thank you scotcher !
Printable View
thank you scotcher !
Well, there's this: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by kostya
And this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2830505.stm
There's also the fact that Iraq has not used any of those weapons it has even though now is the best time for it, the al-Samoud II missiles that were destroyed, the unearthed remains of a site where chemical agents had been destroyed and dumped. The fact that those chemical-dispersing long-range drones Powell talked about turned out to be made from balsa wood and duct tape. How's that for starters?
See above.Quote:
[quote:23a9scz1]Saddam has weapon of mass destruction? And what is the problem? Russia do have it too, China do, England do. Why they do not offer to disarm Russia, China, England? How about USA?
Sure the US will gain better access to oil, but I see it childish to call that the sole reason. That alone will not pay for the resources used for this war (well, maybe after a decade or 2).
World domination is definitely US's purpose though. We are the biggest baddest boys on the block, and will own all :roll:. Please...
I feel that UN is sitting back, and is denying support because they don't want anything to do with causing a war, when the line isn't clear, and the evidence isn't blinding. But anyone in the right mind can see that Saddam does have chemical and biological weapons, as well as means of producing them.[/quote:23a9scz1]
I'm sure he has some old ones. That's what the purpose of the inspections is--to get rid of them. But where are these new ones he's creating supposedly? Share some of your infinite wisdom with the weapons inspectors and the CIA. Because they sure can't find them. You and the other hawks must have psychic powers.
With spyplanes, satellite imaging, and more conventional intelligence. In fact, the Blix team already had this cooperation and the Russians had planned to contribute more spyplanes to the inspections last week until the outbreak of war occurred. Guess what? Even with all of this state of the art spying the US was still unable to find doodly squat.Quote:
And now tell me, how can a handfull of inspectors find these? Especially when they can be monitored, and their arrival can be easily prepared for.
Uh, yeah. Except Russia had to sign the non-aggression pact in the early years of the war. It never would've stood a chance otherwise. Stalin was an idiot and underestimated the Nazis. But had he not signed an agreement with Hitler promising not to fight (all the while building up massive arms, mind you) the USSR would've easily fallen to the Germans.Quote:
Saddam is like that bully that will punch you in the back, and when you turn around will say it was someone else, then just to do it again later. :wall:
Kinda reminds me of the prelude to ww2, and especially Russia initial involvement ("oh but he promised he wouldn't hurt us")
Yeah, our leaders are too busy playing with themselves to need toys.Quote:
War is bad, but in this case someone needed to step up, and I'm proud to live in a country that will not tolerate being toyed with.
And you haven't come up with even a single fact, Rahul. That's what I love about you and redchupacabra. You make this big argument out of a simple politics debate, then when I sit here and make 100 points you will focus on 1 or 2 of them, then call it a victory when I lock up the topic because you're stonewalling for a week. Or somebody else makes 10 points and you ignore all of them and continue whining about how they aren't giving you any facts. The facts are right there, you just aren't responding to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahul
How's this for a cheap statement: You do make me feel like ramming a jet into a building.
With US forces or just through financing foreign rebels? By the way, the US probably learned from the French, Belgian, and English the valuable lesson of colonialism: It's better to control a foreign country from afar, so that you don't suffer the financial burdens of management and putting down local rebellions. Just as long as the leader doesn't start nationalizing your businesses or getting too liberal everything is hunky-dory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahul
Over 200 years ago? Do they teach basic mathematics where you live?Quote:
Manifest Destiny was a policy that the government used over 200 years ago. It doesn't even exist now just as slavery has ceased to exist in the US.
Because to me, the 1840s was not "over 200 years ago." Or maybe you are posting messages from the future, and that is why you know all these things about Iraq that no one else does.
Why did you include the United States in the list? By the way, how many countries aren't on the coalition of the wiling? 120? 130?Quote:
Over forty countries in the coalition iclude United States, UK, Spain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Italy and Poland. These are definitely much bigger and more prominent countries than Lithuania.
There are plenty of reasons on this board. Maybe if you honestly wanted to debate you'd bother to read the posts. But I think you fear actually having to acknowledge that you've seen them, otherwise it will become obvious you can't reply.Quote:
And I will repeat what people mentioned earlier, that nobody has yet to say why there is reason to go against this war.
So then I guess you're conceding that the US is not doing it for world peace?Quote:
Oh by the way, France, Germany and Russia is not a reason. They all have their own political interests in mind just like the US and are not doing this for "world peace" as they claim.
Nope, I didn't remove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Weird. I wonder if Admin took it down. I can't see why it would violate any rules. Maybe it's just a bug.
Yeah maybe there's a bug, because I edited it for a spelling mistake.
There it is again, I got it to work, but there are now two yes options and two no options. :wink: Not my fault!
Then we'll just use simple math to find the results. This should be easy for everyone but Rahul, who thinks it is the year 2050.
Yah we all know how much freedom and liberty exist in countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen. :roll: Those people became terrorists because of the lack of education they receive and the huge amount of propaganda that people who call themselves "servants of God" give them. Their entire lives live around a misinterpreted conception of a religion that is so perverse, they believe killing innocent civilians will make them go to heaven or paradise. They do not use reason and logic. I believe that Bin Laden and any other member of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have no clue of what Islam really is meant to represent.Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
Yah real funny. :roll: The US started all expansionist movements into the Americas around 1800. Thats why I said around 200 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Do you think you can find a dozen missiles hidden in a country the size of Texas? They could be hidden in schools, homes, even somewhere away in the desert. Even spy drones have their limits. They cant look through trucks and neither can satellites. Their arrival can be predicted.The weapons inspectors were wasting their time. Oh wait, I forgot, Hans Blix has X-ray vision and Saddam won the Nobel Peace Prize :wink: . Back in 1998, there was a huge scare from Iraq that they would use biological and/or chemical weapons on Kuwait. Saddam Hussein loves weapons. That's why he was developing a huge cannon to shoot massive shells onto Israel. This also violated the clause describing the 100 km limit in the treaty Hussein signed back at the end of the Gulf War.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Oh and by the way, websites like fair.org or whatever its called, are usually founded by people who have some personal vendetta against a country. And if there is such "censorship" in the media, how come the Monica Lewinsky scandal ever got out?
It's a bug.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
OK, but there aren't a dozen missiles. There are several thousands of pounds of chemical agents and a hundred missiles. We found the missiles and had destroyed about 50 of them before Bush called out the war everyone expected would happen 4 months ago. The UN was also in the process of testing the pits in which the chemical agents were allegedly destroyed to determine how much of them had actually been disposed of. Again, until Bush decided the diplomacy we all know he didn't care about to begin with "wasn't working."Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahul
Yes, that is a very rational and well-proven argument. I suggest you read news from other countries and then ask yourself why the same stories aren't breaking the front pages in the US.Quote:
Oh and by the way, websites like fair.org or whatever its called, are usually founded by people who have some personal vendetta against a country. And if there is such "censorship" in the media, how come the Monica Lewinsky scandal ever got out?
The Monica Lewinsky scandal "got out" because the GOP was so set on discrediting Clinton and getting him out of office that they spent years looking for any excuse to ruin him--and finally settled on successfully impeaching him for a crime that probably every politician in history is guilty of. One of the conservative journalists they hired, David Brock, wrote a book about it called Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. It also discusses the stress that was put on him during the Clarence Thomas (the conservative supreme court judge from the early 90s who sexually harassed one of his employees) hearings to discredit the lead witness against him as a slut. He wrote a book on her, in which he admits he made up or altered hundreds of facts to destroy her credibility, and the Republican Party succeeded in getting Clarence Thomas onto the Supreme Court. Despite their moral self-righteousness, the conservatives that fill mainstream American media seem to be willing to resort to the lowest common denominator in their crusade against people who resort to the lowest common denominator. I guess it takes unethical sleaze to fight unethical sleaze. Take a look at Rupert Murdoch's New York Post sometime if you don't believe me. Personally I think conservatives must be so sexually and socially repressed that it turns into deviance elsewhere. But, like most of your beliefs, I can't really back that up with any scientific proof and it is more of an opinion so I withdraw it.
It's one thing to say expansionism started around 1800, and it's quite another to imply it ended "over 200 years ago." After all, how can something end before it's started? Or are you saying it only lasted for 3 years? If so, how do you explain Texas, turn-of-the-century Cuba, and the Phillipines? What about the slicing up of China we did? Hawaii and Alaska? Puerto Rico? Guam? The Virgin Islands?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahul
Yes, and who allows those countries to exist? Who made the Saud family billionaires with their dependence on oil, instead of focusing on alternative energy sources? The blood of every woman that is stoned to death, every drug dealer publicly decapitated, and every thief whose arm is cut off is on the hands of us all, because we drive automobiles and finance their brutality. If you're so intent on bringing democracy to countries like Iraq and ending terrorism, I have a suggestion: buy a bicycle and carpool to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahul
al-Qaeda is not really about getting to heaven. That's bullshit. They are fighting because they see the Saudis as immoral hypocrites who let the US occupy their holy land. It is the symbolic equivalent of the Nazis building a headquarters in downtown Jerusalem. I don't condone violence, and I think religion and caring about territories and holy lands is idiotic (or as George Carlin puts it, "I leave symbols to the symbol-minded"), but 9/11 was not about a bunch of guys thinking if they kill themselves for Allah they will get into Heaven and live with 72 virgins. It was about the US being in Saudi Arabia and turning a blind eye to the blatant Israeli aggression against Palestine that only now are we bothering to acknowledge exists.Quote:
Their entire lives live around a misinterpreted conception of a religion that is so perverse, they believe killing innocent civilians will make them go to heaven or paradise. They do not use reason and logic. I believe that Bin Laden and any other member of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have no clue of what Islam really is meant to represent.
Hey Rahul, check out this picture of your brave heroes fighting for freedom and peace: http://66.206.162.110/photos/surrender.jpg (btw, I do not recommend any children or easily upset people look at this as most of the Iraqi soldiers' heads have been torn off by gunfire).
Why...that gun the one guy is holding looks an awful lot like a big white flag, doesn't it? Actually, I can't see either of them holding guns. Hmm, I wonder where they are hiding them!
[quote=mike]
Mike you later criticized my comment about the comparison of a similar situation about Germany in WWII commenting that "This is the most retarded argument made by people who support the war." How does this comment concerning Bush even shake a stick to my comment? Please fill free to respond with more foolishness thats the majority I have heard conecerning quite a few posts.Quote:
I've never choked on food to the point where I black out for 20 minutes and injured my eye. He must've been really eager to swallow those Rold Golds.
I was referencing to Ethnic clensing. I disagree that was THE motive. And I as well think that you can still see this, left over from the hundreds of years ago that this happend. We wanted their lands and their resources as quick and easy as possible. Sometimes they thought shooting them was the best way other times...putting them in a reservation. THE ATTROCITIES! People cared not for their individual lives at all!!! WHAT IS THE MANIFST DESTINY!!!! Its about pure greed mike. It never was about God but Gold. If their main goal was an ethnic clensing you would not see native american indian reservatinos today. That was a hearding of what they considered a problem to their goal or a pot hole on the road to hell.Quote:
[quote:180b6seh]
1. Check out the domestic abuse statistics for the United States. Those numbers ain't low.
2. Ask a Cherokee about this one.
3. Ever hear of Manifest Destiny? How about the fact that when we first started the war on terrorism Bush called it a "crusade?" By the way, you're oversimplifying to say religion is the only reason terrorists attack. There are plenty of political reasons for it as well.
[Quote=mike]My comment: i think you have been watching too much CNN.Quote:
Uh, no. The inspectors were given free access to go anywhere they wanted, and the intelligence communities of the United States (among others) gave plenty of information to the inspectors about suspected sites. Know what happened? None of them turned out to be producing anything.
yes, thats a point I was trying to make. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
I doubt it as well but be certian of nothing in the type of world we live in today.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
[/quote:180b6seh][/quote:180b6seh][/quote:180b6seh][/quote:180b6seh]Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
I am sorry I am working right now very hard to save money for college. I work and do homework constantly while I try not to neglect my other hobies. Infact mike I don't ignore what you say at all. I reply. I know the facts which you use to aid your conversation. And I know some things about histroy as well. I am more interested in truth I guess. I want to find out what the truth is not constantly battling other people because I want to be proven right. I have posted many things latly because I want people to see both sides. Are you worried they will come to a conclusion themselves? Mike i have been wrong about many things before. And you know what I will tell everyone right now that guess what? I don't have all the answers. And I dont claim to either.
I have signed all my posts as your friend because I want to you to remember that incase you ever become angry at me. I enjoy this message board and if I didn't I wouldnt be here. I am here so we can build each other and give positive comments as well to each one. My positive comment to you is its quite clear your very bright. The only thing I would say is that when you quote history and things you should look at history and try to apply it to your life instead of using your life and justifying it by history. I know thats is sort of vague but I am not real good at expressing myself publicaly either.
Your friend,
Red Chupacabra
excuse my spelling errors. I typed this in haste I will return to check the message board at a latter date. cya
Well, the simple truth is my comment was a joke (which was obvious to I think every single person who read the post) and yours was serious. Both lacked any substance, but mine wasn't meant to.Quote:
Mike you later criticized my comment about the comparison of a similar situation about Germany in WWII commenting that "This is the most retarded argument made by people who support the war." How does this comment concerning Bush even shake a stick to my comment? Please fill free to respond with more foolishness thats the majority I have heard conecerning quite a few posts.
Well, then I suggest you come up to New England some time. You see, our Puritan settlers didn't take kindly to the Indians and successfully wiped out several tribes from the face of the earth. Sure, you can say it was about land, but if that were the only case why did they make sure every last one of them was dead?Quote:
I was referencing to Ethnic clensing. I disagree that was THE motive. And I as well think that you can still see this, left over from the hundreds of years ago that this happend. We wanted their lands and their resources as quick and easy as possible.
If the savages acted civil and accepted the gospels we paraded them around as proof to the rest. If they were too obstinate we just got rid of them. Unfortunately, the former group was never truly accepted by either society. I used to have an interesting book from college that was a compilation of writings by people from the "civilized tribes," but I sold it back to the bookstore years ago.Quote:
Sometimes they thought shooting them was the best way other times...putting them in a reservation. THE ATTROCITIES! People cared not for their individual lives at all!!! WHAT IS THE MANIFST DESTINY!!!! Its about pure greed mike. It never was about God but Gold. If their main goal was an ethnic clensing you would not see native american indian reservatinos today. That was a hearding of what they considered a problem to their goal or a pot hole on the road to hell.
Mine: I don't watch CNN, at least not for Iraq coverage. It is the official mouthpiece of the Pentagon.Quote:
My comment: i think you have been watching too much CNN.
Probably not as enthusiastically as you, :wink: but yes, I have. And that was my point exactly. Hitler fully planned on dominating the world and bringing the Aryan race to its rightful place on top. What I am asking is, if this situation is so similar to that one, where is Saddam's claims that the Iraqi people should be ruling the world? Or his attempts at trying?Quote:
Have you ever read Mein Kampf? Perhaps you missed a chapter or two or maybe half the book to miss the part about world domination, ethnic clensing, and his arian race.
No, but you made the allusion to Hitler. All I'm asking is besides the letter H and the ethnic cleansing, how is European appeasement anything at all the same in this situation as it was 60 years ago. That is the question I'm still waiting for you to answer.Quote:
Since I didn't even make this comment that he was trying to take over the world then the rest of your paragraph is nullified. But who cares?
Still, for your analogy to work one would have to believe that Saddam invaded Kuwait because he believed Kuwait belonged to Iraq and was taken away from him by his enemies. In reality, Saddam accused Kuwait of slant-drilling into Iraqi territory and stealing their oil. A claim that has some merit to it in retrospect.Quote:
So you want to see a statement where saddam gets up infront of the whole world and says, "you know? I think I would like to take over the world." Besides what do you think he would do with them keep the peace? Maybe he doesn't want to world, maybe he does. And if he does want it why would he declare it? Maybe he would take it say, one step at a time like kuwait.
So is Bush. What's your point?Quote:
Well, mike, thats what I would consider a dissenting opinion; then basically you are in dissagreement with over 80% of the rest of the world.
I consider a book full of contradictions and historical inaccuracies that is no more scientifically provable than all the other religious tomes in existance not something I put a whole lot of stock into. Also, I am not an atheist but an agnostic, however you are incorrect to say atheism is a leap of faith. This is a logical fallacy that redefines the word faith halfway through the argument (called equivocation). Faith in the scope of Christianity is a belief based entirely without scientific evidence. Faith in atheists is nothing more than deduction based on this same lack of evidence. You can say there is a Mountain Dew can floating around Mercury and I can deny it from a lack of evidence. However, the burden of proof is upon you, not me, as you are the one making the assertion.Quote:
You tell me which is more logical... That nothing created something and through billions of chances came out with the complexities of us v.s. animals and any other comparison or we just always have been. or that a God created us. Which do you consider to be a bigger leap of faith?
By the way, your argument is one called the AFD, or Argument From Design. It lacks a lot of basis scientifically, most pointedly because all of these "complexities" can be explained perfectly well by biology and evolution. Simple microorganisms, for example, have been created under laboratory conditions from basic elements and a reproduction of lightning in a controlled environment. I really don't know why Christians oppose evolution so virulently for two reasons: 1) Evolution and Darwinism (like Kropotkin, while Darwin is considered very important to evolutionary theory, some of his views are actually discredited by more recent biological observation) are not synonymous, and unless you are one of the few people who still believe the world is only 6,000 years old despite the overwhelming evidence--I should also point out that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest the earth is this young, it was just the number calculated by a clergyman and added to the original King James Bible--there is no reason to oppose evolutionary theory; and 2) Darwin was not an atheist, and believed that the origin of life came from the "breath of the Creator."
It is not an argument taken very seriously these days, and creation scientists have mostly abandoned it for the more popular (yet similar to the AFD) "Irreducible Complexity" argument put forth by Michael Behe. I won't get it into that because you didn't bring it up, but if you do then don't bother using the "flagellum of bacteria" example, as it has recently been proven that several of the separate parts of the flagellum do in fact act independently.
I don't believe in a God, but I do not deny one (or two, or five) exists. It is just more of a safe bet considering the total lack of evidence or divine presence.
No, I'm saying the American government will gladly fight a war on terrorism in a country our intelligence agency denies has any links to terrorism if it can put some coin in its pocket in the process, but its only real solution to cracking down on domestic terror threats is to establish useless token organizations like Homeland Security and pass amendments that reduce civil liberties and make it legal for the FBI to--among other things--request a list of all the books and websites you've visited or checked out at the library upon threat of termination to anyone who refuses (by the way, aren't the Republicans the party that hates big government?) This latter example reeks of irony after those annoying commercials last year with the kid coming up to the librarian and asking for a book, then getting escorted out by men in black suits with the scare-tactic ending, "FREEDOM. CHERISH IT. PROTECT IT." I guess the end where it says, "BY HAVING YOUR CONGRESSMAN ENACT LAWS LIKE THIS ONE" got cut out for time constraints.Quote:
I supose your right. America could have cared less about September 11th.
All of the things I've said are true. "Constantly battling other people" is called debate, and it leads to productive results.Quote:
I am sorry I am working right now very hard to save money for college. I work and do homework constantly while I try not to neglect my other hobies. Infact mike I don't ignore what you say at all. I reply. I know the facts which you use to aid your conversation. And I know some things about histroy as well. I am more interested in truth I guess. I want to find out what the truth is not constantly battling other people because I want to be proven right.
What exactly are you basing that accusation on? Trust me, I'm not intimidated by the Dynamic Duo of you and Rahul.Quote:
I have posted many things latly because I want people to see both sides. Are you worried they will come to a conclusion themselves?
Yes, that is one of the values of open-ended discussions like this one. To arrive at answers from opposite sides of the question.Quote:
Mike i have been wrong about many things before. And you know what I will tell everyone right now that guess what? I don't have all the answers. And I dont claim to either.
I don't really believe you can be friends with someone you've never met, but to each their own. And no, I do not get mad. Even when I told Rahul he made me want to crash a jet into a building I think it was clear I was being playful.Quote:
I have signed all my posts as your friend because I want to you to remember that incase you ever become angry at me.
Yes, it is vague. I really have no idea what it meant.Quote:
I enjoy this message board and if I didn't I wouldnt be here. I am here so we can build each other and give positive comments as well to each one. My positive comment to you is its quite clear your very bright. The only thing I would say is that when you quote history and things you should look at history and try to apply it to your life instead of using your life and justifying it by history. I know thats is sort of vague but I am not real good at expressing myself publicaly either.
By the way, in regards to those prisoners Iraq took Bush better hope they are freed soon or else this is going to stop being Gulf War II, and turn into Jimmy Carter's Presidency: The Sequel.
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828
I am sure the troops taken will not be released until some time after the war is over. I don't think they want to re-fight the same guys.
Here are some facts
1. Centom: Iraqi troops fake surrender to kill U.S. Troops.
2. France sells nuclear reactor parts to Iraq - VERY OLD NEWS
3. Night vision from Russian firms sold to yemen + Syria which in turn were sold to Iraq.
4. France sells Iraq spare fighter plane parts - OLD NEWS
5. Jamming Equipment found in humanitarian aid from Russia (from a firm) to Iraq.
What do you think about these facts guys?
Which of 2-5 do you think you can you place actual blame on the country if any?
While any deaths resulting from #1 are a tragedy, you have to hand it to the Iraqis for having one hell of a clever ambush. I don't believe 2-5 are the responsibility of the countries. The only country's government I can think of who blatantly violated the UN sanctions was Ukraine, for the sale of the Kolchuga radar. But then, Ukraine's president is a despicable piece of corrupt shit.
Some have been shown on al-Jazira with bullet holes in their foreheads :|Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
Yes, they also interrogated POWs and displayed pictures of it. Hopefully they will be prosecuted for violating the Geneva Convention agreements when the war is over. On the same token, I hope our intentional targetting of heads of state (Saddam and his sons) and detainment of members of the Taleban are also investigated, as both violate the Geneva Convention as well. They probably won't since we are basically immune from any international scrutiny, but one can hope.
Not really, remember my comment about the insane?Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
I hope you didn't interview saddam for that information or maybe you read abujale hamanika hamanika vanje alajo. Saddam's new book printed yesterday, title translated (My really really big plan.)Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Quote:
You tell me which is more logical... That nothing created something and through billions of chances came out with the complexities of us v.s. animals and any other comparison or we just always have been. or that a God created us. Which do you consider to be a bigger leap of faith?
[/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw]Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Ouch drive the stake in baby.
Well, Mike feels he is the saviour who shall rid the world of evil. Some of his arguments have some reason behind them but others are a little far-fetched. As for annoying him, I'm not sure. If I think about it, we see eye to eye on most issues however he has hated me for my views on this Iraq situation. He just can't take being beaten by solid evidence.
Nobody was trying to intimidate you or you're masculinity so there's no need to get so defensive about it. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by mike
Mike's attributes on most discussions seem to be quite liberal to me.
Dynamic Duo. lol I like that
Well, I also agree that it is time we started looking for alternate sources of energy seriously because we will pay the price in about 60 to 70 years if we don't. I know that in Iceland, they are close to becoming completely independant of fossil fuels however, not every country in the world has geothermal springs and a small population that can quickly adapt to changes. And I'm not very happy about the kind of governments you get in the Middle East either. Their treatment of women and ither social problems is horrible but those societies were like that even before oil was discovered there, not that oil hasn't played its part.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
I think mike backs his statments up with facts.
Backing your satments up with feelings and reteric from g.bush is not fact.
Liberal
lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1)
a)Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b)Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c)Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d)Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2)
a)Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b)Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
How come so many Americans use the word "liberal" as an insult?
Sometimes the truth is bitter, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
There were people that had dedicated their lives to killing native americans because of their own personal hate but if you remember the origional conversation was talking about Ethnic Clensing of nations.[/quote:1h37e3ho]Quote:
[quote:1h37e3ho]You see, our Puritan settlers didn't take kindly to the Indians and successfully wiped out several tribes from the face of the earth. Sure, you can say it was about land, but if that were the only case why did they make sure every last one of them was dead?
Yes, how many indians are left now? Fifty thousand? One hundred thousand? So you don't consider it the ethnic cleansing of a nation if a few thousand are left on reservations? Sort of like the Kurdish refugee camps? Or is that different? I don't think it is.
Well, the Puritans did not necessarily take over the Indian lands they purged. That is why I have a hard time believing it was about land conquest. It was more about irrational hatred and xenophobia--as all racism and religious intolerance boils down to.Quote:
The puritains were some pretty bad peolple indeed. But once again I think killing them was only one method used for the whities getting what they wanted.
Well, I said "every last one of them" in reference to the Puritans, and I don't think Arizona was a New England colony. But how many of those indians were there 200 years ago compared to today? The numbers are exponentially different.Quote:
According to me(I always wanted to say that) not every last one of them is dead. I have personaly been to the Navajo and Hopi Indian reservation in Arizona.
You've stumped me on this one. I simply don't know. Maybe if Hitler wasn't in jail then the book would not have been written. (Obviously in that cozy cell he had some extra free time on his hands.) Maybe mike you should be a "supporter of the war guy" go in to politics convince the UN :lol: and throw him in jail and hey, you never know. He just might write a book too.[/quote:1h37e3ho]Quote:
(referring to Mein Kompf)
[quote:1h37e3ho]Probably not as enthusiastically as you, but yes, I have. And that was my point exactly. Hitler fully planned on dominating the world and bringing the Aryan race to its rightful place on top. What I am asking is, if this situation is so similar to that one, where is Saddam's claims that the Iraqi people should be ruling the world? Or his attempts at trying?
I'm sorry, I don't mean to insult you but I can't understand what that last sentence even means.
I wasn't refering to the appeasment. Since I don't want to type it again just go back and read the part about Germany crossing the rule about how much military power it should have and blah blah.[/quote:1h37e3ho]Quote:
[quote:1h37e3ho]No, but you made the allusion to Hitler. All I'm asking is besides the letter H and the ethnic cleansing, how is European appeasement anything at all the same in this situation as it was 60 years ago. That is the question I'm still waiting for you to answer.
Yes, ok, but are you sincerely comparing Saddam's military power to Hitler's? Hitler had state of the art battleships, submarines, state of the art aircraft, bombs and guns, tanks, and a huge standing army that was very loyal to him. Saddam Hussein's weapons consist of things from 20 years ago. The reason we're upset about his illegal purchases from Russia and France is not that he is amassing some huge force with sophisticated technology, it's that he's buying night-vision goggles and $10 radio jamming devices that will send our million-dollar bombs going the wrong way.
Not really, remember my comment about the insane?[/quote:1h37e3ho]Quote:
[quote:1h37e3ho]Still, for your analogy to work one would have to believe that Saddam invaded Kuwait because he believed Kuwait belonged to Iraq and was taken away from him by his enemies.
No.
I don't know how an accusation is "information," but no, the information was the justification for the invasion. I never said it was true, I said that was the reason he gave for invading.Quote:
I hope you didn't interview saddam for that information or maybe you read abujale hamanika hamanika vanje alajo. Saddam's new book printed yesterday, title translated (My really really big plan.)Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Quote:
[quote:1h37e3ho]You tell me which is more logical... That nothing created something and through billions of chances came out with the complexities of us v.s. animals and any other comparison or we just always have been. or that a God created us. Which do you consider to be a bigger leap of faith?
Thanks that was just a long drawn out paragraph revealing that you still dont really know what faith is but thats okay. I A. don't want to start talking about religion with you. B. Don't really care at this point in time.[/quote:1h37e3ho]Quote:
I consider a book full of contradictions and historical inaccuracies that is no more scientifically provable than all the other religious tomes in existance not something I put a whole lot of stock into. Also, I am not an atheist but an agnostic, however you are incorrect to say atheism is a leap of faith. This is a logical fallacy that redefines the word faith halfway through the argument (called equivocation). Faith in the scope of Christianity is a belief based entirely without scientific evidence. Faith in atheists is nothing more than deduction based on this same lack of evidence. You can say there is a Mountain Dew can floating around Mercury and I can deny it from a lack of evidence. However, the burden of proof is upon you, not me, as you are the one making the assertion.
Actually, I do know what the word faith means, which is why I explained that religious apologists have a way of redefining the word shadily for their own convenience.
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.[/quote]
Since you used the words "leap of faith" you cannot be talking about something that can be proved. Actually, let's just look up the definition of leap of faith--I use dictionary.com for all of these by the way, but if you have a better dictionary we can possibly use that--: "leap of faith
The act or an instance of believing or trusting in something intangible or incapable of being proved." If we assume this is what you meant, and I think it is, then faith is defined as believing in something that cannot be proven. I happen to prefer Mark Twain's definition that "faith is believing something you know ain't true," but the former will suffice.
Great I will go tell my doctor I have AFD syndrome.[/quote:1h37e3ho]Quote:
[quote:1h37e3ho]By the way, your argument is one called the AFD, or Argument From Design.
safe bet according to who? :lol: [/quote:1h37e3ho]Quote:
[quote:1h37e3ho]I don't believe in a God, but I do not deny one (or two, or five) exists. It is just more of a safe bet considering the total lack of evidence or divine presence.
According to about 10% of the US population.
That's probably because rational people don't start wars. They definitely don't consider six inches of enemy territory worth dying over. One of the reasons religion continues to succeed is because it is nothing more than a great placebo for misery and despair. When people are in a lot of pain they will believe in stupid nonsense that otherwise would seem ridiculous to them.Quote:
Personaly, I don't believe there are athiests in fox holes
Er...right. Well, I have no idea why you would think something like that, especially considering you claimed to be interested in "the truth," but all right.Quote:
(love that quote lol) but actually I don't think there are athiests. Everyone knows theirs a God. Some have just tried to run from it.
I don't know about to, but he's definitely on something.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
I'm still waiting for this evidence to even appear. That's what I'm annoyed with. I've argued every rhetorical point you made and you just completely refuse to admit they're even there. I've replied to every single thing you've said and you just lure yourself back into fantasy land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahul
I quote, "I have posted many things latly because I want people to see both sides. Are you worried they will come to a conclusion themselves?"Quote:
Nobody was trying to intimidate you or you're masculinity so there's no need to get so defensive about it. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by mike
Finally, a serious response, and one that has some good points. However, I disagree on several parts of it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahul
The reason we are dependent on oil and will be for years can be broken into two pieces. First, the companies around the world that drill and refine petroleum understand the law of supply and demand. Demand is not going to decline as oil runs out, it is going to skyrocket through the roof. The crisis of the 1970s showed that they cannot be trusted by themselves to adopt new environmental policies, and will just whine and complain through any modern attempt at reducing public dependence on oil. You also have car manufacturers who, in this time when gasoline needs are multiplying drastically while the rate of discovery levels off, are not producing cars that are more fuel efficient or use alternative sources (except perhaps those hybrid cars that are overpriced and lack commercial appeal), but are producing SUVs that get 10 miles to the gallon.
Second, the initiatives taken by the government, such as the one forcing car companies to make cars more fuel efficient by something like 2008, are being met with fierce resistance from the auto industry and will probably make several concessions with. The proposed hydrogen research Bush set forth in his state of the union address not only has no immediate value to it (it is not expecting hydrogen cars to be on the roads until 2012), but MIT recently put out a report warning that even if it succeeds it will not reduce the amount of gas consumption by any great amount. Say there are a million hydrogen cars on the roads in 2012. There are still 200 million conventional automobiles driving around, whose gas needs are simply not going to disappear. If the government and oil interests were serious about reducing consumer dependence, they would instead focus on building more mass transit systems and either hybrid cars, or ones that solely use some other source (such as those neat-looking, French, compressed air-powered cars that went on the market a few months ago.
And yes, the treatment of humans in the Middle East are bad, but there has been a lot of progress. The Iranians are especially interesting (for example, they recently banned stoning women to death for adultery in one of the few examples of an Islamic government agreeing that the Koran does not always have to be taken literally; they also have females in parliament, and the largest Jewish population of any Arab country--though they also refuse to recognize Israel as a state), and I think if the reform government there can wrest more power away from the religious extremism that deposed the Shah, you will see a much more tolerant society burgeon. Iraq, when it enjoyed US favor at least, had one of the most liberal societies in the Middle East. It also had a well-established middle class and secular government.
It is an outdated term from the political campaigns of the 1960s, where one side would call the other "liberal" or "conservative" and people actually got offended. I honestly don't know why anyone still uses terms like that, especially since political beliefs are not confined to a left-right axis. I am openly socialist, but that doesn't mean I have extremely liberal social views. The idea that if you are liberal you have to fit all of the stereotypes of a bleeding heart hippie, or that if you are conservative you have to buy a semiautomatic weapon and support the death penalty, is very outdated and counterproductive to any real social change.Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
There's a site called http://www.politicalcompass.org that I think is very interesting. I take it every six months or so just to see how my opinions change. I'm usually in the range of -6.9,-6.8 and -8,-8.
What? Look back and tell me what you find as rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Your right the end result is the same but I was commenting about the motivation. See you throw tons of crap trying to make me look in the wrong by changing the conversation once again I stress go back and read what I type.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
:roll: Perhaps you should take your own advice and go read the manifest destiny. Besides I think you can find hundreds and maybe thousands of diary's that would suggest you are wrong. Where do you think modern day United States is anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
:?: I was just refering that i have been on a trip there. So starting after the word, "and" i dont understand why you made that comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Substitute He=with saddam
It's hard to believe you missed this since I was talking about Saddam. If personal pronouns confuse you I wont use them.
So, im having trouble adding up 1 + 1 on you. Are you against war completley? That there would never be a situtuation that you would not go to war for?Quote:
Yes your right notice how you said "the reason we're upset ... he is buying night vision goggles and $ 10 dollar radio jamming devices." First of all i dont think GPS jamming devices cost $10. If you can find one on www.ebay.com for $10 dollars let me know and I will buy one too.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
Hey just another fact for you. According to most recent polls your position on the war in Iraq is now the minority in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
P.S.
Unfortunately I have to go to work again...Promise I am not "stonewalling" I will reply after I get home from mandatory education Tuesday. :-) Education is what really needs reform, and I have first hand witness to the system as well.
An Assorted Collection of Rahul's Pearls of Wisdom:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahul
"Saddam Hussain has literally killed millions of people, used weapons of mass destruction, caused irreparable environmental damage and broken several UN treaties. I think it is time he is either killed or brought to justice."
"Saddam Hussein loves weapons. That's why he was developing a huge cannon to shoot massive shells onto Israel."
"Oh and by the way, websites like fair.org or whatever its called, are usually founded by people who have some personal vendetta against a country."
"Well, Mike feels he is the saviour who shall rid the world of evil. Some of his arguments have some reason behind them but others are a little far-fetched."
So was I, actually. You seem to be in denial that Christians have considered brown heathens to be below them since their religion began.Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
All right, let's look at your first comment.Quote:
See you throw tons of cr@p trying to make me look in the wrong by changing the conversation once again I stress go back and read what I type.
My reply was:Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
I haven't changed the subject at all. I'm giving you a clear example of American ethnic cleansing. The problem is, you seem to be claiming our killing the Indians was not based on religious beliefs at all, but on greed. However, historically we have had a much, much easier time killing non-Christians than fellow Jesus worshippers, so I have to doubt there was no religious motivation behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Manifest Destiny has nothing to do with the Puritans, so I don't see how it's relevant to this at all. If you want to talk about the Indians (or the Mexicans) in the rest of the country, then sure. If I can find hundreds or thousands of these diaries, then I invite you to find just one. If they are that easy to come by, then by all means find one. I have no idea what that last question is supposed to mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
Because I said the Puritans completely wiped out some tribes of Indians, and then you talked about two tribes that were nowhere near the Puritans or even in the same area of the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
This was the part of your quote I didn't understand. Pronouns don't confuse me, runon sentences with no punctuation do. I think you meant to say: "Mike, maybe you should be a 'supporter of the war guy,' go into politics, convince the UN to throw him in jail and--hey, you never know. He might just write a book too." If this was the case, I believe he already has written a book. It was a romance novel that was a bestseller in Iraq, if I remember correctly. And I doubt Saddam Hussein will be arrested or thrown in jail or even alive after this war.Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
You're right, I misquoted the Reuters article I read. It is $50.Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
It was always the minority in America--and while I could get into the reasons why I think that is, we already have enough issues open for right now. The problem with US support for the war is, the United States is not the center of the universe. There are billions of people around the world who don't support this war. It is actually the first time in the recorded history of man that there has been this popular an opposition against a war. That really says something about American "love of democracy." By the way, public support for a war has always increased once the war began.Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
With the exception of World War 2, I can think of no war in the history of the United States in which I wouldn't have torn up my draft card on my way to the Canadian border (except Vietnam, in which I would've successfully fought the courts that it violated Article I of the Constitution--which says Congress cannot enable the draft in an undeclared war).Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
You all have too much time on your hands.
http://www.thewolfweb.com/photos/00002958.jpg