George II should be executed on national television. - Page 3

mercurial · 06-08-2003, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

#4 Terrorism, in general. Now the west has a democratic nation in that region. Now, they can encourage other nations in that area to also have democratic rebellion. You don't breed terrorism in a democratic nation like you do in a fundamentalist Islamic state. It also shows neigboring countries that the US isn't going to just sit down and play dead anymore. The Clinton years are over.

What a pile of piss

Time and time again the links to terrorism are discredited ... time and time again it is pointed out that Saddam's regime was hardly the fundamentalist islamic regime that exists in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Yet you insist that terrorism as a concept (because it just doesn't seem to be the reality in this case my son) is justification for killing all those Iraqi civillians and violating international laws.

Democratic nations don't breed terrorists eh? Go look up Indonesia and think about your statement, lest you continue to make such ignorant, and truistic proclomations.

06-08-2003, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shparticus
Eep. Somebody's taking his avatar too seriously...

Hahaha. Touche.

DeviousJ · 06-08-2003, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
#1 Iraq had been in gross violation of a NUMBER of UN sanctions since 1991.

Like people already pointed out, Israel doesn't seem to be held to the same level of responsibility. Plus, as soon as Iraq started to co-operate a lot more, the push for war was accelerated rapidly. Coincidence?

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
#2 9-11. Yes, this did play a part. The countries harboring terrorist networks operating in the middle east got a good look of what will and can do should we feel the need to step in.

But if Iraq wasn't known to be harboring any terrorist networks, and this happened, surely that only proves to other countries in the region that they are equally threatened? And given the military might of the US, they'll only be encouraged to turn to less conventional warfare. I'm sorry, but invading countries with such diaphanous justifications for doing so is only going to encourage terrorism, it's not going to convince other countries to bow down and kowtow to the US.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
#3 WMD. The Bush administration presented classifed documents to the UN showing the existance of WMD. I haven't seen them and neither have you. But the no one who HAS seen them in the UN has disputed their existance.

You mean like the most excellent 'Iraq is trying to procure uranium from Nigeria - Signed: Mr Nigerian President' documents? Hans Blix had a few things to say about Colin Powell's evidence presentation, and the IAEA hasn't been too impressed. Besides, if these documents are so classified, it's possible that nobody in the UN is able to publicly decry them, even without explicitly or implicitly stating what they disagree with. They still haven't managed to turn anything up, though.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
#4 Terrorism, in general. Now the west has a democratic nation in that region. Now, they can encourage other nations in that area to also have democratic rebellion. You don't breed terrorism in a democratic nation like you do in a fundamentalist Islamic state. It also shows neigboring countries that the US isn't going to just sit down and play dead anymore. The Clinton years are over.

By 'a democratic nation', are you talking about Iraq? They're still under military occupation. And they don't want any democratic rebellions, because people might end up making The Wrong Choice (like Iran did). Rebellions mean instability, and can adversely affect influence. And were you serious with that 'terrorism in a democratic nation' comment? Unabomber? ETA? IRA? I could go on

Mayfuck · 06-09-2003, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeviousJ

Like people already pointed out, Israel doesn't seem to be held to the same level of responsibility. Plus, as soon as Iraq started to co-operate a lot more, the push for war was accelerated rapidly. Coincidence?

Why is this still a counterargument when it is said that Iraq has numerous U.N. violations. Yes, Israel has violations yadda yadda yadda. That makes Iraq OK then? And the second thing you said...The push for war was accelerated and THEN Iraq started to co-operate. Stop defending Iraq.

Why Am I So Ugly? · 06-09-2003, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mayfuck

Why is this still a counterargument when it is said that Iraq has numerous U.N. violations. Yes, Israel has violations yadda yadda yadda. That makes Iraq OK then? And the second thing you said...The push for war was accelerated and THEN Iraq started to co-operate. Stop defending Iraq.

i think hes pointing out the US didnt go after Iraq at all just because of their UN violations.

Mayfuck · 06-09-2003, 01:35 AM

I know that. He's just being anti-Israel.

Why Am I So Ugly? · 06-09-2003, 01:39 AM

lol. of course

Mayfuck · 06-09-2003, 01:41 AM

A liberal's argument in middle east politics wouldn't be complete without a slam on Israel.

Why Am I So Ugly? · 06-09-2003, 01:43 AM

hey, you. you should watch out before the ad hominem police getcha

Mayfuck · 06-09-2003, 01:47 AM

There was really no other reason for him to point that out. Of course the U.S. didn't go after Iraq simply on charges of U.N. violations. I don't know who is making that argument.

sleeper · 06-09-2003, 01:59 PM

he made that argument to illustrate his point, and its a perfectly fine arugment. his point was that this war has nothing to do with enforcing UN resolutions. point in fact, israel is in violation of many UN resolutions but because theyre allies with the US they arent doing anything about it. he could have referenced any other US ally that is in violation, or for that matter any other country, but israel is a perfect example of this and works the best for his argument. of course this isnt the only argument for war, but it just deflates one of them. The US themselves are in violation on UN resolutions including those on chemical and germ weapons. the point is if a country is doing something wrong, it doesnt matter so long as theyre friends with the US. theyre very well could be a country doing the most heinious despicable acts, such that would be defined so under US propaganda standards, but if they are providing the US with something noone looks twice. look at indonesia to get the picture. if israel is worthy of criticism, then they are worthy of criticism its not anti-semetic or any other disarming bullshit. people are at liberty to criticize any government or country but the moment you mention the word israel your a nazi.

DeviousJ · 06-09-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mayfuck
There was really no other reason for him to point that out. Of course the U.S. didn't go after Iraq simply on charges of U.N. violations. I don't know who is making that argument.

Because it's the most extreme counterexample. Iraq are apparently bad for ignoring these UN resolutions, whereas Israel is a great ally although they have ignored a great number themselves. Obviously it's not just the fact that UN resolutions have been ignored which made Iraq a target. And I said it in response to a point made by someone else

Nimrod's Son · 06-09-2003, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sleeper
those 4 reasons are the most pathetic and incorrect 4 reasons ive ever heard. add a fifth and ill start to laugh maybe

Hey, way to contribute!

Perhaps you can float your own ridiculous theories again instead of just naysaying everyone else, jackass.

sleeper · 06-09-2003, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Hey, way to contribute!

Perhaps you can float your own ridiculous theories again instead of just naysaying everyone else, jackass.

you obviously didnt read page three

Nimrod's Son · 06-09-2003, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vulva
1. Doesn't Israel have many more UN violations than Iraq. Israel has basically raped the Palestinian people of their land and pride. suicide attacks are a result of the helplessness of the Palestinians.

Irrelevant to a discussion about Iraq.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vulva
2. WMD- if we had solid evidence to begin with, we still wouldn't be looking for them.

The information could have been out of date. They had plenty of time to hide as much as they could.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vulva
3. This doesn't teach the Middle East a lesson. The whole idea of terrorism is that you don't need a centrallized army to conduct attacks. This has just pissed them off even more.

Actually, it does.

In addition, the establishment of a US military base in Iraq would allow the withdrawal of troops from Saudi Arabia, which is one of bin Laden's rallying cries to fight the U.S.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vulva
4. Democracy in Iraq will flourish like democracy in Afganistan? Maybe, but only through force and a puppet government.

The two are very different nations. Now who is lumping all Muslims in together?

Afghanistan is a backwater, low technology third world nation with "tribes."

Iraq is not a third world nation. They have infrastructure, technology and cities.

Your comparison is flawed.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vulva
5. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. That was planned and executed by al-qaeda, the attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden even despises Sadaam for not being a fundamentalist. It is idiotic to think that all Muslims that hate America work together.

There is no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I didn't say there was.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vulva
This is a war about oil. some people convince themselves it's not only due to their party affiliation.

Party affiliation? Even most of the lefties here would disagree with the statement that the war was about oil. No one believes that. The loss of dollars is so much greater than the gain in oil. That's just a silly argument.

As for my party affiliation, I don't see how being a Libertarian has anything to do with why the war was fought.

Nimrod's Son · 06-09-2003, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeviousJ

And were you serious with that 'terrorism in a democratic nation' comment? Unabomber? ETA? IRA? I could go on

There are a few nutcases here and there for sure.

There is a huge difference between the Unabomber and the Al Queda terrorist network!

Nimrod's Son · 06-09-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sleeper
he made that argument to illustrate his point, and its a perfectly fine arugment. his point was that this war has nothing to do with enforcing UN resolutions. point in fact, israel is in violation of many UN resolutions but because theyre allies with the US they arent doing anything about it. he could have referenced any other US ally that is in violation, or for that matter any other country, but israel is a perfect example of this and works the best for his argument. of course this isnt the only argument for war, but it just deflates one of them. The US themselves are in violation on UN resolutions including those on chemical and germ weapons. the point is if a country is doing something wrong, it doesnt matter so long as theyre friends with the US. theyre very well could be a country doing the most heinious despicable acts, such that would be defined so under US propaganda standards, but if they are providing the US with something noone looks twice. look at indonesia to get the picture. if israel is worthy of criticism, then they are worthy of criticism its not anti-semetic or any other disarming bullshit. people are at liberty to criticize any government or country but the moment you mention the word israel your a nazi.

To say that violation of any law is punishable in the same measure would be the same as enacting the death penalty for jaywalking.

Not every violation is equal. You all fail to recognize that.

Mayfuck · 06-09-2003, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

Irrelevant to a discussion about Iraq.

That's probably the only thing I'll agree with you on. If the U.S. does take action and enforce some kind of punishment on Israel, would DeviousJ then approve of the war on Iraq? No, of course not. So I don't know why it was even brought up other than some ulterior ideology going on.

Anyway that isn't even important to this topic.

What's more relevant is the anti-war's impatience concerning WMDs. Before the war we called for time and patience to let the inspectors to do their jobs. Now that we are again looking for WMDs we are in a rush to call to Bush administraion failures? Weapons intelligence came to light 4 years after the first gulf war, and it only has been a few months since the second one. Bush is very confident about the existence of WMDs. Do you guys really think they would go into this war not knowing there would be a search for evidence afterward? No. I am willing to, at least, give it a year or two. Look, I am against the war, but I think the people who are supposedly on my side are not giving the best reasons for it, politicizing it and are killing liberal credibility.

DeviousJ · 06-09-2003, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

There are a few nutcases here and there for sure.

There is a huge difference between the Unabomber and the Al Queda terrorist network!

But Al Qaeda is basically a worldwide network, with members from all kinds of countries - including the UK. Establishing democracies is unfortunately not going to eliminate radical terrorists, although it will hopefully help reduce support and sympathy for them. But the Unabomber was just an example of how, even in a country like America, people can be motivated to commit large terrorist acts, sometimes against their own country. ETA and the IRA are examples of how you just can't please everyone, even in a democracy. As far as I'm concerned, invading Iraq is only going to promote terrorism, not curb it

The Omega Concern · 06-09-2003, 02:56 PM

ok. ok. Bush is in a bit of what could become big trouble. His lack of prose and overly simplistic rhetoric is now catching up to him because they were at least 3 very good reasons to justify the war and he (they) only focused on one...mainly because that's all he could handle.

however, while liberal Democrats smell blood, they should be careful. It could very well be that eventually the Bushy's will have enough evidence to quell whatever P.R. issues could occur from this and those going out of their way to see that Bush gets impeached (or whatever, at the least hurt badly for the 2004 elections) are doing so in haste and might actually be hurt politically in the future. (i.e. the 2002 mid-terms).

DeviousJ · 06-09-2003, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mayfuck

That's probably the only thing I'll agree with you on. If the U.S. does take action and enforce some kind of punishment on Israel, would DeviousJ then approve of the war on Iraq? No, of course not. So I don't know why it was even brought up other than some ulterior ideology going on.

My stance on this isn't relative to the treatment of Israel, I just don't approve of using these double standards as justification when there are clearly other reasons behind the invasion

sleeper · 06-09-2003, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
To say that violation of any law is punishable in the same measure would be the same as enacting the death penalty for jaywalking.

Not every violation is equal. You all fail to recognize that.

does that fact that the US bypassed the UN to get to this situation ring of anything to you? i think it sums up a simple truth about the nature this argument. the UN is relevant only when it serves our needs, its irrelevent when it doesnt. they wish to invade iraq, stating the utter importance of upholding UN resolutions and the UN system, but when the UN fails to appease this notion its too irrelevent to even be concerned with.

Donkey · 06-09-2003, 03:13 PM

You all are stupid. Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the United States. They are "jealous" of our freedom. We went halfway across the world to save the people of Iraq and keep our nation safe. So what that we haven't found WMD, they are probably in Syria. America, conquering one nation at a time.

God bless the USA.

Nimrod's Son · 06-09-2003, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sleeper

does that fact that the US bypassed the UN to get to this situation ring of anything to you? i think it sums up a simple truth about the nature this argument. the UN is relevant only when it serves our needs, its irrelevent when it doesnt. they wish to invade iraq, stating the utter importance of upholding UN resolutions and the UN system, but when the UN fails to appease this notion its too irrelevent to even be concerned with.

It wasn't the UN that was the problem. It was the fact that for God only knows why, France is privvy to a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

06-09-2003, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
God only knows why, France is privvy to a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Actually, you don't have to ask God. All you have to do is open a history textbook!

Nimrod's Son · 06-09-2003, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros

Actually, you don't have to ask God. All you have to do is open a history textbook!

Revisionist history! Liberal lies infiltrating our campuses!

06-09-2003, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Revisionist history! Liberal lies infiltrating our campuses!

Do you even know what the reason is?

Mayfuck · 06-09-2003, 03:34 PM

sleeper · 06-09-2003, 03:46 PM

on a lighter note i really like the french and france and was sad to see them become the butt of every joke on letterman and leno. strangely americas funniest videos drops a france-sucks joke every few minutes, and the whole crowd is loving it. on an even lighter note the whole US backlash to it in some cases was borderline childish and always pathetic. freedom fries? i bet that wont make it into any new american history textbooks. as soon as that trend started happening even hardline patriots were covering their eyes and excusing themselves to the washroom to vomit blood

06-09-2003, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mayfuck

Who is that for?

06-09-2003, 01:35 AM	#66
Mayfuck Banned Location: i'm from japan also hollywood Posts: 57,812	I know that. He's just being anti-Israel.

06-09-2003, 01:39 AM	#67
Why Am I So Ugly? Apocalyptic Poster Location: in a bottle for 100 years Posts: 3,835	lol. of course

06-09-2003, 01:41 AM	#68
Mayfuck Banned Location: i'm from japan also hollywood Posts: 57,812	A liberal's argument in middle east politics wouldn't be complete without a slam on Israel.

06-09-2003, 01:43 AM	#69
Why Am I So Ugly? Apocalyptic Poster Location: in a bottle for 100 years Posts: 3,835	hey, you. you should watch out before the ad hominem police getcha

06-09-2003, 01:47 AM	#70
Mayfuck Banned Location: i'm from japan also hollywood Posts: 57,812	There was really no other reason for him to point that out. Of course the U.S. didn't go after Iraq simply on charges of U.N. violations. I don't know who is making that argument.

06-09-2003, 01:59 PM	#71
sleeper Minion of Satan Posts: 8,801	he made that argument to illustrate his point, and its a perfectly fine arugment. his point was that this war has nothing to do with enforcing UN resolutions. point in fact, israel is in violation of many UN resolutions but because theyre allies with the US they arent doing anything about it. he could have referenced any other US ally that is in violation, or for that matter any other country, but israel is a perfect example of this and works the best for his argument. of course this isnt the only argument for war, but it just deflates one of them. The US themselves are in violation on UN resolutions including those on chemical and germ weapons. the point is if a country is doing something wrong, it doesnt matter so long as theyre friends with the US. theyre very well could be a country doing the most heinious despicable acts, such that would be defined so under US propaganda standards, but if they are providing the US with something noone looks twice. look at indonesia to get the picture. if israel is worthy of criticism, then they are worthy of criticism its not anti-semetic or any other disarming bullshit. people are at liberty to criticize any government or country but the moment you mention the word israel your a nazi.

06-09-2003, 02:56 PM	#80
The Omega Concern Banned Location: stay, far, away Posts: 8,997	ok. ok. Bush is in a bit of what could become big trouble. His lack of prose and overly simplistic rhetoric is now catching up to him because they were at least 3 very good reasons to justify the war and he (they) only focused on one...mainly because that's all he could handle. however, while liberal Democrats smell blood, they should be careful. It could very well be that eventually the Bushy's will have enough evidence to quell whatever P.R. issues could occur from this and those going out of their way to see that Bush gets impeached (or whatever, at the least hurt badly for the 2004 elections) are doing so in haste and might actually be hurt politically in the future. (i.e. the 2002 mid-terms).

06-09-2003, 03:13 PM	#83
Donkey Ownz Location: Roseland and Alabama Posts: 823	You all are stupid. Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the United States. They are "jealous" of our freedom. We went halfway across the world to save the people of Iraq and keep our nation safe. So what that we haven't found WMD, they are probably in Syria. America, conquering one nation at a time. God bless the USA.

06-09-2003, 03:34 PM	#88
Mayfuck Banned Location: i'm from japan also hollywood Posts: 57,812

06-09-2003, 03:46 PM	#89
sleeper Minion of Satan Posts: 8,801	on a lighter note i really like the french and france and was sad to see them become the butt of every joke on letterman and leno. strangely americas funniest videos drops a france-sucks joke every few minutes, and the whole crowd is loving it. on an even lighter note the whole US backlash to it in some cases was borderline childish and always pathetic. freedom fries? i bet that wont make it into any new american history textbooks. as soon as that trend started happening even hardline patriots were covering their eyes and excusing themselves to the washroom to vomit blood