kallend 2,154 #26 April 9, 2003 Quote Quote Given that over the last few weeks you have posted something like a dozen "quotes" or reports that turned out to be hoaxes or bogus in some way, one is tempted to think of your comment as the pot calling the kettle "black". surly you can count better than that. No - I need to take my shoes off for a more accurate count . And who are you calling "Surly you"? Rule #1... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,154 #27 April 9, 2003 Quote Heh, heh... Admit it Kallend, the scenes of Iraqis running through the streets shouting "Bush, Bush, Bush....." really frosts your ass doesn't it? Like fingernails on a chalk board. Come on John admit it ha ha ha I don't know, I think I too would prefer to have a nincompoop in charge instead of a despot. It was cool watching the Marines pull down that statue this morning!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #28 April 9, 2003 QuoteLet me ask -- is it spelled 'nyah nyah nyah' or 'neener neener neener'? Quote take your pick. Scenes of Iraqis running through the streets shouting "Bush, Bush, Bush" don't bother me at all.Quote I didn't say it bothered you. I was posting to Kallend. I also know a little friendly jabbing doesn't bother him. We took a huge gamble with mostly other people's lives, and our own reputation.Quote In your opinion. Many would disagree. I think we've set back any chance for a collaborative approach to world affairs among differing countries.Quote I think we finally let those in the world who would plot to harm us, that we aren't going to take it any more. After all the attacks on this country abroad and all the disrespect we have garnered over the last 25 years, we finally responded. We sent a clear message to those by our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. I realize that if you ascribe to a "US rules, all who don't agree with us drool" point of view, that's kind of pointless.Quote How many more times do Americans have to be attacked before we respond. This country started to lose respect in the world as far back as Vietnam. I believe the reason the Iranians took American hostages and refused to let them go is because they knew we wouldn't do anything about it. I believe the reason many countries have allowed terrorism to foster is because they didn't think we would do anything about it. I don't think they believe that anymore. I'm glad there are Iraqis who are more free now. Will we be going after other brutal, bad dictators next? Quote Yes I belive we will. I think Syria may be next. And how will we justify it? Quote We know they have been supporting terrorism. If Saddam is alive, he is most likely in Syria so we can justify going in after him. We may also find terrorist camps in Syria. On the other hand, the Syrians may smarten up and expel the terrorist organizations within its' borders. The reasons shouldn't change with the perception of the outside world. If they're good reasons, then you should be able to stand on them. If they're not good enough to say consistently, then they're probably not worth killing over.Quote See above. Wendy W. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerry81 10 #29 April 9, 2003 See, now that is worth replying to. Although it was directed at 'us' rather than me. First of all, I personally don't believe America is pure corporate evil. But I believe that if PCE could be measured, your country would rank quite high. Concerning the outcome of this war, read Wendy's post. It was a gamble and it seems that the immediate consequences are mainly good. You have, however, shaken the world order and we can currently only speculate on the possible consequences of this disturbance. As for France, Germany, Russia and all the others; I don't believe that their opposition to the war is purely a moral stance, same as I don't believe for a moment that American reasons for attacking Iraq are completely selfless. (And specifically concerning your comment; shouldn't there also be lots of Americans cheering because you've managed to get all of Saddams WMDs? /sarcasm off) And to Wendy- I believe Paul Wolfowitz said yesterday that Syria is next. I'm really anxious to see what the resons will be and how quickly they'll be adopted by the American public. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #30 April 9, 2003 QuoteDo you not think we should help people who are oppressed? Yes, but I think there are better ways than invasion. And just because we toppled Saddam, well, we'll see how much it helps. Democracy has never been successfully forced onto another nation. The people within have to want it. Just because they wanted to get rid of Saddam doesn't mean they want to write and uphold a constitution that protects the rights of the people. More than likely there will be a new authoritarian regime in place. What our leaders are counting on is that it's one that is favorable to the US. QuoteDo you not think that we should expect a tiny bit of gratitude? I'm sure that's one of the main reasons we did it, to curry favor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,592 #31 April 9, 2003 Wendy:QuoteI'm glad there are Iraqis who are more free now. Will we be going after other brutal, bad dictators next? Gravitymaster:QuoteYes I belive we will. I think Syria may be next. Wendy:QuoteAnd how will we justify it Gravitymaster:QuoteWe know they have been supporting terrorism. If Saddam is alive, he is most likely in Syria so we can justify going in after him. We may also find terrorist camps in Syria. On the other hand, the Syrians may smarten up and expel the terrorist organizations within its' borders. Sounds like Wyatt Earp going after the Cowboys in the movie. That was fiction. The reality was different. I think fiction is where it belonged. If Saddam moves to a country that is on our good list, will we go after them if they don't catch him? How dare we set ourselves up as the arbiter of what is worth keeping in the world. It's the height of arrogance, as far as I'm concerned. Only because we're powerful (and we're powerful because we're lucky enough to have picked, as a country, some really bountiful temperate land) can we get away with moving around "cleaning up the bad guys". Even if they're really bad. I realize that strength garners respect in some circles. But eventually strength isn't enough. Maybe not in my lifetime or yours, but I have a son, and I'd like to know that he, and his eventual progeny, won't be here when the end of American dominance comes (as happened with Britain & Portugal & Spain & Rome & many others before) and a lot of pissed-off people rejoice in that. This doesn't mean I'm against America. Not by a long shot. But we're getting perilously close to a "might makes right" mentality that makes it easy for us as a country to fall to a dynasty type of leadership. And that is very against the precepts on which the country was founded. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #32 April 9, 2003 >I've said this before, and I'll say it again, although we (Americans) > make mistakes I believe our hearts are in the right place when it > comes to situations like Iraq. I agree. Our motivations aren't always pure, but more often than not, we try to do the right thing. >Do you honestly still see no reason to depose Saddam now that > you've seen how happy people are (even if you only watch Al- >Jazeera you've seen it)? Making people run around in the streets and be happy doesn't really enter into it for me; you can do that by dropping money on a city. What _is_ important is that a very evil guy will no longer have the power to abuse the Iraqis - and for that I'm glad. I wish that we could have killed fewer Iraqis doing it (although we did a pretty good job minimizing civilian casualties) and I'm sorry the world couldn't unite behind the task. It would have made our job easier and would have helped reduce emnity against the US. >Do you not think we should help people who are oppressed? Sometimes. We should not invade every country where people are oppressed. If you read our own report on human rights, you'll see a dozen or so countries where people are horribly oppressed. North Korea tortures and kills political dissidents. Nepal kills and tortures their citizens, and has far more children in prison and forced-labor camps than Iraq did. The Burmese military rapes ethnic minority women as a matter of course; it's standard practice there. We should try to help these people, but that does not equate to invading them all. There are a lot more ways to help oppressed people. > Do you not think that we should expect a tiny bit of gratitude? No, we absolutely should not. We should do what's right. If they are grateful, great. If not, it's not a big deal - that's not the reason we did it. If they elect a new government that doesn't want to sell us oil, they should have that right without fear of reprisal. Our help to their people does not imply any ownership of them or their country in the future, after they are a functioning country again. >Yes, I love and believe in my country. Call that what you will. But if >we're the bad guys, who are the good guys? We're pretty good, but we're not always perfect. Other countries are pretty good, too. Some aren't so good. A few are really bad. I hope we remember we're one country on a very large planet, and one way or another we do have to live with everyone else. I hope, in the future, we can figure out a way to do that with our diplomats, our economy and our goodwill rather than with our military. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bodypilot90 0 #33 April 9, 2003 Quote No - I need to take my shoes off for a more accurate count . lol you are a riot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bodypilot90 0 #34 April 9, 2003 Quote I don't know, I think I too would prefer to have a nincompoop in charge instead of a despot. Oh i had not heard they left Jimmy Carter in charge Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #35 April 10, 2003 Quote Quote No - I need to take my shoes off for a more accurate count . lol you are a riot Kallend cracks me up too. Heres the latest lefty spin on the war. "The fact that Saddam didn't use chemical and biological weapons on U.S.Troops even though he has them is proof we didn't have to invade because it shows he could have been trusted not to use them. ROFLMAO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #36 April 10, 2003 QuoteAnd just because we toppled Saddam, well, we'll see how much it helps. Democracy has never been successfully forced onto another nation. I am not sure how you are referencing "democracy". They already are a republic, and have been since 1968. QuoteJust because they wanted to get rid of Saddam doesn't mean they want to write and uphold a constitution that protects the rights of the people. Again, they already have one. Actually, there's one, and a rewritten one that hasn't been ratified yet... The first one was written and provisionally ratified in September 1968, and emploed as of July 1970...the rewrite was in 1990, but has not yet been ratified. Don't you remember Saddam Heussein getting 99% of the vote? For a 5th term, too! (Hey, maybe the rewrite included term limits, which would've given SH a reason to make sure it didn't pass....) QuoteMore than likely there will be a new authoritarian regime in place. What our leaders are counting on is that it's one that is favorable to the US. Nope, more than likely there will be an interim government installed, and, similar to Afghanistan, elections will be scheduled. Irregardless of what we think it will look like, it will likely be very different from what we anticipate. For your reading pleasure, here are a few links... CIA Factbook 1990 Rewrite of the Constitution (I can't find the text of 1968's Constitution to contrast and compare wtih, sorry...) Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Iflyme 0 #37 April 10, 2003 QuoteDo you not think we should help people who are oppressed? Trent, I don't think this invasion of Iraq has anything to do with "helping people who are oppressed". I think it has more to do with a small group of neo-conservative men, including the likes of Paul Wolfowitz -- who want to control the world. They view the demise of the Soviet Union as the opportunity for the USA to gain control of the world. This is just one small step in their agenda. It's got little to do with fighting terrorism or liberating the people of Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,154 #38 April 10, 2003 Quote I didn't say it bothered you. I was posting to Kallend. I also know a little friendly jabbing doesn't bother him. Jab? More like a love pat. If you think that was a jab, try reading the wreck.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #39 April 10, 2003 Well, hell, Michelle...what we liberating them for then? Please tell me you see a difference between a country calling itself a republic and having a truly democratic government. I was speaking of the actual implementation and actions of the government, not what they called themselves and claimed to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jerry81 10 #29 April 9, 2003 See, now that is worth replying to. Although it was directed at 'us' rather than me. First of all, I personally don't believe America is pure corporate evil. But I believe that if PCE could be measured, your country would rank quite high. Concerning the outcome of this war, read Wendy's post. It was a gamble and it seems that the immediate consequences are mainly good. You have, however, shaken the world order and we can currently only speculate on the possible consequences of this disturbance. As for France, Germany, Russia and all the others; I don't believe that their opposition to the war is purely a moral stance, same as I don't believe for a moment that American reasons for attacking Iraq are completely selfless. (And specifically concerning your comment; shouldn't there also be lots of Americans cheering because you've managed to get all of Saddams WMDs? /sarcasm off) And to Wendy- I believe Paul Wolfowitz said yesterday that Syria is next. I'm really anxious to see what the resons will be and how quickly they'll be adopted by the American public. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #30 April 9, 2003 QuoteDo you not think we should help people who are oppressed? Yes, but I think there are better ways than invasion. And just because we toppled Saddam, well, we'll see how much it helps. Democracy has never been successfully forced onto another nation. The people within have to want it. Just because they wanted to get rid of Saddam doesn't mean they want to write and uphold a constitution that protects the rights of the people. More than likely there will be a new authoritarian regime in place. What our leaders are counting on is that it's one that is favorable to the US. QuoteDo you not think that we should expect a tiny bit of gratitude? I'm sure that's one of the main reasons we did it, to curry favor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,592 #31 April 9, 2003 Wendy:QuoteI'm glad there are Iraqis who are more free now. Will we be going after other brutal, bad dictators next? Gravitymaster:QuoteYes I belive we will. I think Syria may be next. Wendy:QuoteAnd how will we justify it Gravitymaster:QuoteWe know they have been supporting terrorism. If Saddam is alive, he is most likely in Syria so we can justify going in after him. We may also find terrorist camps in Syria. On the other hand, the Syrians may smarten up and expel the terrorist organizations within its' borders. Sounds like Wyatt Earp going after the Cowboys in the movie. That was fiction. The reality was different. I think fiction is where it belonged. If Saddam moves to a country that is on our good list, will we go after them if they don't catch him? How dare we set ourselves up as the arbiter of what is worth keeping in the world. It's the height of arrogance, as far as I'm concerned. Only because we're powerful (and we're powerful because we're lucky enough to have picked, as a country, some really bountiful temperate land) can we get away with moving around "cleaning up the bad guys". Even if they're really bad. I realize that strength garners respect in some circles. But eventually strength isn't enough. Maybe not in my lifetime or yours, but I have a son, and I'd like to know that he, and his eventual progeny, won't be here when the end of American dominance comes (as happened with Britain & Portugal & Spain & Rome & many others before) and a lot of pissed-off people rejoice in that. This doesn't mean I'm against America. Not by a long shot. But we're getting perilously close to a "might makes right" mentality that makes it easy for us as a country to fall to a dynasty type of leadership. And that is very against the precepts on which the country was founded. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #32 April 9, 2003 >I've said this before, and I'll say it again, although we (Americans) > make mistakes I believe our hearts are in the right place when it > comes to situations like Iraq. I agree. Our motivations aren't always pure, but more often than not, we try to do the right thing. >Do you honestly still see no reason to depose Saddam now that > you've seen how happy people are (even if you only watch Al- >Jazeera you've seen it)? Making people run around in the streets and be happy doesn't really enter into it for me; you can do that by dropping money on a city. What _is_ important is that a very evil guy will no longer have the power to abuse the Iraqis - and for that I'm glad. I wish that we could have killed fewer Iraqis doing it (although we did a pretty good job minimizing civilian casualties) and I'm sorry the world couldn't unite behind the task. It would have made our job easier and would have helped reduce emnity against the US. >Do you not think we should help people who are oppressed? Sometimes. We should not invade every country where people are oppressed. If you read our own report on human rights, you'll see a dozen or so countries where people are horribly oppressed. North Korea tortures and kills political dissidents. Nepal kills and tortures their citizens, and has far more children in prison and forced-labor camps than Iraq did. The Burmese military rapes ethnic minority women as a matter of course; it's standard practice there. We should try to help these people, but that does not equate to invading them all. There are a lot more ways to help oppressed people. > Do you not think that we should expect a tiny bit of gratitude? No, we absolutely should not. We should do what's right. If they are grateful, great. If not, it's not a big deal - that's not the reason we did it. If they elect a new government that doesn't want to sell us oil, they should have that right without fear of reprisal. Our help to their people does not imply any ownership of them or their country in the future, after they are a functioning country again. >Yes, I love and believe in my country. Call that what you will. But if >we're the bad guys, who are the good guys? We're pretty good, but we're not always perfect. Other countries are pretty good, too. Some aren't so good. A few are really bad. I hope we remember we're one country on a very large planet, and one way or another we do have to live with everyone else. I hope, in the future, we can figure out a way to do that with our diplomats, our economy and our goodwill rather than with our military. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #33 April 9, 2003 Quote No - I need to take my shoes off for a more accurate count . lol you are a riot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #34 April 9, 2003 Quote I don't know, I think I too would prefer to have a nincompoop in charge instead of a despot. Oh i had not heard they left Jimmy Carter in charge Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #35 April 10, 2003 Quote Quote No - I need to take my shoes off for a more accurate count . lol you are a riot Kallend cracks me up too. Heres the latest lefty spin on the war. "The fact that Saddam didn't use chemical and biological weapons on U.S.Troops even though he has them is proof we didn't have to invade because it shows he could have been trusted not to use them. ROFLMAO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #36 April 10, 2003 QuoteAnd just because we toppled Saddam, well, we'll see how much it helps. Democracy has never been successfully forced onto another nation. I am not sure how you are referencing "democracy". They already are a republic, and have been since 1968. QuoteJust because they wanted to get rid of Saddam doesn't mean they want to write and uphold a constitution that protects the rights of the people. Again, they already have one. Actually, there's one, and a rewritten one that hasn't been ratified yet... The first one was written and provisionally ratified in September 1968, and emploed as of July 1970...the rewrite was in 1990, but has not yet been ratified. Don't you remember Saddam Heussein getting 99% of the vote? For a 5th term, too! (Hey, maybe the rewrite included term limits, which would've given SH a reason to make sure it didn't pass....) QuoteMore than likely there will be a new authoritarian regime in place. What our leaders are counting on is that it's one that is favorable to the US. Nope, more than likely there will be an interim government installed, and, similar to Afghanistan, elections will be scheduled. Irregardless of what we think it will look like, it will likely be very different from what we anticipate. For your reading pleasure, here are a few links... CIA Factbook 1990 Rewrite of the Constitution (I can't find the text of 1968's Constitution to contrast and compare wtih, sorry...) Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #37 April 10, 2003 QuoteDo you not think we should help people who are oppressed? Trent, I don't think this invasion of Iraq has anything to do with "helping people who are oppressed". I think it has more to do with a small group of neo-conservative men, including the likes of Paul Wolfowitz -- who want to control the world. They view the demise of the Soviet Union as the opportunity for the USA to gain control of the world. This is just one small step in their agenda. It's got little to do with fighting terrorism or liberating the people of Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,154 #38 April 10, 2003 Quote I didn't say it bothered you. I was posting to Kallend. I also know a little friendly jabbing doesn't bother him. Jab? More like a love pat. If you think that was a jab, try reading the wreck.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #39 April 10, 2003 Well, hell, Michelle...what we liberating them for then? Please tell me you see a difference between a country calling itself a republic and having a truly democratic government. I was speaking of the actual implementation and actions of the government, not what they called themselves and claimed to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
