Iraq is the new Godwin's Law

[Spider AL]

Okay, I admit "Bush is evil" was not once said

Good. Now if you admit that "America is evil" was not said either (which you also asserted), and we can go forward from there. Once again, you have proven that while you seem to care a great deal about figureheads like Bush... I do not. I care about government as a whole, not just one man.

 

And if you think that one man who happens to be the public face of government has any impact on policy... then you've fallen into the trap set for you by power: becoming involved in the politics of personality that makes people forget that policy is the most important thing about any candidate. (or party.) Not whether they "seem like a good ol' boy".

 

but the opinions behind these quotes, not to mention the rather trollish nature of some of them, are very clear.

I don't want to speak for Mace, but the opinion behind my quotes in that smorgasbord of... seemingly random excerpts you posted, is- fairly obviously- that of someone who wishes to question authority rather than blindly stumble after authority.

 

There's nothing "trollish" about any of the quotes you posted. You may not like the ideas contained within those quotations... but just because the truth is offensive to you, doesn't mean it's inherently offensive. I stand by every word in those quotations.

 

Now this is trolling:

 

Originally Posted by Nancy, once again...

 

Now that I got that off my chest how many times have I said that ****ing going into ****ing Iraq was a ****ing mistake? Let me reiterate. ****ing going into ****ing Iraq was a ****ing mistake. 与性交的进入与伊拉克性交是一个该死的差错。與性交的進入與伊拉克性交是一個該死的差錯。** **ing die in het ****ing van Irak gaat was een ****ing fout. Das Scheisse Einsteigen in das Bumsen von von dem Irak war ein ****ing Fehler. Το ****ing που πηγαίνει το Ιράκ ήταν ένα ****ing λάθος. Entrare vaffunculo nello scopare Irak era un errore ****ing. イラクの性交に性交に入ることはとても間違いだった。이라크를 성교하기로 성교에게 감것은 지독한 과오 이었다. Entrar fodendo em foder Iraq era um erro do caralho. ****ing идти в ****ing Ирак была ****ing ошибка. Does that make it clearer?

But tell me, did you watch the Pilger documentary I posted? What are your opinions on the conclusions of the documentary?

[Nancy Allen``]

You think it's harsh to say the small sample of quotes I've posted is trolling? Well they've upset quite a few people and it's nothing less than what you said to me. If you think it's harsh, I have a quote from a proud Canadian. If you think saying your comments are trollish is harsh then in the words of Chris Benoit JUST PROVE ME WRONG.

[Spider AL]

You think it's harsh to say the small sample of quotes I've posted is trolling? Well they've upset quite a few people

If my statements about the amorality of our policy in Iraq have upset people, it's because they've been deluding themselves into thinking we're white-hatted good guys... and it's painful to give up delusions.

 

It's hardly trolling to challenge the political conceptions of most of the population.

 

and it's nothing less than what you said to me. If you think it's harsh, I have a quote from a proud Canadian. If you think saying your comments are trollish is harsh then in the words of Chris Benoit JUST PROVE ME WRONG.

No, actually, accusers have the burden of proof. If you want to call me a troll, cite some examples of where I've insulted people, or made profane, outrageous statements with no logical basis.

 

If you are unable to provide any such statements (which I presume to be the case since if you HAD any such statements of mine, you'd have quoted them above) your accusation can be safely discarded as untrue.

 

You see, that's a very important moral point. People who make assertions have to back up those assertions logically. That's why our governments are guilty of misleading the people... because they make outrageous claims that are not only subsequently proven to be false and self-serving... they don't even provide any evidence worth a damn when MAKING those claims in the first place.

 

I'll say it again: But tell me, did you watch the Pilger documentary I posted? What are your opinions on the conclusions of the documentary?

[Nancy Allen``]

Remember this?

 

I called your statement amounting to "If we show pictures of the soldiers coffins, their family home could well be broken into and the family victimised!" ludicrous, bordering on paranoia. Which it clearly is.

 

It upset Jae terribly and you couldn't care less.

 

By the way, what's the point of throwing this up again all the time?

 

Originally Posted by Nancy, once again...

 

Now that I got that off my chest how many times have I said that ****ing going into ****ing Iraq was a ****ing mistake? Let me reiterate. ****ing going into ****ing Iraq was a ****ing mistake. 与性交的进入与伊拉克性交是一个该死的差错。與性交的進入與伊拉克性交是一個該死的差錯。** **ing die in het ****ing van Irak gaat was een ****ing fout. Das Scheisse Einsteigen in das Bumsen von von dem Irak war ein ****ing Fehler. Το ****ing που πηγαίνει το Ιράκ ήταν ένα ****ing λάθος. Entrare vaffunculo nello scopare Irak era un errore ****ing. イラクの性交に性交に入ることはとても間違いだった。이라크를 성교하기로 성교에게 감것은 지독한 과오 이었다. Entrar fodendo em foder Iraq era um erro do caralho. ****ing идти в ****ing Ирак была ****ing ошибка. Does that make it clearer?

 

Do you hope to turn people against me if you post it enough times? Rather childish if you ask me.

[Spider AL]

I'll say it yet again: But tell me, did you watch the Pilger documentary I posted? What are your opinions on the conclusions of the documentary? Perhaps one day you'll actually answer a question.

 

It upset Jae terribly and you couldn't care less.

Well first of all this is a debating forum, it isn't personal, and it isn't something to get emotionally invested in.

 

If objective analysis of a person's statements upsets that person, you're right, I couldn't care less. The statement I referred to WAS ludicrous, and it did border on paranoia. But Jae decided to infer that I was calling her "mentally ill"... Which, frankly, is also a ludicrous inference. So, no, I'm not exactly brimming over with sympathy. Confusion, possibly.

 

If I got "upset" every time someone critiqued my arguments on these forums, I'd be a wobbling mass of emotion, incapable of sustaining a logical argument.

 

By the way, what's the point of throwing this up again all the time? Do you hope to turn people against me if you post it enough times? Rather childish if you ask me.

No, you see, that's an example of actually quoting some relevant material. You accused me of trolling, I showed that you'd posted things that were much more dubious than anything I've posted. This rather invalidates your accusation. QED.

 

But enough of this personal argument... Try addressing some points for a change. Let's get back to the subject of Iraq.

[Nancy Allen``]

Okay, you want me to answer your question. You answer mine, straight answer. This has nothing to do with Saddam or anyone else, so you don't need to worry on that score. Does George Bush have gas chambers and death camps where he sends terror suspects and Muslims, yes or no?

[Spider AL]

Okay, you want me to answer your question. You answer mine, straight answer. This has nothing to do with Saddam or anyone else, so you don't need to worry on that score. Does George Bush have gas chambers and death camps where he sends terror suspects and Muslims, yes or no?

Okay, straight answer. The answer to the first part is that Saddam Hussein's regime didn't have "gas chambers", and neither does the Bush government, so it's an irrelevance.

 

The answer to the second part is that Saddam's regime ordered mass executions, but he didn't have "death camps". The Bush administration hasn't ordered mass executions of Muslims and it doesn't have "death camps", but it has certainly caused mass deaths with its wars and bombing campaigns. And not of "terrorists", but of innocent civilians.

 

So in terms of lives lost and oppression of peoples, the war crimes of Saddam's regime are comparable to our war crimes.

 

There. A total and complete and comprehensive answer to your question. Now answer mine: Did you watch the Pilger documentary I posted? What are your opinions on the conclusions of the documentary?

[Nancy Allen``]

Just before I answer I found this.

 

How DARE you. How DARE you suggest that "anti-war groups" would "get their yukks" from seeing the images of young mens' coffins returning home from an illegal and immoral war that has claimed their lives. How DARE you. I am sickened by this ignorant and insulting remark.

 

This was in reply to Jae's outrage over your comments, which contradicts your comments on not being emotionally invested in debates. I'll just touch on this a bit: I don't think you'd get your kicks out of watching footage of American soldiers being killed in Iraq. The sad thing is people would, moreover people would use them, and this is part of the reason over the debate, they would use the deaths of these soldiers for political gain.

 

Now, yes I did watch that video, and he also made another docuementary debating Israel's existence, but that didn't stop me from watching this powerful and hard hitting drama which gives a lot of insight to where people stand on the war. I have to give credit that unlike others he doesn't try to make a case for September 11 being a planned government attack or gives in to grandstanding, and for pointing out that we don't think about the effect things like America driving out the Taliban has. There is one inaccuracy though, in more people dieing in Afghanistan than on September 11. That's a mistake a lot of people make, the 2996 they think is from the World Trade Centre attacks alone, with the Pentagon and Flight 93 being almost forgotten. In reality the figure is closer to 5000. I'll just go over the end here.

 

"Are we now in danger of forgetting? Do we forget the lies used to justify the conquest of Iraq and disguise America's plans to dominate all the world?"

 

No, I don't think so. From day one people have protested the war, and that voice grew louder and louder until now the Democrats have been voted in. Should action have been taken sooner? I think the only reason it hasn't is because people saw Kerry as worse. No one has attempted impeechment however.

 

"Do we forget that the British government has announced for the first time that it's prepared to launch an attack with nuclear weapons..."

 

Couldn't quite make that last bit out. Direct quote to this, Britain are ****ing mad if they said this.

 

"And do we accept the extortion of intellect and morallity that empties noble words like democracy and liberation of their true meaning?"

 

Since the dawn of time people have been using these words as excuses. Pharoh used it to justify slavery and conquest in Egypt. That doesn't make it any less right however. Afghanistan and Iraq I believe were the targets of a regime change and the leaders in those countries needed to be removed, but with Iraq especially it all turned out horribly wrong. We should never have gone into Iraq in the first place.

 

"That says it's wrong for terrorists to kill innocent people but right for governments to commit the same crimes in our name."

 

I could say that in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, soldiers were not told something like "the target is the village of Ab Nabi ****, all men women and children are to be eliminated. They are unarmed" the way terrorists on September 11 hijacked passenger planes with 200 or 300 people on board and killed them by flying the planes into their targets with the intent of killing as many people as possible and causing as much damage as possible. I think the point however is the inevitable and tragic loss of life that occurs in any war.

 

"The answer is that we need not accept any of this if we recognise that there are now two superpowers. One is the regime in Washington, the other is public opinion now stirring across the world as perhaps never before. Make no mistake it's an epic struggle. The alternative is not just the conquest pf faraway countries. It's the conquest of us: our minds, our humanity, and our self respect. If we remain silent victory over us is assured."

 

So make as much noise as you possibly can, not just online, in rallies and marches. Organise anti war protests, petitions, send every dollar you have to Afghanistan and Iraq and lobby others to do the same. If you feel so strongly over the issue stop whining about how unfair it all is and do something positive about it.

[Spider AL]

And before I reply, I want to thank you for finally posting a response that actually replies in a relevant manner, and directly answers questions that have been posed to you. This type of response makes the debate MUCH more civilised and logical in nature. Thanks.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

This was in reply to Jae's outrage over your comments, which contradicts your comments on not being emotionally invested in debates.

There's a difference between responding with understandable outrage to a scurrilous and insulting generalisation about anti-war people, and being so emotionally invested in a debate that you throw a wobbly every time someone points out the ludicrousness of your arguments. A big difference.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

I'll just touch on this a bit: I don't think you'd get your kicks out of watching footage of American soldiers being killed in Iraq. The sad thing is people would, moreover people would use them, and this is part of the reason over the debate, they would use the deaths of these soldiers for political gain.

First of all: Anti-war people are anti-war because they respect life and the right to live. Some pro-war Islamic fundamentalist somewhere might laugh at the deaths of US/UK soldiers... but for Jae (and you) to suggest that people who are anti-war would "get their kicks" or "yukks" out of watching the coffins come home...

 

Well, it's sickening, as I said before. It shows a complete lack of understanding of why people are anti-war, what anti-war people stand for... and yes, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the politics behind the war. It's also very directly insulting to the most moral, decent people in the world today... people who are anti-war.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Now, yes I did watch that video, and he also made another docuementary debating Israel's existence, but that didn't stop me from watching this powerful and hard hitting drama

It's not a drama, drama's fiction. This was documentary- factual in nature.

 

I'm not trying to nitpick you, I know you probably didn't mean it that way. I'm just making an important distinction that people have to remember.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

I have to give credit that unlike others he doesn't try to make a case for September 11 being a planned government attack

Yes, Pilger is a good journo, and a sensible man. Only conspiracy theorist nutcases believe such things as "9/11 was done by the FBI!!!11" It's important to know that anti-war people are anti-war for sound logical reasons, that are usually a matter of public record. Not because of spurious conspiracy theories.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

There is one inaccuracy though, in more people dieing in Afghanistan than on September 11. That's a mistake a lot of people make, the 2996 they think is from the World Trade Centre attacks alone, with the Pentagon and Flight 93 being almost forgotten. In reality the figure is closer to 5000. I'll just go over the end here.

Actually Nancy, as far as I can tell (confiming by looking at all the news sites I can find) the 5000 figure you quote is the incorrect figure.

 

The generally quoted figure of 2973 (with some estimates ranging up to 3016) includes the passengers of all flights, including the pentagon, its flight and flight 93, and the emergency service workers who died on the ground.

 

Ref: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/

Ref: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/03/death.toll/

 

John Pilger doesn't get his facts wrong very often, and he was correct in this case. We have killed many many times the number of people that died on September 11th 2001. This is not to trivialise the deaths in the US, but merely to put them into context. Hell, even just the AMERICAN deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan vastly exceed the World Trade Centre/Aircraft deaths.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

No, I don't think so. From day one people have protested the war, and that voice grew louder and louder until now the Democrats have been voted in. Should action have been taken sooner? I think the only reason it hasn't is because people saw Kerry as worse. No one has attempted impeechment however.

First of all, voting the Democrats in hasn't changed a great deal. Remember that Clinton signed a bill that essentially set regime change in Iraq on the agenda. This isn't just the Bush regime's war, this is a long-standing political goal. And no matter how often we change parties in office either in the US or in my home, the UK... we won't change the factors that control BOTH parties. Financial concerns, energy concerns, corporate backing.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Couldn't quite make that last bit out. Direct quote to this, Britain are ****ing mad if they said this.

Oh you'd better believe it.

 

The British secretary of state for defence (at the time) Geoff Hoon, stated three times... once on national television in 2002 that the UK would be willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq with our nuclear arsenal. Horrible, horrible. Illegal. Immoral.

 

Ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,727982,00.html

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Since the dawn of time people have been using these words as excuses. Pharoh used it to justify slavery and conquest in Egypt. That doesn't make it any less right however. Afghanistan and Iraq I believe were the targets of a regime change and the leaders in those countries needed to be removed, but with Iraq especially it all turned out horribly wrong. We should never have gone into Iraq in the first place.

It has also turned out quite horribly wrong in Afghanistan.

 

The thing is, Nancy, that seeking regime change through military force is illegal under international law, and for a very good reason. If you want a regime to change in a foreign nation, you provide political and financial support to ordinary civilian people in that country. You don't fund violent revolutionary groups, you don't institute economic sanctions against the nation that kill more civilians than the nation's evil government officials are killing and you DON'T go into the country with an army. Period.

 

And the very good reason you don't do these things? Because historically without notable exception, doing ANY of these things causes more death and suffering in the targetted nation than even the most awful dictator could cause if left alone.

 

That's why I and many other people predicted that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq would be much worse off following US/UK invasion before the invasions. And, for that matter, that WE'D be worse off too.

 

It was predictable if you knew your history. Real history, not government approved history in which all US/UK wars have been "just" wars. Real history, in which oh, a grand total of... maybe one or two military interventions in our two countries' entire history that could even jokingly be described as altruistic have ever been fought.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

I could say that in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, soldiers were not told something like "the target is the village of Ab Nabi ****, all men women and children are to be eliminated. They are unarmed" the way terrorists on September 11 hijacked passenger planes with 200 or 300 people on board and killed them by flying the planes into their targets with the intent of killing as many people as possible and causing as much damage as possible. I think the point however is the inevitable and tragic loss of life that occurs in any war.

Well, you know, we could sit here and debate how relevant "direct intent" is all day, Nancy. But dead civilians are dead civilians, and I don't think their grieving families will have much time for the excuse "oh, your son's/daughter's death was tragic, but an inevitable cost of war".

 

Because they'll ask "Then why the hell did you decide to start the war if you knew there'd be civilian casualties like this?"

 

And they'd be right to ask this. Especially considering the fact that the reasons for going to war had nothing to do with saving Iraqi civilians from ANYTHING.

 

A man that kills people while robbing a bank is just as guilty of murder as a man who kills people for the sake of killing. The parallel is pretty exact.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

So make as much noise as you possibly can, not just online, in rallies and marches. Organise anti war protests, petitions, send every dollar you have to Afghanistan and Iraq and lobby others to do the same. If you feel so strongly over the issue stop whining about how unfair it all is and do something positive about it.

"whining"? Now you're getting nasty, nasty... and silly as well. Who said anything about "just online"? Do you seriously think that people who bother to debate the issue of Iraq on the internet shut their computer down of an evening and stop thinking about all the innocent children that our government has murdered in our name?

 

I for one am already involved in the anti-war movement... And the campaigns to repeal these ludicrous "patriot acts" and reclaim our civil liberties. And now that you've been told the truth... it's up to you to involve yourself as well. But it's up to you to avoid wasting your efforts. Voting the Democrats in doesn't change a thing. You have to do really effective things. Take some of your own advice. The next demonstration you hear about? Go and stand with them. If you don't... you'll be a hypocrite.

[Mace MacLeod]

Right-o. Where to start.

 

By the way, what's the point of throwing this up again all the time?

 

Originally Posted by Nancy, once again...

The reason why I quoted that multilingual hissy fit was as a reminder of your own behaviour. You're calling me a troll and making snide comments about the opinions behind my comments, yet you blithely ignore what emotionally incontinent tantrums like that make you look like. It's childish for me to quote it, but it's not childish for you to post it? I don't think so. Nobody's trying to turn people against you, you don't need our help for that.

This is quite obviously not on the original topic, but it's right here.

What's right there? You took some quotes of my posts then said nothing about them, aside from "Oh, I guess you didn't say that." To deal with a few of my statements, yes, the US did nothing about Saddam Hussein gassing the Kurds when he was actually doing it. Yes, the US eventually had no choice but to leave Vietnam in 1973 after getting their butts kicked all over the country. Yes, aside from aid shipments to Britain, the US did nothing about the Axis powers until being attacked directly at Pearl Harbour in Dec 1941. These aren't judgement calls or opinions, they're bald statements of historical fact.

 

As for my assertion that the US intended civilian casualties in Iraq, you yourself say:

I think the point however is the inevitable and tragic loss of life that occurs in any war.

And this is how. It's not that the guys at the Pentagon sat around a table rubbing their hands together saying, "Whee! Let's go slaughter us some defenceless civilians! Yee-haw!", it's by the simple act of okaying the invasion of a sovereign country they knew full well that civilian deaths would be inevitable. That's why you're not supposed to start wars unless you absolutely have to, and the US did not absolutely have to invade Iraq.

From day one people have protested the war, and that voice grew louder and louder until now the Democrats have been voted in. Should action have been taken sooner? I think the only reason it hasn't is because people saw Kerry as worse. No one has attempted impeachment however.

Dealing with the war or US foreign policy in general isn't just about voting Democrat or Republican every few years, it's also about holding the administration in power accountable for its actions while it's in office. Bush is just one guy at the very top of the pyramid, and under him is a vast beaurocratic, political and industrial machine that moves to its own rhythm, quite out of sight and mind of most people. That's how US soldiers can go marching off to war with most of the population scratching their heads wondering why.

Afghanistan and Iraq I believe were the targets of a regime change and the leaders in those countries needed to be removed, but with Iraq especially it all turned out horribly wrong. We should never have gone into Iraq in the first place.

Afganistan is a completely different kettle of fish entirely to Iraq. The US went after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who to the best of their knowledge were being sheltered by the Taliban in Afganistan. Going after someone who attacked you is not the same as just arbitrarily deciding to get rid of someone and trying to think up a good reason to do it. IMO, these situations are not comparable.

So make as much noise as you possibly can, not just online, in rallies and marches. Organise anti war protests, petitions, send every dollar you have to Afghanistan and Iraq and lobby others to do the same. If you feel so strongly over the issue stop whining about how unfair it all is and do something positive about it.

Well, this is just an online discussion forum, isn't it? Maybe we are out there making noise and doing positive things, only you're just not seeing it because all this forum is for is abstract debating.

It upset Jae terribly and you couldn't care less.

Jae's a big girl who's more than capable of defending herself and her beliefs. She can deal with it.

You think it's harsh to say the small sample of quotes I've posted is trolling? Well they've upset quite a few people and it's nothing less than what you said to me.

Well, wah. If people can't handle strong opinions that differ from their own, this is not the place to come.

[ET Warrior]

I wasn't sure of the best place to post this, but this thread seems adequate. It's a picture taken on my school campus a few months ago. Every white flag you see is representative of 5-6 civilians that have been killed in Iraq since the United States invaded. Even this picture cannot quite display the true scope of what campus looked like, and what you see here is only a small portion of the coverage of the flags.

 

Perhaps THIS is why Iraq is the new Godwin's law. It bears being brought up because it's such a travesty.

 

http://img435.imageshack.us/img435/5346/norlinxr7.jpg

[Spider AL]

Image has deformed thread! Put link in instead please!

[ET Warrior]

Bah, use a higher screen resolution and avoid that problem.

[Jae Onasi]

Jae's a big girl who's more than capable of defending herself and her beliefs. She can deal with it.

Yep, for the most part.

And if that doesn't work, that's why there's the 'report post' button.

Afghanistan and Iraq I believe were the targets of a regime change and the leaders in those countries needed to be removed, .

Afghanistan is a totally different animal. The goal there was to get al-Qaeda so we didn't have more planes plowing into buildings. I'm just sorry we didn't get bin Laden, though his kidney problems may have done him in instead of any US weaponry--we haven't seen him in awhile, though I could have missed something recently.

[Nancy Allen``]

First of all: Anti-war people are anti-war because they respect life and the right to live. Some pro-war Islamic fundamentalist somewhere might laugh at the deaths of US/UK soldiers... but for Jae (and you) to suggest that people who are anti-war would "get their kicks" or "yukks" out of watching the coffins come home...

 

Well, it's sickening, as I said before. It shows a complete lack of understanding of why people are anti-war, what anti-war people stand for... and yes, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the politics behind the war. It's also very directly insulting to the most moral, decent people in the world today... people who are anti-war.

 

Well, I'm not, please don't think I am, but...

 

 

There are some truely sick people who do cheer this sort of thing, and it's not just leftists. Palestinions celebrated the terrorist attacks on September 11. I know I cheered the bombing of terrorists in Afghanistan even though innocent people would be killed in the conflict.

 

Oh you'd better believe it.

 

The British secretary of state for defence (at the time) Geoff Hoon, stated three times... once on national television in 2002 that the UK would be willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq with our nuclear arsenal. Horrible, horrible. Illegal. Immoral.

 

Sack him. Now. Even America for all it's faults rejected proposals for nuclear retalliation for September 11.

 

"whining"? Now you're getting nasty, nasty... and silly as well. Who said anything about "just online"? Do you seriously think that people who bother to debate the issue of Iraq on the internet shut their computer down of an evening and stop thinking about all the innocent children that our government has murdered in our name?

 

By that I mean, what do you hope to achieve here? Convert a few neocons? Prove them wrong? What I'm saying is a lot more is going to be achieved bu having protests and rallies, which you do.

 

Right-o. Where to start.

 

The reason why I quoted that multilingual hissy fit was as a reminder of your own behaviour. You're calling me a troll and making snide comments about the opinions behind my comments, yet you blithely ignore what emotionally incontinent tantrums like that make you look like. It's childish for me to quote it, but it's not childish for you to post it? I don't think so. Nobody's trying to turn people against you, you don't need our help for that.

 

Using your logic things I have said are trollish. So using that logic some of the things you have said are also trollish, or don't the rules apply to you?

 

Well, wah. If people can't handle strong opinions that differ from their own, this is not the place to come.

 

Well I'm of the opinion that some of the things you've said are trollish. Handle that.

 

I wasn't sure of the best place to post this, but this thread seems adequate. It's a picture taken on my school campus a few months ago. Every white flag you see is representative of 5-6 civilians that have been killed in Iraq since the United States invaded. Even this picture cannot quite display the true scope of what campus looked like, and what you see here is only a small portion of the coverage of the flags.

 

Perhaps THIS is why Iraq is the new Godwin's law. It bears being brought up because it's such a travesty.

 

http://img435.imageshack.us/img435/5346/norlinxr7.jpg

 

Yeah, and like I said, like others have said, you don't really grasp what happens in war until you see things like this. That's not to say we should have it thrown in our faces but it is important for those who choose to to look at the full effect war has. And the effect of not going to war in the times war is nessecary (World War II for example).

 

Afghanistan is a totally different animal. The goal there was to get al-Qaeda so we didn't have more planes plowing into buildings. I'm just sorry we didn't get bin Laden, though his kidney problems may have done him in instead of any US weaponry--we haven't seen him in awhile, though I could have missed something recently.

 

Hopefully. No question with Afghanistan there was a legitimate and justified reason for removing the ruling Taliban and putting an end to terrorism in the country, something which was a great success much more so than Iraq. You don't think about those in wheelchairs though, who have been starved or injured by the Taliban and couldn't escape the bombs dropped. That doesn't make Afghanistan wrong or paint it in the same light as Iraq, but it does clean us up to see what happened there.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by ET Warrior:

Bah, use a higher screen resolution and avoid that problem.

Y'know, I would, but I've been using 1024x768 for five years and two monitors... and frankly we've become close. Unnaturally close, some might say, but I don't listen to them. Ahhh 1024x768...

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Afghanistan is a totally different animal. The goal there was to get al-Qaeda so we didn't have more planes plowing into buildings. I'm just sorry we didn't get bin Laden, though his kidney problems may have done him in instead of any US weaponry--we haven't seen him in awhile, though I could have missed something recently.

It's not all that different, Jae. The US and UK still decided to invade one of the poorest, most embattled nations on earth (just like Iraq), and were aware that this would cause massive destruction and death. (Just as in Iraq.) And now the country is poorer than ever, brutal warlords oppress the people (Similar to Iraq) and the drug trade is once again rampant as it never was under the Taleban. The much-feted women's rights are not significantly improved, and little or no attempt has been made to supply the necessary massive funds for reconstruction. (Just as in Iraq)

 

The reason the US government gave for the Afghan invasion was indeed To "get al-Qaeda" as you say. But the hijackers on Sep. 11th 2001 were- in the main- from Saudi Arabia. Why not invade there first if they were so concerned with preventing further attacks? Because of Bin Laden's presence in the country? He's one man. Do you send an army in to get one man? And what does it say about the way the government is using your army when they fail to capture just one man?

 

Furthermore, no genuine attempt was made to extradite Bin Laden in a diplomatic manner, though approaches were made by the Afghan regime requesting evidence from the US government in the matter. But the US government isn't in the business of providing evidence to support its claims, is it. No, war was the US government's first choice. A war that was inevitably going to cost us loads of cash, claim loads of innocent lives and ruin an already sickly country.

 

Plus: US/UK human rights abuses: http://hrw.org/reports/2004/afghanistan0304/

 

So pretty much exactly like Iraq in many many important ways. Not all ways, mind you, I concede that... but many ways, nonetheless.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Well, I'm not, please don't think I am, but...

 

(CARTOON)

 

There are some truely sick people who do cheer this sort of thing, and it's not just leftists. Palestinions celebrated the terrorist attacks on September 11.

Sigh. You really have to stop posting spurious Neocon propaganda as if it's "evidence", Nancy. Three short points:

 

• The cartoon depicts an incident in 2003 in which the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) torched an auto-dealership. Ref: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95447,00.html
  
• The ELF was (and is) an extremist environmental group, and their act of arson had nothing to do with the "war on terror", nothing to do with 9/11 and nothing to do with US foreign policy. The "cartoonists" have put words in the mouths of these eco-fundamentalists, in order to turn opinion further against them. Totally childish on the part of the "cartoonists".
  
• The "cartoonists" in question are well known for their often ludicrously fascist, unbalanced output. They're crazy loony extremists.
  

 

If anyone's shown to be sick by this cartoon, it's not anti-war people Nancy. It's the cartoonists. I'd advise you to avoid visiting their site again. It's all repulsive, knee-jerk nonsense on there.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

I know I cheered the bombing of terrorists in Afghanistan even though innocent people would be killed in the conflict.

Nancy... that was a very immoral thing to do.

 

Even if we were to accept that the violence against the Afghan Taleban was morally justified (which I do not)... cheering their deaths... and worse, cheering the deaths of innocent civilians... That's just wrong. It's exactly what you've accused the Palestinians of doing.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Sack him. Now. Even America for all it's faults rejected proposals for nuclear retalliation for September 11.

I wish I could sack him, and every man in government that abetted our war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. But frankly Nancy, a couple of nukes probably wouldn't have equalled the damage we've done in Afghanistan and Iraq without nukes. It's serious stuff we've done.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

By that I mean, what do you hope to achieve here? Convert a few neocons? Prove them wrong? What I'm saying is a lot more is going to be achieved bu having protests and rallies, which you do.

Well with all due respect, I think I have proved a lot of your original statements concerning the war in Iraq were factually incorrect. What you do with the evidence I've shown you is up to you.

 

As for "converting" you, it's a sad fact that no matter HOW much you debate, you'll never convince people of the truth if they don't want to hear it. It's up to each person to decide for themselves. I hope you decide to do the moral thing, and start campaigning against ALL amoral acts of terrorism and wars... whether waged by other countries, or waged by OUR COUNTRIES.

 

So why do I debate on this topic? Because speaking the truth... it's the right thing to do. Knowing what I know... if I were to keep silent... I'd be the worst kind of human being.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen`` (To Mace MacLeod):

Using your logic things I have said are trollish. So using that logic some of the things you have said are also trollish, or don't the rules apply to you?

I'll admit that I don't approve of Mace's profanity in some of his posts, but I don't think he means it in an offensive, trolling way. It's easy to become angry when people won't accept the truth that's shown to them.

[Nancy Allen``]

[*]The ELF was (and is) an extremist environmental group, and their act of arson had nothing to do with the "war on terror", nothing to do with 9/11 and nothing to do with US foreign policy. The "cartoonists" have put words in the mouths of these eco-fundamentalists, in order to turn opinion further against them. Totally childish on the part of the "cartoonists".

 

Exactly, they're an extremist group, and other extremists and loonies do get their kicks out of deaths, as I'll explain a bit below.

 

Nancy... that was a very immoral thing to do.

 

I know, and I'm not about to hide behind the fact I had a thirst for vengence for September 11, I honestly felt the Taliban deserved what they got, everything they got, and still do. That doesn't make my cheering for their deaths any less right. And to further prove that anti war people or crazies don't shoulder all the blame on this I've spoken with fighter pilots and they would cheer dropping bombs on their targets, yet when it's sunk in a couple of days later and they've done the BDA, it does clean them up. I think in a way it shows that we are fallible, and we need to be able to see that it's wrong. We certainly do see that with something like Abu Gharib which goes well and truely beyond what I would consider justice or punishment. To get kicks out of torture and humiliation, well quite frankly is no diffirent to what the Sith do from what I've seen.

[Spider AL]

Exactly, they're an extremist group, and other extremists and loonies do get their kicks out of deaths, as I'll explain a bit below.

Some extremist groups do get a kick out of deaths. But not the group depicted in the cartoon, and not "anti-war" people as Jae originally suggested. Because anti-war people aren't extremists. They're not left-wing nor are they right-wing. They're rationalists, and moralists.

 

know, and I'm not about to hide behind the fact I had a thirst for vengence for September 11

That's a perfectly human reaction. Perfectly understandable.

 

But morality is often about overriding our instinctive human reactions to things. Instinctive emotions and morality rarely go hand in hand. If you want to criticise... say... the Palestinians for cheering the deaths of their enemies (as you did), you must first make sure that you are not guilty of the same acts that you are criticising.

 

I honestly felt the Taliban deserved what they got, everything they got, and still do. That doesn't make my cheering for their deaths any less right.

I'm sure you meant to type "any less wrong" here.

 

As for the Taleban, they didn't plan or execute the atrocity of September 11th 2001, so they are hardly a candidate to slake your thirst for revenge on that score.

 

And to further prove that anti war people or crazies don't shoulder all the blame on this

Anti-war people don't shoulder any blame for anything Nancy. Anti-war people are the ONLY people who don't shoulder any blame in this situation.

 

I've spoken with fighter pilots and they would cheer dropping bombs on their targets, yet when it's sunk in a couple of days later and they've done the BDA, it does clean them up. I think in a way it shows that we are fallible, and we need to be able to see that it's wrong. We certainly do see that with something like Abu Gharib which goes well and truely beyond what I would consider justice or punishment. To get kicks out of torture and humiliation, well quite frankly is no diffirent to what the Sith do from what I've seen

Hear hear. I agree totally, and hope that you'll join us in campaigning against all atrocities- whether they're committed by foreigners or by our own nations.

[Samuel Dravis]

I am entertained about how well the OP has been proven true in this thread.

[Spider AL]

I presume you're referring to the the first post in the thread when you say "OP"... so what about it exactly do you deem to be true? I think Mace's first post- though fraught- rather discredited many of the original assertions.

[Samuel Dravis]

Just that she (OP=original post) said that Iraq or Bush were the new Nazis in Godwin's Law - and here everyone is, talking about those topics.

[Spider AL]

Mm, well my first post in the thread addressed that point. It's not surprising that Iraq and US foreign policy is brought up in threads that start out on a range of topics, because Iraq and US policy is possibly the most important issue in the world today, and relates strongly to such diverse topics as censorship and religion.

 

It doesn't really qualify as a "new Godwin" though, as Godwin is a statement on the curious predictability that an old issue that isn't really relevant to today's world or contemporary politics (The Nazis/Hitler) will be brought up in totally unrelated discussions.

 

But as I say, Iraq n' US policy is relevant to today's world and today's issues. So there's nothing curious about it rearing its head almost every day.

 

As someone who wishes for a lot of debate on the topic of Iraq, it's heartening to me that I haven't been forced to personally bring up the topic for the past... oh... three years. Everyone else seems to bring it up, I just join in.

[Jae Onasi]

Just that she (OP=original post) said that Iraq or Bush were the new Nazis in Godwin's Law - and here everyone is, talking about those topics.

 

It does have a certain irony, doesn't it?

[Mace MacLeod]

Using your logic things I have said are trollish. So using that logic some of the things you have said are also trollish, or don't the rules apply to you?

You routinely sink to levels I never do. Your tirade I quoted earlier is incontrovertable proof of this. You could dig through my entire posting history and not find anything remotely comparable. On a regular basis, you freak out and accuse people of saying things they've never said. The entire reason the quote-fest started was because I asked you to provide one single solitary quote of either Al or myself saying anything about Bush being Hitler or hating America or anything of the sort. Nowhere in what you dragged up did we do so. Either you're greatly mistaken, or you're just lying.

Well I'm of the opinion that some of the things you've said are trollish.

I care deeply. I'm just crying invisible tears over here.

By that I mean, what do you hope to achieve here? Convert a few neocons? Prove them wrong? What I'm saying is a lot more is going to be achieved bu having protests and rallies, which you do.

Uh, I believe it's called "debating". Al presents his arguments and opinions, then other people respond and post their arguments and opinions, the process goes on with agreements, rebuttals, arguments and counter-arguments and outside evidence brought in to support those arguments...which is the entire purpose for the Senate Chambers existing, remember?

[Totenkopf]

Mace:

Yes, the US eventually had no choice but to leave Vietnam in 1973 after getting their butts kicked all over the country. ...These aren't judgement calls or opinions, they're bald statements of historical fact.

-----------------------

Factually INCORRECT. What is factually CORRECT is that the US defeated the VC at Tet and that it took the NV almost 2 full years to mount a succesful drive to take the remainder of the country after VIRTUALLY ALL US ground forces were gone by '73. This was recognized by Gen Giap years later after the war, and in print no less. Saigon fell 2 years later, in '75. It was a

political defeat, not military.

 

Be careful when saying things like absolutely. The US also could have sued for peace terms in the middle of WW2. If the loss of human life is the sole arbiter of what is moral or immoral in war, then an attacked party, especially if weaker, should logically sue for the best terms it can get rather than risk annihilation. Back in the '80s, that kind of thinking could've been summed up as "better red than dead.

 

To those who would watch the Pilger clip on Utube, I reccomend that you research Pilger BEFORE viewing the film, both the positive AND negative. He seems like an accredited aussie version of michael moore, so I'll not waste my time, some 51 minutes of it, on this left wing propogandist.

 

As to Spider, you are quite slick. Your debating style is a more indirect approach. You may be able to claim that you did not say VERBATIM the things you are accused of, but it is clear that anyone reading your posts can in fact correctly infer what you really mean. It is in fact very obvious that you believe Bush et al (pretty much any western, read US most likely, leader since the end of WW2)are in fact immoral, not merely amoral. If this weren't so, you would not go to such lengths to vilify these people as you consistently have throughout your posts. You are very typical of the left wing military hating mindless idealogue that is an infestation on the so called anti-war movement. Your supposition that all anti-war people are just rational moralists is a sweeping and arrogant generalization. Do you actually know everyone in the so called "anti-war" movement? These groups often tend to support unilateralist moves (think the KGB infiltrated anti-nuke

movement of the 1980s) on the part of the US and western europe. We'd all be better off letting them sit around a fire somewhere singing kumbaya than listening to anything said by these kinds of people. Dangerous idealists who count themselves morally superior b/c they'd rather endanger their own countrymen than harm a hair on an enemy's head.

 

Also, given that modern warfare is much more sophisticated and deadly, not to mention swifter, than in the past, one is not afforded the luxury of waiting

for the enemy to strike first. If you spot an enemy terrorist encampment in the desert, you take it out if at all possible. It's almost always easier to seek

forgiveness than permission, if you can't do it in the reverse order. Normally this option is exercized AFTER you have informed the host nation of your future intent. If preemptive action is not considered moral by any one country, then neither would a UN sanction make it morally acceptable. It would be hypocritical to argue otherwise.

 

One thing is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 75, and that is that war will plague mankind long into the forseeable future and will get uglier as well. Due to advances in miniturization, "pocket nukes" may well become the terrorist weapon of choice, never mind all the chem and bio options. It will become increasingly important to root out such terrorists before they can

strike. Whether our descendants are saddled with a one world style global government or a pastiche of national ones as we have today, this problem will not disappear anytime soon. The option of doing nothing b/c "innocent

civilians" might get hurt or worse, die, will become the immoral choice. How many of your countrymen's lives is the enemy worth?

 

Since Adolf Hitler and the Nazis have become the personification of evil in the modern era, it's understandable that people like to throw around those labels at people or organizations they don't particularly like. It's usually done in a lazy and haphazard way that cheapens the concept.