Who Supports the War(s)

[slang]

Originally posted by Griff
Another in a long line of quality folks against Operation Just Cuz.

Operation just cuz (we dont want a crazy dictator to support terrorism with bio-weapons and nuclear bombs)


I do agree you are witty Griff, WRONG, but witty.

[Skunks]

Originally posted by slang

If a trillion people think that 2 + 2 = 6...does that make it so? I dont think so.

Yes, it does. "2" and "6" are both arbitrary symbols. I could redefine them so that "2" means the same thing as, say, "4" does to you, and then redefine "6" to your meaning of "8". It'd just lead to pointless confusion, as nobody but me would understand, and thusly be inherrently pointless.

However, if a trillion people agree with me, what's to say your definition of these symbols is more or less valid than mine? Language relies on mass agreement as to its meaning; when any two people agree on the meaning of an arbitrary symbol, that definition becomes valid.

sorry guys, your going to have to present better factual arguments other than the "we hate Bush and think Klinton should be the leader of the universe" BS.

Why is everbody blind to all but the extremes? Sure, it makes for easier arguing, but so does flagrant lying. Just because I'm not with you doesn't mean I'm against you; there are shades of gray in politics, just like there are in life.

--Sk

[slang]

Originally posted by sycamore


Now? When would you say the left-wingers were last in the majority? Surely, you're not going to say that the current Democratic-controlled Senate and Clinton are really left-wingers, are you?

Is tom Dascle left wing.YES!

Is Klinton (both Hitlary AND Bill) left wing YES!

[elSicomoro]

Thanks slang...you just gave me one of the best laughs I've had today.

[slang]

Originally posted by sycamore
Thanks slang...you just gave me one of the best laughs I've had today.

I read your sarcasm loud and clear. If you dont think Klinton isnt left wing maybe I should ask what your definition for left wing is.

[Griff]

He he. You're laughing, I just got called a leftist! Anyway welcome aboard Slang we've been interviewing for an unapologetic right winger here, looks like yer it.

[slang]

Originally posted by Griff
He he. You're laughing, I just got called a leftist! Anyway welcome aboard Slang we've been interviewing for an unapologetic right winger here, looks like yer it.

Thank you. As you can well imagine , I am not always well recieved. I <I>AM</I> however way to the right of Rush Limbaugh.

[slang]

Originally posted by Skunks


Why is everbody blind to all but the extremes? Sure, it makes for easier arguing, but so does flagrant lying. Just because I'm not with you doesn't mean I'm against you; there are shades of gray in politics, just like there are in life.

--Sk

My apologies Skunk. I get carried away. Do I think of EVERYONE that are aginst the war a political enemy, no. Most, but not all.


Personally I am not in agreement with all Bush's policies or far that matter the Republicans either. I do however see the national democratic party as the enemy and so are an increasing number of Americans.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by slang
I read your sarcasm loud and clear. If you dont think Klinton isnt left wing maybe I should ask what your definition for left wing is.

Actually, there was very little sarcasm there.

And you didn't quite ask, but I'll explain anyway.

The best way I can describe a left-winger in the US is like this: To me, it's one that doesn't think big government is so bad, thinks everyone in this country deserves a Canada-style insurance system, doesn't think raising taxes is necessarily such a big deal (depending on the circumstances), thinks that affirmative action rocks and should be extended to gays, and abhors the death penalty. This obviously doesn't cover everything, but should give you my general idea of the concept.

Had you said "Bill Clinton is a left-winger" between 1992-1994, I might have agreed with you on that labeling. (Now his wife I will agree with you on...she seems pretty left-wing.)

When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, Clinton did this dance to the right, where, IMO he became a rather strong centrist. I believe it is the very thing that saved him from becoming a one-term chump. The Democratic party moved that way as well.

By the nature of the Democratic party and the ideals it apparently espouses, I would say that those in the party are left-leaning. You may have a few true left-wingers out there (Wellstone RIP; Nancy Pelosi looks to be one as well, though I know little about her). However, as a whole, when I look at the results of the elections we had last week, I see an incredibly centrist group of congressmen and women, who may lean to one side more than the other...but all in all, I don't see much difference among them.

Why do you see the Democratic Party as "the enemy"...or as I might call it, "the man?"

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Griff
He he. You're laughing, I just got called a leftist!

ADMIT IT! YOU DID VOTE FOR RENDELL!!!

[jaguar]

Klinton? Well there is a biting political statement if I ever heard one. Wish i could make head or tail of it.

Finally, I think that most of the public in the US does not want to stampede over Iraq and kill thousands of servicemen, women and children. What we fear is that Iraq will build some really nasty weopons and , as we have recently seen, use them against us. We believe Saddam can't be trusted and we need to use force becuase the wimps at the UN wont. Why even HAVE the UN if they cant enforce their OWN resolutions?

Thankyou for demonstrating your lack of understanding of the United Nations.
The UN is by definition a powerless body, it relies on the will of member states to enforce any resolution passed, how such a resolution may be enforced depends under which part of the UN charter the resolution sits. On of Isreal's arguments with its own noncompliance is that its resolutions are under a different part to the ones on Iraq.

Full assembly UN resolutions are more often proxy political statements than motions that are designed to be enforced, the serious business goes on in the Security Council.
I assume by 'wimpy' you are referring to the sanctions, well the reality is that many countries want to do business with Iraq, including allies of America, why? Because nation states don't give a flying fuck about ethics. Now if you're definition of a strong enforced resolution is bombing trucks full of British cigarettes I really am going to have to start wondering about your rather naive view of politics.

I'm yet to see why Iraq would want to bomb the US with chem/bio weapons, i keep silly this rather jingoistic argument and yet even the CIA are saying the risk is bloody miniscule. Saddam is not, contrary to popular opinion some kind of raving loony, he is an intelligent, if despicable political survivor who wants to keep surviving, bombing the US is not a wise way of doing this. As for using them as a cover for an invasion, the same applies, in the short term it might work but it will be his demise. I'm also yet to see any evidence of nuclear development even. So mon ami show me evidence that a: Saddam is crazy b: That Saddam supports terrorism. Or do they fit into the catagory of right wing arcane knowledge?

The parameters for this debate as set my Bush and his echo, Blair is that, without any evidence to support their claims, Iraq has WMDs. (Not WOMDs, learn how to form an acronym)While I'd be surprised if he doesn't the result of this is that if they do find WMDs in Iraq, he's evil and should be taken out, and if they don't then he's hiding them and is evil and should be taken out. It's simple political ploy I'm sure will be put into use as soon as the inspections start.

Is tom Dascle left wing.YES!

Left wing? In the US maybe.

You left wingers may have had fun patting yourselves on the back bashing the Iraqi war/ Republicans/ Bush but you are in the minority now. Sorry.

Maybe in the US. But you're missing griff's point. The spectrum of people that do not support a war on Iraq extends into your own military and intel organisations, what does that say? People in the know, with an intimate understanding of war and world politics think a war with Iraq is a foolish idea. Look I'm saying 50/50 a war with Iraq comes off, and all the hawks can jump up and down and watch bombs hitting buildings live on CNN and crow about being in the majority all they want as far as I care, its still a stupid move.

Why do you see the Democratic Party as "the enemy"...or as I might call it, "the man?"

hehehehehe

[slang]

Originally posted by sycamore


ADMIT IT! YOU DID VOTE FOR RENDELL!!!

I would sooner have smoked a dog turd as voted for Rendell and I dont smoke, have a dog, or think highly of handling dog waste.

[slang]

<I>Klinton? Well there is a biting political statement if I ever heard one. Wish i could make head or tail of it.</I>

-- Klinton is a communist sympathiizer. He's smooth and polished but in the end he thinks that government makes people great, they dont strive and develop themselves to achieve their goals, its the government that makes EVERYTHING good. We don't dont believe that here, and we're glad the guy's gone.

<I>Thankyou for demonstrating your lack of understanding of the United Nations. </I>

-- Point taken, I am NOT farmiliar with the detailed workings of the UN, I just know they are ineffictive. Is there a legitimate issue with Iraq developing new weapons? If not, then why all the UN attention? If they are, why are they playing this game of cat and mouse about the sanctions?

<I>I'm yet to see why Iraq would want to bomb the US with chem/bio weapons....</I>

--There is compelling evidence surfacing now that members of the Iraqi army were invloved with the OKC bombing. Bill Klinton, wanting to supress his right leaning political enemies, blamed the bombing on the Mi. militia and a handful of right wing extremists. Was McVieh the bomber, in my opinion, yes. Was he acting alone, in my opinion, no. The result was the drastic reduction in the membership of a group (MM) that was primarily organised for disaster recovery, not overthrowing the gov't.

<I>While I'd be surprised if he doesn't the result of this is that if they do find WMDs in Iraq, he's evil and should be taken out, and if they don't then he's hiding them and is evil and should be taken out.</I>

--I'll learn how to form an acronym if you learn where to place a comma-- from your quote above-" ....if he doesn't (a comma goes here smartguy) the result of this......"

--So it looks like we agree, he's evil and should be taken out. Excellent.

<I>The spectrum of people that do not support a war on Iraq extends into your own military and intel organisations, what does that say? People in the know, with an intimate understanding of war and world politics think a war with Iraq is a foolish idea.</I>

--Thats a legit point, yes. The only thing that makes me wonder is that there were anti-war people howling about what a massive kick in the butt we were going to take in the 1991 war. The exact same arguments are being made now. I think they are fearful of showing force and they are concerned about possible US losses. I share those fears too. The fear of having some wmd (how did I do this time?) effect the US is greater after seeing the 9/11 attacks though.

Why do you see the Democratic Party as "the enemy"...or as I might call it, "the man?"

--Yes, I understand how crazy that sounds. The democratic party (I left the "d" small on pupose) promotes the idea that they are something they are not, mainly that they represent the "little guy". This may have been true 40 years ago, but today they are not. The head of the DNC, Terry McAuliff, turned $100k into 18 million by "legal" insider trading. The company and it's employees lost everything shortly after "Terry got his" by cashing out. He's not the only reason for the company going bankrupt, but being the chairman of the party that supposedly represents the "little guy" wasnt a good move. Or maybe it was, he exposed himself as just as bad as those he attacks.

The democrats are also working to disarm the American population. The second ammendment means what it says, we ARE legally allowed to own, CARRY and USE firearms in defense of ourselves and the state. The tide on this issue is changing here with an active education program that explains the lies of anti-gunners. I honestly wouldn't expect a non-us citizen to agree with me here, many are fearful of guns when they are used in violent crimes. So am I, that's why I carry one, I dont want to be vulnerable. It's true that the defensive use of firearms is RARELY needed in this small town, but when I travel to unfriendly cities, I am secure knowing I have one ready. The democrats are finally learning that little ol' Slang isnt the ONLY one that will fight for the constitutional right to own, carry and use guns. Gore lost becuase of his anti-gun position and just last week KKT lost in Md. by a small margin to a gun-friendly opponent. Lets just hope the dems just drop the issue for the loser that it is.

The biggest complaint I have with the dems is that they just dont believe in the individual. I dont want their socialized heathcare, corrupted unions, stupid emotion based gun laws, and higher taxes on everything under the sun. The dems promote making people weak by attempting to position the government to do things that individuals need to be doing for themselves. I dont need someone to wipe my rear, thank you very much. I also dont need a TAX to have the government WIPE my rear. Each year there is bigger and bigger government, under the dems AND the reps. That makes me uncomfortable. At the very least the reps have the faith that I am smart and capable enough to wipe my own rear. Lets get the dems OUT of office FIRST, then we can oust the reps in favor of libertarians!

Lastly, I dont expect that everyone, or even the majority will agree with me on most issues. Thats fine, if I want to preach to the choir I'll go to a pro-gun site. I AM genuinely interested in HOW some of the ideas are formulated that are listed here in the cellar. They are just as nutty to me as you think MINE are. Also, I hope to convey content here. I am not a writer and if you want to nitpick my posts for grammer and spelling, you can just kiss my ass.

Thank you all in advance for some engaging conversations.

[jaguar]

Clinton is a communist sympathizer? Right…..excuse me while i break out my tinfoil hat.

Give us a source for your compelling evidence, I’d love to see it. Well actually browsing newsmax is something I’d rather avoid but I need a good laugh so drop us a link to a vaguely reputable news source could you?

-- Point taken, I am NOT familiar with the detailed workings of the UN, I just know they are ineffective. Is there a legitimate issue with Iraq developing new weapons? If not, then why all the UN attention? If they are, why are they playing this game of cat and mouse about the sanctions?

Sorry, I got it wrong, its not that you'd don't have rudimentary understanding of how the UN works, it's that you don't have a rudimentary understanding of diplomatic relations, pardon me.

So judging from your dems rant, i'm guessing your ultimate government would be heavily armed anarchy?

--So it looks like we agree, he's evil and should be taken out. Excellent.

I'll put that down to sarcasm. Its either that, obtuse arrogance or monumental stupidity.

--Thats a legit point, yes. The only thing that makes me wonder is that there were anti-war people howling about what a massive kick in the butt we were going to take in the 1991 war. The exact same arguments are being made now. I think they are fearful of showing force and they are concerned about possible US losses. I share those fears too. The fear of having some wmd (how did I do this time?) effect the US is greater after seeing the 9/11 attacks though.

This isn't about US losses, I don't give a flying fuck if a albatross mashes the engine of a fighter at 40,000 feet, its about the ethics of waging war on a sovereign nation without provocation. People tend to die at war too, on all sides, which are not a good thing either. Acronyms are usually in caps. Either way i strongly doubt anything of value will come out of this discussion.

[slang]

<I>Clinton is a communist sympathizer? Right…..excuse me while i break out my tinfoil hat.</I>

Here, maybe this will help.

sympathizer - To feel or express compassion, as for another's suffering; commiserate.

Now I KNOW you are the EXPERT on ALL US and WORLD "diplomatic relations" as well as American politics, but you knew that Klinton provided the N. Koreans' with nuclear power technology, right?

Here, I'm SURE you saw this, but take another look at some exerpts from "telegraph.co.uk"<B> (notice this is NOT newsmax)</B>

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../08/wkor08.xml)

<I>The project was agreed eight years ago as part of a deal in which Pyongyang promised to renounce its ambitions to build weapons of mass destruction.

North Korea also pledged to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to examine its existing nuclear plants<B> but has never done so.</B>

The Stalinist republic is believed to have<B> stockpiled enough plutonium to build two nuclear bombs</B> but key components for the reactor will be delivered only if the North makes good its outstanding promises. </I>

Now I KNOW you're real smart....tell me, who was the US president 8 years ago that supplied the plutonium to the N. Koreans that is NOW a very real threat. Klinton, very good, you are correct.

OK, here's the tie in. Klinton made this deal as well as making deals with US nuclear technology with China (China is another communist country smart guy) SO......HE'S A COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZER AT BEST AND A TRAITOR AT WORST!

Go put your tinfoil hat on smartguy, and keep smoking whatever it is you keep toking on. Phone in occasionally so you dont spin out of orbit. We appreciate you comments <B>even if they are silly.</B>

The silly comment would be this one.

<I><B>Clinton is a communist sympathizer? Right</B></I>



<I>People tend to die at war too</I>

Look around. People tend to die from terrorism too. And you arent immune, no matter how smart and refined you <B>think</B> you are. Terrorist will kill you just the same as me.

<I>I'll put that down to sarcasm.</I>

WOW, you ARE quick.


<I>Either way i strongly doubt anything of value will come out of this discussion. </I>


Why, becuase I wont allow you to BS this forum unchallenged?


Thanks for making your comments, I am very impressed with your in depth knowlege of diplomatic relations, you CAN SPELL . Bravo!