Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe problem with your statement is that, depending on who you believe to be just, anyone can kill anyone else.
Let us adults kill the evil bastards that need killing. And don't be surprised when acting like a child gets you a little yawn and frown from the adults of the world.
Say I disagree with the war on Iraq. I could well believe that Bush and Blair are evil bastards. Would I therefor be justified in killing either or both of them?
Your reasoning seems sympathetic to the war on terrorism.
Far be it for me to judge your motives, but it seems to me that bombing people into believing you are right has never worked. Let me use a famous quote:
"The tighter you close your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
So true.
Originally posted by shavixmirI'll have to be quite honest. What you say is quite beyond understanding. There is an underlying, and hopefully agreed upon notion that people who kill randomly and for no reason, are the bad guys. You, being a liberal will struggle with that notion. Children are want when it comes to evaluating good and bad. It is to their benefit to feign a lack of awarness. Therein they procure more "stuff" for their greedy little mitts. But not to worry. There is a reason why adults are usually put in charge. I'll try to help you understand the obvious.
The problem with your statement is that, depending on who you believe to be just, anyone can kill anyone else.
Say I disagree with the war on Iraq. I could well believe that Bush and Blair are evil bastards. Would I therefor be justified in killing either or both of them?
Your reasoning seems sympathetic to the war on terrorism.
Far be it for me to ...[text shortened]... er you close your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
So true.
You can kill or try to kill anyone you wish. That is off the point of discussion. It would fit my image of you if you did, however.
My motives are quite straight forward. Protect innocent people from being killed by the likes of Saddam by killing him, and all like him.
The death of a murdering coward gives satisfaction, no end. Especially to those yet to be murdered.
"The tighter you close your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Jeez! And all this time I have wasted at the sea shore squeezing sand. Thanks for straightening me out on my metaphoric journey!
Are you suggesting Bush and Blair have not killed innocent people in Afghanistan or Iraq?
Are you suggesting that death squads in South and central America are not led by CIA trained men from the School of the America's in Georgia?
Come now!
You are painting an over-simplistic picture of good versus evil. This isn't star wars or lord of the rings.
Take a look at the amount of assissination attempts the US has tried on Castro. How innocent is that? Not very.
What about the Vietnam war?
What about Bloody Sunday?
Blair and Bush are about as innocent as Ted Bundy. The US and UK are just as guilty of human rights abuses in every sense of the word as Saddam Hussein.
"How can you compare the them?"
Hiroshima. For example.
You can stand on your soap box and spout your right-wing, good vs. bad rhetoric until the F16's fly home lad, the fact of the matter is that one man's good is another man's evil.
You are the child you proclaim others to be. Children don't understand the nuances of world politics. They are either right or they are wrong. Alas, the world isn't like that. You can't just wag your finger and declare one party so wrong they should suffer death. For if you can do that, then so can everyone else.
Surely you wouldn't want the rightious finger of justice-by-death wagging at you?
Originally posted by shavixmirShort and to the point. Innocent people are always killed in war. The question is whether the war is for a good cause or not a good cause. I know. You never will.
Are you suggesting Bush and Blair have not killed innocent people in Afghanistan or Iraq?
Are you suggesting that death squads in South and central America are not led by CIA trained men from the School of the America's in Georgia?
Come now!
You are painting an over-simplistic picture of good versus evil. This isn't star wars or lord of the rings. ...[text shortened]... one else.
Surely you wouldn't want the rightious finger of justice-by-death wagging at you?
Point two. I have never been in the CIA. How can I know what they do? The fact that they might screw up royally doesn't surprise me. They recruit liberals intentionally, you know.
As to Castro. Too bad they missed.
Vietnam? Too bad we lost and Pol Pot won. Learn from history.
Hiroshima (and Nagasaki)... Never start a war you can't win. Big lesson there. You will get what you deserve, every time.
Which bloody Sunday? There have been several.
I'll wag my finger as I please, thank you. As you say... if I deserve to die, I wouldn't fight it. That is the difference between an adult and a child. Let me write down your amazing cogitation.... Lets see... "One Mans Good Is Another Mans Evil." Wow. I am just absolutely stunned at the profundity. How about "Two Mens Evil Is Two Mens Good". Or we can carry it to the next level... "There is No Difference Between Murder And Love". Then we can summarize... "If One Man Murders and Another Doesn't, They Are The Same Man!" I think I am getting the hang of this sand box leftist jargon. Oooh! Wait... I feel it coming on... "One Womans Evil Is Indeed Every Womans Evil!" "Two Mens Goodness Is Three Horny Teenagers Dream".
Speaking of the F16's. You're just jealous, and rightfully so, that they seem to work most of the time. I'm sure you would want them to crash and burn, to ensure peace in the world, if you could have any wish you desired.
Don't throw the bad yuck yuck on your playmates in the sand box, kid. Oh, and don't worry. You might grow up eventually, if the mean kids let you.
Originally posted by flexmoreThey were and are. (the big losers) Into the unknown future. But, you get what you are not willing to fight for. Let's compose a little song called "I'm A Boat Person Now, I'm Not Behind The Plow", and sing it with those merry folk for the next hundred years of commie progress, shall we? Here is to the next dialectic and another ten year plan! Cheers.
the vietnamese people were the big losers.
this is a common theme in wars : the people who live in the country where the war is fought ALWAYS lose, regardless of which side wins, and what the cause is or was.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHow quaint.
They were and are. (the big losers) Into the unknown future. But, you get what you are not willing to fight for. Let's compose a little song called "I'm A Boat Person Now, I'm Not Behind The Plow", and sing it with those merry folk for the next hundred years of commie progress, shall we? Here is to the next dialectic and another ten year plan! Cheers.
The song probably has the same tune as: "I'm trailer park trash, I don't beat my wife." when Billy-Bob and Sue-Ann slur the words in glee at the next 100 years of capitalism....
Originally posted by shavixmirOh, You do recognize it. Thought so. Hows your sewer smelling today? Enjoying the swamp gas? I'll take billy bob and sue ann over a self professes sewer dweller like you any day. Especially if they don't smell of rats like you.
How quaint.
The song probably has the same tune as: "I'm trailer park trash, I don't beat my wife." when Billy-Bob and Sue-Ann slur the words in glee at the next 100 years of capitalism....
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou said it yourself.
Short and to the point. Innocent people are always killed in war. The question is whether the war is for a good cause or not a good cause. I know. You never will.
Point two. I have never been in the CIA. How can I know what they do? The fact that they might screw up royally doesn't surprise me. They recruit liberals intentionally, you know.
As t ...[text shortened]... sand box, kid. Oh, and don't worry. You might grow up eventually, if the mean kids let you.
"Dont start a war you cant finish", this is exactly what the American led coalition and the terrosrists are doing. There are six billion plus people in this world. How many innocents will die on all sides before enoug is enough?
And by the way Pol Pot was a Khmer Rouge leader in Cambodia amd had nothing to do with the VIetnam war.
1 edit
Originally posted by nook7That is your hope. That we won't win. Besides, I said "Don't Start A War You can't win." I didn't say "Don't Finish a war that you are drug into." See WWI, WWII, Korea, Gulf War. And every other war we have been drug into because cowards won't defend themselves. Don't count on us losing. As to innocents dying... too bad ain't it. It's enough to make you realize that it is not a soft and cuddly world, no matter how much we pretend it is.
You said it yourself.
"Dont start a war you cant finish", this is exactly what the American led coalition and the terrosrists are doing. There are six billion plus people in this world. How many innocents will die on all sides before enoug ...[text shortened]... leader in Cambodia amd had nothing to do with the VIetnam war.
As to an estimate as to the casualties of this current war... let's see. I think it will last about a hundred years. In ten years, when nukes come into play, I expect there will be no fewer than one hundred and fifty million dead by the ending of it. Give or take a hundred million.
So by your attitude, Let's just surrender. Kill ourselves or Join Islam. Right?
You must be a liberal. I noticed your inablility to link the fall of Viet Nam to the commies to the IMMEDIATE rise of communism in the bordering state. Just like all those evil conservatives said would happen. Ever hear of the domino theory? It was absolutely... dead accurate. Pardon the pun.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThat was a good pun!
That is your hope. That we won't win. Besides, I said "Don't Start A War You can't win." I didn't say "Don't Finish a war that you are drug into." See WWI, WWII, Korea, Gulf War. And every other war we have been drug into because cowards won't defend themselves. Don't count on us losing. As to innocents dying... too bad ain't it. It's eno ...[text shortened]... pen. Ever hear of the domino theory? It was absolutely... dead accurate. Pardon the pun.
l am not a liberal, l find that suggestion that l am quite funny. Where l am from, liberals are the people supporting George Bush's coalition.
It is amusing that in many of your posts (which are invariable amusing, insulting ,and to the point) people who do not hold the same view as yourself are labelled liberals or communists.
l do not think at all that anyone should roll over and die or give into anyone. The fact that l am against wholesale destruction and the unjust death of innocents hardly puts me in the same camp as terrorists who are indiscriminate in their attacks.
What l am saying (briefly) is that l do not support democratically elected governments adopting tactics that can easily be likened to the very people they purport to be against.
How this makes me a liberal or places me in any of the categorys you like to use defys logic.
You and l are lucky enough to be able to express our opinions which are not as polarised as you may think. Watch the freedom of expression disappear in our democratically elected governments ,so they can root out the terrorists hiding in their millions amongst us.
Cheers,
Martin
Originally posted by nook7You are not a liberal. You just want to let murdering dictators stay in power. Am I right? Same question to you as John Kerry couldn't answer yesterday. "If you were president, would you have invaded Iraq and replaced Saddam?" I dare you to answer. He couldn't. He just sputtered.
That was a good pun!
l am not a liberal, l find that suggestion that l am quite funny. Where l am from, liberals are the people supporting George Bush's coalition.
It is amusing that in many of your posts (which are invariable amusing, insulting ,and to the point) people who do not hold the same view as yourself are labelled liberals or communists.
l ...[text shortened]... nts ,so they can root out the terrorists hiding in their millions amongst us.
Cheers,
Martin
I would have. The reason is obvious. He is a murderous bugger that needs killing.
If you answer that you wouldn't have, or that you would let the UN do it, then "Who are you trying to kid?" Don't even go there. You know that is a convenient way of saying that you really do support Sadaam and all murderous buggers over the rights of individual Iraqi's to pursue life free of a dictator.
If you answer no, then you by default support suppression of people living in tyranny.
Most people who are labelled "liberals or communists" by me are exactly that. Some, like Rob, don't dare admit it. Some aren't even consciously aware of it. Most, I think. But then that would require actually asking "If I support Communists And Dictators by opposing their enemies, or try to destroy the free market, Am I One of them?" That is not a question a child can ask, nevermind answer. And all leftists are children.
I read this six times, just to see if you are semantically lost...
"The fact that l am against wholesale destruction (so, you are against Saddam) and the unjust death of innocents (again, you are against Saddam) hardly puts me in the same camp as terrorists who are indiscriminate in their attacks." (Which is a perfect description of Saddam, whom you now seem to be defending. Help!). What am I missing? How many "Indiscriminate" thousands were put to death by his regime? Quite a few. Logic? Please demonstrate a little.
Which Wholesale Destuction? The Iran/Iraq War? You are not against the unjust death of innocents. You want Sadaam back. You can't have it both ways, you know. Or do you claim he is a good guy? Make up your mind. Don't be a child. Actually take a stance. For him or against him. You can't have it both ways. Children can, but not adults. We have to answer to the world. Children don't, for some reason I have never figured out.
I actually came to tears laughing when I got to the part about defying logic. You are for Sadaam, deplore wanton destuction, think it's a good thing he's gone and see no relationship to him being forcibly removed. That about cover it? <chokes on another spate of laughter>
As to the paranoia... yada yada... I don't worry about that any more than about getting audited in the forums. There isn't room for bogie men in the adult world. It is filled with too many real dolts to take much notice of a few government, politically correct, sensitive agents drinking coffee and trying to figure out which hand to use at the toilet.
While we may not agree on many things , l enjoy your responses. You have a great deal of emotion (serious or otherwise) in your posts.
i find it interesting when people put words in others mouths. You want answers to how l feel sure. For starters you ask what l would do , ala John Kerry.
There would be no need to go to Iraq , because Sadamm would not have been propped up, armed and funded from the early 1980's by France, Britain ,Ruusia (USSR) and the US. And therefore would not have been able to build an arsenal of (US Supplied) chemical agents to gas his own people.
If l was president (hard as l am not a US citizen) l would not involve my country in activity that have gone on. Simple. Clean hands , clean conscience, not a hypocrite.
l do not support Sadamm or any other dictator that hold power by unjust means.
lf foreign governments do not get involved in the affairs of other nations , and bring in , replace, have a coup, replace in a continual cycle people like Sadamm , we would not have half the problems.
You are supporting the very (with a little help from their friends) administration that put the evil bloke into power , and was buddy buddy with him for over ten years, and turned a blind eye to all his crimes because it suited them to have him in power. Hypocrites, the lot.
Any other questions?
You are debating a dead (no pun intended) argument. As am l.
We westerners caused these problems by our colonialism , with no regard for the social effects on these countries, and when they complain etc, we re-invade them.
l admire the efforts made by the current US adminisatration to at least take a stand , yet l question the methods they are using.
Cheers,
Martin
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyCan't this wanker be banned? He doesn't play chess, he just insults people on the forums.
Oh, You do recognize it. Thought so. Hows your sewer smelling today? Enjoying the swamp gas? I'll take billy bob and sue ann over a self professes sewer dweller like you any day. Especially if they don't smell of rats like you.
Originally posted by iamatigerI disagree. Terrorist groups need 'friendly' countries in which they are relatively free, or even encouraged to prosper and grow - to recruit new members, to train them, store weapons in, plan operations from, and so on. Al-Qaeda used Afghanistan extensively for these purposes. ETA uses Basque territory. Taking away these safe havens will make it more difficult for them to launch operations. Also, rogue states that produce WMDs and could potentially pass them to terrorists can be neutralised (with the side effect of their people getting to enjoy democracy), and such action could deter other states like Libya. Regardless of whether Iraq had WMDs at the time of the invasion, the West was right to suspect them of it. They certainly could have done more to convince the West otherwise. The worst scenario is if terrorist groups get hold of WMDs. If preventing this entails invading a few countries, and simultaneously giving democracy to their people, let's get on with it. In the meantime the US and the West in general must put more effort into transforming Afghanistan and Iraq into prosperous free states. Let Germany, Japan and Italy stand as examples of what can be achieved with the 'war now - rebuild later' approach...
Obviously invading a few more counties will REALLY show those terrorists! Forgive my language, but what a load of bollox.
Terrorists do not govern countries and do not exist as any kind of identifiable deographic group that can be invaded or wiped out. Contrary to what some Americans might think, conquering Iraq did not hurt one hair of Bin-Laden's hea ...[text shortened]... itics, economics and religion - not via missiles, soldiers or any other kind of military force.