Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Purge_WTF on May 12, 2007, 09:02:08 AM
-
You Might Be a Republican If...
(courtesy Enid Goldstein/KNRC, Denver)
1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime,
unless you are millionaire conservative radio jock,
which makes it an "illness" and needs our prayers for
your "recovery".
2. You have to believe that those privileged from birth
achieve success all on their own.
3. You have to believe that the US should get out of
the UN, and that our highest national priority is
enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.
4. You have to believe that government should stay out
of people's lives but it needs to punish anyone caught
having private sex with the "wrong" gender.
5. You have to believe that pollution is ok, so long as
it makes a profit.
6. You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as
you don't pray to Allah or Buddha.
7. "Standing Tall for America" means firing your
workers and moving their jobs to India.
8. You have to believe that a woman cannot be trusted
with decisions about her own body, but that large
multi-national corporations can make decisions
affecting all mankind with no regulation whatsoever.
9. You have to believe that you love Jesus and Jesus
loves you, and that Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS
victims, homosexuals, and Hillary Clinton.
10. You hate the ACLU for representing convicted
felons, but they owed it to the country to bail out
Oliver North.
11. You have to believe that the best way to encourage
military morale is to praise the troops overseas while
cutting their VA benefits.
12. You believe that group sex and drug use are
degenerate sins that can only be purged by running for
governor of California as a Republican.
13. You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out
of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't have
condoms they won't have sex.
14. You have to believe that the best way to fight
terrorism is to alienate our allies and then demand
their cooperation and money.
15. You have to believe that government medicine is
wrong and that HMO's and insurance companies only have
your best interests at heart.
16. You have to believe that providing health care to
all Iraqis is sound government policy but providing
health care to all Americans is socialism personified.
17. You believe that tobacco's link to cancer and
global warming are "junk science", but Creationism
should be taught in schools.
18. You have to believe that waging war with no exit
strategy was wrong in Vietnam but right in Iraq.
19. You have to believe that Saddam was a good guy when
Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war
on him, a good guy when Cheney was doing business with
him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find
Bin Laden" diversion.
20. You believe that government should restrict itself
to just the powers named in the Constitution, which
includes banning gay marriages and censoring the
internet.
21. You have to believe that the public has a right to
know about the adulterous affairs of Democrats, while
those of Republicans are a "private matter".
22. You have to believe that the public has a right to
know about Hillary's cattle trades but that Bush was
right to censor those 28 pages from the Congressional
9/11 report because you just can't handle the truth.
23. You support state rights, which means Ashcroft
telling states what locally passed voter initiatives he
will allow them to have.
24. You have to believe that what Clinton did in the
1960's is of vital national interest but what Bush did
decades later is "stale news" and "irrelevant".
25. You have to believe that trade with Cuba is wrong because
it is communist, but trading with China and Vietnam is just dandy.
26. Government should relax regulation of Big Business
and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana
to relieve the pain of illness.
27. And, if you are Bill Janklow, speed limits and stop signs
are for OTHER people, not for yourself.
-
You Might Be A Liberal If . . .
(courtesy of Beach Bum ;D)
1. You are a moral skeptic, believe in moral relativism, and situational ethics.
2. You believe the government, not hard work, is the key to helping people achieve success.
3. You believe that the U.S. should negotiate with terrorists.
4. You believe the government should stay out of people's private lives, but at the same time that the government should endorse private behavior and believe anyone with a contrary opinion is a bigot.
5. You believe a company or individual can profit, but not too much, or those profits must be taken away by the government.
6. You believe people with religious viewpoints have no voice in the public sector, the public sector should be cleansed of all religious influences, and people with religious viewpoints should not participate in the political process.
7. The government must force employers to pay "living wages," regardless of how this might affect small business and consumers.
8. You dehumanize the baby in the abortion issue, always referring to the baby as a "fetus," and completely ignore the fact an unborn baby is involved in the abortion debate.
9. You believe anyone who opposes the homosexual lifestyle choice is a bigot and "hates" homosexuals.
10. You have no trouble with the ACLU representing and defending pedophiles, including NAMBLA.
11. You show your support for the troops by highlighting every negative story about our service members and tell the family members of those who have died that their lives were "wasted."
12. You have no problem with a mayor who has an affair with his campaign manager's wife, a married governor who has a homosexual affair, and a president who gets a blow job in the oval office from a White House intern,
13. You believe it is wise to give condoms to thirteen-year-olds.
14. You believe the best way to fight terrorism is to negotiate with terrorists.
15. You believe socialized medicine is the answer to all our healthcare problems.
16. You have no regard for the enormous tax implications of socialized healthcare and have learned nothing from the significant problems in places like Canada.
17. You completely ignore the significant holes in Darwinism.
18. You believe publicly setting a firm deadline for troop withdrawal in Iraq is A-Okay and will not endanger the lives of our troops and embolden the terrorists.
19. You believe Iraq and the U.S. committed a war crime by Iraq trying and executing Saddam.
20. You believe the Constitution is a "living document" that means whatever some judge says it means based on the flavor of the day, which includes giving pedophiles unfettered access to child porn.
21. You justify affairs by Democrats (Newsome, Clinton et al.), and highlight and condemn affairs by Republicans.
22. You believe partisan witch hunts trump national security.
23. You support states' rights, so long as those rights are consistent with a liberal agenda.
24. You believe Clinton dodging the draft is irrelevant, but Bush snorting coke disqualifies him from public office, when both incidents occurred decades ago.
25. You never met a tax increase you didn't like.
There is more, but I'll stop here . . . :)
-
I'll add to Purge's list.
28. You're a fucking hypocrite (Teh party of god) :-\
-
You Might Be a Republican If...
(courtesy Enid Goldstein/KNRC, Denver)
1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime,
unless you are millionaire conservative radio jock,
which makes it an "illness" and needs our prayers for
your "recovery".
. You have to believe that government should stay out
of people's lives but it needs to punish anyone caught
having private sex with the "wrong" gender.
6. You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as
you don't pray to Allah or Buddha.
9. You have to believe that you love Jesus and Jesus
loves you, and that Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS
victims, homosexuals, and Hillary Clinton.
10. You hate the ACLU for representing convicted
felons, but they owed it to the country to bail out
Oliver North.
11. You have to believe that the best way to encourage
military morale is to praise the troops overseas while
cutting their VA benefits.
12. You believe that group sex and drug use are
degenerate sins that can only be purged by running for
governor of California as a Republican.
13. You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out
of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't have
condoms they won't have sex.
17. You believe that tobacco's link to cancer and
global warming are "junk science", but Creationism
should be taught in schools.
18. You have to believe that waging war with no exit
strategy was wrong in Vietnam but right in Iraq.
19. You have to believe that Saddam was a good guy when
Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war
on him, a good guy when Cheney was doing business with
him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find
Bin Laden" diversion.
21. You have to believe that the public has a right to
know about the adulterous affairs of Democrats, while
those of Republicans are a "private matter".
26. Government should relax regulation of Big Business
and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana
to relieve the pain of illness.
27. And, if you are Bill Janklow, speed limits and stop signs
are for OTHER people, not for yourself.
These were the best ones. Excellent post. ;D
You might want to add one for all those hate filled conservatives that condone the killing of anyone with different views than they have or the ones that tell anyone that criticizes the US to "move if you don't like it here".
-
You Might Be A Liberal If . . .
(courtesy of Beach Bum ;D)
1. You are a moral skeptic, believe in moral relativism, and situational ethics.
2. You believe the government, not hard work, is the key to helping people achieve success.
3. You believe that the U.S. should negotiate with terrorists.
4. You believe the government should stay out of people's private lives, but at the same time that the government should endorse private behavior and believe anyone with a contrary opinion is a bigot.
5. You believe a company or individual can profit, but not too much, or those profits must be taken away by the government.
6. You believe people with religious viewpoints have no voice in the public sector, the public sector should be cleansed of all religious influences, and people with religious viewpoints should not participate in the political process.
7. The government must force employers to pay "living wages," regardless of how this might affect small business and consumers.
8. You dehumanize the baby in the abortion issue, always referring to the baby as a "fetus," and completely ignore the fact an unborn baby is involved in the abortion debate.
9. You believe anyone who opposes the homosexual lifestyle choice is a bigot and "hates" homosexuals.
10. You have no trouble with the ACLU representing and defending pedophiles, including NAMBLA.
11. You show your support for the troops by highlighting every negative story about our service members and tell the family members of those who have died that their lives were "wasted."
12. You have no problem with a mayor who has an affair with his campaign manager's wife, a married governor who has a homosexual affair, and a president who gets a blow job in the oval office from a White House intern,
13. You believe it is wise to give condoms to thirteen-year-olds.
14. You believe the best way to fight terrorism is to negotiate with terrorists.
15. You believe socialized medicine is the answer to all our healthcare problems.
16. You have no regard for the enormous tax implications of socialized healthcare and have learned nothing from the significant problems in places like Canada.
17. You completely ignore the significant holes in Darwinism.
18. You believe publicly setting a firm deadline for troop withdrawal in Iraq is A-Okay and will not endanger the lives of our troops and embolden the terrorists.
19. You believe Iraq and the U.S. committed a war crime by Iraq trying and executing Saddam.
20. You believe the Constitution is a "living document" that means whatever some judge says it means based on the flavor of the day, which includes giving pedophiles unfettered access to child porn.
21. You justify affairs by Democrats (Newsome, Clinton et al.), and highlight and condemn affairs by Republicans.
22. You believe partisan witch hunts trump national security.
23. You support states' rights, so long as those rights are consistent with a liberal agenda.
24. You believe Clinton dodging the draft is irrelevant, but Bush snorting coke disqualifies him from public office, when both incidents occurred decades ago.
25. You never met a tax increase you didn't like.
There is more, but I'll stop here . . . :)
Nice.........and very true!
-
Nice.........and very true!
Thanks mang. :)
-
you are "both" the same thing
"you" just don't realize it
-
You might be brainwashed if:
1. You believe everything your side says.
2. Make excuses for all the mistakes your side make.
-
You might be brainwashed if:
1. You believe everything your side says.
2. Make excuses for all the mistakes your side make.
So you admit your brainwashed..........goo d for you, it's a start :D!
-
Nah, I just don't like either side. The party in government just gets the most flak because, well ... thier in government.
-
Nah, I just don't like either side. The party in government just gets the most flak because, well ... thier in government.
Ha.........I agree :D!
-
Nooooooooo - this isn't happening
-
You might be a republican if:
1) You are a fucking idiot
2) You suck
hope this helps. ;D
-
You might be brainwashed if:
1. You believe everything your side says.
2. Make excuses for all the mistakes your side make.
+1
-
You might be a republican if:
1) You are a fucking idiot
2) You suck
hope this helps. ;D
::)
-
This list did nothing for me.
holy crap, I am honestly losing interests in politics. I watched sports and played guitar all week... couldn't stomach MSNBC or FOX.
Far right folks - you guys are cowards and in denial.
Far left folks - you don't understand the energy needs for war - and you sure wouldn't pay $17 a gallon for gas to leave iraq.
I'd like to invite both groups of uneducated clods to do what I'll be doing - nothing :) :) :)
The larger US interests are at work to 1) make their own money, and 2) put a lot of oil and position in US hands to keep our economy intact.
I'm off to see the end of the utah/golden state game.
-
This list did nothing for me.
holy crap, I am honestly losing interests in politics. I watched sports and played guitar all week... couldn't stomach MSNBC or FOX.
Far right folks - you guys are cowards and in denial.
Far left folks - you don't understand the energy needs for war - and you sure wouldn't pay $17 a gallon for gas to leave iraq.
I'd like to invite both groups of uneducated clods to do what I'll be doing - nothing :) :) :)
The larger US interests are at work to 1) make their own money, and 2) put a lot of oil and position in US hands to keep our economy intact.
I'm off to see the end of the utah/golden state game.
I did that same....... >:(
F-ing jazz.
-
::)
::)
-
You Might Be a Republican If...
(courtesy Enid Goldstein/KNRC, Denver)
1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime,
unless you are millionaire conservative radio jock,
which makes it an "illness" and needs our prayers for
your "recovery".
2. You have to believe that those privileged from birth
achieve success all on their own.
3. You have to believe that the US should get out of
the UN, and that our highest national priority is
enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.
4. You have to believe that government should stay out
of people's lives but it needs to punish anyone caught
having private sex with the "wrong" gender.
5. You have to believe that pollution is ok, so long as
it makes a profit.
6. You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as
you don't pray to Allah or Buddha.
7. "Standing Tall for America" means firing your
workers and moving their jobs to India.
8. You have to believe that a woman cannot be trusted
with decisions about her own body, but that large
multi-national corporations can make decisions
affecting all mankind with no regulation whatsoever.
9. You have to believe that you love Jesus and Jesus
loves you, and that Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS
victims, homosexuals, and Hillary Clinton.
10. You hate the ACLU for representing convicted
felons, but they owed it to the country to bail out
Oliver North.
11. You have to believe that the best way to encourage
military morale is to praise the troops overseas while
cutting their VA benefits.
12. You believe that group sex and drug use are
degenerate sins that can only be purged by running for
governor of California as a Republican.
13. You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out
of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't have
condoms they won't have sex.
14. You have to believe that the best way to fight
terrorism is to alienate our allies and then demand
their cooperation and money.
15. You have to believe that government medicine is
wrong and that HMO's and insurance companies only have
your best interests at heart.
16. You have to believe that providing health care to
all Iraqis is sound government policy but providing
health care to all Americans is socialism personified.
17. You believe that tobacco's link to cancer and
global warming are "junk science", but Creationism
should be taught in schools.
18. You have to believe that waging war with no exit
strategy was wrong in Vietnam but right in Iraq.
19. You have to believe that Saddam was a good guy when
Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war
on him, a good guy when Cheney was doing business with
him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find
Bin Laden" diversion.
20. You believe that government should restrict itself
to just the powers named in the Constitution, which
includes banning gay marriages and censoring the
internet.
21. You have to believe that the public has a right to
know about the adulterous affairs of Democrats, while
those of Republicans are a "private matter".
22. You have to believe that the public has a right to
know about Hillary's cattle trades but that Bush was
right to censor those 28 pages from the Congressional
9/11 report because you just can't handle the truth.
23. You support state rights, which means Ashcroft
telling states what locally passed voter initiatives he
will allow them to have.
24. You have to believe that what Clinton did in the
1960's is of vital national interest but what Bush did
decades later is "stale news" and "irrelevant".
25. You have to believe that trade with Cuba is wrong because
it is communist, but trading with China and Vietnam is just dandy.
26. Government should relax regulation of Big Business
and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana
to relieve the pain of illness.
27. And, if you are Bill Janklow, speed limits and stop signs
are for OTHER people, not for yourself.
I believe in all of that!
-
::)
::) ::) ::)
-
19. You believe Iraq and the U.S. committed a war crime by Iraq trying and executing Saddam.
No no. The invasion is the ongoing war crime.
-
19. You believe Iraq and the U.S. committed a war crime by Iraq trying and executing Saddam.
No no. The invasion is the ongoing war crime.
And yet no one has arrested Bush and Co. for this alleged crime.
Maybe the UN can do it? What did Dave Chappelle (Black President Bush) say?
"UN, you have a problem with that? You know what you should do? You should sanction me. Sanction me with your army. Oh!! Wait a minute! You don't have an army! I guess that means you need to shut the fuck up! That's what I'd do if I didn't have no army. I would shut the fuck up. [speaks each word into a different microphone] Shut. The. Fuck. Up!! That's right!"
;D ;D ;D
-
...I'd like to invite both groups of uneducated clods to do what I'll be doing - nothing :) :) :)
....
In your thinking, you are building traction by going backward to move forward.
Are the others clods because they are not 'at' your current cognitive impasse?
-
And yet no one has arrested Bush and Co. for this alleged crime.
Maybe the UN can do it? What did Dave Chappelle (Black President Bush) say?
"UN, you have a problem with that? You know what you should do? You should sanction me. Sanction me with your army. Oh!! Wait a minute! You don't have an army! I guess that means you need to shut the fuck up! That's what I'd do if I didn't have no army. I would shut the fuck up. [speaks each word into a different microphone] Shut. The. Fuck. Up!! That's right!"
;D ;D ;D
That is amusing. I've heard good things about Chapelle. I don't have cable tv so I haven't seen his work.
But the UN is the best geopolitical organization we have for keeping international peace in all its aspects.
My allegations against the president are substantial.
I have yet to see anyone counter the argument that the invasion is illegal.
-
Based on what.....Congress went along with the use of force. I guess if no war is declared..then your technically right.
-
That is amusing. I've heard good things about Chapelle. I don't have cable tv so I haven't seen his work.
But the UN is the best geopolitical organization we have for keeping international peace in all its aspects.
My allegations against the president are substantial.
I have yet to see anyone counter the argument that the invasion is illegal.
I respectfully disagree, Decker.
The UN does NOT have the best interests of the United States in mind and in my opinion is a useless organization with socialist ideals. Nothing would make me happier than to see it disbanded.
In regards to the invasion of Iraq, the UN Security Counsel and Congress authorized military force. Additionally, we are talking about a country that had over 17 UN sanction violations. This is what I mean about the UN being a useless organization. It can't do a damn thing without the military might of the United States military to back it up.
Now while we can agree to disagree we are there and we need to finish the job. The worst thing that can happen to that region of the world is a premature withdrawl of US forces. That is just going to invite the worst of the worst to move in and kill anyone and everything that gets in their way.
Do you really want to see American forces go back because our government doesn't have the resolve to finish what they started?
-
yes socialist ideals like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ::)
-
::) ::) ::)
::) ::) ::) ::)
-
I respectfully disagree, Decker.
The UN does NOT have the best interests of the United States in mind and in my opinion is a useless organization with socialist ideals. Nothing would make me happier than to see it disbanded.
In regards to the invasion of Iraq, the UN Security Counsel and Congress authorized military force. Additionally, we are talking about a country that had over 17 UN sanction violations. This is what I mean about the UN being a useless organization. It can't do a damn thing without the military might of the United States military to back it up.
Now while we can agree to disagree we are there and we need to finish the job. The worst thing that can happen to that region of the world is a premature withdrawl of US forces. That is just going to invite the worst of the worst to move in and kill anyone and everything that gets in their way.
Do you really want to see American forces go back because our government doesn't have the resolve to finish what they started?
What ideals of UN do you consider to be "socialist"?
-Hedge
-
I respectfully disagree, Decker.
The UN does NOT have the best interests of the United States in mind and in my opinion is a useless organization with socialist ideals. Nothing would make me happier than to see it disbanded.
In regards to the invasion of Iraq, the UN Security Counsel and Congress authorized military force. Additionally, we are talking about a country that had over 17 UN sanction violations. This is what I mean about the UN being a useless organization. It can't do a damn thing without the military might of the United States military to back it up.
Now while we can agree to disagree we are there and we need to finish the job. The worst thing that can happen to that region of the world is a premature withdrawl of US forces. That is just going to invite the worst of the worst to move in and kill anyone and everything that gets in their way.
Do you really want to see American forces go back because our government doesn't have the resolve to finish what they started?
I did not say that the UN has the interests of the US in mind. Unless of course the interests of the US intersect with the charter purpose of the UN:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
* to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,... http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
______________________
As for the war:
Congress authorized the commander and chief of the military to use force if necessary to disarm an allegedly unlawfully armed Iraq.
The president could not openly attack Iraq b/c that would be a blatant war crime: Iraq did not attack the US or an ally of ours, Iraq was not engaging in an ongoing genocide, so that left the only unknown--was Iraq reconstituting its banned arsenal?
The UN had been working on keeping Iraq free of illegal armament since the end of the Gulf War.
Iraq was like a recalcitrant child as far as compliance with UN resolutions go.
The president's promise to use force to enforce UN resolutions was enough to make Iraq comply with inspections.
The WMD inspectors were reporting no findings of WMDs or WMD programs.
Res. 1441 required a reconvening of the Security Council to give the 'OK' for the US to use force to ensure Iraq's compliance w/ inspectors.
Bush ordered the invasion without consulting the Security council and in the face of Iraq's cooperation with inspections.
How is that legal?
_____________
The UN is an organizational entity--it's role is build consensus amongst its member nations. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's not a military org. that gallops around the world kicking ass. It is a consensus builder. The wheels of negotiation turn slowly but they do move.
Life is not perfect. Why scrap something that does work?
I would rather have such an organization in place than regress to every country for itself. A deliberating body like the UN makes sense.
-
The UN would be nothing without the US.
-
The UN would be nothing without the US.
The US is a founding member. So I guess you are correct.
-
The US is a founding member. So I guess you are correct.
It has nothing to do with founding. When the UN goes in somewhere either for military action or humanitarian action the US handles 90% of it.
-
It has nothing to do with founding. When the UN goes in somewhere either for military action or humanitarian action the US handles 90% of it.
This is not really directed at you, but it just strikes me as kind of odd how many people seem sceptical of UN, when UN helps countries meet and discuss, and to find united solutions to shared problems.
Usually, dictators, like Kim Jong-Il and Mohammad Ghaddafi, and totalitarian regimes, like Pervez Musharraf, aren't too gung ho about UN.
China isn't a big fan of UN either.
Mainly because UN reminds these nations of stuff like: "Human Rights", and "Democracy". Issues that aren't too comfortable for them.
But why would USA be sceptical about UN?
It blows my mind.
Instead of distancing countries from each other, UN is actually bringing every country, if not together, but at least to the table for diplomatic talks.
It says a lot about Bush's skills, when he places a guy like Bolton as UN embassador. A guy who has no way around the UN, and is directly opposed to the idea of UN in its current form.
Result: USA loses pulling power in the UN, which is bad for USA, and also for the rest of the world.
-Hedge
-
This is not really directed at you, but it just strikes me as kind of odd how many people seem sceptical of UN, when UN helps countries meet and discuss, and to find united solutions to shared problems.
Usually, dictators, like Kim Jong-Il and Mohammad Ghaddafi, and totalitarian regimes, like Pervez Musharraf, aren't too gung ho about UN.
China isn't a big fan of UN either.
Mainly because UN reminds these nations of stuff like: "Human Rights", and "Democracy". Issues that aren't too comfortable for them.
But why would USA be sceptical about UN?
It blows my mind.
Instead of distancing countries from each other, UN is actually bringing every country, if not together, but at least to the table for diplomatic talks.
It says a lot about Bush's skills, when he places a guy like Bolton as UN embassador. A guy who has no way around the UN, and is directly opposed to the idea of UN in its current form.
Result: USA loses pulling power in the UN, which is bad for USA, and also for the rest of the world.
-Hedge
Yeah I wasn't trying to imply that I have a problem with the UN. I don't pay much attention to them. My biggest gripe is when they pas resolution after resolution on one country. I am a 4 strikes kind of guy, that is how I am with my kids, my troops my little leaguers. So I hate seeing people get chance after chance after chance.
-
Yeah I wasn't trying to imply that I have a problem with the UN. I don't pay much attention to them. My biggest gripe is when they pas resolution after resolution on one country. I am a 4 strikes kind of guy, that is how I am with my kids, my troops my little leaguers. So I hate seeing people get chance after chance after chance.
I understand your impatience.
But consider the alternative--military force means death, destruction and misery.
We want to avoid that if possible.
-
I understand your impatience.
But consider the alternative--military force means death, destruction and misery.
We want to avoid that if possible.
Why? War is a part of nature and has shaped the world we know. War doesn't always = bad
-
Why? War is a part of nature and has shaped the world we know. War doesn't always = bad
You're a fan of Homer's, Iliad?
There is a beauty to classical battle.
But in a nuclear age and an age of daisycutters & ICBMs, that beauty is lost.
We are left with wholesale slaughter.
Is war part of the human condition? Homer would agree.
Does that mean we use violence at the drop of a hat to get our way?
No. That indicates a temperment that is not apt to conflict resolution.
That's like having Sonny Corleone running our foreign affairs.
-
You're a fan of Homer's, Iliad?
There is a beauty to classical battle.
But in a nuclear age and an age of daisycutters & ICBMs, that beauty is lost.
We are left with wholesale slaughter.
Is war part of the human condition? Homer would agree.
Does that mean we use violence at the drop of a hat to get our way?
No. That indicates a temperment that is not apt to conflict resolution.
That's like having Sonny Corleone running our foreign affairs.
I didn't say drop of a hat, 3 strikes and you are out
-
I didn't say drop of a hat, 3 strikes and you are out
For example, say Hussein is on his 4th strike.
You are willing to rain down hell on the people of Iraq b/c their leader is slow to comply with demands?
Innocents must die and face hell on earth b/c of a privileged leader?
No.
"Last resort" is much better than "3 strikes".
Try to picture yourself as an Iraqi citizen in that situation.
-
For example, say Hussein is on his 4th strike.
You are willing to rain down hell on the people of Iraq b/c their leader is slow to comply with demands?
Innocents must die and face hell on earth b/c of a privileged leader?
No.
"Last resort" is much better than "3 strikes".
Try to picture yourself as an Iraqi citizen in that situation.
How many civilians died during our removal of saddam, not since but leading up to his removal
-
How many civilians died during our removal of saddam, not since but leading up to his removal
About 7500 Iraqi civilians died during the invasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Casualties
That's a small town.
This entire Iraqi venture smacks of mafia tactics and is below the dignity of American Ideals.
7500 murdered is a damn disgrace.
-
About 7500 Iraqi civilians died during the invasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Casualties
That's a small town.
This entire Iraqi venture smacks of mafia tactics and is below the dignity of American Ideals.
7500 murdered is a damn disgrace.
Sorry but I just don't agree with your pacifist views. I think war is necessary and casualities are part of it. The future generations of Iraq will prosper.
-
Sorry but I just don't agree with your pacifist views. I think war is necessary and casualities are part of it. The future generations of Iraq will prosper.
So now you can foretell the future.
You have no idea what Iraq will look like in future generations.
"Pacifists" abhor violence of any kind. I am not at that level (think Gandhi) yet.
I see that violence will happen in the form of war.
The best that I can do is make sure that the war is somewhat just.....justified too.
The iraqi invasion is a criminal endeavor that flies in the face of our rules for war.
If you defend the Iraqi invasion, then you can defend any act of war, justified or not.
That's not good enough.
-
So now you can foretell the future.
You have no idea what Iraq will look like in future generations.
"Pacifists" abhor violence of any kind. I am not at that level (think Gandhi) yet.
I see that violence will happen in the form of war.
The best that I can do is make sure that the war is somewhat just.....justified too.
The iraqi invasion is a criminal endeavor that flies in the face of our rules for war.
If you defend the Iraqi invasion, then you can defend any act of war, justified or not.
That's not good enough.
The iraqi invasion is a criminal endeavor that flies in the face of our rules for war
that is where we disagree, and yes I have seen all of your other posts so don't bother trying to prove otherwise to me. When the invasion kicked off the world thought it was just. It is to late to look back and say there were no WMDs so it is now illegal. If there had been proof of no WMDs prior to the kickoff I would be on your side.
-
The iraqi invasion is a criminal endeavor that flies in the face of our rules for war
that is where we disagree, and yes I have seen all of your other posts so don't bother trying to prove otherwise to me. When the invasion kicked off the world thought it was just. It is to late to look back and say there were no WMDs so it is now illegal. If there had been proof of no WMDs prior to the kickoff I would be on your side.
Not to be childish but
WELCOME TO MY SIDE!
Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts sayhttp://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/
I listed a link of the UN press releases covering the wmd reports here so you can look over what was and was not being found on the ground prior to the invasion:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
-
Not to be childish but
WELCOME TO MY SIDE!
Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts sayhttp://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/
I listed a link of the UN press releases covering the wmd reports here so you can look over what was and was not being found on the ground prior to the invasion:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
Not so fast:
"The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for".
I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.
Looks like they were unsure about it he goes on to say:
Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and if no evidence is presented to the contrary they should have the benefit of the doubt, be presumed innocent. UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq, but nor is it – or I think anyone else after the inspections between 1991 and 1998 – presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem
-
Not so fast:
"The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for".
I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.
Looks like they were unsure about it he goes on to say:
Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and if no evidence is presented to the contrary they should have the benefit of the doubt, be presumed innocent. UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq, but nor is it – or I think anyone else after the inspections between 1991 and 1998 – presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem
First of all, Bush cut short the inspections by ordering the attack.
The inspectors could not complete their inspecting jobs b/c of the invasion.
Second, the chemical weapons from the first Gulf War degraded...they were inert.
“The Iraqis . . . produce[d] a . . . mixture which was inherently unstable,” says the report. “When the Iraqis produced chemical munitions they appeared to adhere to a ‘make and use’ regimen. Judging by the information Iraq gave the United Nations, later verified by on-site inspections, Iraq had poor product quality for their nerve agents. This low quality was likely due to a lack of purification. They had to get the agent to the front promptly or have it degrade in the munition.” U.S. Defense Department’s “Militarily Critical Technologies List” 2002
Sounds like Blix knew what he was doing. No WMDs were found and ultimately your protestations raised in the quotes are proved moot.
Would that conclusion have been reached if Blix was allowed to complete his inspections of Iraq?
We'll never know b/c Bush ordered the attack.
-
That doesn't change the fact that when we invaded, Saddam was believed to have weapons. Everyone in the US government read those reports you posted and were able to ask questions and still voted to authorize the use of force. At invasion time it wasn't illegal.
-
That doesn't change the fact that when we invaded, Saddam was believed to have weapons. Everyone in the US government read those reports you posted and were able to ask questions and still voted to authorize the use of force. At invasion time it wasn't illegal.
The inspectors' inspections were cut short by Bush's ordered invasion.
Bush was using force to make sure Hussein complied w/ UN resolutions for disarmament.
How does Bush's attacking Iraq for non-compliance (not letting in inspectors) relate to Iraq's compliance by letting inspectors search Iraq for WMDs?
Does that make sense to you now?
Anyways, Res. 1441 DID NOT authorize Pres. Bush to use force to enforce Res. 1441. Only the UN Security Council can make that judgment.
If you can explain either of those two points, then I'm with you.
Otherwise, this invasion is criminal.
-
The inspectors' inspections were cut short by Bush's ordered invasion.
Bush was using force to make sure Hussein complied w/ UN resolutions for disarmament.
How does Bush's attacking Iraq for non-compliance (not letting in inspectors) relate to Iraq's compliance by letting inspectors search Iraq for WMDs?
Does that make sense to you now?
Anyways, Res. 1441 DID NOT authorize Pres. Bush to use force to enforce Res. 1441. Only the UN Security Council can make that judgment.
If you can explain either of those two points, then I'm with you.
Otherwise, this invasion is criminal.
The inspectors' inspections were cut short by Bush's ordered invasion
This goes back to my initial statement of letting people go for to long without correcting tehm. How long did you want Saddam to be able to fuck with the inspectors?
I still don't think it is criminal, but if you think it is then why is nothing done about it? As much as the world hates bush?
-
The inspectors' inspections were cut short by Bush's ordered invasion
This goes back to my initial statement of letting people go for to long without correcting tehm. How long did you want Saddam to be able to fuck with the inspectors?
I still don't think it is criminal, but if you think it is then why is nothing done about it? As much as the world hates bush?
No doubt Bush's sabre rattling compelled Hussein's compliance.
The brute fact of the matter is is that Iraq did comply with inspections. That's undeniable.
To attack a country that is complying w/ UN inspections on the basis of enforcing those inspections defies logic and the law.
Who is going to impeach the president? The republicans...they have no spine. The democrats...the first words out of Speaker Pelosi's mouth were "impeachments off the table."
After Bush's presidency, he may pursued by some international judicial bodies for his alleged war crimes.
A war of aggression is replete with those types of charges.
-
No doubt Bush's sabre rattling compelled Hussein's compliance.
The brute fact of the matter is is that Iraq did comply with inspections. That's undeniable.
To attack a country that is complying w/ UN inspections on the basis of enforcing those inspections defies logic and the law.
Who is going to impeach the president? The republicans...they have no spine. The democrats...the first words out of Speaker Pelosi's mouth were "impeachments off the table."
After Bush's presidency, he may pursued by some international judicial bodies for his alleged war crimes.
A war of aggression is replete with those types of charges.
The brute fact of the matter is is that Iraq did comply with inspections. That's undeniable
Undeniable? not according to the articles you posted. They found many things missing or out of compliance with the resolutions
-
The brute fact of the matter is is that Iraq did comply with inspections. That's undeniable
Undeniable? not according to the articles you posted. They found many things missing or out of compliance with the resolutions
You are conflating the issues.
Res. 1441 referred to Hussein's letting WMD inspectors into Iraq--that's where the law was broken.
The findings of the inspectors are another matter: no WMDs were found. The accounting for weapons from 1998 and before prove nothing except that more inspections were required to verify what WMDS were in fact in Iraq.
And you know what? The iraqis were telling the truth that they destroyed the weapons.
What the Inspectors did not discover was any evidence supporting Colin Powell's 'evidence' from his presentation to the UN.
That was shown to be bullshit.
As I said, Bush's invasion cut short the inspections. They were turning up no evidence of WMDs and Bush pulled the trigger illegally.
-
::) ::) ::) ::)
I'll see your ::) ::) ::) ::)
and raise you an additional ::) ::) ::)
-
What ideals of UN do you consider to be "socialist"?
-Hedge
Redistribution of wealth, the abolishment of private land ownership and private gun ownership just to name a few.
-
Redistribution of wealth, the abolishment of private land ownership and private gun ownership just to name a few.
I don't think the UN mentions any of these in its charter.
-
W8T, you forgot Universal Healthcare. I'm tired of hand-outs; as the Good Book says: you don't work, you don't eat.
-
Redistribution of wealth, the abolishment of private land ownership and private gun ownership just to name a few.
ick.
-
I don't think the UN mentions any of these in its charter.
do some reading.
it's not hard to find.
-
W8T, you forgot Universal Healthcare. I'm tired of hand-outs; as the Good Book says: you don't work, you don't eat.
Helping those that can't help themselves is one thing.
It's another to keep giving "assistance" to able bodied people that are simply to lazy to work and contribute to society.
-
Helping those that can't help themselves is one thing.
It's another to keep giving "assistance" to able bodied people that are simply to lazy to work and contribute to society.
http://thebluelizardlounge.com/images/gambling_images/bingo_win.jpg (http://thebluelizardlounge.com/images/gambling_images/bingo_win.jpg)
-
This topic was really fun to read because ALL OF YOU have to admit that regardless of what the democrats have or have not done, REPUBLICANISM is the true politics of America.