[s]Unregisted User wrote on 14:09, 5th Nov 2002:
Well guys don't get too upset.
Those are typical liberal views. They dodge the main issues and don't offer a viable solution.
Or perhaps they just don't see issues as being the world ending problems that ring wing views so delight in painting everything to be.
[hr]
"Very occasionally, if you really pay attention,
life doesn't suck."
-Joss Whedon
Home
TheSinner.net
War With Iraq
Re:
by The_Farwall on Tue Nov 05, 2002 7:39 pm
[s]Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.[/s]
-
The_Farwall
- Posts: 1628
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
liberals
by splittter on Wed Nov 06, 2002 1:10 am
I love it when 'liberal' is bandied about as a quasi-insult ... from the dictionary:
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
or
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
shit man, that hurts
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
or
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
shit man, that hurts
-
splittter
Um.. guys.. you just proved his point
by Guest on Wed Nov 06, 2002 9:10 pm
Hahaha!!! You guys are great! The unregistered user just proved his point.
You guys have nothing better to do then dispute being a liberal and boosting your own egos. No viable solution has been given by any of you and you seem to continue dodging my 5 simple questions.
Just felt the need to point out the obvious, carry on.
You guys have nothing better to do then dispute being a liberal and boosting your own egos. No viable solution has been given by any of you and you seem to continue dodging my 5 simple questions.
Just felt the need to point out the obvious, carry on.
-
Guest
Re:
by kensson on Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:30 pm
Dear Unregistered User,
Forgive me for taking so long to reply, I've been on holiday. In the interest of balance I will reply to your questions but no more:
-Do you think weapons inspectors should be allowed to all facilities in Iraq?
Yes
-Do you think inspectors should have full access when they deem necessary?
Yes
-Do you think high-ranking Iraqi officials should be given the opportunity to take their entire families to other countries to answer questions about Iraq?s weapons program if they choose to do so?
Yes
-Do you think Saddam?s regime should be held accountable if they do not cooperate or choose in the future not to cooperate with the weapons inspections?
It depends on what you mean by accountable, and what you mean by cooperate. I think some degree of subterfuge will take place, but that only persistent and serious transgressions would be a problem for me, as long as the arsenal is being reduced.
-Do you think Saddam would use or secretly share weapons of mass destruction with terrorist groups, knowing what he has done in the past 20 years?
No. As I've said before, Saddam Hussein's principal objective is to remain in power.
Forgive me for taking so long to reply, I've been on holiday. In the interest of balance I will reply to your questions but no more:
-Do you think weapons inspectors should be allowed to all facilities in Iraq?
Yes
-Do you think inspectors should have full access when they deem necessary?
Yes
-Do you think high-ranking Iraqi officials should be given the opportunity to take their entire families to other countries to answer questions about Iraq?s weapons program if they choose to do so?
Yes
-Do you think Saddam?s regime should be held accountable if they do not cooperate or choose in the future not to cooperate with the weapons inspections?
It depends on what you mean by accountable, and what you mean by cooperate. I think some degree of subterfuge will take place, but that only persistent and serious transgressions would be a problem for me, as long as the arsenal is being reduced.
-Do you think Saddam would use or secretly share weapons of mass destruction with terrorist groups, knowing what he has done in the past 20 years?
No. As I've said before, Saddam Hussein's principal objective is to remain in power.
-
kensson
Re:
by Guest on Fri Nov 08, 2002 8:13 pm
Splitter-"Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."
Sorry, but I never saw anything in your posts about favoring a new reform for Iraq. In fact, you clearly stated the old one worked well. Do what I say, not what I do? Hmmm, the H word comes to mind, but we’ve already exhausted that point. Tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others? Tolerant is one thing, naïve is another.
When a child can’t play nicely with other children in a sandbox, we are only so “tolerant” of his behavior. We either remove him from the sandbox or teach him how to play nicely. We don’t leave the child there and allow him to use a bat with the rest of the children.
Oh by the way, it looks like there will be a diplomatic solution after all. Just wanted to point that out to all the people that thought Bush and Blair were so set on a military approach over a diplomatic one.
Sorry, but I never saw anything in your posts about favoring a new reform for Iraq. In fact, you clearly stated the old one worked well. Do what I say, not what I do? Hmmm, the H word comes to mind, but we’ve already exhausted that point. Tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others? Tolerant is one thing, naïve is another.
When a child can’t play nicely with other children in a sandbox, we are only so “tolerant” of his behavior. We either remove him from the sandbox or teach him how to play nicely. We don’t leave the child there and allow him to use a bat with the rest of the children.
Oh by the way, it looks like there will be a diplomatic solution after all. Just wanted to point that out to all the people that thought Bush and Blair were so set on a military approach over a diplomatic one.
-
Guest
Re:
by splittter on Sat Nov 09, 2002 2:05 am
[s]Unregisted User wrote on 13:53, 8th Nov 2002:
blah balh, etc ...
Oh by the way, it looks like there will be a diplomatic solution after all. Just wanted to point that out to all the people that thought Bush and Blair were so set on a military approach over a diplomatic one.
you really think that ... you crack me up you really do
blah balh, etc ...
Oh by the way, it looks like there will be a diplomatic solution after all. Just wanted to point that out to all the people that thought Bush and Blair were so set on a military approach over a diplomatic one.
you really think that ... you crack me up you really do
-
splittter
Re:
by Guest on Tue Nov 12, 2002 2:05 am
I wrote- “Oh by the way, it looks like there will be a diplomatic solution after all. Just wanted to point that out to all the people that thought Bush and Blair were so set on a military approach over a diplomatic one.
Splitviews wrote- “you really think that ... you crack me up you really do”
I’m glad you find reality so amusing. Please notice how the article is entitled UN not US or UK.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/ ... index.html
Splitviews wrote- “you really think that ... you crack me up you really do”
I’m glad you find reality so amusing. Please notice how the article is entitled UN not US or UK.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/ ... index.html
-
Guest
War with Iraq will result in nothing but negatives
by Bman on Sun Dec 08, 2002 1:10 pm
Some things bother me about all this weapons of mass destruction talk from Bush. It is a good thing to disarm Iraq of course, but if your going to disarm him and Iraq, we need to take the same steps of precaution against similar threats. North Korea for example, has ADMITTED to having nuclear weapons as of right now. They have also completly refused any kind of weapons inspectors whatsoever. I have not heard ONE thing about North Korea since the article explaining they had nuclear weapons. And the funny thing is, Bush isn't doing anything about it! It's also funny that North Korea doesn't have a whole lot of any natural resource (such as OIL) that could be useful to us.........
We are completly ignoring it, and that is wrong, and very hipocritical of the Bush administration and something needs to be done about it.
I disagree almost totally with President Bush on decisions he has made in the past. Mostly for him being a conservitive republican, and me being a liberal democrat. But also because he is making a bad name for the country I live in. Personaly I do not think he should be anywhere near presidential status. I don't agree that someone who's daddy bought him his way into college, and helped him legally dodge the draft for Vietnam should be running our country. Just put yourself in Saddam's shoes once, and you can just feel how war-hungry Bush is. All he is about is war. I have a very strong feeling that even if Iraq continues to cooperate completly and lists all their weapons programs, the U.S. will still go to war. I have personal friends living in Iraq right now, i talked to one of them recently. She told me that the only thing people are worring about in her area is American bombs. Now if the Iraqi civilians aren't even worried, why she we be? I truely believe Saddam does not currently have and weapons of mass destruction, or is in any way a threat to the United States. But I do see the United States a threat to Iraq and their rich oil industry.
We are completly ignoring it, and that is wrong, and very hipocritical of the Bush administration and something needs to be done about it.
I disagree almost totally with President Bush on decisions he has made in the past. Mostly for him being a conservitive republican, and me being a liberal democrat. But also because he is making a bad name for the country I live in. Personaly I do not think he should be anywhere near presidential status. I don't agree that someone who's daddy bought him his way into college, and helped him legally dodge the draft for Vietnam should be running our country. Just put yourself in Saddam's shoes once, and you can just feel how war-hungry Bush is. All he is about is war. I have a very strong feeling that even if Iraq continues to cooperate completly and lists all their weapons programs, the U.S. will still go to war. I have personal friends living in Iraq right now, i talked to one of them recently. She told me that the only thing people are worring about in her area is American bombs. Now if the Iraqi civilians aren't even worried, why she we be? I truely believe Saddam does not currently have and weapons of mass destruction, or is in any way a threat to the United States. But I do see the United States a threat to Iraq and their rich oil industry.
-
Bman
Re:
by puzzled on Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:00 pm
[s]Unregisted User Bman wrote on 07:47, 8th Dec 2002:
I have not heard ONE thing about North Korea since the article explaining they had nuclear weapons. And the funny thing is, Bush isn't doing anything about it!
Once a country has nuclear weapons in any serious number, there is nothing the rest of the world can do about it - they have joined the nuclear club and so can not be pushed around. This means that the international community must try to stop people getting nuclear weapons, by acting before they have them.
I have not heard ONE thing about North Korea since the article explaining they had nuclear weapons. And the funny thing is, Bush isn't doing anything about it!
Once a country has nuclear weapons in any serious number, there is nothing the rest of the world can do about it - they have joined the nuclear club and so can not be pushed around. This means that the international community must try to stop people getting nuclear weapons, by acting before they have them.
-
puzzled
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2002 11:18 pm
The US is a "rogue" country?
by Ticked off American on Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:21 pm
Ludicrous. We're just looking out for our best interests.
This is the comment that has me baffled: "It's not the job of the US to determine who is in power in Iraq. It is the Iraqi's decision, and their decision alone"...or something to that effect. Sorry if I didn't quote it verbatim.
WHAT?????? Are you kidding me? It is ABSOLUTELY within our right to remove someone from power if that person or regime poses a significant threat to our way of life...that way of life being FREEDOM.
Our current President is only preparing to finish what his father SHOULD have completed.
The US didn't instigate this escalation. That mule-headed, power hungry, ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein is the one who is dragging this thing out.
If he isn't removed from power, guess who fills his shoes after he's gone? That's right - his son Uday (Oday?). If the Iraqi people are oppressed now, wait until he takes command...he's even more ruthless than Saddam.
The US is not a blood-thirsty, war-mongering nation. For anyone who disagrees, I suggest you read up on American history. The United States has been in many wars. How many of those wars did we instigate (Civil War excluded)? One...the American-Indian War.
We are a nation that seeks to preserve peace. Unfortunately, you sometimes have to prepare for war to secure that peace.
If President Bush is such a "rogue", then why didn't he attack Iraq in 2000 immediately after taking his Oath of Office?
One other post I'd like to mention. Someone wondered why the US only seems to focus on certain atrocities - why we confront some, but seemingly ignore others. I can't believe this has to be explained, but here goes...
WE CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH! Yes, we are the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world; however, we can only handle so many things at a time. Instead, we must prioritize based on severity, long-term consequences, and what, if any, impact is has on the American way of life (which, again, is FREEDOM).
How many nations/countries have we saved, by financial means, peaceful negotiations, or military strength? When it comes to providing aid to others, no other nation even comes CLOSE to what the United States has done. Hell, we forego the needs of many in our OWN country to ensure that other people around the world are provided for. We didn't ASK to be the watchdog of the world - but our wealth and power has thrust us into that position. You may ask, "How did the US get so wealthy and powerful?". Simple...
F-R-E-E-D-O-M
I keep mentioning this word, because the people of Iraq (and other countries) have no idea what this word truly means.
Everything that the US has done, is doing, and will do is all in the name of PEACE.
And all some of you can do is piss and moan about us? I guess that's gratitude for you...
Tell you what. How about the United States adopts a new policy? We'll close off our borders to all foreigners...we'll no longer be "the melting pot" or the "land of opportunity" for outsiders. If you weren't born in the United States, your ass gets shipped back to your homeland. Then, we'll stop providing assistance to EVERYONE except ourselves...the hungry, the war-torn, the oppressed...screw 'em all! We'll just worry about ourselves. And when ruthless dictators get too powerful, we'll just lob a nuke or two and be done with it.
You know, since we "don't care" and we "haven't provided assistance" (like in the case of the 100,000 in Iraq), then we shouldn't worry about who lives or dies when a nuke hits.
Of course, we couldn't do that. Then you all would be bitching about how we have all of this wealth and power, but refuse to help others with it.
Don't you people get it? If we didn't care about innocent lives, we would have turned the entire Middle East into a sheet of glass by now!
And for what it's worth, NOBODY has EVER used a nuclear weapon in a war. America used ATOMIC weapons in WWII. And guess what? It worked!
Be thankful for the United States of America and its closest allies. Without us, this whole world would be in a state of anarchy.
This is the comment that has me baffled: "It's not the job of the US to determine who is in power in Iraq. It is the Iraqi's decision, and their decision alone"...or something to that effect. Sorry if I didn't quote it verbatim.
WHAT?????? Are you kidding me? It is ABSOLUTELY within our right to remove someone from power if that person or regime poses a significant threat to our way of life...that way of life being FREEDOM.
Our current President is only preparing to finish what his father SHOULD have completed.
The US didn't instigate this escalation. That mule-headed, power hungry, ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein is the one who is dragging this thing out.
If he isn't removed from power, guess who fills his shoes after he's gone? That's right - his son Uday (Oday?). If the Iraqi people are oppressed now, wait until he takes command...he's even more ruthless than Saddam.
The US is not a blood-thirsty, war-mongering nation. For anyone who disagrees, I suggest you read up on American history. The United States has been in many wars. How many of those wars did we instigate (Civil War excluded)? One...the American-Indian War.
We are a nation that seeks to preserve peace. Unfortunately, you sometimes have to prepare for war to secure that peace.
If President Bush is such a "rogue", then why didn't he attack Iraq in 2000 immediately after taking his Oath of Office?
One other post I'd like to mention. Someone wondered why the US only seems to focus on certain atrocities - why we confront some, but seemingly ignore others. I can't believe this has to be explained, but here goes...
WE CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH! Yes, we are the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world; however, we can only handle so many things at a time. Instead, we must prioritize based on severity, long-term consequences, and what, if any, impact is has on the American way of life (which, again, is FREEDOM).
How many nations/countries have we saved, by financial means, peaceful negotiations, or military strength? When it comes to providing aid to others, no other nation even comes CLOSE to what the United States has done. Hell, we forego the needs of many in our OWN country to ensure that other people around the world are provided for. We didn't ASK to be the watchdog of the world - but our wealth and power has thrust us into that position. You may ask, "How did the US get so wealthy and powerful?". Simple...
F-R-E-E-D-O-M
I keep mentioning this word, because the people of Iraq (and other countries) have no idea what this word truly means.
Everything that the US has done, is doing, and will do is all in the name of PEACE.
And all some of you can do is piss and moan about us? I guess that's gratitude for you...
Tell you what. How about the United States adopts a new policy? We'll close off our borders to all foreigners...we'll no longer be "the melting pot" or the "land of opportunity" for outsiders. If you weren't born in the United States, your ass gets shipped back to your homeland. Then, we'll stop providing assistance to EVERYONE except ourselves...the hungry, the war-torn, the oppressed...screw 'em all! We'll just worry about ourselves. And when ruthless dictators get too powerful, we'll just lob a nuke or two and be done with it.
You know, since we "don't care" and we "haven't provided assistance" (like in the case of the 100,000 in Iraq), then we shouldn't worry about who lives or dies when a nuke hits.
Of course, we couldn't do that. Then you all would be bitching about how we have all of this wealth and power, but refuse to help others with it.
Don't you people get it? If we didn't care about innocent lives, we would have turned the entire Middle East into a sheet of glass by now!
And for what it's worth, NOBODY has EVER used a nuclear weapon in a war. America used ATOMIC weapons in WWII. And guess what? It worked!
Be thankful for the United States of America and its closest allies. Without us, this whole world would be in a state of anarchy.
-
Ticked off American
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests