, including you. And don't bother with another 8-page cut-&-paste filled with innuendo but no proof, or a link to a partisan web-site claiming lies but without substantiation. I've seen them already and they don't meet the challenge. They don't prove that Bush lied.
Ron |
|
|
|
05/29/2004 04:43:27 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Their point was that there were/are plenty of actual abuses of power to investigate, instead of wasting the country's time and attention with tittilating topics for the evening news. Talk about something clearly designed and executed to "appeal to the public's prurient interests ..." -- I'd say the Republican's orchestration of that whole episode amounts to "obscenity" under the Supreme Court's definition. |
You couldn't, by any chance, name two or three of the "plenty of actual abuses of power" that were there to investigate, now could you? I'd be curious as to what a few of them might be.
Ron |
|
|
|
05/30/2004 12:31:29 AM · #104 |
You certainly have a way of putting words in people's mouths. I never said that I was opposed to the prosecution of Sadaam Hussein. He was a brutal tyrannt and deserves to be punished. Let that be the job of the ICC. The US can not act as both policeman and judge of the entire world. The self rightousness of the US govt comes across as duplicitousness and arrogance in light of what has come out most recently of human rights abuses and violations of the Geneva convention.
Please, give me a break Ron...your argument about cluster bombs and the ICC is lame. There are so many different weapons that are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the US is using depleted uranium tipped bullets and mortars. This is a nuclear weapon and is poisoning the environment and the people of Iraq for many years to come, not to mention our own GIs. Most recently the US govt has ok'd the use of tactical nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. This in itself makes for very unstable times yet to come as once one nation starts to use nuclear weapons then others will join in, such as Pakistan, India, Israel, etc. Then there are smart bombs...so there seems to be more than enough destructive fire power coming from the US and coalition forces. I think you don't want the the US to be part of the ICC because there would be many instances where US soldiers and their superiors, as well as, high ranking govt officials would be implicated for human rights abuses. The evidence seems to be there for that already.
Again, Ron, I will point out that you like to put words in people's mouths. I never said that I wanted the US to be nice to Sadaam Hussein and his henchmen. They were brutal tyrannts and needed to be dealt with and punished. I would never acquiesce to being nice to a regime such as that. So far, though, it appears that the president has misled this country into war based on the issue of security issues, and not human rights abuses. YOu are wrong about the Saudi's not being human rights violators. Check out these two articles by Amnesty International andHuman Rights Watch
Here is a small excerpt from the AI article on the Saudi abuses:
"Discrimination against women impacts upon and compounds the wide range of human rights violations commonly reported in Saudi Arabia. These violations, which have been described in detail in two recent Amnesty International reports on Saudi Arabia, A Justice System Without Justice and A Secret State of Suffering1, include arbitrary arrest and detention as facilitated by the wide-ranging powers enjoyed by the arresting authorities; vague written and unwritten laws; secret and grossly unfair trials; torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and the use of the death penalty."
Not finding out who is behind the 9/11 attacks does nothing for your safety liberty or freedom. If you, or a relative, god forbid, were attacked in some way, you would most certainly want to know who was the perpetrator. It's the same with terrorists and without the funding they get they are nothing. The entire approach to fighting terrorism by the Bush administration has been a sham.
************************
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Tear gas grenades don't have the aim of killing. War, on the other hand, one has to assume will involve killing, regardless of the possibly justifiable causes. Sadaam is still alive so we can put him, and this country and the world, through a long and drawn out prosecution for the purposes of PR and diversion from other things yet to happen in the world the US govt will be perpetrating.
"The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent court that will investigate and bring to justice individuals who commit the most serious violations of international humanitarian law, namely war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, when countries cannot or will not prosecute the crimes themselves. The crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC are large scale, affecting hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people. Crimes such as mass executions, murder, rape, gender apartheid, forcefully removing people from their homes based on ethnicity, mass torture and mutilation, and the systematic destruction of property of a certain group of people, are punishable by the ICC." from [url=this web site.]this web site.[/url] It will not be used for petty crimes that you have identified down below. I don't see anything wrong with the US being part of an organization such as this as it promote human rights, which seems to be what the US govt wants, at least in rhetoric, and be a deterrent for future war crimes. As they have decided not to be part of the ICC, I view their declarations of these goals to be insincere.
I think it's very important to find out who helped support the perpetration of the crimes of 9/11. It's not until we do that that we can be truly free of terrorism, at least from the al Qaeda kind. I find it very ironic that the people that have been identified as being behind 9/11, such as Osama Bin Laden, have had previous ties with people in the current US regime from the days of the Mujahaddin and Afghan rebels that helped to defeat the Soviets there. I also find it ironic that we have friendly ties with the Saudis who also are human rights violators and have been mentioned as being funders of terrorism. These things need to be investigated, lest we have more terrorist attacks.
It does not seem we are any safer today in the US than we were before 9/11 especially with the most recent announcements by the US govt that we are at great risk in these summer months for yet another major attack here on our soil. The govt is already spending all of its time, money, energy and resources on preventing another terrorist attack, so why not extend it to finding out about the root causes. I find it ironic that you would not agree with this. |
Why is it that you seem to be OPPOSED to "the long drawn out prosecution" of Sadaam Hussein citing that it is only "for the purposes of PR and diversion from other things", but, at the same time, "think it's very important to find out who helped support the perpetration of the crimes of 9/11"? Presumably you believe that a 9/11 prosecution would be a) not long and drawn out, and b) not for the purposes of PR and diversion from other things. I may be wrong, but, to me, the contradiction in those two opinions sounds somewhat hypocritical.
As for the ICC, they have already begun criminal proceedings against Great Britain ( who DID sign on ) for "war crimes" because they dropped cluster bombs in Iraq. The charges are that British military used weapons ( cluster bombs ) that were unauthorized because they "can't distinguish between civilian or military" targets. How ridiculous can you get. The ICC prohibits the use of weaponry that is unable to distinguish between civilian and military targets? What weapons are left?
Again, I feel compelled to point out the hypocrisy of your general pacifist attitude toward those who want to KILL every American they can, and your OPPOSITION to being friendly toward those who do not. We should have been nicer, longer to the Iraqi leadership ( Sadaam & Sons ), who MAIMED, RAPED, and MURDERED their own people, but we should NOT be friendly to the Saudi leadership, who do not. Please make up your mind which way you think we should act.
We have not suffered another major terrorist attack since 9/11. I think that that says something about how effective the government has been in keeping the U.S. safe. I do not agree with spending any more time & effort looking for the needles in the haystack because doing so counterproductive. It diverts resources and does nothing to enhance my safety, liberty, or freedom.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
05/30/2004 09:49:54 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Interesting. Are you saying that the U.S. should not have an investigation into 9/11, or prisoner abuse, or the Plame affair, or the lies told to the U.S. during the State of the Union speech to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Or are you just saying that there is a moral equivalency between a president having a sexual affair and not being forthcoming about it, and a president who deliberately lies to justify an invasion where thousands of woman and children arer slaughtered?
I'm confused. Because to me, the Monica thing was a political witch hunt over nothing important, while the other issues I just listed have to do with life and death, social justice, and treason. |
I'm confused, too. Because as many time as someone says that Bush lied, and I challenge them, or anyone, to substantiate that charge, I have yet to see anyone deliver the proof of that charge, including you. And don't bother with another 8-page cut-&-paste filled with innuendo but no proof, or a link to a partisan web-site claiming lies but without substantiation. I've seen them already and they don't meet the challenge. They don't prove that Bush lied.
Ron |
Sure they do. You are the one who doesn't meet the challenge, Ron, - of being intellectally honest enough to admit it.
You dismiss excrutiatingly-documented Congressional reports as "innuendo", refer to bipartisanly mainstream topics as "fascinating propaganda", automatically demand prohibitive levels of "proof" as a debating tactic instead of engaging in discussion, conveniently ignore examples of Bush balderdash too glaring to dispute, and then, despite all this, constantly declare 100% victory.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2004 10:46:06 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Interesting. Are you saying that the U.S. should not have an investigation into 9/11, or prisoner abuse, or the Plame affair, or the lies told to the U.S. during the State of the Union speech to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Or are you just saying that there is a moral equivalency between a president having a sexual affair and not being forthcoming about it, and a president who deliberately lies to justify an invasion where thousands of woman and children arer slaughtered?
I'm confused. Because to me, the Monica thing was a political witch hunt over nothing important, while the other issues I just listed have to do with life and death, social justice, and treason. |
I'm confused, too. Because as many time as someone says that Bush lied, and I challenge them, or anyone, to substantiate that charge, I have yet to see anyone deliver the proof of that charge, including you. And don't bother with another 8-page cut-&-paste filled with innuendo but no proof, or a link to a partisan web-site claiming lies but without substantiation. I've seen them already and they don't meet the challenge. They don't prove that Bush lied.
Ron |
Sure they do. You are the one who doesn't meet the challenge, Ron, - of being intellectally honest enough to admit it.
You dismiss excrutiatingly-documented Congressional reports as "innuendo", refer to bipartisanly mainstream topics as "fascinating propaganda", automatically demand prohibitive levels of "proof" as a debating tactic instead of engaging in discussion, conveniently ignore examples of Bush balderdash too glaring to dispute, and then, despite all this, constantly declare 100% victory. |
If it is "excruciatingly documented", as you say it is, then it should be very easy to pick one and post it. Once you do that, if I can't refute it, I will admit defeat, you can declare victory, and henceforth say that "Bush lied" 'till the cows come home and I won't debate the point. I will, of course, reserve the right to refute individual accusations of specific lies - but will not debate the general accusation that "Bush lied". And, I do not ask for a prohibitive level of proof - merely substantiation from credible sources. Why is that so hard? For example, it can be EASILY proven that Clinton lied. Why can't it be as easily proven that Bush lied? Until ONE lie can be proven, I will continue to call the general accusation "innuendo" and nothing more.
Ron |
|
|
|
05/30/2004 12:33:14 PM · #107 |
There are many who dispute that the republicans successfully proved Clinton committed perjury. There seem to be a number of articles on the internet who take on this issue...Here is one.
If we had a free and independent media here in the US capable of bringing forth real investigative journalism and posing genuine questions a public outcry would ensue and Congress would have to investigate the Iraqi invasion and the 9/11, resulting in a prosecution of GW and his underlings. Then we could see if Bush was lying. Of course, he would probably hide behind declarations of national security and executive privilege.
At the least, it could be said that he and his administration showed poor judgement and are incompetent as leaders of our nation. wE don't seem to be any safer with Sadaam Hussein out of power and we have paid dearly for the "mistakes" of this administration through the loss of life and now financial instability. |
|
|
|
05/30/2004 01:13:18 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
There are many who dispute that the republicans successfully proved Clinton committed perjury. There seem to be a number of articles on the internet who take on this issue...Here is one. |
Some kind of quote about pots and kettles comes to mind. You accuse me of putting words in your mouth, but here you are doing that which you condemn. I didn't say anything about Clinton committing perjury. I only said he lied. Here is credible substantiation ( from the Starr Grounds for Impeachment document ):
"There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:
1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.
4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case."
Specifically, "There is substantial and credible information that the President lied under oath in his civil deposition by answering "I don't know if she had been" subpoenaed when describing his last conversation with Ms. Lewinsky. In fact, he knew that she had been subpoenaed. Given that the conversation with Ms. Lewinsky occurred in the few weeks immediately before the President's civil deposition, he could not have forgotten the conversation. As a result, there is no plausible conclusion except that the President intentionally lied in this answer."
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
If we had a free and independent media here in the US capable of bringing forth real investigative journalism and posing genuine questions a public outcry would ensue and Congress would have to investigate the Iraqi invasion and the 9/11, resulting in a prosecution of GW and his underlings. Then we could see if Bush was lying. Of course, he would probably hide behind declarations of national security and executive privilege.
At the least, it could be said that he and his administration showed poor judgement and are incompetent as leaders of our nation. wE don't seem to be any safer with Sadaam Hussein out of power and we have paid dearly for the "mistakes" of this administration through the loss of life and now financial instability. |
( emphasis mine )
Wow, now we blame the failure to prove that Bush lied on such nebulous causes as not having a "free and independent media here in the US capable of bringing forth real investigative journalism and posing genuine questions" and the failure of "public outcry" and Congressional investigations. So if we had all of those things, THEN we could see IF Bush was lying. That argument is the weakest, by far, of any that have been posted.
Ron |
|
|
|
05/30/2004 01:30:08 PM · #109 |
I'm finally getting around to responding to your earlier post:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
You certainly have a way of putting words in people's mouths. I never said that I was opposed to the prosecution of Sadaam Hussein. |
No, but then again, I didn't say that you were. And I didn't put any words in your mouth. I said that your use of phrases like "long and drawn out" and "for the purpose of PR and diversion" SEEMED to indicate opposition to prosecution for those reasons.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
He was a brutal tyrannt and deserves to be punished. Let that be the job of the ICC. The US can not act as both policeman and judge of the entire world. The self rightousness of the US govt comes across as duplicitousness and arrogance in light of what has come out most recently of human rights abuses and violations of the Geneva convention. |
I don't think that any intelligent person believes that the "US govt" is guilty of "human rights abuses and violations of the Geneva convention" at Abu Ghraib ( I can't think of any other situation that "has come out most recently" ). Certainly there are individuals who may be guilty, and the "govt" is dealing with them. The "govt" is a very large and diverse group of people and it is patently unfair to hold them collectively accountable for the rogue actions of a few in an isolated location. If you feel that you are justified in holding the "govt" accountable, then you must, by the same logic, hold the entire Islamic world accountable for the attack on the WTC, since the perpetrators of that attack claimed to have done it in name of Allah.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Please, give me a break Ron...your argument about cluster bombs and the ICC is lame. There are so many different weapons that are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the US is using depleted uranium tipped bullets and mortars. This is a nuclear weapon and is poisoning the environment and the people of Iraq for many years to come, not to mention our own GIs. |
Ah, yes. A double helping of innuendo and twisted truth. The truth is
Twisted truth #1: While it IS true that the US is using depleted uranium tipped mortars, it is NOT true that they are using DU tipped BULLETS. DU is used only in larger ( 25, 105, and 120 mm ) cartridges primarily used as anti-tank munitions. DU cartridges are NOT intended for use against soft targets.
Twisted truth #2: While DU cartridges ARE weakly radioactive, they are NOT a "nuclear weapon" any more than a dental or medical x-ray is a "nuclear weapon". In fact, because DU is a heavy metal, it is more dangerous because of its chemical toxicity than its radioactivity.
Twisted truth #3: DU cartridges are "poisoning the environment...blah, blah, blah". For those willing to be exposed to the truth about DU munitions, there is an excellent article written by Ronald L. Kathren, Certified Health Physicist, for the Health Physics Society, an organization that specializes in radiation safety, about the dangers posed by DU. The article can be found HERE
Here are a couple of exerpts from that article:
"DU is a heavy metal, and like all heavy metals such as mercury and lead, is toxic. However, except in certain very unusual situations, it is the chemical toxicity and not the radioactivity that is of concern."
"That military personnel and others who may have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions are suffering from various illnesses is not in dispute. That their illnesses are attributable to their exposure to uranium is very, very unlikely."
"...something other than exposure to uranium is the cause of the illnesses suffered by those who have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions."
"With respect to reactions with the soil, in time depleted uranium will likely leach into the soil and become mixed with it. It will for all practical purposes be chemically indistinguishable from the natural uranium that is already present in the soil all over the earth."
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Most recently the US govt has ok'd the use of tactical nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. This in itself makes for very unstable times yet to come as once one nation starts to use nuclear weapons then others will join in, such as Pakistan, India, Israel, etc. Then there are smart bombs...so there seems to be more than enough destructive fire power coming from the US and coalition forces. |
Forgive me, but I can find no evidence that the U.S. govt has "ok'd the use of tactical nuclear weapons anywhere in the world". I'd be most interested in a credible source to support that statement.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think you don't want the the US to be part of the ICC because there would be many instances where US soldiers and their superiors, as well as, high ranking govt officials would be implicated for human rights abuses. The evidence seems to be there for that already. |
You are correct. And politically motivated. There are regimes and individuals that hate anything U.S., you know. There are already a dozen or so Iraqi's that are attempting to bring suit in the ICC against Britain and the U.S. because of their actions in the Iraqi war.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Again, Ron, I will point out that you like to put words in people's mouths. I never said that I wanted the US to be nice to Sadaam Hussein and his henchmen. They were brutal tyrannts and needed to be dealt with and punished. I would never acquiesce to being nice to a regime such as that. |
You have repeatedly said, or at least implied, that we should have given Sadaam more time, that we should have continued negotiations, etc. I call that being nice. If you really feel that Sadaam and his henchmen were "brutal tyrannts and needed to be dealt with and punished" just HOW would you suggest that we should have "dealt" with and "punished" him and his henchmen? Anything less than war didn't seem to be having an effect on Sadaam, but DID seem to have an effect on millions of the Iraqi people.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So far, though, it appears that the president has misled this country into war based on the issue of security issues, and not human rights abuses. YOu are wrong about the Saudi's not being human rights violators. Check out these two articles by Amnesty International andHuman Rights WatchHere is a small excerpt from the AI article on the Saudi abuses:
"Discrimination against women impacts upon and compounds the wide range of human rights violations commonly reported in Saudi Arabia. These violations, which have been described in detail in two recent Amnesty International reports on Saudi Arabia, A Justice System Without Justice and A Secret State of Suffering1, include arbitrary arrest and detention as facilitated by the wide-ranging powers enjoyed by the arresting authorities; vague written and unwritten laws; secret and grossly unfair trials; torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and the use of the death penalty." |
1) I did not say that the Saudis were not human rights violators ( are you putting words in my mouth? shame on you ) - I said that the Saudi leadership did not MAIM, RAPE, and MURDER their own people. I will stand by that statement, unless you can prove otherwise. FWIW, neither of the two links you provided do not accuse the Saudi leadership of MAIMING, RAPING, or MURDERING their own people.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Not finding out who is behind the 9/11 attacks does nothing for your safety liberty or freedom. If you, or a relative, god forbid, were attacked in some way, you would most certainly want to know who was the perpetrator. It's the same with terrorists and without the funding they get they are nothing. The entire approach to fighting terrorism by the Bush administration has been a sham. |
Actually, if I was attacked, I could care less who the perpetrator(s) was/were. I would be far more interested in how to defeat him/her/them. Afterwards, I would be more interested in how to prevent a future attack than in WHO the perpetrator(s) was/were.
Ron |
|
|
|
06/06/2004 12:47:31 AM · #110 |
I am a fervent supporter of 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
For some, the 2nd Amendment offers a diferent meaning though. I offer you their interpretation.
Amendment II
"A well regulated pigsty, being necessary to the security of a disorderly state, the right of the people to live like swine, shall not be infringed."
As a frequent visitor to our state and national parks and forest, I am seeing the following images more often. Today I saw 10-12 places just like these, within two miles of entering the forest.
People who think mommy is coming to clean up their mess; should not have the right to own a gun, should not have the right to vote, and under no circumstance should they have the right to reproduce.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2004 01:09:06 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
I am a fervent supporter of 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.... People who think mommy is coming to clean up their mess; should not have the right to own a gun, should not have the right to vote, and under no circumstance should they have the right to reproduce. |
I agree it's idiots like this that give the 99% of responsible gun owners a bad name. They need to go to a sanctioned plinking/shooting range instead of ruining parks for other people. Even as a kid I never did things like this!
|
|
|
|
06/08/2004 06:02:11 PM · #112 |
I find it irksome that the word 'liberal' is used so liberally to describe people who don't support a person's right to own and use a gun. I'm a liberal. I like guns. The two are unrelated. Please cease the trite attempts at defaming the word 'liberal' for your own purposes by labelling *everything* you right-wingers don't like as such.
I would even posit that it's the conversion of the word 'liberal' from a description to an epithet that is the penultimate example of the rampant maniplation of language employed by the right to control the thoughts and minds of the populace, topped only by Ashcroft's recent quibbling over the lawyeristic, technical definition of torture vs. abuse.
On that note:
Say hello to my little friend.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 07:02:49 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 07:02:49 PM EDT.
|
