3/30/2003: US soldier carries injured Iraqi soldier

[slang]

Originally posted by quzah
This is exactly what runs through my head when seeing the absurdity called news.

I'm very sorry you are so emotional about the current events and the news.

Your rantings may prove correct in the future but for right now it seems as though you are from another planet.

There was an 8 year period I went through not too long ago that I felt the same passion and anger for national and world events. It was the Clinton administration.

Hang tight, limber up your voting finger and get your ass to the polls come next election (provided you are an American and count in the big picture).

[quzah]

Originally posted by slang
I'm very sorry you are so emotional about the current events and the news.

God forbid anyone give a shit, right? Actually, I'm hardly emotional at all. I just think it's both annoying and amusing that the media/government has to spin everything all to hell to get it past the American public.

Let's get real here. This is not a fight about "liberation". It's a fight about oil. If it was simply billed as such, I'd have much less a problem with it. Sure, I'd still be against it, but at lest I wouldn't have to be fed my daily dose of bullshit by the media.

Again, let's face some facts. Iraq has done exactly what evil in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing. They're starving over there why? Well, that's a nice little thing called sanctions. Ask North Korea about it if you get the chance.

Sure, they could abandon their entire military structures and try and feed their country, but again, the only reason anyone at all ever starves in the world is because of bickering goverments. It's definately not for lack of food being produced world wide.

Originally posted by slang
Your rantings may prove correct in the future but for right now it seems as though you are from another planet.

Why? Because I'm not in agreement with your take on how the world should be run? Because I don't eagerly applaud our goverment invading another country? Well I guess it's just too bad that I'm not kissing Uncle Sam's ass.

Originally posted by slang
Hang tight, limber up your voting finger and get your ass to the polls come next election (provided you are an American and count in the big picture).

Your vote only counts in Florida, if you're not a minority, and if they recount you enough times.

Ah well, they say ignorance is bliss. Is it really? Let me know.

For the record, nothing I write is "emotional". I'm always just a cranky fucker. Life is far to short to worry about keeping up personal appearances and if person X likes me or not. It's an opinion, it may invoke thought, it may not. Either way, I just don't care.

Quzah.

[Elspode]

Quzah said: "Iraq has done exactly what evil in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing."

I was watching MSNBC yesterday. They did ten minutes at an Iraqi jail where people claim to have been tortured. The guys were demonstrating how they were bound by their wrists with hands behind their backs, and hoisted off the floor before being beaten. I've read interviews with tortured Iraqi athletes who were flailed and forced to swim through raw sewage afterward because they lost a soccer game. I've heard worse tales.

<sarcasm>But since they are only torturing their own citizens, we really don't have anything to say about it, I guess. They haven't done anything really bad like allow terrorists to train in their country, and even if they did, it doesn't mean anything to the US.</sarcasm>

[elSicomoro]

From here on out, if I hear any mouthbreather mention anything about the 2000 election in tandem with this war, I will only be able to assume that they truly are unintelligent.

[Undertoad]

Spode, I saw that MSNBC bit.. here's the accompanying story.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/897497.asp?0cv=CA01

[juju]

Originally posted by sycamore
From here on out, if I hear any mouthbreather mention anything about the 2000 election in tandem with this war, I will only be able to assume that they truly are unintelligent.

Why? They do have a point. The Florida votes were done so incompetently that it's quite possible that we will never never know who really got more votes. In the end, the courts decided. How anyone could twist this into meaning that Bush won "fair and square" is beyond me. Now, I certainly don't blame Bush. It was a fluke. The people who created the voting system are to blame.

Now, if you're saying that this shouldn't be connected to the war, then I don't disagree. But if you're saying that it has no merit at all, then please tell me how I'm wrong.

Our very own russotto has described, in detail, how the votes would have had to have been counted for Gore to win. And none of them make sense. It's been examined, and Bush won Florida. I'm not going to re-post it, because I don't feel like digging it up, but if you're truly interested, pull up russotto's posts and look for comments on the topic. Shouldn't take too long.

[juju]

Originally posted by quzah
Let's get real here. This is not a fight about "liberation". It's a fight about oil. If it was simply billed as such, I'd have much less a problem with it. Sure, I'd still be against it, but at lest I wouldn't have to be fed my daily dose of bullshit by the media.

Let's examine coorelational logic for a moment. 'A' happens, and at the same time that 'A' happens, 'B' is present. Therefore, 'B' is the cause of 'A'.

I think this is what you're doing here. Because if we use your logic, then we would never be able to attack any country that exports oil, for any reason. Because even if if the reason were justified, people would still conclude that it was just for oil.

It's true that it <i>could</i> be just for oil. But it's also true that it could be for liberation, or to prevent a future threat. You need evidence before you can start discarding potential causes. Real evidence, not speculation.

Originally posted by quzah
Again, let's face some facts. Iraq has done exactly what evil in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing.

This statement is false. Did you do any research on Iraq at all before you reached this conclusion?

Originally posted by quzah
the only reason anyone at all ever starves in the world is because of bickering goverments

This statement is also false. For example, what about the potato famine in Ireland?

[Elspode]

Yup...that's the one. Un-fucking-believable. But clearly true. No one can train people to act that well in a short time. This shit happened to them, and for my money, stopping the SOB Hussein and his sadistic cronies from inflicting this sort of treatment on his fellow beings is why we are there. I'm sure there's oil, power and politics entangled in all of this as well - I'm not Pollyanna - but at least the new regieme will have to look over their shoulders before they do the same shit.

And, because *someone* is going to say "Yeah, but we're blowing up innocent women and children while we're stopping him", I hereby reply in advance with the following:

Peace is not the inherent state of humanity. People are animals; animals with opposable thumbs and intellects sufficient to envision ways to use them, but still, animals. As animals, we are violent by nature, predators and dominators clear down to the bone. That we seek peace and tranquility is testament to our spirit and our vision as a species. But vision and spirit do not stop those who are firmly in the grasp of their baser instincts. Therefore, strength and the willingness to do what must be done is the only way to create peace out of the chaos which comes naturally to us as animals. And that often means waging war, with all that goes with it, whether we like it or not.

We asked Saddam to stop being a dickhead and leave. He didn't, so we made him. I think it was necessary.

Hope I don't trip getting down off of my soapbox...someone might mistake me for a statue of Saddam!

[Uryoces]

Peace is not the inherent state of humanity. People are animals; animals with opposable thumbs and intellects sufficient to envision ways to use them, but still, animals. As animals, we are violent by nature, predators and dominators clear down to the bone. That we seek peace and tranquility is testament to our spirit and our vision as a species. But vision and spirit do not stop those who are firmly in the grasp of their baser instincts. Therefore, strength and the willingness to do what must be done is the only way to create peace out of the chaos which comes naturally to us as animals. And that often means waging war, with all that goes with it, whether we like it or not.

Kirk: We can admit that we're killers...but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today!
A Taste of Armageddon - Star Trek - the original series

That was one of the truest speeches I have every heard anyone give.

[Elspode]

One Day at a Time...can Killaholics Anonymous borrow that from AA, you think?

[Uryoces]

Hi my name's Mike.

Hi Mike!

I'm a Killaholic. It started about ten years ago; I started small with .22 LR, back of the head type stuff ...

later

... So now I've been kill-free for 3 years. By the way, who dinged my car door?

[quzah]

Originally posted by juju

This statement is also false. For example, what about the potato famine in Ireland?

The statement is not false. The world does produce enough food on a daily basis to feed its entire population, and have surpluss. I guess you've never heard of the US goverment buying huge crops of wheat and just warehousing them because to allow them to be sold would "ruin our wheat economy"? The fact remains, the world does produce ample food to distribute to everyone. They just choose not to.

Note, I did not say each country produces enough food. I said the world produces enough food to feed its population.

I've seen the above statement/topic quoted many times, though I cannot find the exact link I was looking for. According to here , and here there will be ample food.

Like I said, the only thing keeping people starving, is lack of actual distribution. I'm to believe sanctions have nothing at all to do with this?



Back to the topic at hand. By "evil" I mean exactly, what evil has Iraq done to the rest of the world? Seriously, the "reason" we invaded was because they had "weapons of mass destruction", right?

Go back to the beginning. The original intent was not to "liberate the people of Iraq". It was to kill Saddam because we didn't supposedly didn't like his big guns. It had nothing at all to do with liberating his country.

When the war started, it was not to help is people. This is just one of those "added bonuses" that we can now use as a banner to carry to get us support from the world and the American people. You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. Again, like I said, go back to the "original reason" for the war.

We invaded because we didn't like what the UN inspectors weren't finding.

And like I said, Iraq has done what evil with their WOMD in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing.

I never said there weren't evil people in Iraq. I never said they treated their people nicely. I was using the original context of the invasion of Iraq. We invaded because we didn't like their allaged big guns.

Back to my original post: How would you like it if the world (or any given country) invaded us because they didn't like our guns? That is the whole cause of the war. That is the stated cause or reason for invading. We didn't like that they said they had none. We decided they did. We went in to find them. Now we're supposedly liberating their people.

I'm wrong here how?


My original hypothetical also stands. What we're doing to Iraq is the same as if some one else had bigger guns, and decided to tell us what to do. It's that simple.

As per someone mentioning that "people like you Quzah are why the US doesn't get invaded" ... What?

The reason we don't get invaded is because we do have the biggest WOMD. It has nothing to do with me sitting around voicing my opinion on the war. People don't not invade because they don't like my opinion. That's absurd.

Understand the context of my post and you'll understand the post.

Quzah.

[quzah]

Originally posted by Elspode
We asked Saddam to stop being a dickhead and leave. He didn't, so we made him. I think it was necessary.

Hope I don't trip getting down off of my soapbox...someone might mistake me for a statue of Saddam!

No we didn't. We told Saddam he has big guns. He said he didn't. We said he did, and invaded to prove it. As a side note, I'm told that 120 trillion dollars in oil has nothing to do with it...

Quzah.

[juju]

Originally posted by quzah
Back to the topic at hand. By "evil" I mean exactly, what evil has Iraq done to the rest of the world?
[...]
And like I said, Iraq has done what evil with their WOMD in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing.

Here you are attempting to change your original statement. You're adding the qualifiers "to the rest of the world" and "with their WOMD". But I'm going to assume you only mean to clarify your original intent. (I'm a trusting kind of guy)

Let's see, how about when Saddam's forces invaded Iran, or the time they invaded Kuwait? What about the time they started lobbing scud missles into Saudia Arabia and Israel?

Originally posted by quzah
Go back to the beginning. The original intent was not to "liberate the people of Iraq". It was to kill Saddam because we didn't supposedly didn't like his big guns. It had nothing at all to do with liberating his country.

I agree that this was the stated purpose of the administration. But you were trying to say that it was only about oil, and I was simply saying that you can't prove that.

In the end, their intent doesn't matter. Only the consequences matter. And in this case, I think that the good far, far outweights the bad in this scenario. Sure, I'd rather they not go around invading countries willy-nilly. But have no control over that. And I see no reason to rage against the war after the fact when so much good is coming out of it.

Originally posted by quzah
When the war started, it was not to help is people. This is just one of those "added bonuses" that we can now use as a banner to carry to get us support from the world and the American people. You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. Again, like I said, go back to the "original reason" for the war.

We invaded because we didn't like what the UN inspectors weren't finding.

I didn't invade anybody. I'm just a guy with a computer. Don't ascribe to me likes, intents, and actions that aren't my own.

I agree that the U.S. administration started the war because of the purposes you stated. I agree that their arguments don't make much sense. However, the liberation of an opressed people is not only useful as a propaganda and coercion tool. It is a wonderful thing in it's own right. In my opinion, it's a good thing perpetrated for the wrong reasons. I think it justifies the war even if it was started for the wrong reasons.

Originally posted by quzah
I never said there weren't evil people in Iraq. I never said they treated their people nicely.

Yes, you did. You said:
<blockquote>

<b>Again, let's face some facts. Iraq has done exactly what evil in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing.</b>

</blockquote>
It seems clear that even you don't believe what you really said.

Originally posted by quzah
Like I said, the only thing keeping people starving, is lack of actual distribution. I'm to believe sanctions have nothing at all to do with this?

Well, you said, "the only reason anyone at all <b>ever</b> starves in the world is because of bickering goverments".

The statement is false, because you can't blame the government in every single case of starvation. What about people who get trapped in mines or caves, can't get out, and starve to death? Is that the fault of bickering governments?