Thread: Operation Iraqi Freedom

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.

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

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.

Some have been shown on al-Jazira with bullet holes in their foreheads

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.

Originally Posted by mike

Both lacked any substance, but mine wasn't meant to.

Perhaps a bitter comment coming from a bitter person?

Originally Posted by mike

[quote:1hgja7gw]Well, then I suggest you come up to New England some time.

I'd love too actually. Can I stay at your house? Actually, unfotunatly have not been able to travel to New England but I have been to Russia lol.

Originally Posted by mike

[quote:1hgja7gw]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?

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. 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. 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.

(referring to Mein Kompf)

Originally Posted by mike

[quote:1hgja7gw]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?

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 and throw him in jail and hey, you never know. He just might write a book too.

Originally Posted by mike

[quote:1hgja7gw]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.

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:1hgja7gw]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.

Not really, remember my comment about the insane?

Originally Posted by mike

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.

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.)

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?

Originally Posted by mike

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mike

[quote:1hgja7gw]By the way, your argument is one called the AFD, or Argument From Design.

Great I will go tell my doctor I have AFD syndrome.

Originally Posted by mike

[quote:1hgja7gw]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.

safe bet according to who?

Personaly, I don't believe there are athiests in fox holes (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.

Originally Posted by mike

[quote:1hgja7gw]What exactly are you basing that accusation on? Trust me, I'm not intimidated by the Dynamic Duo of you and Rahul.

Actually I have not been able to read all the topics in this discussion and I don't know Rahul but if he is making you mad he is probably on to something

Originally Posted by mike

[quote:1hgja7gw]I don't really believe you can be friends with someone you've never met, but to each their own.

[/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw]
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.

Originally Posted by mike

What exactly are you basing that accusation on? Trust me, I'm not intimidated by the Dynamic Duo of you and Rahul.

Nobody was trying to intimidate you or you're masculinity so there's no need to get so defensive about it.

Mike's attributes on most discussions seem to be quite liberal to me.

Dynamic Duo. lol I like that

Originally Posted by mike

Originally Posted by Rahul

Yah we all know how much freedom and liberty exist in countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen. 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.

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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

Perhaps a bitter comment coming from a bitter person?

Sometimes the truth is bitter, yes.

[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?

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]

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

(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?

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 and throw him in jail and hey, you never know. He just might write a book too.[/quote:1h37e3ho]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to insult you but I can't understand what that last sentence even means.

[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.

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]

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.

[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.

Not really, remember my comment about the insane?[/quote:1h37e3ho]

No.

Originally Posted by mike

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.

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.)

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: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?

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.

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]

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.

[quote:1h37e3ho]By the way, your argument is one called the AFD, or Argument From Design.

Great I will go tell my doctor I have AFD syndrome.[/quote:1h37e3ho]

[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.

safe bet according to who? [/quote:1h37e3ho]

According to about 10% of the US population.

Personaly, I don't believe there are athiests in fox holes

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.

(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.

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.

Originally Posted by mike

What exactly are you basing that accusation on? Trust me, I'm not intimidated by the Dynamic Duo of you and Rahul.

Actually I have not been able to read all the topics in this discussion and I don't know Rahul but if he is making you mad he is probably on to something

I don't know about to, but he's definitely on something.

Originally Posted by Rahul

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mike

What exactly are you basing that accusation on? Trust me, I'm not intimidated by the Dynamic Duo of you and Rahul.

Nobody was trying to intimidate you or you're masculinity so there's no need to get so defensive about it.

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?"

Originally Posted by Rahul

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.

Finally, a serious response, and one that has some good points. However, I disagree on several parts of it:

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.

Originally Posted by scotcher

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?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mike

Originally Posted by Rahul

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.

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.

What? Look back and tell me what you find as rhetoric.

Originally Posted by mike

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mike

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.

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?

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

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.

Originally Posted by mike

Well, I said "every last one of them" in reference to the Puritans, and I don't think Arizona was a New England colony.

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.

Originally Posted by mike

(referring to Mein Kompf)
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?

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

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 and throw him in jail and hey, you never know. He just might write a book too.

Originally Posted by mike

I'm sorry, I don't mean to insult you but I can't understand what that last sentence even means.

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.

Originally Posted by mike

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mike

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.

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

safe bet according to who?

Originally Posted by mike

According to about 10% of the US population.

Hey just another fact for you. According to most recent polls your position on the war in Iraq is now the minority in America.

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

Personaly, I don't believe there are athiests in fox holes

Originally Posted by mike

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Rahul

What? Look back and tell me what you find as rhetoric.

An Assorted Collection of Rahul's Pearls of Wisdom:

"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."

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

mike wrote:
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.

Your right the end result is the same but I was commenting about the motivation.

So was I, actually. You seem to be in denial that Christians have considered brown heathens to be below them since their religion began.

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.

All right, let's look at your first comment.

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

Thats right. We enjoy beating women, ethnic clensing, and starting holy wars.

My reply was:

Originally Posted by mike

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.

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.

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

Originally Posted by mike

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

Originally Posted by mike

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

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.

Well, I said "every last one of them" in reference to the Puritans, and I don't think Arizona was a New England colony.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

Maybe mike you should be a "supporter of the war guy" go in to politics convince the UN and throw him in jail and hey, you never know. He just might write a book too.

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.

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

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.

You're right, I misquoted the Reuters article I read. It is $50.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

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?

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).

You all have too much time on your hands.