Prisoners Of War executed
jon@af
03-23-2003, 02:54 PM
American POW's Have been seen on a tape from Al Jazeera as being shot execution style in the head and abdomin in Iraq. This makes any who participated in and were present for these executions war criminals should the be caught, compliments of the Geneva Convention. I wonder if Hussein(or whoever is in command) notices that we have more than 8,000 of their troops and are treating them humanely? Oh, wait, HE DOESNT CARE.
Milliardo
03-23-2003, 03:26 PM
If this is verified, then yes those responsible for it should be tried for violating the Geneva Convention, for POWs should be rightly treated humanely.
jon@af
03-23-2003, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
If this is verified, then yes those responsible for it should be tried for violating the Geneva Convention, for POWs should be rightly treated humanely.
thank you for the verification
If this is verified, then yes those responsible for it should be tried for violating the Geneva Convention, for POWs should be rightly treated humanely.
thank you for the verification
Pick
03-23-2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by ILike2DriveCars
American POW's Have been seen on a tape from Al Jazeera as being shot execution style in the head and abdomin in Iraq. This makes any who participated in and were present for these executions war criminals should the be caught, compliments of the Geneva Convention. I wonder if Hussein(or whoever is in command) notices that we have more than 8,000 of their troops and are treating them humanely? Oh, wait, HE DOESNT CARE.
Ever f**ker that was there deserves to be executed. I don't care...... That is absolutely awful. I realize people die in war, and that we sent them in there, but that is just intolerable. We need to execute a few of theirs in front of all the captured soldiers.
American POW's Have been seen on a tape from Al Jazeera as being shot execution style in the head and abdomin in Iraq. This makes any who participated in and were present for these executions war criminals should the be caught, compliments of the Geneva Convention. I wonder if Hussein(or whoever is in command) notices that we have more than 8,000 of their troops and are treating them humanely? Oh, wait, HE DOESNT CARE.
Ever f**ker that was there deserves to be executed. I don't care...... That is absolutely awful. I realize people die in war, and that we sent them in there, but that is just intolerable. We need to execute a few of theirs in front of all the captured soldiers.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-23-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Ever f**ker that was there deserves to be executed. I don't care...... That is absolutely awful. I realize people die in war, and that we sent them in there, but that is just intolerable. We need to execute a few of theirs in front of all the captured soldiers.
you knwo that might be a bad idea. i do think that those that executed the american soldier should be punished severly though. as for al jazeera they are beign bitches in this whole thing all the coverage they giver are showing deaths.
-GTi-VR6_A3
Ever f**ker that was there deserves to be executed. I don't care...... That is absolutely awful. I realize people die in war, and that we sent them in there, but that is just intolerable. We need to execute a few of theirs in front of all the captured soldiers.
you knwo that might be a bad idea. i do think that those that executed the american soldier should be punished severly though. as for al jazeera they are beign bitches in this whole thing all the coverage they giver are showing deaths.
-GTi-VR6_A3
jon@af
03-23-2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Pick
...We need to execute a few of theirs in front of all the captured soldiers.
then WE would be tried for war crimes, just as much as them.
...We need to execute a few of theirs in front of all the captured soldiers.
then WE would be tried for war crimes, just as much as them.
Prelewd
03-23-2003, 04:23 PM
Who's anti-war after that shit? I don't mean to be immature or anything, but to all those damn protestors... WE TOLD YOU SO!! Damn animals..
By the way.. anybody hear about the large chemical weapons facility they found? Again.. WE TOLD YOU SO!
American troops are ALL heros, except for that son of a bitch that threw the grenades in the tents, he can die.
By the way.. anybody hear about the large chemical weapons facility they found? Again.. WE TOLD YOU SO!
American troops are ALL heros, except for that son of a bitch that threw the grenades in the tents, he can die.
Pick
03-23-2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by ILike2DriveCars
then WE would be tried for war crimes, just as much as them.
I know we can't do that. I was just being morbid.
then WE would be tried for war crimes, just as much as them.
I know we can't do that. I was just being morbid.
jon@af
03-23-2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Prelewd
Who's anti-war after that shit? I don't mean to be immature or anything, but to all those damn protestors... WE TOLD YOU SO!! Damn animals..
By the way.. anybody hear about the large chemical weapons facility they found? Again.. WE TOLD YOU SO!
American troops are ALL heros, except for that son of a bitch that threw the grenades in the tents, he can die.
damn straight yo:smoka:
Who's anti-war after that shit? I don't mean to be immature or anything, but to all those damn protestors... WE TOLD YOU SO!! Damn animals..
By the way.. anybody hear about the large chemical weapons facility they found? Again.. WE TOLD YOU SO!
American troops are ALL heros, except for that son of a bitch that threw the grenades in the tents, he can die.
damn straight yo:smoka:
GTi-VR6_A3
03-23-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Prelewd
American troops are ALL heros
breave ye, courageous yes, doing their jobs yes, heroes i think not. a hero is someone who goes out of the way and beyound the call of duty. to say that all the soldiers are doign that is ludicrous. some may be heroes and thats good but all of them are not.
-GTi-VR6_A3
American troops are ALL heros
breave ye, courageous yes, doing their jobs yes, heroes i think not. a hero is someone who goes out of the way and beyound the call of duty. to say that all the soldiers are doign that is ludicrous. some may be heroes and thats good but all of them are not.
-GTi-VR6_A3
jon@af
03-23-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
breave ye, courageous yes, doing their jobs yes, heroes i think not. a hero is someone who goes out of the way and beyound the call of duty. to say that all the soldiers are doign that is ludicrous. some may be heroes and thats good but all of them are not.
-GTi-VR6_A3
I think he meant it as a general statement.
breave ye, courageous yes, doing their jobs yes, heroes i think not. a hero is someone who goes out of the way and beyound the call of duty. to say that all the soldiers are doign that is ludicrous. some may be heroes and thats good but all of them are not.
-GTi-VR6_A3
I think he meant it as a general statement.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-23-2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by ILike2DriveCars
I think he meant it as a general statement.
read everything again. that is exactly what i am talking about. as a general statement american soldiers are not heroes they are doing their jobs
-GTi-VR6_A3
I think he meant it as a general statement.
read everything again. that is exactly what i am talking about. as a general statement american soldiers are not heroes they are doing their jobs
-GTi-VR6_A3
jon@af
03-23-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
read everything again. that is exactly what i am talking about. as a general statement american soldiers are not heroes they are doing their jobs
-GTi-VR6_A3
This is very true, and I completely understand and feel the same way, but some feel that they are heroes for what they are doing. Oh well, Im not going to fret over it.
read everything again. that is exactly what i am talking about. as a general statement american soldiers are not heroes they are doing their jobs
-GTi-VR6_A3
This is very true, and I completely understand and feel the same way, but some feel that they are heroes for what they are doing. Oh well, Im not going to fret over it.
Prelewd
03-23-2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
read everything again. that is exactly what i am talking about. as a general statement american soldiers are not heroes they are doing their jobs
-GTi-VR6_A3
Opps, caught me on a technicality.. I don't care.. They are my heros.. So what if their jobs makes it that way.. What about the good cops? They are peoples heros.. Wait, no, no they aren't, they are just doing their jobs..
read everything again. that is exactly what i am talking about. as a general statement american soldiers are not heroes they are doing their jobs
-GTi-VR6_A3
Opps, caught me on a technicality.. I don't care.. They are my heros.. So what if their jobs makes it that way.. What about the good cops? They are peoples heros.. Wait, no, no they aren't, they are just doing their jobs..
GTi-VR6_A3
03-23-2003, 05:39 PM
they are great people for doing that job but unfortuneatle not all of them are heroes. you are a heroe when you do something out of the ordinary. now them being your hero is all onyou and your view.
-GTi-VR6_A3
-GTi-VR6_A3
Milliardo
03-23-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Prelewd
Who's anti-war after that shit? I don't mean to be immature or anything, but to all those damn protestors... WE TOLD YOU SO!! Damn animals..
No, it's not reason to be pro-war. If you even understand about human emotions, you would know that any Iraqi would be darn mad for having their country invaded. If America were invaded, I would think Americans would want to kick and beat those they have captured. To some extent, I would think American soldiers have snuck in a punch or two at Iraqi POWs. Of course, it doesn't mean that beating POWs is acceptable; it shouldn't, and POWs should be treated with respect and humanely. All I am saying is that human nature would dictate that if you take my territory, you won't get away with it without paying something.
Who's anti-war after that shit? I don't mean to be immature or anything, but to all those damn protestors... WE TOLD YOU SO!! Damn animals..
No, it's not reason to be pro-war. If you even understand about human emotions, you would know that any Iraqi would be darn mad for having their country invaded. If America were invaded, I would think Americans would want to kick and beat those they have captured. To some extent, I would think American soldiers have snuck in a punch or two at Iraqi POWs. Of course, it doesn't mean that beating POWs is acceptable; it shouldn't, and POWs should be treated with respect and humanely. All I am saying is that human nature would dictate that if you take my territory, you won't get away with it without paying something.
crab
03-23-2003, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Prelewd
Opps, caught me on a technicality.. I don't care.. They are my heros.. So what if their jobs makes it that way.. What about the good cops? They are peoples heros.. Wait, no, no they aren't, they are just doing their jobs..
I didn't think all those GI Joe cartoons had so much effect on children, but I guess I've just been proven wrong... sigh :rolleyes:
Opps, caught me on a technicality.. I don't care.. They are my heros.. So what if their jobs makes it that way.. What about the good cops? They are peoples heros.. Wait, no, no they aren't, they are just doing their jobs..
I didn't think all those GI Joe cartoons had so much effect on children, but I guess I've just been proven wrong... sigh :rolleyes:
1985_BMW318i
03-23-2003, 08:19 PM
All Coalition Troops that stand beside their buddy or fly with their buddy are heros. It takes guts and determination to fulfil a task that you might have a personal issue with. You follow orders to make certain the job is done correctly. This doesn't mean that you follow blindly but when the outcome is for the betterment of mankind then you do the job. Its very difficult to have someone in your sights and your HUD lights up telling you that you have a lock on them and all you have to do is to pull the trigger and some young kid looses a father but you do it knowing that the outcome makes the world a safer place. Its hard but sometimes you do what you know is just in your heart and mind even tho your wiping tears away after you see them blown apart/ War is a nasty thing but sometimes it just must happen
GTi-VR6_A3
03-23-2003, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
No, it's not reason to be pro-war. If you even understand about human emotions, you would know that any Iraqi would be darn mad for having their country invaded. If America were invaded, I would think Americans would want to kick and beat those they have captured. To some extent, I would think American soldiers have snuck in a punch or two at Iraqi POWs. Of course, it doesn't mean that beating POWs is acceptable; it shouldn't, and POWs should be treated with respect and humanely. All I am saying is that human nature would dictate that if you take my territory, you won't get away with it without paying something.
he never said you had to be pro war. just not anti war. is there no median??? thats where i am. uhh personally if any us president treated me the way saddam has treated his people i would be cheering to watch whoevers troops were comign to kick his ass...
-GTi-VR6_A3
No, it's not reason to be pro-war. If you even understand about human emotions, you would know that any Iraqi would be darn mad for having their country invaded. If America were invaded, I would think Americans would want to kick and beat those they have captured. To some extent, I would think American soldiers have snuck in a punch or two at Iraqi POWs. Of course, it doesn't mean that beating POWs is acceptable; it shouldn't, and POWs should be treated with respect and humanely. All I am saying is that human nature would dictate that if you take my territory, you won't get away with it without paying something.
he never said you had to be pro war. just not anti war. is there no median??? thats where i am. uhh personally if any us president treated me the way saddam has treated his people i would be cheering to watch whoevers troops were comign to kick his ass...
-GTi-VR6_A3
Milliardo
03-23-2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
he never said you had to be pro war. just not anti war. is there no median???
I am not even sure if thre's such a thing as being neutral in such an issue. In fact, there is no such thing as being neutral in any issue, unless you don't have anything to say about it.
he never said you had to be pro war. just not anti war. is there no median???
I am not even sure if thre's such a thing as being neutral in such an issue. In fact, there is no such thing as being neutral in any issue, unless you don't have anything to say about it.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-23-2003, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
I am not even sure if thre's such a thing as being neutral in such an issue. In fact, there is no such thing as being neutral in any issue, unless you don't have anything to say about it.
quit being so damn dull. i am not anti war. i am not pro war. i am somewhere in the middle and if you have noticed i have a lot to say...
-GTi-VR6_A3
I am not even sure if thre's such a thing as being neutral in such an issue. In fact, there is no such thing as being neutral in any issue, unless you don't have anything to say about it.
quit being so damn dull. i am not anti war. i am not pro war. i am somewhere in the middle and if you have noticed i have a lot to say...
-GTi-VR6_A3
Milliardo
03-23-2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
quit being so damn dull. i am not anti war. i am not pro war. i am somewhere in the middle and if you have noticed i have a lot to say...
-GTi-VR6_A3
Then you cannot just be in the middle. Life is harsh, so you have to make some stand if you have something to say. If you want to be in the middle, then keep your peace and be silent. That's how life is.
quit being so damn dull. i am not anti war. i am not pro war. i am somewhere in the middle and if you have noticed i have a lot to say...
-GTi-VR6_A3
Then you cannot just be in the middle. Life is harsh, so you have to make some stand if you have something to say. If you want to be in the middle, then keep your peace and be silent. That's how life is.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-23-2003, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
Then you cannot just be in the middle. Life is harsh, so you have to make some stand if you have something to say. If you want to be in the middle, then keep your peace and be silent. That's how life is.
uhh right if you knew anything you would know that people that support bith views are alot different than those who abstain. i really dont liek war i doubt there is anyone that isnt evil that does. but saddam is nuts so i realize while im not one to love war it is necissary at times. now i doubt that makes me pro war...
-GTi-VR6_A3
Then you cannot just be in the middle. Life is harsh, so you have to make some stand if you have something to say. If you want to be in the middle, then keep your peace and be silent. That's how life is.
uhh right if you knew anything you would know that people that support bith views are alot different than those who abstain. i really dont liek war i doubt there is anyone that isnt evil that does. but saddam is nuts so i realize while im not one to love war it is necissary at times. now i doubt that makes me pro war...
-GTi-VR6_A3
T4 Primera
03-24-2003, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Milliardo
Then you cannot just be in the middle. Life is harsh, so you have to make some stand if you have something to say. If you want to be in the middle, then keep your peace and be silent. That's how life is. Hmmnn...sounds alot like..."you are either with us or against us".....
Of course there is middle ground and there is a valid contribution to be made from that viewpoint. This is how things like mediation, arbitration and negotiation exist.
On the other hand, if the situation is dominated with the attitude you have proposed, then there is little chance for peaceful resolution.
Then you cannot just be in the middle. Life is harsh, so you have to make some stand if you have something to say. If you want to be in the middle, then keep your peace and be silent. That's how life is. Hmmnn...sounds alot like..."you are either with us or against us".....
Of course there is middle ground and there is a valid contribution to be made from that viewpoint. This is how things like mediation, arbitration and negotiation exist.
On the other hand, if the situation is dominated with the attitude you have proposed, then there is little chance for peaceful resolution.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-24-2003, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by T4 Primera
Hmmnn...sounds alot like..."you are either with us or against us".....
Of course there is middle ground and there is a valid contribution to be made from that viewpoint. This is how things like mediation, arbitration and negotiation exist.
On the other hand, if the situation is dominated with the attitude you have proposed, then there is little chance for peaceful resolution.
thank you t4 for understanding what im trying to say.
-GTi-VR6_A3
Hmmnn...sounds alot like..."you are either with us or against us".....
Of course there is middle ground and there is a valid contribution to be made from that viewpoint. This is how things like mediation, arbitration and negotiation exist.
On the other hand, if the situation is dominated with the attitude you have proposed, then there is little chance for peaceful resolution.
thank you t4 for understanding what im trying to say.
-GTi-VR6_A3
Milliardo
03-24-2003, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by T4 Primera
Hmmnn...sounds alot like..."you are either with us or against us".....
Heh, I like how Americans put this issue into this kind of persective. Again, amusing.
Of course there is middle ground and there is a valid contribution to be made from that viewpoint. This is how things like mediation, arbitration and negotiation exist.
Are we negotiating? Are we in arbitration? No, we're discussing issues, not bargaining. If we are bargaining, then maybe there might some sort of middle ground...though even in a bargain, what "middle ground" is actually means the best thing that one side can walk away with.
On the other hand, if the situation is dominated with the attitude you have proposed, then there is little chance for peaceful resolution.
Then I wonder why the U.S. (to apply this to the issue) has not adopted the attitude you have now? If only it did...
Hmmnn...sounds alot like..."you are either with us or against us".....
Heh, I like how Americans put this issue into this kind of persective. Again, amusing.
Of course there is middle ground and there is a valid contribution to be made from that viewpoint. This is how things like mediation, arbitration and negotiation exist.
Are we negotiating? Are we in arbitration? No, we're discussing issues, not bargaining. If we are bargaining, then maybe there might some sort of middle ground...though even in a bargain, what "middle ground" is actually means the best thing that one side can walk away with.
On the other hand, if the situation is dominated with the attitude you have proposed, then there is little chance for peaceful resolution.
Then I wonder why the U.S. (to apply this to the issue) has not adopted the attitude you have now? If only it did...
GTi-VR6_A3
03-24-2003, 12:43 AM
T4 is from new zealand...:rolleyes:
and for your last comment. the US gov has taken a side instead of being in the middle and thats where we are. i dont get what point you were tryoing to make wiht that last comment...
-GTi-VR6_A3
and for your last comment. the US gov has taken a side instead of being in the middle and thats where we are. i dont get what point you were tryoing to make wiht that last comment...
-GTi-VR6_A3
Prelewd
03-24-2003, 01:06 AM
No median? Have to take one side? Wha!?!?!?
GTi was very right when he said you can be in the middle, and I agree. Nobody that isn't evil wants war.
Examples of the middle:
5 is between 0 and 10.
B is between A and C.
GTi is between pro war and anti war.
This assumes though, that there HAS to be something in the middle, when in fact there doesn't. You could just not care about the subject at all and have no viewpoint... But why would we be in this forum if that was the case?
GTi was very right when he said you can be in the middle, and I agree. Nobody that isn't evil wants war.
Examples of the middle:
5 is between 0 and 10.
B is between A and C.
GTi is between pro war and anti war.
This assumes though, that there HAS to be something in the middle, when in fact there doesn't. You could just not care about the subject at all and have no viewpoint... But why would we be in this forum if that was the case?
Milliardo
03-24-2003, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
T4 is from new zealand...:rolleyes:
and for your last comment. the US gov has taken a side instead of being in the middle and thats where we are. i dont get what point you were tryoing to make wiht that last comment...
-GTi-VR6_A3
If you've read his last comment:
On the other hand, if the situation is dominated with the attitude you have proposed, then there is little chance for peaceful resolution.
So, I replied that if only the U.S. attitude had been one for a peaceful resolution, then it would have been good. Unfortunately, it would not adopt an attitude for peace, but had its mind set for war.
T4 is from new zealand...:rolleyes:
and for your last comment. the US gov has taken a side instead of being in the middle and thats where we are. i dont get what point you were tryoing to make wiht that last comment...
-GTi-VR6_A3
If you've read his last comment:
On the other hand, if the situation is dominated with the attitude you have proposed, then there is little chance for peaceful resolution.
So, I replied that if only the U.S. attitude had been one for a peaceful resolution, then it would have been good. Unfortunately, it would not adopt an attitude for peace, but had its mind set for war.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-24-2003, 01:12 AM
that is a big statement to make. mind set on killing. i woudl liek to believe that the us was trying to use diplomacy first but that ifailed for its goals and reverted to this thing we have now. but to say that the us never tried a peaceful solution is ludicrous...
-GTi-VR6_A3
-GTi-VR6_A3
Milliardo
03-24-2003, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by Prelewd
GTi was very right when he said you can be in the middle, and I agree. Nobody that isn't evil wants war.
So we take it then that war must not be evil. I wonder then how that would sit for the many people who have suffered in wars. And war isn't the be-all, end-all.
Examples of the middle:
5 is between 0 and 10.
B is between A and C.
GTi is between pro war and anti war.
You make such poor arguments I have to actually laugh. Sorry, but such an analogy is hardly apt in this case. Try again.
This assumes though, that there HAS to be something in the middle, when in fact there doesn't.
If there isn't a middle view, then what the heck are you trying to say then?
You could just not care about the subject at all and have no viewpoint
Just like GTi-VR6_A3, I have views, but I am not saying I am in the middle. Since he has his views, then he must be for one or the other, never in the middle.
GTi was very right when he said you can be in the middle, and I agree. Nobody that isn't evil wants war.
So we take it then that war must not be evil. I wonder then how that would sit for the many people who have suffered in wars. And war isn't the be-all, end-all.
Examples of the middle:
5 is between 0 and 10.
B is between A and C.
GTi is between pro war and anti war.
You make such poor arguments I have to actually laugh. Sorry, but such an analogy is hardly apt in this case. Try again.
This assumes though, that there HAS to be something in the middle, when in fact there doesn't.
If there isn't a middle view, then what the heck are you trying to say then?
You could just not care about the subject at all and have no viewpoint
Just like GTi-VR6_A3, I have views, but I am not saying I am in the middle. Since he has his views, then he must be for one or the other, never in the middle.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-24-2003, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Milliardo
Just like GTi-VR6_A3, I have views, but I am not saying I am in the middle. Since he has his views, then he must be for one or the other, never in the middle.
actually i disagree and agree with both sides of the argument thank you. please dont try to tell me that i am one way or the other just because you are now being proven wrong.
Just like GTi-VR6_A3, I have views, but I am not saying I am in the middle. Since he has his views, then he must be for one or the other, never in the middle.
actually i disagree and agree with both sides of the argument thank you. please dont try to tell me that i am one way or the other just because you are now being proven wrong.
Milliardo
03-24-2003, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
that is a big statement to make. mind set on killing. i woudl liek to believe that the us was trying to use diplomacy first but that ifailed for its goals and reverted to this thing we have now. but to say that the us never tried a peaceful solution is ludicrous...
-GTi-VR6_A3
As I've pointed out, it doesn't take a short while to negotiate. Bush wants a hurried disarmament, which is silly to begin with. If it took forever for both the U.S. and USSR to disarm, then would it not be logical that it will take jsut as long, if not longer, to disarm Saddam? 12 years is less than half of what the world went through in the Cold War arms race, yet Bush cannot wait. If this was the attitude of both the U.S. and USSR then, heaven help us where the human race is by now.
that is a big statement to make. mind set on killing. i woudl liek to believe that the us was trying to use diplomacy first but that ifailed for its goals and reverted to this thing we have now. but to say that the us never tried a peaceful solution is ludicrous...
-GTi-VR6_A3
As I've pointed out, it doesn't take a short while to negotiate. Bush wants a hurried disarmament, which is silly to begin with. If it took forever for both the U.S. and USSR to disarm, then would it not be logical that it will take jsut as long, if not longer, to disarm Saddam? 12 years is less than half of what the world went through in the Cold War arms race, yet Bush cannot wait. If this was the attitude of both the U.S. and USSR then, heaven help us where the human race is by now.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-24-2003, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by Milliardo
So we take it then that war must not be evil. I wonder then how that would sit for the many people who have suffered in wars. And war isn't the be-all, end-all.
no i was taking it that non evil people... DO NOT WANT WAR. i never said war wasnt evil. wars an be evil but i see them more a s a consiquence of peoples actions. someone who wants war and is all for it is generally not a great person.
-GTi-VR6_A3
So we take it then that war must not be evil. I wonder then how that would sit for the many people who have suffered in wars. And war isn't the be-all, end-all.
no i was taking it that non evil people... DO NOT WANT WAR. i never said war wasnt evil. wars an be evil but i see them more a s a consiquence of peoples actions. someone who wants war and is all for it is generally not a great person.
-GTi-VR6_A3
Milliardo
03-24-2003, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
actually i disagree and agree with both sides of the argument thank you. please dont try to tell me that i am one way or the other just because you are now being proven wrong.
Then say that you both agree and disagree, and state why you agree, and why you disagree. I fail to see how I am disproven when you have not even stated you have points to agree, and disagree with, until now. All you said thus:
is there no median??? thats where i am.
The only reason yu stated, thus is:
i really dont liek war i doubt there is anyone that isnt evil that does. but saddam is nuts so i realize while im not one to love war it is necissary at times. now i doubt that makes me pro war...
actually i disagree and agree with both sides of the argument thank you. please dont try to tell me that i am one way or the other just because you are now being proven wrong.
Then say that you both agree and disagree, and state why you agree, and why you disagree. I fail to see how I am disproven when you have not even stated you have points to agree, and disagree with, until now. All you said thus:
is there no median??? thats where i am.
The only reason yu stated, thus is:
i really dont liek war i doubt there is anyone that isnt evil that does. but saddam is nuts so i realize while im not one to love war it is necissary at times. now i doubt that makes me pro war...
GTi-VR6_A3
03-24-2003, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Milliardo
As I've pointed out, it doesn't take a short while to negotiate. Bush wants a hurried disarmament, which is silly to begin with. If it took forever for both the U.S. and USSR to disarm, then would it not be logical that it will take jsut as long, if not longer, to disarm Saddam? 12 years is less than half of what the world went through in the Cold War arms race, yet Bush cannot wait. If this was the attitude of both the U.S. and USSR then, heaven help us where the human race is by now.
first of all disarming is pretty easy. the reason the us and russia dont disarm wuicker is kuz neither side wants the other to have more. and how does the lenght in which saddam is being asked to disarm ahev nething in ay way ot do with how long the arms race lasted???
-GTi-VR6_A3
As I've pointed out, it doesn't take a short while to negotiate. Bush wants a hurried disarmament, which is silly to begin with. If it took forever for both the U.S. and USSR to disarm, then would it not be logical that it will take jsut as long, if not longer, to disarm Saddam? 12 years is less than half of what the world went through in the Cold War arms race, yet Bush cannot wait. If this was the attitude of both the U.S. and USSR then, heaven help us where the human race is by now.
first of all disarming is pretty easy. the reason the us and russia dont disarm wuicker is kuz neither side wants the other to have more. and how does the lenght in which saddam is being asked to disarm ahev nething in ay way ot do with how long the arms race lasted???
-GTi-VR6_A3
Milliardo
03-24-2003, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
no i was taking it that non evil people... DO NOT WANT WAR. i never said war wasnt evil. wars an be evil but i see them more a s a consiquence of peoples actions. someone who wants war and is all for it is generally not a great person.
-GTi-VR6_A3
If you bothered reading, the reply was not directed to you.
no i was taking it that non evil people... DO NOT WANT WAR. i never said war wasnt evil. wars an be evil but i see them more a s a consiquence of peoples actions. someone who wants war and is all for it is generally not a great person.
-GTi-VR6_A3
If you bothered reading, the reply was not directed to you.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-24-2003, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by Milliardo
Then say that you both agree and disagree, and state why you agree, and why you disagree. I fail to see how I am disproven when you have not even stated you have points to agree, and disagree with, until now.
actually if you had read up on other threads i have posted in you would know where i stand...
-GTi-VR6_A3
Then say that you both agree and disagree, and state why you agree, and why you disagree. I fail to see how I am disproven when you have not even stated you have points to agree, and disagree with, until now.
actually if you had read up on other threads i have posted in you would know where i stand...
-GTi-VR6_A3
GTi-VR6_A3
03-24-2003, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by Milliardo
If you bothered reading, the reply was not directed to you.
but he just re iterated what i said... so i was defending my original idea.
-GTi-VR6_A3
If you bothered reading, the reply was not directed to you.
but he just re iterated what i said... so i was defending my original idea.
-GTi-VR6_A3
Milliardo
03-24-2003, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
first of all disarming is pretty easy.
If it's so easy, then why it has taken forever for both the U.S. and Soviet Union to disarm each other?
the reason the us and russia dont disarm wuicker is kuz neither side wants the other to have more.
Thus contradicting what you said above. And by the way, that's not the only reason. The stakes were great, and far complicated, than just simply numbers.
and how does the lenght in which saddam is being asked to disarm ahev nething in ay way ot do with how long the arms race lasted???
A lot. Disarmament goes through a lengthy series of bargaining and negotiations. In effect, you're asking a country to give up its right to protect itself. No nation would make itself vulnerable for others to pick on it. Certainly not Iraq, which is just besides Iran, and these two nations have been at odds with each other for a long while now. To ask Saddam to disarm would mean to open his nation up to a particularly risky situation. Can the U.S. guarantee that Iraq will not be taken advantage of by Iran, and others, if it does disarm? That is just one equation to consider.
first of all disarming is pretty easy.
If it's so easy, then why it has taken forever for both the U.S. and Soviet Union to disarm each other?
the reason the us and russia dont disarm wuicker is kuz neither side wants the other to have more.
Thus contradicting what you said above. And by the way, that's not the only reason. The stakes were great, and far complicated, than just simply numbers.
and how does the lenght in which saddam is being asked to disarm ahev nething in ay way ot do with how long the arms race lasted???
A lot. Disarmament goes through a lengthy series of bargaining and negotiations. In effect, you're asking a country to give up its right to protect itself. No nation would make itself vulnerable for others to pick on it. Certainly not Iraq, which is just besides Iran, and these two nations have been at odds with each other for a long while now. To ask Saddam to disarm would mean to open his nation up to a particularly risky situation. Can the U.S. guarantee that Iraq will not be taken advantage of by Iran, and others, if it does disarm? That is just one equation to consider.
Milliardo
03-24-2003, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
actually if you had read up on other threads i have posted in you would know where i stand...
-GTi-VR6_A3
And you would expect me to go back to other threads just to see your stand? That is simply silly.
actually if you had read up on other threads i have posted in you would know where i stand...
-GTi-VR6_A3
And you would expect me to go back to other threads just to see your stand? That is simply silly.
T4 Primera
03-24-2003, 01:35 AM
I'm a little puzzled myself:confused:
With regard to the phrase "you are either with us or against us":
It is a closed statement which invites a very limited choice of response. While there are certainly other choices - the phrase is designed and intended to polarise people/countries/governments. It closes the door firmly on all other options as far as G. Bush Jr. is concerned. It also implies that if I don't support him then in his view I might as well be a terrorist.
With regard to middle ground being the place where mediation, negotiation and arbitration exist:
In a discussion, middle ground is also a place where understanding of both sides may be created. In a neutral place, either side can communicate their viewpoint to a neutral party - without having to taint it with the defensiveness that exists when opposing sides have a communication breakdown. That neutral party can then relay the communication from one side to the other without emotional attachment. If that neutral party is blessed with the skills of diplomacy - great things can happen.
With regard to the last comment "Then I wonder why the U.S. (to apply this to the issue) has not adopted the attitude you have now? If only it did...":
Since we must reasonably assume that those people representing the US & UK know much about the arts of diplomacy, negotiation, human interaction etc. - then I can only assume that it was a clear choice not to apply those skills to the situation - Remember that the issues of disarmament all came in the form of ultimatums.
EDIT: Oops, guess I've fallen a bit behind the discussion:p
With regard to the phrase "you are either with us or against us":
It is a closed statement which invites a very limited choice of response. While there are certainly other choices - the phrase is designed and intended to polarise people/countries/governments. It closes the door firmly on all other options as far as G. Bush Jr. is concerned. It also implies that if I don't support him then in his view I might as well be a terrorist.
With regard to middle ground being the place where mediation, negotiation and arbitration exist:
In a discussion, middle ground is also a place where understanding of both sides may be created. In a neutral place, either side can communicate their viewpoint to a neutral party - without having to taint it with the defensiveness that exists when opposing sides have a communication breakdown. That neutral party can then relay the communication from one side to the other without emotional attachment. If that neutral party is blessed with the skills of diplomacy - great things can happen.
With regard to the last comment "Then I wonder why the U.S. (to apply this to the issue) has not adopted the attitude you have now? If only it did...":
Since we must reasonably assume that those people representing the US & UK know much about the arts of diplomacy, negotiation, human interaction etc. - then I can only assume that it was a clear choice not to apply those skills to the situation - Remember that the issues of disarmament all came in the form of ultimatums.
EDIT: Oops, guess I've fallen a bit behind the discussion:p
Milliardo
03-24-2003, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by T4 Primera
I'm a little puzzled myself:confused:
With regard to the phrase "you are either with us or against us":
It is a closed statement which invites a very limited choice of response. While there are certainly other choices - the phrase is designed and intended to polarise people/countries/governments. It closes the door firmly on all other options as far as G. Bush Jr. is concerned. It also implies that if I don't support him then in his view I might as well be a terrorist.
You also have to understand that in an issue, being in the middle would mean you have no stance, or else your stance would be so-so.
With regard to middle ground being the place where mediation, negotiation and arbitration exist:
In a discussion, middle ground is also a place where understanding of both sides may be created. In a neutral place, either side can communicate their viewpoint to a neutral party - without having to taint it with the defensiveness that exists when opposing sides have a communication breakdown. That neutral party can then relay the communication from one side to the other without emotional attachment. If that neutral party is blessed with the skills of diplomacy - great things can happen.
I would have to say that if there is a role here for someone to relay communication on both sides. But since a) we see both sides' responses and b) there is no communication breakdown, that role would not apply in this case.
With regard to the last comment "Then I wonder why the U.S. (to apply this to the issue) has not adopted the attitude you have now? If only it did...":
Since we must reasonably assume that those people representing the US & UK know much about the arts of diplomacy, negotiation, human interaction etc. - then I can only assume that it was a clear choice not to apply those skills to the situation - Remember that the issues of disarmament all came in the form of ultimatums.
Then I would be right in my assumption that I made earlier that there is simply no peaceful solution sought out, since diplomacy and negotiation, as you've pointed out, have not been applied in this situation.
I'm a little puzzled myself:confused:
With regard to the phrase "you are either with us or against us":
It is a closed statement which invites a very limited choice of response. While there are certainly other choices - the phrase is designed and intended to polarise people/countries/governments. It closes the door firmly on all other options as far as G. Bush Jr. is concerned. It also implies that if I don't support him then in his view I might as well be a terrorist.
You also have to understand that in an issue, being in the middle would mean you have no stance, or else your stance would be so-so.
With regard to middle ground being the place where mediation, negotiation and arbitration exist:
In a discussion, middle ground is also a place where understanding of both sides may be created. In a neutral place, either side can communicate their viewpoint to a neutral party - without having to taint it with the defensiveness that exists when opposing sides have a communication breakdown. That neutral party can then relay the communication from one side to the other without emotional attachment. If that neutral party is blessed with the skills of diplomacy - great things can happen.
I would have to say that if there is a role here for someone to relay communication on both sides. But since a) we see both sides' responses and b) there is no communication breakdown, that role would not apply in this case.
With regard to the last comment "Then I wonder why the U.S. (to apply this to the issue) has not adopted the attitude you have now? If only it did...":
Since we must reasonably assume that those people representing the US & UK know much about the arts of diplomacy, negotiation, human interaction etc. - then I can only assume that it was a clear choice not to apply those skills to the situation - Remember that the issues of disarmament all came in the form of ultimatums.
Then I would be right in my assumption that I made earlier that there is simply no peaceful solution sought out, since diplomacy and negotiation, as you've pointed out, have not been applied in this situation.
T4 Primera
03-24-2003, 02:17 AM
Just thought I'd throw my cards in to give this discussion some traction - so here they are......
For the record - in the issue at hand, my stance is this:
Iraq has a right to maintain an effective military defense or deterrent.
Iraq did not present a clear and present danger to the rest of the world.
Saddam is VERY unlikely to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists such as Al Queda.
The UN provided no mandate for military action at this time.
Therefore the invasion of Iraq on the grounds of enforcing disarmament is inappropriate.
Furthermore, remember who G. Bush Jr. named in his "Axis of Evil"?
Afghanistan (done), Iraq (doing) and who should be located between these two? That's right - Iran (on the to-do list).
The man is on a crusade in the biblical meaning of the word - and to the Arab world this means the same thing as Jihad means to the West. Bush is basically inciting a holy war.
It is really hard to envisage how this course of action is going to create a safer world. Bush is just driving support straight towards his terrorist enemies.
For the record - in the issue at hand, my stance is this:
Iraq has a right to maintain an effective military defense or deterrent.
Iraq did not present a clear and present danger to the rest of the world.
Saddam is VERY unlikely to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists such as Al Queda.
The UN provided no mandate for military action at this time.
Therefore the invasion of Iraq on the grounds of enforcing disarmament is inappropriate.
Furthermore, remember who G. Bush Jr. named in his "Axis of Evil"?
Afghanistan (done), Iraq (doing) and who should be located between these two? That's right - Iran (on the to-do list).
The man is on a crusade in the biblical meaning of the word - and to the Arab world this means the same thing as Jihad means to the West. Bush is basically inciting a holy war.
It is really hard to envisage how this course of action is going to create a safer world. Bush is just driving support straight towards his terrorist enemies.
Pick
03-24-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
No, it's not reason to be pro-war. If you even understand about human emotions, you would know that any Iraqi would be darn mad for having their country invaded. If America were invaded, I would think Americans would want to kick and beat those they have captured. To some extent, I would think American soldiers have snuck in a punch or two at Iraqi POWs. Of course, it doesn't mean that beating POWs is acceptable; it shouldn't, and POWs should be treated with respect and humanely. All I am saying is that human nature would dictate that if you take my territory, you won't get away with it without paying something.
Milliardo, would you please stop writing in that gay italics? Its hard to read and it makes the bullshit you spew stick out.
No, it's not reason to be pro-war. If you even understand about human emotions, you would know that any Iraqi would be darn mad for having their country invaded. If America were invaded, I would think Americans would want to kick and beat those they have captured. To some extent, I would think American soldiers have snuck in a punch or two at Iraqi POWs. Of course, it doesn't mean that beating POWs is acceptable; it shouldn't, and POWs should be treated with respect and humanely. All I am saying is that human nature would dictate that if you take my territory, you won't get away with it without paying something.
Milliardo, would you please stop writing in that gay italics? Its hard to read and it makes the bullshit you spew stick out.
Milliardo
03-24-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Milliardo, would you please stop writing in that gay italics? Its hard to read and it makes the bullshit you spew stick out.
It's not italic; it's comic sans ms, and it's the font I prefer to use. And it's amusing how Americans can't accept the fact that their country is what's being referred to in both Revelation and Nostradamus. Tell me of another country with the same resources, influence, power, and capability. And it is again amusing how there seems to be no other comment than this kind of drivel that one gets. Has that article I placed been right, that the right reasoning of a nation has shut down? If so, then that is more tragic, and more dangerous.
Milliardo, would you please stop writing in that gay italics? Its hard to read and it makes the bullshit you spew stick out.
It's not italic; it's comic sans ms, and it's the font I prefer to use. And it's amusing how Americans can't accept the fact that their country is what's being referred to in both Revelation and Nostradamus. Tell me of another country with the same resources, influence, power, and capability. And it is again amusing how there seems to be no other comment than this kind of drivel that one gets. Has that article I placed been right, that the right reasoning of a nation has shut down? If so, then that is more tragic, and more dangerous.
rsxer45
03-24-2003, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
And it's amusing how Americans can't accept the fact that their country is what's being referred to in both Revelation and Nostradamus. Tell me of another country with the same resources, influence, power, and capability.
I spent most of my young academic life in a Catholic grammar school and high school, and we have had many enlightened discussions on this topic of the Book of Revelations. Most of the priests, teachers, and monk scholars that we have listened to agree that the Book of Revelations was mainly an allegory written by the jews during the babylonian exile. It was mainly written to give hope and comfort to the suffering suffering and persecuted jews forced out of their homeland by the Romans. All the talks of destruction, earthquakes, seven seals, etc.. symbolize something about the fall of the Roman empire. I wish I could remember more details about what every little thing meant, but I remember being 100% convinced that the Book of Revelation was not meant to predict the so called end of the world, though many have erroneously interpreted it that what. If you look at the history of the jews, and the timeline in which the books of the Bible were, you can kind of understand why it seems more logical to view the book of revelations as an allegory and not as a prophecy. I'll try to do some research and maybe find some of my old high school notes and post some new info if your interested.
And it's amusing how Americans can't accept the fact that their country is what's being referred to in both Revelation and Nostradamus. Tell me of another country with the same resources, influence, power, and capability.
I spent most of my young academic life in a Catholic grammar school and high school, and we have had many enlightened discussions on this topic of the Book of Revelations. Most of the priests, teachers, and monk scholars that we have listened to agree that the Book of Revelations was mainly an allegory written by the jews during the babylonian exile. It was mainly written to give hope and comfort to the suffering suffering and persecuted jews forced out of their homeland by the Romans. All the talks of destruction, earthquakes, seven seals, etc.. symbolize something about the fall of the Roman empire. I wish I could remember more details about what every little thing meant, but I remember being 100% convinced that the Book of Revelation was not meant to predict the so called end of the world, though many have erroneously interpreted it that what. If you look at the history of the jews, and the timeline in which the books of the Bible were, you can kind of understand why it seems more logical to view the book of revelations as an allegory and not as a prophecy. I'll try to do some research and maybe find some of my old high school notes and post some new info if your interested.
Prelewd
03-24-2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
A lot. Disarmament goes through a lengthy series of bargaining and negotiations. In effect, you're asking a country to give up its right to protect itself. No nation would make itself vulnerable for others to pick on it. Certainly not Iraq, which is just besides Iran, and these two nations have been at odds with each other for a long while now. To ask Saddam to disarm would mean to open his nation up to a particularly risky situation. Can the U.S. guarantee that Iraq will not be taken advantage of by Iran, and others, if it does disarm? That is just one equation to consider.
How do you feel about guns being sold to known murderers that are out of prison?
A lot. Disarmament goes through a lengthy series of bargaining and negotiations. In effect, you're asking a country to give up its right to protect itself. No nation would make itself vulnerable for others to pick on it. Certainly not Iraq, which is just besides Iran, and these two nations have been at odds with each other for a long while now. To ask Saddam to disarm would mean to open his nation up to a particularly risky situation. Can the U.S. guarantee that Iraq will not be taken advantage of by Iran, and others, if it does disarm? That is just one equation to consider.
How do you feel about guns being sold to known murderers that are out of prison?
Milliardo
03-24-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by rsxer45
I spent most of my young academic life in a Catholic grammar school and high school, and we have had many enlightened discussions on this topic of the Book of Revelations. Most of the priests, teachers, and monk scholars that we have listened to agree that the Book of Revelations was mainly an allegory written by the jews during the babylonian exile. It was mainly written to give hope and comfort to the suffering suffering and persecuted jews forced out of their homeland by the Romans. All the talks of destruction, earthquakes, seven seals, etc.. symbolize something about the fall of the Roman empire. I wish I could remember more details about what every little thing meant, but I remember being 100% convinced that the Book of Revelation was not meant to predict the so called end of the world, though many have erroneously interpreted it that what. If you look at the history of the jews, and the timeline in which the books of the Bible were, you can kind of understand why it seems more logical to view the book of revelations as an allegory and not as a prophecy. I'll try to do some research and maybe find some of my old high school notes and post some new info if your interested.
I am Catholic myself. Although the Church has taught it is allegorical, this only goes insofar as to the symbolisms--in fact, an allegory means that a narrative or poem is made up of symbolisms in order to convey a certain meaning. Revelation is that. In no way did the Church flatly state that Revelation does not apply to some future event. As for what you said about the Jews and the Babylonian Exile, you must be speaking of another Book, which is Daniels, which specifically was written for the Jews then in exile in Babylon. The symbolism given in Revelation to the Whore of Babylon is in comparison to ancient Babylon, which enslaved and made Israel worship false gods. To wit, one view held by Bible scholars is that Revelation is a book made to comfort Christians at the time of Nero's persecutions. The Beast and number refer to Nero. Of course, that is but one view. Even many Catholics, priests and bishops included, see Revelation to not just mean that, but see it as well as a warning of what is to come. For instance, the last few chapters of the book speak of the Second Coming, the victorious return of Christ as King and Judge. This is still an event which we, as Christians, eagerly await.
I spent most of my young academic life in a Catholic grammar school and high school, and we have had many enlightened discussions on this topic of the Book of Revelations. Most of the priests, teachers, and monk scholars that we have listened to agree that the Book of Revelations was mainly an allegory written by the jews during the babylonian exile. It was mainly written to give hope and comfort to the suffering suffering and persecuted jews forced out of their homeland by the Romans. All the talks of destruction, earthquakes, seven seals, etc.. symbolize something about the fall of the Roman empire. I wish I could remember more details about what every little thing meant, but I remember being 100% convinced that the Book of Revelation was not meant to predict the so called end of the world, though many have erroneously interpreted it that what. If you look at the history of the jews, and the timeline in which the books of the Bible were, you can kind of understand why it seems more logical to view the book of revelations as an allegory and not as a prophecy. I'll try to do some research and maybe find some of my old high school notes and post some new info if your interested.
I am Catholic myself. Although the Church has taught it is allegorical, this only goes insofar as to the symbolisms--in fact, an allegory means that a narrative or poem is made up of symbolisms in order to convey a certain meaning. Revelation is that. In no way did the Church flatly state that Revelation does not apply to some future event. As for what you said about the Jews and the Babylonian Exile, you must be speaking of another Book, which is Daniels, which specifically was written for the Jews then in exile in Babylon. The symbolism given in Revelation to the Whore of Babylon is in comparison to ancient Babylon, which enslaved and made Israel worship false gods. To wit, one view held by Bible scholars is that Revelation is a book made to comfort Christians at the time of Nero's persecutions. The Beast and number refer to Nero. Of course, that is but one view. Even many Catholics, priests and bishops included, see Revelation to not just mean that, but see it as well as a warning of what is to come. For instance, the last few chapters of the book speak of the Second Coming, the victorious return of Christ as King and Judge. This is still an event which we, as Christians, eagerly await.
Milliardo
03-24-2003, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Prelewd
How do you feel about guns being sold to known murderers that are out of prison?
In the first place, how would you even know a person is a murderer, unless a) caught in the act or, b) already tried and sentenced in court? Since we have the freedom to bear arms and protect ourselves, then that means such a right goes to everyone. If you mean those convicts who have been pardoned and are now on parole, then we would assume that they have become law-abiding citizens, and that they have the right to bear arms just as anyone else.
How do you feel about guns being sold to known murderers that are out of prison?
In the first place, how would you even know a person is a murderer, unless a) caught in the act or, b) already tried and sentenced in court? Since we have the freedom to bear arms and protect ourselves, then that means such a right goes to everyone. If you mean those convicts who have been pardoned and are now on parole, then we would assume that they have become law-abiding citizens, and that they have the right to bear arms just as anyone else.
Prelewd
03-24-2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
In the first place, how would you even know a person is a murderer, unless a) caught in the act or, b) already tried and sentenced in court? Since we have the freedom to bear arms and protect ourselves, then that means such a right goes to everyone. If you mean those convicts who have been pardoned and are now on parole, then we would assume that they have become law-abiding citizens, and that they have the right to bear arms just as anyone else.
Would hanging 12 people to demonstrate power constitute as caught in the act?
In the first place, how would you even know a person is a murderer, unless a) caught in the act or, b) already tried and sentenced in court? Since we have the freedom to bear arms and protect ourselves, then that means such a right goes to everyone. If you mean those convicts who have been pardoned and are now on parole, then we would assume that they have become law-abiding citizens, and that they have the right to bear arms just as anyone else.
Would hanging 12 people to demonstrate power constitute as caught in the act?
GTi-VR6_A3
03-24-2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
In the first place, how would you even know a person is a murderer, unless a) caught in the act or, b) already tried and sentenced in court? Since we have the freedom to bear arms and protect ourselves, then that means such a right goes to everyone. If you mean those convicts who have been pardoned and are now on parole, then we would assume that they have become law-abiding citizens, and that they have the right to bear arms just as anyone else.
how about invading a country enigbooring you beacause you wanted to anex them? or what about carying on a war with iran for no apparent reason?
-GTi-VR6_A3
In the first place, how would you even know a person is a murderer, unless a) caught in the act or, b) already tried and sentenced in court? Since we have the freedom to bear arms and protect ourselves, then that means such a right goes to everyone. If you mean those convicts who have been pardoned and are now on parole, then we would assume that they have become law-abiding citizens, and that they have the right to bear arms just as anyone else.
how about invading a country enigbooring you beacause you wanted to anex them? or what about carying on a war with iran for no apparent reason?
-GTi-VR6_A3
Milliardo
03-24-2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
how about invading a country enigbooring you beacause you wanted to anex them? or what about carying on a war with iran for no apparent reason?
Then the U.S. should be condemned for this act, since it is invading a country, and I doubt if it's not for annexation. Of course, a supposed government might be set up, but can anyone spell p-u-p-p-e-t?
Would hanging 12 people to demonstrate power constitute as caught in the act?
If you mean those American POWs, it isn't a demonstration of power. It's more of revenge and anger, and it's a different case. But as I said those who did it should be tried since it is a violation of the Geneva Convention.
how about invading a country enigbooring you beacause you wanted to anex them? or what about carying on a war with iran for no apparent reason?
Then the U.S. should be condemned for this act, since it is invading a country, and I doubt if it's not for annexation. Of course, a supposed government might be set up, but can anyone spell p-u-p-p-e-t?
Would hanging 12 people to demonstrate power constitute as caught in the act?
If you mean those American POWs, it isn't a demonstration of power. It's more of revenge and anger, and it's a different case. But as I said those who did it should be tried since it is a violation of the Geneva Convention.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-24-2003, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
Then the U.S. should be condemned for this act, since it is invading a country, and I doubt if it's not for annexation. Of course, a supposed government might be set up, but can anyone spell p-u-p-p-e-t?
here is the problem wiht your arguemnet and this is exactly why i used it. if you can use that as an argument then the us is doing nothing wrong because it is just stopping a nation who has whown itself to fight wiht its neighbors therferore just enforcing world law. and im sorry but american military imperialism ended about 100 years ago. well at least taking new countries. so to say the iraq will become a territory of the US is ludicrous...
-GTi-VR6_A3
Then the U.S. should be condemned for this act, since it is invading a country, and I doubt if it's not for annexation. Of course, a supposed government might be set up, but can anyone spell p-u-p-p-e-t?
here is the problem wiht your arguemnet and this is exactly why i used it. if you can use that as an argument then the us is doing nothing wrong because it is just stopping a nation who has whown itself to fight wiht its neighbors therferore just enforcing world law. and im sorry but american military imperialism ended about 100 years ago. well at least taking new countries. so to say the iraq will become a territory of the US is ludicrous...
-GTi-VR6_A3
Milliardo
03-25-2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
here is the problem wiht your arguemnet and this is exactly why i used it. if you can use that as an argument then the us is doing nothing wrong because it is just stopping a nation who has whown itself to fight wiht its neighbors therferore just enforcing world law.
And did you know that for so many years, the U.S. supported Iraq in that war? When Iran turned against the U.S., it turned to Iraq to start the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. is not about to stop a war it has been benefitting from for years, but since Saddam has been a bad boy, and thinks he can go on his own, the U.S. has to go in and boot him out...and put in the puppet government that would obey its own will (as well as get the second biggest oil field in the Middle East).
and im sorry but american military imperialism ended about 100 years ago.
Nope, it hasn't, and the proxy wars it has been fighting shows it.
well at least taking new countries. so to say the iraq will become a territory of the US is ludicrous...
It doesn't have to be a part of the U.S., unless Bush thinks it would be more profitable and much better to have the U.S. government control it directly, and not form a puppet government it can't even rely on (might turn into how Saddam became). Regardless of how it will be, the U.S. will make sure it has firm and total control of whatever government Iraq will have after Saddam (and get in the needed profits from the oil wells as well).
here is the problem wiht your arguemnet and this is exactly why i used it. if you can use that as an argument then the us is doing nothing wrong because it is just stopping a nation who has whown itself to fight wiht its neighbors therferore just enforcing world law.
And did you know that for so many years, the U.S. supported Iraq in that war? When Iran turned against the U.S., it turned to Iraq to start the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. is not about to stop a war it has been benefitting from for years, but since Saddam has been a bad boy, and thinks he can go on his own, the U.S. has to go in and boot him out...and put in the puppet government that would obey its own will (as well as get the second biggest oil field in the Middle East).
and im sorry but american military imperialism ended about 100 years ago.
Nope, it hasn't, and the proxy wars it has been fighting shows it.
well at least taking new countries. so to say the iraq will become a territory of the US is ludicrous...
It doesn't have to be a part of the U.S., unless Bush thinks it would be more profitable and much better to have the U.S. government control it directly, and not form a puppet government it can't even rely on (might turn into how Saddam became). Regardless of how it will be, the U.S. will make sure it has firm and total control of whatever government Iraq will have after Saddam (and get in the needed profits from the oil wells as well).
Prelewd
03-25-2003, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Milliardo
It doesn't have to be a part of the U.S., unless Bush thinks it would be more profitable and much better to have the U.S. government control it directly, and not form a puppet government it can't even rely on (might turn into how Saddam became). Regardless of how it will be, the U.S. will make sure it has firm and total control of whatever government Iraq will have after Saddam (and get in the needed profits from the oil wells as well).
Pretend this is Bush's motive. The world will still be a much safer place, and the Iraqi people with still be more secure, and possibly have a voice.
And, theoretically, if the US does get the oil (which it doesn't need), why do you care?
I still can't believe that people would think a man is so evil, and for what? He didn't kill 5 million jews or gas hundreds of thousands of kurds. I wonder where it even started... Florida?
It doesn't have to be a part of the U.S., unless Bush thinks it would be more profitable and much better to have the U.S. government control it directly, and not form a puppet government it can't even rely on (might turn into how Saddam became). Regardless of how it will be, the U.S. will make sure it has firm and total control of whatever government Iraq will have after Saddam (and get in the needed profits from the oil wells as well).
Pretend this is Bush's motive. The world will still be a much safer place, and the Iraqi people with still be more secure, and possibly have a voice.
And, theoretically, if the US does get the oil (which it doesn't need), why do you care?
I still can't believe that people would think a man is so evil, and for what? He didn't kill 5 million jews or gas hundreds of thousands of kurds. I wonder where it even started... Florida?
T4 Primera
03-25-2003, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by Prelewd
Pretend this is Bush's motive. The world will still be a much safer place, and the Iraqi people with still be more secure, and possibly have a voice.
That is a BIG stretch. First of all, the thought of infidels occupying their homelands is an affront to Islam that goes all the way back to 'The Crusades'. If the people then had a voice, it would be saying LEAVE.....NOW!!!!
Originally posted by Prelewd
And, theoretically, if the US does get the oil (which it doesn't need), why do you care?Are you sure the US doesn't need that oil supply? Could the US produce the oil it consumes sustainably without the higher prices crippling the economy?
Originally posted by Prelewd
I still can't believe that people would think a man is so evil, and for what? He didn't kill 5 million jews or gas hundreds of thousands of kurds. I wonder where it even started... Florida? He has invaded 2 countries, started 2 wars, to get 2 men. It's almost like the numbers are inverted - weird!! If he couldn't get Bin Laden, then what are his chances of getting Hussein?
Pretend this is Bush's motive. The world will still be a much safer place, and the Iraqi people with still be more secure, and possibly have a voice.
That is a BIG stretch. First of all, the thought of infidels occupying their homelands is an affront to Islam that goes all the way back to 'The Crusades'. If the people then had a voice, it would be saying LEAVE.....NOW!!!!
Originally posted by Prelewd
And, theoretically, if the US does get the oil (which it doesn't need), why do you care?Are you sure the US doesn't need that oil supply? Could the US produce the oil it consumes sustainably without the higher prices crippling the economy?
Originally posted by Prelewd
I still can't believe that people would think a man is so evil, and for what? He didn't kill 5 million jews or gas hundreds of thousands of kurds. I wonder where it even started... Florida? He has invaded 2 countries, started 2 wars, to get 2 men. It's almost like the numbers are inverted - weird!! If he couldn't get Bin Laden, then what are his chances of getting Hussein?
Milliardo
03-25-2003, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by Prelewd
Pretend this is Bush's motive. The world will still be a much safer place, and the Iraqi people with still be more secure, and possibly have a voice.
I wouldn't know if it would be a safer place. As pointed out by T4, non-Muslims occupying an Islamic country is an affront to Islam. If it won't be Iraqis themselves who will kick the Americans out, there's always Iran next door.
And, theoretically, if the US does get the oil (which it doesn't need), why do you care?
The U.S., again as T4 pointed out, needs all the oil it can get. And why should we care? The U.S. would then be a virtual superpower, with all of the world's resources in its hands. In a frightening way, it is, to quote a movie and book title, the sum of all our fears, the Empire come to reality. Such a thought, even for those not familiar with Apocalyptic literature, should frighten you. But I would think it won't, until it would be too late. Power in the hands of one nation is dangerous.
I still can't believe that people would think a man is so evil, and for what? He didn't kill 5 million jews or gas hundreds of thousands of kurds. I wonder where it even started... Florida?
Neither could Germans imagine Hitler to be the monster he turned out to be. Germany accepted Hitler with open arms--his message was one of hope and, at least for Germany, glory and peace. Americans embrace Bush's words with just the same open arms Germans did Hitler. And it is very easy for power to get into one's head. Such great power, at one's command, can be heady, and Bush is falling into that heady feeling headlong, without stop. What are his next targets? Has he not enumerated them? I doubt he will now stop with Iraq, as his war machine is almost virtually unopposed, and his opponent easily outmatched.
Pretend this is Bush's motive. The world will still be a much safer place, and the Iraqi people with still be more secure, and possibly have a voice.
I wouldn't know if it would be a safer place. As pointed out by T4, non-Muslims occupying an Islamic country is an affront to Islam. If it won't be Iraqis themselves who will kick the Americans out, there's always Iran next door.
And, theoretically, if the US does get the oil (which it doesn't need), why do you care?
The U.S., again as T4 pointed out, needs all the oil it can get. And why should we care? The U.S. would then be a virtual superpower, with all of the world's resources in its hands. In a frightening way, it is, to quote a movie and book title, the sum of all our fears, the Empire come to reality. Such a thought, even for those not familiar with Apocalyptic literature, should frighten you. But I would think it won't, until it would be too late. Power in the hands of one nation is dangerous.
I still can't believe that people would think a man is so evil, and for what? He didn't kill 5 million jews or gas hundreds of thousands of kurds. I wonder where it even started... Florida?
Neither could Germans imagine Hitler to be the monster he turned out to be. Germany accepted Hitler with open arms--his message was one of hope and, at least for Germany, glory and peace. Americans embrace Bush's words with just the same open arms Germans did Hitler. And it is very easy for power to get into one's head. Such great power, at one's command, can be heady, and Bush is falling into that heady feeling headlong, without stop. What are his next targets? Has he not enumerated them? I doubt he will now stop with Iraq, as his war machine is almost virtually unopposed, and his opponent easily outmatched.
GTStang
03-25-2003, 03:05 AM
If you think we need foriegn oil you are clueless. We buy foriegn oil so we don't have to tap our domestic oil. Just so you know the U.S. has enough oil stored to run the whole US and full military campaign for 5 years. Actually domestic oil is cheaper than foriegn. We are protecting our resource while using the world's.
To make your statement of Bush becoming America's Hitler shows that you have a total lack of understanding of Germany the years before Hitler came into power and how he actually came into the power he had. And a larger lack of understanding of the U.S. in every facet.
Actually if you looked at Hitlers rise to power compared to Saddam's the similarties are all over the place.
To make your statement of Bush becoming America's Hitler shows that you have a total lack of understanding of Germany the years before Hitler came into power and how he actually came into the power he had. And a larger lack of understanding of the U.S. in every facet.
Actually if you looked at Hitlers rise to power compared to Saddam's the similarties are all over the place.
Prelewd
03-25-2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by T4 Primera
Are you sure the US doesn't need that oil supply? Could the US produce the oil it consumes sustainably without the higher prices crippling the economy?
...
He has invaded 2 countries, started 2 wars, to get 2 men. It's almost like the numbers are inverted - wierd!! If he couldn't get Bin Laden, then what are his chances of getting Hussein?
The US doesn't need the oil supply. Between our oil reserves, and the advancement of the technology of hydrogen vehicles coming within years, we could probably do without. Our gas prices are falling, and our economy is rising. Look at our stock market, biggest gains in years since this war has started.
1st war was what? War against terror? Do you question his motives for this war since WE were attacked? Would you just lay over if some terrorsts attacked your country? Maybe I shouldn't ask that question, because you might say yes. Maybe we should have just let Japan bomb pearl harbor without retalliation. If you don't live in America, who are you to judge it? Bush's chances of getting Hussein are bad if he keeps hiding under hospitals and schools to protect his pussy ass, because Bush is moral enough not to bomb any of these places. "God damn Bush is so evil..."
Are you sure the US doesn't need that oil supply? Could the US produce the oil it consumes sustainably without the higher prices crippling the economy?
...
He has invaded 2 countries, started 2 wars, to get 2 men. It's almost like the numbers are inverted - wierd!! If he couldn't get Bin Laden, then what are his chances of getting Hussein?
The US doesn't need the oil supply. Between our oil reserves, and the advancement of the technology of hydrogen vehicles coming within years, we could probably do without. Our gas prices are falling, and our economy is rising. Look at our stock market, biggest gains in years since this war has started.
1st war was what? War against terror? Do you question his motives for this war since WE were attacked? Would you just lay over if some terrorsts attacked your country? Maybe I shouldn't ask that question, because you might say yes. Maybe we should have just let Japan bomb pearl harbor without retalliation. If you don't live in America, who are you to judge it? Bush's chances of getting Hussein are bad if he keeps hiding under hospitals and schools to protect his pussy ass, because Bush is moral enough not to bomb any of these places. "God damn Bush is so evil..."
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025