>I loved hearing about that bus being blown to bits with all those "human shields" in it....

You are a disgrace to the human race when you celebrate the deaths of people trying to bring peace to the world instead of war, war, war.

This comment was edited on Apr 3, 17:56.

The coalition is winning so far, you guys must be bummed.

That young conscientious objector, they found out he's a gay guy... wonderful.

Liberals all around are starting to relize who the real heroes are! Not all those dumb-asses on main street doing a virtual "die-in". Jessica Lynch is real hero. This girl was doing it for real, and for a good cause.

God Bless America! Kill and eat the peaceniks!

I loved hearing about that bus being blown to bits with all those "human shields" in it.... will anyone remember their names? Answer: NO hahahahahha!!!!! I love that! But I consider it just a start.

-Spanker has Spankend yet again.

P.S. Pedle Zelnip- don't you want to come over to our side..... the winning side? Throw away your mom and dads love beads and face the truth.

This comment was edited on Apr 3, 14:16.

Yeah we can all sit back on this message board and "debate" the issues(like the UN) and pretend to be the most "open" and "academic" and regurgitate what we learned in school the other day from some socialist professor or Zen philosopher. Holding our heads up high, as we are the most "enlightened" people around, because we "debate", but can't make a decision to save our lives.

Hmm, I'm sorry if I gave you an impression that I have an attitude that I'm the most "enlightened" person around, or that I'm the disciple of a "zen philosopher". I fail to see however what this message debates, but rather just seems to me like a personal attack on myself and others who disagree with your views. Am I misunderstanding you, and if so, could you please explain further the point you're trying to make?

I'm sick of debating with you guys, cause that's all your good for, and now I will forget get about you, just like history will.

Sorry to hear, I've enjoyed our conversations, and I value the insight I've obtained from your arguments.

PZ

This comment was edited on Apr 1, 22:47.

Sure, as long as I have post #301. Hey we only got about another 38 posts until this thread is the 3rd longest on Blue's (moving ahead of the DOOM 3 Screenshots thread).


PZ

Yeah we can all sit back on this message board and "debate" the issues(like the UN) and pretend to be the most "open" and "academic" and regurgitate what we learned in school the other day from some socialist professor or Zen philosopher. Holding our heads up high, as we are the most "enlightened" people around, because we "debate", but can't make a decision to save our lives.

In Dante's Inferno The first ring of hell was for those who will not or cannot decide, their punishment was to chase a banner while hornets and wasps stung their backs, this was punishment for their indecisions in life. In life these indecisions costs many people their lives, by not standing up for what is right and allowed tyrants and atrocities to go unchecked.

In WWII many people defended Hitler and didn't want to do anything about it, now they look like fools, because history has judged them, and their punishment for such a crime is to not be remembered, in their place we have bold people like Winston Churchill whose memory and good deeds will stand the test of time.

Liberating Iraq from a leader that everyone agrees is bad(be liberal or conservative) is the right decision to make, but some of us feel better sitting on the fence and watching the atrocities take place.

I'm sick of debating with you guys, cause that's all your good for, and now I will forget get about you, just like history will.

-Spanker has Spankend

Well, I hope it doesn't end - I'd like to see it reach over 300 posts.

As I said, Capitalism works best with a dose of socialism thrown in...

I have to post this just because it's looking like this thread is finally coming to a close, and I have to have the last word. =;-P

Anyways, sure I'd absolutely agree that capitalism needs government regulation, but I certainly don't think that this is a cure-all for all the problems of capitalism. It seems to me though that you're assuming an either/or relationship between capitalism and communism, which I'm not convinced exists. Can we not take some of the best parts of capitalism, and the best parts of communism and come up with a better solution? (by we of course I don't mean PedleZelnip and KaRRiLLioN, but rather the nation)





PZ
This comment was edited on Mar 31, 20:18.

As I said, Capitalism works best with a dose of socialism thrown in so there is some government oversight of business practices to keep sweatshops, etc. from becoming a widespread issue. It'll still happen, regardless, but arguably most people in a communist society are basically working in sweatshops with little or no incentive to improve since they'll never earn more than what the gov't feels is appropriate.

Human nature tends to fight against the root tenets of Communism.

Y'know this was one of those messages that 5 minutes after I posted it, I had second thoughts. Not so much because I believe communism is fundamentally flawed (honestly I haven't read enough Rousseau or Marx to really give a very informed critical evaluation of their views on communism), but just because this is a forum talking about the war, not about economic systems and their pros/cons.

Having said that, to be nit picky I didn't actually say that "Communism rules, Capitalism Sucks" (as a matter of fact, nowhere in my message was communism mentioned), I just wanted to point out that many (including Rousseau and Marx, who were two very intelligent men and acclaimed political philosophers) have raised some very serious concerns about capitalism.

So I'm not going to respond to your claims about communism, because I'm not in a position to debate them.

Marx and Rousseau had very wishful imaginations, but in practice, their theories have brought living nightmares.

Just wanted to add one last thing to this, while you might be right that Marx's & Rousseau's ideas had difficulties in practice, the same can be said of pro-capitalist economic theories such as Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand". So before you start pointing out the toothpicks in anothers ocean, perhaps you should address the logs in your own lake.

Again, I'm not saying that I have a viable alternative to capitalism, I'm not an economic or political philosopher, I'm just saying it's far from perfect, and I have concerns about the effects of capitalism both on the economies of capitalist countries as well as on the human race as well (certainly capitalism is strongly tied to things such as global warming, or sweat-shops).




PZ

Sorry, can't resist, but some people would say that any economy based upon capitalism is inevitably headed towards disaster (anybody read their Rousseau or Marx?)

Well, we certainly know that those based upon communism fail miserably, although arguably most of those attempts were perverted forms of socialism more than Communism. Human nature tends to fight against the root tenets of Communism.

Capitalism tends to work best with a small dose of Socialism, which is basically what the US has, although to a much lesser degree than many European countries. I'd say that Capitalism has also worked pretty well in Hong Kong where it's much more laissez-faire economics.

China is also turning towards Capitalism to save it from the destruction that Communism wrought there.

BTW, my wife is Russian, and she can tell you first hand that Marx and Rousseau had very wishful imaginations, but in practice, their theories have brought living nightmares.

Stalin, anyone?

Saddam has killed over 1,000,000 of his own people and is a bad guy. How will keeping Saddam in power assure peace?

Just a question, where did you get the figure of 1,000,000 people from?

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.

I'm not sure whether I should even try on this one, because it seems to me this is a fundamental difference between your beliefs and my own. I don't believe that democracy is "the true way". It's certainly better than totalitarianism, but it has it's flaws too.

And I *really* have a problem with the statement "it's how you and I were raised". Are you saying that we should simply accept the beliefs we were raised with? How would the human race ever progress then if we never question the beliefs we hold? If we never questioned the morality of slavery, we'd still have slaves. If we never questioned the morality of inequality between the sexes, we'd still have sexism. It is extremely important for every human being to question all the beliefs they hold, otherwise how can you possibly know that they are true beliefs?

To be completely honest though, your last paragraph scares me. It is statements like "democracy is the true way", and "we will take down one country at a time" that is the root of virtually all the anti-american sentiment in the world. Imagine if say Canada decided that you know what, every country should have two national languages, it's the true way, and the multiculturalism that results from it enriches the life of a country. And then as a result of this belief they try to force this belief on other countries (including the US). How would you feel?

If you have a problem with the Canada analogy, how about this one: Lets say I'm a Catholic, and I know that Protestans are the work of the devil, so I force my beliefs onto protestents. That's called religious discrimination/persecution and it's generally considered by most people I've talked to to be a bad thing (tm).

Read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, in particular chapter two, when he gives an argument in favor of free speech. It really sums all this up much more elequently than I'd ever be able to (Mill was a brilliant writer and philosopher). You might find that your beliefs not so much about the war, but about American ideals may change.


PZ

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?

Yes, I'd probably agree that in general, people are anti-war. To nit-pick a bit, I never actually said I was anti-war either, not that it matters. I'd probably agree with you that much of the anti-war crowd hasn't put forth a great argument against the war either. I'm sure that many of those protesters in LA probably were simply protesting because they saw celebreties like Martin Sheen saying war is bad, and decided to follow suit. I'm not saying that the anti-war movement is perfect (I could certainly come up with some very valid criticisms of the anti-war side as well), but it seems to me that the majority of posters on here were pro-war, and I was trying to provide the other side of that debate. For the record, yes, I am against the conflict in Iraq. And I'm also fully willing to accept the possiblity that I may be wrong about that, I'm certainly not infallible. I just haven't heard a very good argument on either side of the coin, and when in doubt I think you err on the side of not dropping bombs.

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.

I'm breaking this part of your post up, because I feel like there are multiple points you're making here. I can't really respond to this one incredibly well because I'm not all that familiar with the UN and their processes. However, one thing I do know is that in invading Iraq without UN support the US is violating UN charter, and this sets a very dangerous precedent in international law. There is a very strong and valid fear that since the US has decided to invade without UN consent, that there's nothing in the future to stop say North Korea from invading South Korea for example. You may be right that the UN has not lived up to it's expectations, but that's a different debate than whether the US is justified in dropping bombs on Baghdad.

You really think France, Germany, Russia, or China are thinking of what's in the best interest of America?

Flip that statement around, do you really think that America is thinking of what is in the best interest of France, Germany or Russia and not simply thinking of what's best for themselves? The US (as well as virtually all other countries in the world today) subscribe to the realist paradigm of international relations, which as one of it's core beliefs is that you have to look out for yourself, and that conflict between nations is inevitable. So to say that France, Germany, Russia, or China isn't acting in the best interests of America is certainly a point I'll give you, but what it has to do with the US's position on Iraq I don't see.

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.

Uhm, accountable government? I'm not necessarily saying that Bush has to knock on my door and show me the proof, or to broadcast it on CNN, but certainly behind closed doors in the UN is very much a reasonable expectation. If you take the statement you just made to a greater extreme, then any conflict can be justified, all a president/prime minister/dictator has to do is say "Country X is violating international law" without any evidence to prove it whatsoever and then invade. Perhaps you think this is the way it should be, but I certainly don't.

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.

Actually this was a rhetorical question. No I don't think we should invade Britain, or that Tony Blair is equivalent to Saddam Hussein. The point I'm making is that if you belive as a general rule that war on a nation is justified when that nation is in possession of WMD, then you'll live in a world where conflict is completely unavoidable between virtually all technologically advanced nations. What I'm saying is that possession of WMD is a necessary condition for war, but not a sufficient one. In this message you're saying that you believe that Saddam represents a threat to world peace, and you may be right about that, but what are the identifiable characteristics that distinguish a threat like Saddam from a non-threat like Blair?

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.

Absolutely, you have to fight for peace, and I totally agree with the Mill quote you gave regarding the need to fight for what you believe is right. Hence the peaceniks fighting for peace, because they believe that that is what is right.

As for the claim that many non-combatants will die, show me a piece of credible evidence that this is the case. For that matter, how many is "many"? 100? 1000? 10000?

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.

Well, I didn't vote for him either, but that's because I don't live in the US. =;-> As for doing what needs doing, I disagree, but hey we're all entitled to our own opinion.

This comment was edited on Mar 29, 15:23.

By disregarding a primary law of Capitalism, the economy was set on a collision course for disaster.

Sorry, can't resist, but some people would say that any economy based upon capitalism is inevitably headed towards disaster (anybody read their Rousseau or Marx?)



PZ

Well said Mike, and thank you for your service. I'm afriad the fighting will be long over before you get thru to many of the posters here. I guess that's no excuse not to try.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

I am absolutely in support of freedom of speech (and honorably served my time in the military to protect it) but the virulent, hostile (and mostly ignorant) reasons given lately by some against the United States of America makes me want to puke.

Susan, get your facts straight.. We DO have a declared 'act of war' (against terrorism) that was passed shortly after 9/11. Congress DID approve the use of force against Iraq (last Oct/Nov) in support of 1441 and I guarangoddamntee you our fine soldiers ARE 'shooting soliders dressed as civilians'. If you don't believe me look at the front page of yesterdays USA Today and you will see pics of good & dead Iraq "civilians" spread around a civilian bus (with true civilians used as human shields). Yes, our soldiers are dying because they are honorable warriors... WE don't 'shoot first and ask questions later', 'kill em all and let god sort them out', etc.. Unfortunately, thanks to the complete LACK of concern/caring for its OWN citizens there will be innocent Iraqi civilians killed. And as you have so deftly pointed out, do NOT forget our soldiers have died trying to avoid that.

And as much as we and others would have desired otherwise, George Bush Sr. (or precisely, the coalition of forces which the U.S. was only a part) would not, COULD NOT act further in Desert Storm because the job was to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Period. The coalition did so with great success and that was that. If you think our current involvement with Iraq is purely a personal agena e.g. "cleaning up daddy's mess", then you are ignorant (or at least naive) beyond belief. How can you *possibly* believe the entire US government (et al) would allow ANY president to enter the USA into a war purely as the result of a *personal agenda*?!? Grow up.

As as far as why we haven't 'done a dang thing' about China (etc.) if/when the US discovers they harbor, train, aid those that want to slam another 747 or two into one of our skyscrapers (or worse) then I guarangodamtee you the USA will be right down their throats too. And I will be behind them 110% of the way.

I do agree with you on one point though... that the UN is "the biggest pile of cow pie in the world". If the UN had truly followed thru on even ONE of the resolutions to disarm Iraq passed since Desert Storm (instead of simply 'diplomatically' debating them over and over for the past 12 years) the USA wouldn't now be spending billions of dollars *on the worlds behalf* to rid ourselves of the threat of terrorism.

Jesus... There are GOOD, young men and women... AMERICAS FINEST... dying in a foreign land for your (and others) continued freedom and you have the arrogance and temerity to blast the USA? Why aren't you blasting France (and Germany, Russia, etc.) for 'negating' the UN security councils ability to actually DO something, follow thru with the consequences of Iraq not complying with 1441?

I swear, if you (and others of your ilk) think the USA is so evil and terrible... if you can not, do not support our government in trying to rid the world of terrorism... then get the f*** out.

Otherwise I suggest you show more respect for our President (as you so affectionately call "Shrub"), look at our flag and what it stands for right now with GREAT pride, immensely grateful that you can say what you do without having your tongue cut out and staked out in the town square to bleed to death because you spoke out against your country.

This comment was edited on Mar 29, 11:26.

It's no use trying to convince babar and his cronies about the validity of the war, it ain't gonna happen. Waste of breath ya know. So laugh a little and go on with life.

What is the Iraqi air force motto?
I came, I saw, Iran.

Have you heard about the new Iraqi air force exercise program?
Each morning you raise your hands above your head and leave them there.

What's the five-day forecast for Baghdad?
Two days.

What do Miss Muffet and Saddam Hussein have in common?
They both have Kurds in their way.

What is the best Iraqi job?
Foreign ambassador.

Did you hear that it is twice as easy to train Iraqi fighter pilots?
You only have to teach them to take off.

How do you play Iraqi bingo?
... F-16 ... B-52 ... F-18 ... A-10

What is Iraq's national bird?
Duck.

What do Saddam Hussein and General Custer have in common?
They both want to know where the hell those Tomahawks are coming from!

Why does the Iraqi navy have glass bottom boats?
So they can see their air force.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Regarding the economy, what most people (mainly anti-Bush) tend to forget is that the economy was already headed to recession during the end of Clinton's term. The mid to late 90's were full of overexuberance regarding the tech sector. Companies and individuals were ready to believe that the "New Economy" based on the internet didn't really need to show a profit to work. By disregarding a primary law of Capitalism, the economy was set on a collision course for disaster.

Not only did Bush inherit a bad economy, but 9-11 happened and accelerated everything into the dump.

You're obviously anti-Bush so it's no surprise at your giving him all the blame for the economy, and the rest of your argument blatantly hinges on your negative sentiments toward him (and probably the Republicans in general). It's no better than those who blamed Clinton for everything bad that happened during his term.

One could argue, quite convincingly, that Clinton only initiated the Yugoslavian "conflict" in order to remove attention from his other activities in the Oval Office. I believe, however, that the action was the correct one to take.

The "peaceniks" aren't a threat to anybody and Saddam hasn't been a threat to anyone since 1991.

I would argue that at varying levels both of these statements are false:

1. If by peaceniks you mean protestors - they are taking up valuable time of local law enforcement. How would you feel to find out that because of civil disobedience a terrorist cell manages to commit an act? How would you feel to be the victim of a heart attack dying because an ambulance can not reach you due to a protest?

2. If you spend five minutes searching the internet you will find sworn testimony of thousands of acts that Saddam has commited or have been commited in his name in the past ten years. Ask the prostitutes that had their heads chopped of and stuck on a pike just prior to the invasion if they felt threatened.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't protest. I'm not saying that what Saddam has done to his people warrants an invasion. I am saying that you should stop and reflect on what you write prior to hitting the 'post' button.


-TPFKAS2S
http://www.braglio.org
Ol' buddy...there's a chance the American Tobacco Institute's health research is...well...biased.

This comment was edited on Mar 28, 21:30.

>my friends, simply put, we are in deep poop!

Yep, and Bush and his oil administration are hoping that Iraq's oil reserves will be able to help pull us out of this deep poop.

* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Apr 14, 15:06.