Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue



Play Time: Move Your Feet (Shockwave required). Thanks Nick Brigden.
Links of the Day: Cannot find server make your time. Thanks Berklee. All your 404 error belong to us.
Stories of the Day: Smothers Brother's son is porn star. Thanks Chuck!
A web of cheating. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Iraq war could send German cars in wrong direction. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Wild Science: Riddle of 'Baghdad's batteries'. Thanks crazy0ne.
Cat on the Cutting Edge. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Weird Science: Secret to sleep is to have sex about five times a week. Thanks Bob James.
Images of the Day: Bubbacomp. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Digital Eel GDC Mystery Tour 2003.

View
412 Replies. 21 pages. Viewing page 9.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >

252. Re: The real Last Word Mar 27, 2003, 17:55 babar
 
>I would argue that many more will die under rule of the Ba'ath party than will die as collateral damage in this war.

But that's not the main reason we are invading Iraq, it's because they supposedly have WOMD. If he doesn't really have them you can't just say "Ooops, sorry about all those civilian deaths....our bad. But hey at least we didn't kill as many of you as the Ba'ath party would have."

If they don't have WOMD we will forever be remembered as invading another country and killing it's civilians without good reason. As a US citizen I'm not ok with that.

Besides, if that was a good reason to invade another country we would have invaded Rowanda a few years ago for their mass genocide where they decapitated around 600,000 people in 60 days.
This comment was edited on Mar 27, 17:56.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
251. Re: The real Last Word Mar 27, 2003, 16:53 KaRRiLLioN
 
So what if he really doesn't have them? Is it going to be ok with you that we killed innocent civilians over bad intellegence reports?

I would argue that many more will die under rule of the Ba'ath party than will die as collateral damage in this war.

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 17:01.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
250. Re: The real Last Word Mar 27, 2003, 15:36 babar
 
>There is just no other way to disarm Saddam. I have not heard a rational alternative solution from your like-minded(anti-war) crowd yet.

Well, the first step is to prove beyond a resonable doubt that he actually has WOMD. That hasn't been done yet. Also, if he doesn't have them, then how is he supposed to disarm? The UN Inspection team didn't find anything and they said that the US was sending them on wild goose chases. We're a week into the war and Saddam still hasn't used any WOMD.

So what if he really doesn't have them? Is it going to be ok with you that we killed innocent civilians over bad intellegence reports?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
249. Re: The real Last Word -Pedle Zelnip Mar 27, 2003, 15:24 babar
 
> they don't gas their own people.

From:
The Falklands Alternative
America’s motive for invading Iraq
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/subliminalsuggestion/falklands.html


"Unfortunately the entire exercise was a complete lie. The CIA knew very well that a February 1990 US Army War College report concluded Iraq was not responsible for the Halabja attack, stating it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.' The War College findings were hardly surprising: the Kurdish people of Halabja were killed by a war gas known as "Phosgene" used by the Iranians but not the Iraqis. Though Iraq did use war gas on the battlefield it was "Mustard", an entirely different chemical which causes death in a visibly different way, enabling US Army chemical warfare experts to easily identify the attack as Iranian in origin."

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
248. Re: The real Last Word Mar 27, 2003, 15:20 KaRRiLLioN
 
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

Wow, nice quote.

It nicely sums up a lot of these arguments.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
247. Re: The real Last Word Mar 27, 2003, 15:03  Blue 
 
I don't see it on the "Popular Threads" anymore....

Threads only remain on that list for seven days.
 
Avatar 2
 
Stephen "Blue" Heaslip
Blue's News Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, El Presidente for Life
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
246. Re: The real Last Word Mar 27, 2003, 14:55 Ty
 
I'm not a regular poster here but I guess I have some strong feelings on this issue, as many of us do.

2) The anti-war sentiment isn't based on the belief that Saddam is "not so bad", but rather that a very large number of innocent people will die for reasons that to many seem unclear or irrational. So regardless of how much of Saddam's "true nature" we see, there will still be a very strong anti-war sentiment.

I think all people are anti-war, I mean no one wants war. For lack of a better term, I guess it will have to do. There is just no other way to disarm Saddam. I have not heard a rational alternative solution from your like-minded(anti-war) crowd yet. Just that war is bad, peace is good. Seems like a no brainer right?

War is NEVER good. It might be necessary, but that does not mean it is *good*. As for what it'd take to get the "peaceniks" on board, giving peace a chance would be a start. Working within the confines of the UN might be another. Showing the supposed proof of WMD would be another good step. Ultimately though, some people will never support war. Whether that's right or wrong is a bit big of a debate that I'm not going to get into in this message, but they certainly have the right to feel that way, and express those thoughts with the world.

Giving peace a chance...Working within the confines of the UN....hmmm I thought that's what we tried for 12 years through 17 UN resolutions. If Saddam were going to disarm he would have by now. The burden to do so was on Saddam. It cannot be further simplified. If the UN cannot enforce its own resolutions then it has outlived its usefulness IMO. You really think France, Germany, Russia, or China are thinking of what's in the best interest of America? As far as proof, if you are American then you voted, or were given the chance to vote (if over 18) for the people in office that acquire the proof with which to make these decisions. To think that the president is required to prove to Pedle Zelnip that he has the proof that justifies this action is kinda ridiculous. Can't you consider the fact that even showing the proof could put the operatives that acquired it in danger and negate their future usefulness? My point is the people we put in office are supposed to be better informed to make these decisions.

the last thing we need is a guy like Saddam giving a terrorist a chem/nuke bomb.
Absolutely, but I have seen no proof that would persuade me to believe that Saddam is in a position to do this. You might respond to that with "but we have to stop him before he can", to which I'd respond, okay, but give me a general principle that will determine with any kind of clarity when we are justified in preventing a nation from developing military force? If posession of WMD is an offence that warrants war from another nation, when why haven't we declared war against Korea, China, India, the Soviet Union, or for that matter Britain? All have very powerful WMD, and in many (if not all) cases, all have nuclear capability. Why is the US justified in attacking Iraq (which may not even have WMD), and not these countries?

I almost don't know what to say to this. You really think Britain and Russia are a threat to world peace? You think Saddams leadership is somehow comparative to Tony Blair? If you can't see the difference, you wouldn't understand the explanation. Personally I am very impressed that Blair stands for what he believes in in the face of even the opposition of his own party. He's basically killing his career for the sake of his belief that this is necessary.

So, to the peace necks: Do the hard thing, stand up for something that's worth fighting for. Help protect your country, show some backbone. It may not be original for you and you may not get as much attention, but it's the right thing to do.
Okay this point I strongly disagree with, because PEACE IS MOST DEFINATELY WORTH FIGHTING FOR. Preventing the death of who knows how many innocent Iraqi civilians is MOST DEFINATELY WORTH FIGHTING FOR. Making world leaders consider the morality of their actions is MOST DEFINATELY WORTH FIGHTING FOR.

This country would know no peace if we hadn't fought for it. You think leaving Saddam in power brings peace or justice to the Iraqi people? If so you need to enlighten yourself. Saddam kills his own people by the thousands. Sure war kills people but hopefully not many and only over a short period. The way our forces seem to be going about it with precision I don't think many non-combatants will die. The hope is that the region will be better off when we're through.

I must say I didn't vote for Bush of think much of him at that time. He has grown in my eyes since then. I still don't think he is a perfect president, but he at least is doing what needs doing. These are just my thoughts...geez I got to get back to work.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
 
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616), "As You Like It", Act 5 scene 1
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
245. Re: The real Last Word Mar 27, 2003, 14:48 Heretic_QPF
 
Hey!

Is this thread closed?

I don't see it on the "Popular Threads" anymore....
 
--------------------------------------------------

When the going gets tough...the tough get gibbed!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
244. Re: The real Last Word -Pedle Zelnip Mar 27, 2003, 13:58 [SPZ]SPANKER
 
First off Thanks for the compliment. Of course I have to disagree with you on what you've said. Saddam has killed over 1,000,000 of his own people and is a bad guy. How will keeping Saddam in power assure peace?

"If posession of WMD is an offence that warrants war from another nation, when why haven't we declared war against Korea, China, India, the Soviet Union, or for that matter Britain?"

These countries have weapons of mass destruction, but they are responsible with them, they don't gas their own people. If they ever step over the line then they will have to be dealt with too. North Korea is next. It's a different world now, we have to be pro-active, oceans no longer separate us. We will take down one country at a time. Democracy is the true way, it's how you and I were raised. Just like everyones a little Roman so will the world eventually be a little American.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
243. Re: The real Last Word -Chris Mar 27, 2003, 13:37 [SPZ]SPANKER
 
What did Hitler have to do with Pearl Harbor? Stand up for what's right. How does leaving Saddam in power assure peace to the Iraqi people? Saddam has studied Hitler and has learned a lot from him.

-Matt

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
242. Re: The real Last Word Mar 27, 2003, 11:33 c r i s p y
 
I'd just like to point out that the use of 9/11 as a justification for a war against Iraq is sketchy at best. To my knowledge the US has never produced any evidence linking the events of 9/11 with the government of Iraq.

The Coalition's official reason for this war is the liberation of the Iraqi people, and the end of Saddam Hussein's regime. Nowhere in there does it say anything about revenge.
 
---
Chris.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
241. The Mural Mar 27, 2003, 00:38 Tanto Edge
 
That tower looks a lot like an apartment building in my hometown.
...MY GOD!

All jokes aside, this is truly twisted.

 
Avatar 13202
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=705LEH3j2g0&t=0m24s
http://www.youtube.com/user/tantoedge
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
240. Re: The real Last Word Mar 27, 2003, 00:10 Pedle Zelnip
 
First off, I'd just like to say thank you for a calm, reasoned, and reasonably thought-out message that refrained from the simple mudslinging that has plagued the board over the last little while. Nice breath of fresh air. On the other hand, I'd have to disagree with most of what you said.;P

I think as this war goes on and Saddam's true nature reveals itself, more and more people will be hopping on the war wagon.

Well, I'd disagree with this for 2 reasons:

1) The "wagon" metaphor implies that people's views on this aren't very strong, as the saying "get on the bandwagon" tends to imply a temporary view, usually involving a person changing their beliefs for self-beneficial reasons. I don't think there are too many "peaceniks" who are thinking only of themselves, and not the innocent civilians who will be killed as a result of this war (obviously there are many who would disagree with that view however)

2) The anti-war sentiment isn't based on the belief that Saddam is "not so bad", but rather that a very large number of innocent people will die for reasons that to many seem unclear or irrational. So regardless of how much of Saddam's "true nature" we see, there will still be a very strong anti-war sentiment.

Your claim as it stricly reads might be accurate in that you say that "more and more" people will begin supporting the war, and perhaps the more vicious and sadistic Saddam behaves the more the "peaceniks" will question their own position. But I certainly don't think that all (or even most) of them will switch "bandwagons" anytime soon.

This War is good. It will bring along much needed change. What the hell would it take to get peace necks on board? I know if they bombed one of the movie studios you wouldn't see as many actors on the peace bandwagon.

War is NEVER good. It might be necessary, but that does not mean it is *good*. As for what it'd take to get the "peaceniks" on board, giving peace a chance would be a start. Working within the confines of the UN might be another. Showing the supposed proof of WMD would be another good step. Ultimately though, some people will never support war. Whether that's right or wrong is a bit big of a debate that I'm not going to get into in this message, but they certainly have the right to feel that way, and express those thoughts with the world.

the last thing we need is a guy like Saddam giving a terrorist a chem/nuke bomb.

Absolutely, but I have seen no proof that would persuade me to believe that Saddam is in a position to do this. You might respond to that with "but we have to stop him before he can", to which I'd respond, okay, but give me a general principle that will determine with any kind of clarity when we are justified in preventing a nation from developing military force? If posession of WMD is an offence that warrants war from another nation, when why haven't we declared war against Korea, China, India, the Soviet Union, or for that matter Britain? All have very powerful WMD, and in many (if not all) cases, all have nuclear capability. Why is the US justified in attacking Iraq (which may not even have WMD), and not these countries?

I think this is true, the older you get the more conservative you get. When you are young you tend to be idealistic, looking at the world through your rose colored glasses. You realize when you get older, that shit has to be dealt with, it just doesn't go away by talking.

But that doesn't mean that you don't pursue the "talking" route to its full extent. And there are a lot of people right now who really don't think the US gave diplomacy enough of a chance.

As for the becoming more conservative with age, instead of being an "idealistic" youth, I'd say you're really relying on some pretty shaky stereotypes there. I know a number of elder people who are quite idealistic, and a number of young people who are remarkably jaded and hard-assed.

So, to the peace necks: Do the hard thing, stand up for something that's worth fighting for. Help protect your country, show some backbone. It may not be original for you and you may not get as much attention, but it's the right thing to do.

Okay this point I strongly disagree with, because PEACE IS MOST DEFINATELY WORTH FIGHTING FOR. Preventing the death of who knows how many innocent Iraqi civilians is MOST DEFINATELY WORTH FIGHTING FOR. Making world leaders consider the morality of their actions is MOST DEFINATELY WORTH FIGHTING FOR.

And I'm sorry, but just because I'm not willing to drop bombs on Baghdad, does not mean I have no backbone. In fact, because I'm willing to stand up for what I believe in I think I have more backbone than those who are simply blindly following whatever seems to be the most popular opinion (and I beleive there are people like this on both sides of the debate).

Anyways, thanks again for the food for a thoughtful debate instead of a simple shouting match.



PZ
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
239. Re: The real Last Word Mar 26, 2003, 23:20 WarPig
 
Ahhh man, I was really enjoying the term "peace-necks". I figured it meant: more than just a peacenik, the absolute opposite of a red-neck, I give you... the peace-neck.

Kind of like those bongo thumping, poetry spouting hipsters from the '50s - the beat-necks.

-----------------------------------------
Of course I could be wrong... but really, what are the chances of that happening twice?
 
Avatar 1750
 
________________________________

GO SEAHAWKS!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
238. Re: Iraq Mural Mar 26, 2003, 21:11 fredrickson
 
they were painting the liberation of the united states is all

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
237. Iraq Mural Mar 26, 2003, 20:01 [SPZ]SPANKER
 
Yup they didn't have anything to do with it, but they sure loved it.....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/index.html

Most peaceniks would love to have this on their living room wall. They would claim that it is true art and that we are too sesitive and don't understand what the Iraqi meant when he painted it.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
236. Re: The real Last Word Mar 26, 2003, 19:30 Tanto Edge
 
Until the F-you post by tanto, perhaps.

Then again, we all get frustrated


...uhh, yeah, maybe I got a bit carried away with that one...
The whole point of all that drivel was:
"It's war, it happens, cry me a river."

Its funny what a little alchohol can make a person write...
Not my usual style, obviously.

 
Avatar 13202
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=705LEH3j2g0&t=0m24s
http://www.youtube.com/user/tantoedge
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
235. Re: The real Last Word Mar 26, 2003, 18:02 fredrickson
 
:):D%)

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
234. Re: The real Last Word Mar 26, 2003, 17:03  Blue 
 
BLUE DID YOU ACCEPT MY APOLOGY?

Happily, but I am much more concerned with looking forward than back about this, so I am hopeful that this really means you are planning on cooling it a bit in the future.
 
Avatar 2
 
Stephen "Blue" Heaslip
Blue's News Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, El Presidente for Life
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
233. Re: The real Last Word Mar 26, 2003, 16:27 fredrickson
 
  • BLUE DID YOU ACCEPT MY APOLOGY?

  •  
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    412 Replies. 21 pages. Viewing page 9.
    < Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >


    footer

    .. .. ..

    Blue's News logo