Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yaktldg · 02-13-2003, 10:58 AM

t-t: "And I'd love to get into the difference between Vietnam and Iraq, but I don't have the time today, or in the next several weeks for that matter. (Geez! )"

Well, I wasn't looking for a historical analysis. I figured you'd say we're in mortal danger, or something.

t-t: "my criteria for war resembles that of Powel and Bush and Rumsfeld"

Their criteria may be right, or just. But it remains to be proven whether this war meets the criteria of self-defense.

Quote:

I hate to quote the same op-ed piece I quoted just a few posts prior, but it's fresh in my mind and I think Harry Browne makes great points:

"...the assertions made by our government before and during the Gulf War, assertions that later proved to be false. There were no Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border, no Iraqi atrocities in Kuwaiti hospitals. The "smart bombs" General Schwarzkopf talked about so proudly in his TV briefings were hardly ever used in the war � and when they were used, they missed their targets more often than not. And the number of innocent Iraqi civilians killed was revised upward several times after the war.

"Of course, all that is ancient history. So why dredge it up today?

"Because the men who told the lies in 1991 � Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell � are the same men providing the "evidence" that we must go to war again.

Three-Three · 02-13-2003, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gqtie
This kind of racism is usually kept private. What makes an American life worth a thousand times an Iraqi life? Because we look/talk more like you?

Oh pleeeze! Exactly what *race* are the Iraqis, anyway. Are they perhaps (gasp!) Caucasian!

Quote:

But you do say "if necessary," which nobody thinks is the case, except a gullible, paranoid minority. ..

Nobody thinks its necessary or the case? Are you living in one of those caves in Afghanistan? The polls have it about 60% at last glance.

You apparently don't know the difference between a "race" of people or what a 'minority" is, and I don't appreciate being called a racist. One might wish that some people would keep their ignorance kind of private, eh?

edited the missing quote tag...

HaysooChreesto! · 02-13-2003, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seanie
And if Saddam breaking the rules involves thousands of Iraqis paying with their lives then fuck 'em.

Gee.

It's almost as if you want more vacant real estate on Manhattan.

Once again, I will ask, doesn't Saddam Hussein's action of not only the last decade, but of the last 25 years play a role in the destruction of his citizenry?

And playing pansy with Arab terrorists for the last 30+ years has gotten us what? We should let their murderous actions agaisnt our embassies, warships, and home soil dictate our foreign policy. That's a nice idea. Please don't hurt us anymore and we'll do what you want?
Every administration from JFK to Clinton either ignored or appeased these bastards and now the onus to finally take care of it has fallen on Dubbya-for better or worse.
After 9/11 I think it's pretty clear that there's no negotiating with or appeasing them. They don't want peace from us. They want to kill us.

HaysooChreesto! · 02-13-2003, 11:16 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gqtie
[B]lamma: "The facts are that they have screwed around with the rules they agreed to and now it's time to pay the piper."

"At the point of a gun"? That's rich. Yeah, there was Saddam, just minding his own business, planting some new date palms in his back garden, watching lovingly over his grandchildren when all of a sudden the big bad Amercans showed up and started oppressing him.

When you start a war by invading a neighbor specifically to steal their natural resources and then get your ass kicked, guess what; you're not the one in charge of negotiations.

The SOB was lucky that we didn't roll into Baghdad and take his pathetic carcass out right then and there. The cease-fire was pretty generous to Hussein IMO. He could've been and should've been taken out of power at that time.

Three-Three · 02-13-2003, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gqtie
Their criteria may be right, or just. But it remains to be proven whether this war meets the criteria of self-defense.

OK. So what's the problem. Let's say it IS right, and it IS just, but because it isn't self-defense does that some how cancels out that it is right and just?

yaktldg · 02-13-2003, 11:33 AM

t-t: "Nobody thinks its necessary or the case? Are you living in one of those caves in Afghanistan? The polls have it about 60% at last glance."

I thought he was a threat to the world? Hardly 60% of the world are worried about him to the extent to justify war. This was a mute point of mine anyway, as numbers mean nothing.

t-t: "You apparently don't know the difference between a "race" of people or what a 'minority" is, and I don't appreciate being called a racist. One might wish that some people would keep their ignorance kind of private, eh?"

I'll admit my ignorance, and probably make it quite known. I hope I'm never so arrogant to think I know what's best for another country, or my country for that matter; and certainly not to the point where I would excuse the murder of thousands of innocent people.

Okay, you're not a racist. An American supremacist? Call it what you want, but you haven't addressed why an American life is worth a thousand times an Iraqi life.

t-t: "because it isn't self-defense does that some how cancels out that it is right and just?"

Not necessarily, but the ball's in your court to prove that it is right and just, despite it not being self-defense.

Keep in mind there are laws, and you can't just invade and occupy another country. I'm not a law freak, but in the case of governments, which have the capacity to execute crimes against humanity, it'd be insane to argue against them. That's why we have the constitution.

simian · 02-13-2003, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Three-Three
Oh pleeeze! Exactly what *race* are the Iraqis, anyway. Are they perhaps (gasp!) Caucasian!

Perhaps they are semites? From dictionary.com:

Quote:

A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.

Or perhaps not. I don't know history and geography well enough to know where the Babylonians lived, nor what constitutes the "Near East." I am not a big one on "racial" idenity, in any case.

Simian

yaktldg · 02-13-2003, 11:54 AM

lamma: "...the big bad Amercans showed up and started oppressing him."

I think you missed the point. Browne's point wasn't critical of the US. Agreeing at gunpoint means nothing. That's not to say we weren't correct in doing so. By the way, who isn't in violation of UN resolutions? Are we going to remain consistent with declaring war with all countries that fit such criteria? Except Israel, of course.

lamma: "When you start a war by invading a neighbor specifically to steal their natural resources and then get your ass kicked, guess what; you're not the one in charge of negotiations. "

Quote:

Again, Browne: "And when amateur historians remind us that Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 (as though that were an excuse for bullying Iraq forever) probably not one of them could tell you why Iraq invaded Kuwait. Are they aware of the oil disputes, the fact that Kuwait has more in common with Iraq proper than the northern Iraqi Kurds do, or that Kuwait not too long ago was prepared to become part of Iraq? Are they aware that the American ambassador to Iraq gave her blessing to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait just a few days before it occurred?"

I don't know.

Three-Three · 02-13-2003, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by simian
Perhaps they are semites? From dictionary.com:

Or perhaps not. I don't know history and geography well enough to know where the Babylonians lived, nor what constitutes the "Near East." I am not a big one on "racial" idenity, in any case.

Simian

Don't think that's a racial group but rather a language group. Someone told me once that Greeks and Italians were "Semites.' I think the primary racial groups are Caucasian, Black (I think they still use "Negroid"), Asian, the Aussie Aboriginals, Pacific islanders, and Native Americans.

But I am fairly sure that Arabs, Iranians and Indians are not considered a separate race from Russians, English or Danes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I think his point was that they were Arabic and Muslim, and I think I'm better because I'm American. Actually their language and religion mean little to me, but any culture which fosters fanaticism, harbors terrorists, and/or promotes theocratic or secular dictoratorships, is not the kind of culture I appreciate as being entirely *equal* to my own. I use the word equal here for lack of a better one at the moment....Of course, we have our faults. But we don't park our jets near school playgrounds, either.

yaktldg · 02-13-2003, 01:33 PM

t-t: "any culture which fosters fanaticism, harbors terrorists, and/or promotes...dictoratorships, is not the kind of culture I appreciate"

Well, many consider the Christian Right--who want to evangelize with bombs--fanatical. Falwell has his family and bank account to lose, so he don't strap bombs to his body, but encourages bombing from 30,000 feet in the air, which is far more deadly. You can't say brown people act any differently than you or I or Falwell would.

And as for promoting dictatorship, we've done quite a bit overseas.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2003, 11:16 AM	#24
HaysooChreesto! Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: SoCal USA Posts: 7,737	[QUOTE]Originally posted by gqtie [B]lamma: "The facts are that they have screwed around with the rules they agreed to and now it's time to pay the piper." "At the point of a gun"? That's rich. Yeah, there was Saddam, just minding his own business, planting some new date palms in his back garden, watching lovingly over his grandchildren when all of a sudden the big bad Amercans showed up and started oppressing him. When you start a war by invading a neighbor specifically to steal their natural resources and then get your ass kicked, guess what; you're not the one in charge of negotiations. The SOB was lucky that we didn't roll into Baghdad and take his pathetic carcass out right then and there. The cease-fire was pretty generous to Hussein IMO. He could've been and should've been taken out of power at that time.

02-13-2003, 11:33 AM	#26
yaktldg Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: usa Posts: 300	t-t: "Nobody thinks its necessary or the case? Are you living in one of those caves in Afghanistan? The polls have it about 60% at last glance." I thought he was a threat to the world? Hardly 60% of the world are worried about him to the extent to justify war. This was a mute point of mine anyway, as numbers mean nothing. t-t: "You apparently don't know the difference between a "race" of people or what a 'minority" is, and I don't appreciate being called a racist. One might wish that some people would keep their ignorance kind of private, eh?" I'll admit my ignorance, and probably make it quite known. I hope I'm never so arrogant to think I know what's best for another country, or my country for that matter; and certainly not to the point where I would excuse the murder of thousands of innocent people. Okay, you're not a racist. An American supremacist? Call it what you want, but you haven't addressed why an American life is worth a thousand times an Iraqi life. t-t: "because it isn't self-defense does that some how cancels out that it is right and just?" Not necessarily, but the ball's in your court to prove that it is right and just, despite it not being self-defense. Keep in mind there are laws, and you can't just invade and occupy another country. I'm not a law freak, but in the case of governments, which have the capacity to execute crimes against humanity, it'd be insane to argue against them. That's why we have the constitution.

02-13-2003, 01:33 PM	#30
yaktldg Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: usa Posts: 300	t-t: "any culture which fosters fanaticism, harbors terrorists, and/or promotes...dictoratorships, is not the kind of culture I appreciate" Well, many consider the Christian Right--who want to evangelize with bombs--fanatical. Falwell has his family and bank account to lose, so he don't strap bombs to his body, but encourages bombing from 30,000 feet in the air, which is far more deadly. You can't say brown people act any differently than you or I or Falwell would. And as for promoting dictatorship, we've done quite a bit overseas.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.