*DAMN R6 Forum

http://www3.sympatico.ca/car121/iraq-explained.gif

Why was this deleted when I posted it like 10 minutes ago?

It was deleted because you broke one of the oldest forum rules...but since this thread has posts, I will have the readjust it for you. Anyway, this picture is very very old.

That's pretty fucking funny Collin.  Classic.

how do u put this pic in the post? I have pretty much the same...but bit better  ;D

Typical world NoObz who know nothing on the subject but would like to make a joke of it. And to all you idiots who complain about Bush and whine about no war or think this all about oil, you can all suck a fat pole, it's noobs like you who let fuckin scum dictators like saddam stay in power. Now go learn your Iraqi history about this bastard and maybe you'll shut the fuck up. You lil kids with big mouths and idiotic theories make me fuckin sick.
 :-[ ::)

Kilzo

So you say all Newbies are Liberal and all vets on DAMN are conservative. Dictators? a dictator does not get thee popular vote. Usually is in power because of family influences and probably drinks a lot. Reminds me of someone besides Saddam.

OMFG OMFG grow up stupid idiot. If u go back into the history of Iraq, u will prolly see that the weapons they had and mb still have came from america. And go back in US-history and learn about ur fucking bastard and his fucking dad and mb u shut the fuck up bitch. Bush isnt better than saddam, bush is also a fucking dictator! I dont say that saddam is a good guy, but either is bushie-baby. So dont call us noobs, we just dont let america brainwashing us. Kilzo ur the kid, pay attention on what u write son of a bitch.

BAH

Abs, unfortunately, as much as you'd like to think Bush is a dictator, he isn't. It's impossible to have a dictator with the current system of checks and balances the United States government uses. Sorry to disappoint you. Now, instead of just flapping your jaw with your anti-American sentiments and such, why don't you post some evidence or spend some time thinking before you post. You'll get a lot more support if you do.

Hehe, pretty much all of the original members of DAMN are liberal including both founders.

For the record, Saddam was elected as the leader of Iraq (even if he ran unopposed and anyone who ran against him would be killed...and anyone who didn't vote for him would also be in danger).

Don't bring up the Iraqi elections as a defence for Saddam, just don't.

That's damn funny Colin.

Who said I was defending Saddam, didn't I make it clear that the election was a complete fraud?

Kilzo, I like you man, but that was a pretty stupid post.

Political humor is funny, no matter which side you are on.  You know me, I'm not a liberal or conservative.  I'm against Saddam, but not pro Bush.  And I'm not by any stretch a kid (except maybe at heart).  

And Kilzo, if you don't think that Bush is being pressured by his backers in the oil industry, you are not looking at the whole picture either.  He is.  He isn't a saint.  It doesn't mean he's doing the wrong thing, because I don't think he is doing the wrong thing in the case of Iraq (just in the case of what he's doing to our environment).  

So, get over it.  It's humor, and it was funny.  I can laugh at it even though I don't agree with it.  You sounded like the conservative version of Bander there.  Almost as bad as Spaz.

So don't be Bander man.  Don't hate everyone that doesn't share your opinion.  Just hate the dumbasses.  

Bondo, Kami could well have been talking to Zaitsev, the guy that thinks Saddam isn't really a dictator because there was an "election".

Zaitsev, dictators have faked elections in the past.  Everyone knows it's a fraud.  Don't be such an idiot.  The reason you are that bad is because you think being against Bush means defending everything on the other side.  The world isn't that black and white.  Defending Saddam and Iraq as much as you do, with such fucked up wrong information is a joke.

Wow.

I posted that as a joke. Everyone takes this so seriously. If you think you could, actually hell if you KNOW you could do a better job then Bush by all means become an American citizen, become President and do a better job.

Bondo, I wasn't refering to you, I was directing that to everyone who think that you can use the Iraqi elections as a defence for Saddam and his Baath party.

bah bucc. bah. it isnt about fucking oil. if it was all about oil, why dont we invade saudi arabia? oil will be a bonus. i doubt it will be a deciding factor.

zait, ur an idiot. bush's family connections had little to do with teh whole thing. at one point, i remember hearing that buch won florida after the recount, but i doubt that is true. i'll have to look into it. on a side note, could u image what post-9/11 would have been like if gore were in office? thanks floridian voters.

oh, zait, so u say that two young european are liberals? wtf! how can that be!. i think kilzo was using noobs in a more general sense than the damn boards.

saddam claimed there was 100% voter turn out, too. : D

absolon, i don't know which country you are from, but i hope that terrorists target you next. i fucking hate you damned euros. bander included, mauti excluded. when the terrorists start flying planes into ur buildings, i'm guessing ur tune will change. when i was in sweden last summer, protesters we throwing stones at police officers to protest americans stance on environmental issues. lol. silly euros.

p.s. kilzo. i love you. wanna have sex?

Just a fucking joke, wow these guys have it shoved up there real hard.

Spaz, you have no idea what the fuck happened in Gothenburg last summer, it wasn't just about Bush and his policies, it's way more complicated than that. And by the way, terrorists won't start flying into our buildings (except perhaps in Britain). The rest of what you wrote just doesn't deserve any response.

Kami, I'm not defending Spaz here, but don't act like terrorism isn't a global issue either.  I can go grab old news articles about terrorists in Germany, France, Japan and Itally to name a few (not even bringing the PIRA into it).  I remember names like "Action Directorate" from my youth, so it shouldn't be that hard to look up.  Terrorism wasn't invented in the middle east, and they aren't the only ones that play that tune.

TIME web poll, 436,000 voters

82% say the US is the biggest threat to world peace NOT iraq NOT north korea US

I'm sure there was a point you were trying to make there Zaitsev.  Try to say it next time.

Was it that the liberals got out the vote?  Was it that some liberal made a poll-bot?  Or was it that you think that is an accurate number and means something?

Last national poll I saw by a non-biased organization (like Gallop) had it close to 50/50 on who thought we need military intervention in Iraq.  That was a few months ago, but I havne't looked in a while, so numbers may have changed in either direction.

So please, make a point.

Bucc,

I don't think it's neccessary or fair to label the voters in that poll as liberal.

I personally think that the US is the greatest threat to world peace for one reason: We are about to attack Iraq. This isn't opinion, it is fact. Therefore the US being a threat to world peace isn't a good or bad thing, it's just a reflection of fact. Just because people see the US as the greatest threat to world peace doesn't mean they think we shouldn't attack Iraq.

Alaric, it was sarcasim, not an accusation.  Next time I will use the <sarcasim> tag.  My point wasn't that it was wrong, my point was throwing out a number like that without context is pretty much useless and can be seen in many lights.

Okay, I get it now. It can be though to read sarcasm through text sometimes. ;D

And I agree that tossing out numbers like this is foolish. Polls and statistics are worthless anyway. Knowing how many people are on which side shouldn't affect your decision anyway, it only shows that the sheep-herd mentality is as strong today as it ever was.

I saw that poll actually, even voted on it, it was on the TIME webpage. The question behind it was really angled though so I don't think people who opposed it actually answered...

Bucc, I'm saying that right now, in mainland Europe (especially not in Scandinavia), there is no real terrorist threat. That's the naked truth.

And I'm saying, so what.  Mainland Europe has had it's share of terrorism from Spain and France to Itally.  Does this mean it was the fault of their people or governments?  No.  So your pointing out that planes aren't going to be flying into your buildings was pretty stupid.  It sure makes it sound like you are saying terrorism is our fault, and it could be avoided if we were more like you.  Well, we avoided it a hell of a lot longer the Europe did, does that make us better?  NO.  

So stop (everyone) making it sound like the USA got what it deserved with terrorist attacks.  Terrorists are criminals.  NOBODY DESERVES THEM.  

Two years ago, you may have found an American dumb enough (or thousands of them) to make that same kind of remark about terrorists Kami, how quick things can change.  And that is also the naked truth.  So get off your high horse.

Nobody deserves terrorism but it's not like terrorists jump against everyone for no reason.

No, they jump at whomever they want, for whatever reason they want.  You are right, they can't jump against EVERYONE, not all at once.  

But what's to stop them from painting a target, wrongly, on you next week?  

They are criminals.  You cannot defend their motives like they think logically and reason things out.  If they did, they wouldn't use terrorism, now would they?  They wouldn't use Islam or God or the Koran or the Bible to justify what they are doing (since Islam, the Koran, etc etc denounce it).  Stop acting like the US has brought it onto itself, and that it could never happen to you.  It could, and there would be nothing you could do to stop it.  All it takes is a couple people with extreme views that don't agree with you, and BOOM.  Right and Wrong don't make a difference.  

Virtually every country has terrorist problems. The US has had it relatively easy for a long time, but it now appears we are the primary target. No one can argue that we don't live the most decadent lifestyles in the world. I think that while each country will have their own problems, as long as we are on top financially we will be target #1.

Oh, I can, I can.  I agree with the rest of what you said, but decadent is a very subjective term.  One the one hand, I could think that some of the seedier places in Asia were much more decadent, with the selling of 13 year old girls and boys into the sex trade.  I don't think that slavery has been erased from the face of the earth yet either.

So decident is all in the eye of the beholder.  We are a highly visible target, but saying we are the most decadent lifestyle is a bit much for me to swallow.

By US Senator Robert Byrd Senate Floor Speech Wednesday, February 12, 2003:
 
 To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war. And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together?

There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11. Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher. This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders. In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come. Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on. The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land. Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace? And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein? Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income? In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings. To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2003/0120/cover/view_eno.html

Just thought I'd stick this link in somewhere, I've been sitting on it for a while, please do read the American view as well. It's quite interesting.

Wow, that is a smart and well spoken man...I couldn't find one thing to disagree about in the whole thing.

As for the Time thing...this American side one has the guy whining about where Europe's compassion after 9/11 went...well, maybe they are human and thus were upset over the loss of life and honored it, but maybe they don't let that last forever and excuse problems that follow.  They have a right to have a problem with the US even though they were friendly in that time of hurt.

Obviously if you've heard my view in the past I agree with the Europe point that having the social programs is an advantage.  Anyway that isn't really the point of this.

Actually Bondo, I found a bunch to disagree with, but 99% of it is stuff we've covered.  Like his complete disregard for Iraq's responsibilities in this matter.  He paints the picture as liberal as it can be, and that's his right.  

But there is plenty there to disagree with.

And you have to love the old "a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children"  (again, sarcasim for those that don't recognize it).  massive?  unprovoked?  And why does it matter if 50% are children?  China could be 50% children and would pose a huge threat if they wanted to.  No, that was there just to provoke an image.  

Obviously someone that sees just as much of the truth as Bush, but from the other side.  Think about that.  (and you must remember, no matter what you accuse me of, I don't back or defend Bush.  I think neither of them see things correctly.  And no, this guy is no closer.  Bush just may blindly stumble into doing the right thing is what my story has been).

Since you question massive and unprovoked I'll touch on those.

Massive: Largest military buildup since Vietnam.

Unprovoked: Haven't seen Iraq attack or even pose a significant risk to our safety.  UN resolution breaking doesn't become a provocation because only the UN can choose to enforce that.

You commented before that Iraq is on parole and needs to prove their innocence rather than us needing to prove their guilt.  You are wrong on that when it comes to an attack without UN approval.  The UN resolution that puts them on parole is only for the UN to enforce.  If we plan on attacking outside of that, then we DO need to prove their guilt with more than "they broke the UN resolution".

So, this buildup has already happened?

Second point, Massive was the mobalization in WW2 (something in the neighborhood of 4 million American soilders), Viet Nam never came close to that.  (Increasing the number of soilders past 200,000 was a huge deal back then).  It seems more "massive" then it was because of how long it lasted, and the increased frequency of replacing troops (compared to WW2).

Massive is relative.  And guess what, this politician was grandstanding.  SHOCK.  One that can talk out of his ass just like Bush.  GASP.  I can safely say that he was massively exagerating his case while understating or omitting the negative.  :o


And the current administration has been working within the UN as part of the UN.  OH GOLLY GEE WHIZ WALLY, DOESN'T ANYONE SEE WHAT STEPS ARE REALLY BEING TAKEN?

Oh, one other thing.  They are collecting intelligence that says Iraq is also a significant risk.  They aren't required to present that to the public (but to Congress), as telling people that their "phones are bugged" and other things kinda drys up the source of information.  I'm not saying they have enough yet, but they haven't actually attacked Iraq yet either, have they?


Actually, that was a discussion on PBS this weekend.  Seems that the old resolutions may have been written in such a way as to make it acceptable for a country like the USA to act alone, or with allies, without the UN's direct approval, in the enforcement of this resolution.  Now, I haven't looked at them in a long time, or ever in that great of detail.  But, if they were right, you are wrong.  Better check it before you say it.

I mean, I understand you are taking the moral path in that argument, and that you also take into account the ideals of due process.  However, you need to read the fine print.  Remember, you didn't think they had any burden of proof in the first place.  You should look into exactly what the post Gulf War resolutions said before you say what's allowed and not allowed.  

I feel dirty for having read this thread.  Unfortunatly I'm not near enough to a shower to wash the unclean off, so I'l instead try to add a little clarity to this thread (Though Byrd's speech did that too, thanks to whomever posted it)

Let me first say that I am, for those of you who don't know, rather liberal.  My views strictly on the war run accordingly.  I don't give a shit about whether Bush wants the war because of oil, or "National Security", or because he wants a beach to himself after he nukes it.  Hell, he could be doing this to create a world-wide utopia, one country at a time.  Motives are of no interest to me.  But the ends don't justify the means.   I simply can't stomach the idea of the "preemptive strike," particularly when the Iraqi government has no mechanism for long-ranged attack.  I have other problems with the war, but that's reason enough to mention.  If anyone has issues with that, well, then I have lost what little respect I had for them.

As for this utterly idiotic debate on Europe vs. America.   Backround: I was born in D.C., grew up/live in Maryland, and am currently residing in Maine for college.  done.  Now, Europe has had their fare share of terrorism.  Case in point: the IRA.  But there are plenty of other cases in Spain, Germany, Italy, and many parts of Eastern Europe.  Yet most of these are internal issues.  They are the residents of a nation-state acting against the government and/or infrastructure of that same nation-state.  They are, for good or ill, revolutionary acts, no different from many the pre-revolution events in Boston, except that they have bombs and automatics.  Needless to say, they've had their fair share die from terrorism.

And yet Mr. bin Laden hasnt sent his minions to bring ruin to Europe, despite their democratic, un-islamic, evil ways.  Why is that?  Europe is not particularly targeted by terrorists for three reasons.  First, their culture is not so insidious and subersive.  American culture is a powerful tool, and overruns  other cultures.  the islamic world is not down with that.  Also, our rhetoric is patronizing, condescending and anger-provoking.  I'd be pissed if I was labeled part of an "Axis of Evil."  There's more than just that, but a good example nontheless.  And of course, Isreal.  We fully support the Jewish state, who sponser some  pretty impressive terrorism themselves.  

So, all ya'll can bitch about the female's who don't shave their legs and pits, but a) they get terrorism, and b) they don't have plans flying into their buildings because they don't provoke such action, as unjustified as it may be.

And after some of the bullshit you just wrote, that feeling is mutual.  Here, I'll elaborate.


So, when it's been pointed out that a major concern is that they have biological and chemical weapons, and it has also been pointed out that it's so easy to smugle a few kilo's of illegal materials into the US, how had would it be for him to ship over a suitcase of something pretty fucking nasty if he has it?

I'm not saying he has it, or that we have enough evidence.  What I'm saying is that our administratons seems to think he does, and that it should be explored fully.

And I'm saying that it's one hell of a mechanism for long-ranged attack, now isn't it?  The weapon may not be there (we will see) but the mechanism sure as hell exists.

Oh, but you can't respect me, or that idea, because it doesn't fully agree with you.  I see.


Now, let's see, are you actually saying that the US provoked this?  More so than say, the Brits?  The Brits, that have been much more involved historically?  The Brits, who's government often takes a harder line?  The Brits, who are part of Europe?

Pardon the sarcasim, nah, don't.  Sarcasim just isn't enough.  

According to many of those nuts, just our existance is cause to murder us.  

I'm just sick and disgusted by how many people here defend terrorism.  Yes, you are defending it.  Anyone that looks for justification.  Anyone that thinks that there is logic and reason behind it and it can't happen to them.  Anyone that thinks any country brought terrorism onto itself.  Anyone that thinks it could have been avoided by giving into demands.  You are all supporting the terrorists in some small way.  Sure, you don't agree with their methods, but they have a point.  BULLSHIT.  

Stop acting as if the USA brought this upon itself.  It didn't, anymore then those subway passengers in Tokoyo brought it on themselves when they were gassed.  Or how the guy that was walking next to the abortion clinic and found himself blown up brought it on himself, or how women and children shopping for food in a Isreal marketplace brought it upon themselves.  

Terrorists are thugs, gangsters, outlaws.  They are nothing to be respected or supported, no matter what their cause.  You can agree that the US should't be involved in some areas, that they don't do the right thing.  But there is NOTHING it has done to provoke planes being flown into buildings.  

Provoked, yeah, it was provoked alright.  Bullshit.  

So Bucc, you think the effect of a terrorist attack has no cause?  There is no reason, no provocation for that attack.  No one is saying if it is a reasonable provocation, but to say there is none is naive.

As for all terrorists being thugs...I remember back after the 9/11 attacks when a few media outlets refused to use the word terrorist but use freedom fighters.  Perhaps hard to swallow about 9/11, but what about those who led the American Revolution...are they merely terrorists...thugs...whatevery negative term you choose to use for terrorists?  Or is their provocation a noble one that allows them to be though of kindly by us because we appreciate the fruits of their actions.

As for the Brits being part of Europe...that is debatable...they aren't on the mainland, they aren't in the EU.  They are however part of UEFA (european football association) which does link them.  But basically there are reasons to group them with Europe and there are reasons to say they aren't.  When someone talks about Europe to make a point about differences, they can either be including or not including the UK.

Either way, you talk about historically, yes, the UK is responsible for a lot of the mess in the middle east which is land they controlled.  But the primary country with its nose in everyone's business in the past quarter decade is the US, not the UK or any other country.  That is what makes the US the prime target and makes the other countries avoid being a large target.  They haven't been as visible.

Unreasonable provocation is no provocation is what I'm saying.  Is it saying that since Ace is catholic, and wears a cross, that cross was provocation for a terrorist to murder him, since he was anti catholic?  Bullshit.  By calling it provocation, you are in some little way legitimizing it.  That's what I am saying.


Ok, differences and problems with that attitude.  How many innocents were targeted in say, the Boston Tea Party?  Yep, a lot of tea got destroyed.  Ships too.  Yep, lots of property damage.  

Ok, not every action before the USA declared independence (and started a WAR, which is different from that point forward for many reasons) was bloodless.  Nope, soilders died too.  

But now let's look.  Did a bunch of Americans go over and put bombs in London markets?  Start killing British office workers in their buildings?  I think not.

Did they do things that they shouldn't.  Yep.  I can probably name more then you (like rounding up and executing as traitors some land owners that didn't agree with the revolution for example).  But, I'm sure as hell not justifying these actions in any way.  

Do I agree with demonstrations of civil disobedience?  Sure.  I think that trashing the tea was a great example.  Just like the PETA people that break in and rescue test animals (but not the ones that spray paint furs).  It doesn't even bother me that people burn the American flag in the streets.  They have the right to demonstrate (I don't respect them in their methods).  But, there are lines.  And excuses like "let's give them a taste of their own medacine" just don't cover it.  The IRA bombed people in London with the excuse that the English were killing the women and children in the streets of Blefast, so they want to show them what it's like.  They weren't provoked into those actions.  And even if I agree with what they stand for (a free Ireland) I cannot, in any way, defend the PIRA.  I cannont agree that even when British soilders killed innocent women and children, and pretty much got away with it, was any provocation for bombing airports or markets.  

Go further even.  Someone called them freedom fighters?  What freedom were they fighting for with those planes (or bombs)?  Targeting innocent women and children going to help their cause?  Get them freedom?  I can't stop someone from calling them Freedom Fighters, but I can sure call it BULLSHIT.


I call BULLSHIT again.  The UK has been just as vocal.  They have stuck their nose in just as many peoples business.  And what about Russia?  Or China?  Nope, I disagree with you that the US makes themselves the large target.  I mean, have all these terrorists in history acted in a reasonable mannor?  I think not.

Have to run, but I could rant on for hours on this.

Ive always seen the American Revolution as a large-scale tax revolt........im sure im gonna get shit from everyone for saying that.

Bondo, the United Kingdom IS a member of the EU. they just decided not to adopt the common currency. it is true that they are in an identity crisis over whether they identify more with the guys across the atlantic or the ones across the channel.

russia had its nose as deep in the middle east as we do during the cold war. france is as involved in west africa as we are in the mideast. i think this is a little more complex than: they dont like us because we have interests in their region and defend them. its like saying that it is ok for mexicans and south americans to come to the US and start shit because we stick our nose into their domestic politics. its a pretty weak defense of terrorism......besides you shouldnt be defending terrorists or trying to find lame justifications for what they do.....they are murderers and psychopaths. can you make a good justification for jeffrey damer or ted bundy as well? when you justify what they do or look at the "root-causes" of terrorism you are being a sucker, because there is no justification for murder and all you are doing is giving in to their demands.

Bucc you act like they picked the WTC because they were tall and shiny.

No Colin, I act like trying to justify their crimes is almost criminal itself.  I'm not saying that they didn't have whatever twisted reasons of their own.  I'm saying that terrorists can twist just about anything into a reason.  And that when you look at it, there just can't be any true justification for that kind of criminal action.  

Did those PIRA bombers think they were doing the right thing?  Sure.  Does that make it right?  Reasonable?  Justified?  No.  And if you say no, you can't say that they were provoked.  Because saying that, is just a little justification.  No terrorist deserves that much.

That is what I'm saying.

Let me give a few analogies that show that feeling the terrorists had provocation is not supporting the terrorists.

Take abortion.  There are many pro-life people who understand the reason someone would shoot an abortion doctor.  Are these people supporting the killing of doctors even if they say they they disapprove of the action but merely understand why it happened?

Or how about PETA.  I support their general idea that animals should be treated ethically.  I find some places distasteful that they do things to.  I don't however support radical/illegal action in response.  Does my understanding why they'd do those illegal actions say I'm supporting or condoning them?

So with these examples why is it any different for terrorism.  I understand there have been some attrocities commited against Arab/Muslim areas by Israel and by the US and so there is reason for them to be upset (although there have been greater attrocities commited against them by their own leaders and so they should probably commit terrorism against the leaders).  I understand what makes them angry but in no way shape or form support using terrorism as a means to get better treatment.  I am supporting the terrorists no more than I am supporting PETA in the above example and should be free to feel the way I do without being called a terrorist sympathizer.

Well I posted the speech from upstairs and I was dumbfounded because Byrd is normally a conservative democrat he seems a lot like Im guessing you Bucc but I might be wrong buut he has been great on Iraq. I will let you guys argue but I think the speech could not have been better for the topic, somewhere in between Bucc's 99% good and Bondo's 100% is where I rest so yea cool.

IMO, yep.  They are.  They are giving it a tiny bit of right.  A tiny bit of ok.  "I don't approve of killing, but I understand them hating enough."  And that's just murder you are talking about, not terrorism.  


There's no real example there, but in general I'm going to say yes, by saying that you understand why they did it, you are in a small way condoning them.  

Here is the difference in what you are talking about and what I'm talking about.

I support a free Ireland.  I do not support the PIRA.  I do not, nor ever will understand why they would bomb innocent people in London.

I support a nation of Palistine.  I do not support the PLO.  I do not, nor ever will understand why someone would run into a crowded marketplace and blow up people.

I support that if an American wants to live seggregated, he has that right.  I will never understand why the KKK would burn down a church.

You see, terrorism is what I don't support.  What should never be supported, in any way.  You can understand why people hate the USA, but you can't understand why they'd fly planes into the WTC.  There is just no understanding them.  How can you understand the illogic of terrorism?

It's different to say that you understand why people in the middle east don't like the USA.  Or why muslims may find it offensive.  But that has nothing to do with understanding why terrorist would do what they do.

Now, provoking it is a step further.  NOBODY PROVOKES TERRORISM.  Terrorism would have to be logical to be provoked.  

The US was provoking a war with the USSR by putting nukes in Turkey.  The USSR was provoking a war with the USA by putting nukes in Cuba.  Those are good examples of provoking.

But how do you provoke terrorism?  That's like saying you were provoked to hold hostages because the police showed up when you were robbing the bank.  It's like saying that the police trying to arrest you provoked you into shooting him (or saying we all understand it, since you wouldn't want to go to jail).  

That's another good example.  I understand a normal, rational person not wanting to go to jail.  I do not understand anyone that would shoot a cop to not go to jail.  

That's the bottom line right there.  I can understand and even sympathize with people that think their rights are being trampled.  But those aren't the people that fly planes into buildings or set bombs in markets.  

Terrorist just shouldn't be given the least little validation by saying you understand them.  If anything, it should hurt their cause, not further it.  Because anything less than complete and total contempt only encourages it.

So, to finish with your example Bondo.  Don't support PETA.  Support animal rights.  The difference is small but so very important.

Can someone run Zaitsev's last post through the universial translator?  Besides saying he posted the stuff by Byrd, and being happy that it was really liberal, I didn't quite get any point.

Anyone, was there a point?

Should that be a new forum game?  Find the point in Zaitsev's posts?

"WEL I POSTED DA SPECH FROM UPSTARES AND I WAS DUMBFOUND3D B/C BYRD IS NORMALY A CONSERVATIEV DAMOCRAT HA SEMS A LOT LIEK IM GUESNG U BUC BUT I MIGHT B WRONG BUT HA HAS BEN GR3AT ON IRAQ111!1! WTF LOL I WIL LET U GUYS ARGUE BUT I THINK DA SPECH CUD NOT HAEV BEN BTER FOR DA 2PIC SOMEWHARE IN BTWEN BUCS 9% GOD AND BONDOS 10% IS WH3RA I REST SO Y3A COL!1!11 OMG WTF LOL"

Heh.

Zaitsev, your post does lack a point, next time try to include one. Or maybe you are trying to include a point, but you can't since it is all smashed together in long run-on sentences.

I have this vision of Bondo, reading these last few posts, wanting to come to Rush Zaitsev's defense, to help the poor liberal.  He's shaking like a junkie trying to quit, but looking at the keyboard like it's bag of the pure stuff, uncut.  

Will Bondo continue to break the cycle.  Or will he give in, plunge the needle of the dumbass back in his arm, and try to say it's a good point and he can ignore the hard to read post.  And supports Zaitsev fully.

Sorry Bondo.  I'm not trying to pick a fight, but it was a funny image.  Think Pookey (Chris Rock) from New Jack City.  Looking at his crack pipe.  You, looking at the keyboard, not wanting to be a dumbass but wanting to post.  I'm actually laughing my ass off thinking about it.  

Hmm, sort of like trying not to want to smoke pot again (damn that one time)?

Anyway, I don't see what specifically Zait said wrong...it was a mild fairly innoculous post.  He was saying that like you, Byrd is a moderate liberal...you after all admit to being a bit more left than right but having views on both sides.  So he was saying that Byrd is like you in that respect but is clearly against the War in Iraq.

I aslo agree with Zait that the speech was a good post for the topic.

The thing I don't understand is him saying you agreed 99% with the speech which clearly you didn't.  I did agree pretty much 100% though...he was saying he was in between the two of use in agreement with the points of the speech.  But seeing as you seemed to agree with very little that leaves much room.

Bondo, what happened to posts written that bad not being worth reading?  

I'm not saying that he said much wrong, I'm saying that it's pretty hard to tell what he's saying, and what point he's trying to make.  

So, I guess you still bother when it's someone you agree with.  Well, it was too much to hope for.

My only other thought, why the hell not post a link like everyone else does?  

As for the the Bondo translation, meh, I don't buy all of it.  You sugar coated it (he called him a conservative democrat, not a moderate liberal).  But even you couldn't follow all of it, and you seem to really try.

And I hope you would agree, that's the kind of shit post we were talking about before.  When you need to call out a search party for the actual point, it's pretty bad.  

Lol, well, until you made a point of saying I was dying to defend Zait I hadn't even read his post.  I only bothered because you said it.  I agree it wasn't written well.

 Sin I know it was all good hearted but I dont think your version of me was that good. At any rate your comparasions I agree with your views on Palestine PLO and then Ireland PITA and what about Chechnyia but not the free Chechniyan army or whatever thier called (sorry i dont know) or even Basque country in Spain. But I was just wondering, not trying to be jerky her just wondering about one thing

You dont support PLO but you do support a Palestine nation
You dont support PITA but you do support a free Ireland
You dont support KKK but you do support segregation

I KNOW thats not what you said but I mean if you kind of catch my drift like you sort of were on a roll there of no terror yes views and Im sure you dont have that in case of the last one, no worries just someone might misinterperte that ya know?

My point on the last post, which was ridiculed, was that one of the flaws you citied Bucc: the disregard that Iraq has responsibilities in this affair I agree with. However the 50% children thing, at the time, I did not understand. So I was saying You said there was much to disagree and that wasnt true for me and Bondo said there was nothin to disagree with and that wasnt true. I simply meant I was in the middle of that

Gee, some asshole tossed a gasoline filled milk carton into a subway car full of peple in South Korea.  

The first person that tries to justify this, just a little, deserves his teeth knocked in.  

I'm only going to say this.

It was terrorism. (even if it was a single nut, the unibomber was a terrorist in this same light).

120 (estimated) innocent South Koreans lost their lives while doing nothing but their daily commutes.

Nobody provokes this kind of action.  Nobody deserves this kind of action.  

Any kind of justification to this will provoke a good, swift punch in the mouth.  If I were a terrorist, I guess I'd go burn down a curch instead.

I haven't read anything but the bare outline on it so far, no editorials or speculations at all.  But I want to point out, here's another case, and it's every bit just as bad as the WTC, just not here or as many people.  But it still sucks ass big time.  And people that try to excuse it, in the smallest possible way, they really deserve to be in one of those buildings.

And Zaitsev, I don't support segregation.  I support a persons right to live that way if he choses.  There is a difference.  A big difference.  The way I said it is important.  That's why you should quote and not paraphrase.

I didn't mention the Basque seperatists because, frankly, I don't know where I stand on them.  I don't know where they stand on everything either.  I haven't seen much news about them as terrorists in a long while.  Same with the PIRA, but I remember them from my youth.  I was in England and scared as a child.

As for the Chechniyan Revolt.  I have mixed feelings there too.  I don't know which side I would come down on.  But I do know that the terrorists that held the theater in Moscow got better then they deserved.  Terrorism hurts the causes more then it helps.  And terrorism is a war the whole world should fight against.  

would it help if somone posted links to speeches by democrats who support bush's iraq-policy? how about republicans who disagree? because they do exist. bondo even admitted this wasnt a partisan issue, even if the public opinion is split 50-50 (or 60-40 in favor of bush, depending on how the question is worded). it is clear that this debate transcends party lines, so there is really no use in pointing out the fact that moderate democrats in the senate don't support bush on this. its still an interesting speech and i have a lot of respect for sen. byrd (hes the white haired guy from west virginia, right?), but i dont see why you had to post the whole thing instead of a link. if asking people on this forum about their opinion on the saudi arabia thing is spam, as you have claimed zaitsev, shouldnt this qualify as ueber-spam??? do i smell hypocrisy, or did you forget to wipe your ass? because i smell bullshit.

zaitsev, does the fact that neither bucc nor i care much for bush or the GOP make it harder to argue your case? wasnt it easier to just label us republicans and call us warmongerers? well, maybe this has taught you that people can have opinions that are independant of which party they vote for. maybe thats hoping for a little much...

i actually think its impressive that you even care about this stuff at your age, but you simply havent learned to take other peoples viewpoints seriously or factor what they say into your thinking. you are also pretty uncritical of your sources and tend to misinterpret them and twist them around so that they fit your arguement better. if you do that on a polisci paper, youll get an F. if you do it on the forums, youll get a lot of shit from bucc.

also, i think that your perspective on bush's iraq policy is shaped primarily by what you think of the United States and it's foreign policy. instead of focusing on what the US' motives are and what the US did during the cold war, try looking at iraq and saddam hussein. you even admit that hes a brutal and despotic ruler. for one minute just ignore the US completely: can u honestly tell me that what saddam is doing is ok? and this is my harshest criticism of all the anti-war people: YOU ARE DEFENDING AN OPPRESIVE TYRANT IN THE NAME OF PEACE AND HUMANISM. no matter how often these people point out that saddam is a bad guy, the fact of the matter is that they are, inadvertantly, helping an dangerous and oppressive dictator stay in power and this is truely ironic and, imo, completely absurd. stop letting your dislike of the US and its policies blind you to the fact that saddam is a bad guy. saddam himself couldnt wish for any better supporters than the anti-war protester or the "human shields" ("target idiots" seems a more apt description, imo), who are willing to disregard all of his atrocities (in this case this word is appropriate, although you zaitzev seem to have it reserved only for things the US or israel does), simply because they think america is an imperialist power. well, i personally would rather live there than iraq. if anyone disagrees, i suggest you get packing and move to Bagdhad. im sure saddam would be ecstatic....

Zaitsev, Bucc refered to the translator and I simply through your post through the translator that Bondo posted earlier. In no way, shape, or form could I have thought of making something that looked so damn idiotic.

But it is pretty funny, I must admit.

Anyway, I think I am handling the situation rather well, I swore to myself not to erupt in arguments over war or many other international issues and I seem to be doing a good job (except for a couple occasions). Let's hope no one pushes me over the edge and makes me bring the flamethrower and the hammer of common sense.

Well, for the picture is concerned I like it heh.  It has some class to it heh.  And states a very bold point.  Far out!

Continuing the off-topic rambling, here's my take on the whole condoning issue.

I don't understand why the terrorists bombed a station in South Korea.  I don't condone it in any way.  However, I can understand why the terrorists might have been upset.  Likewise, I can sort of understand why Osama bin Laden hates the United States.  Don't pretend you can't at least see his point of view.  

What we all should be against, and generally are whether we can see the viewpoint or not, is the method of expression.  Sure I can understand why someone would hate the US, but not why they would kill 3000 innocent people because of it.

Or another take:  I can understand it, that is, I recognize that they are in some form or fashion, insane.  Simply acknowledging that doesn't support them.

I thought it was a middle aged guy with metal problems which lit that station on fire...but then again I havent caught the news recently.

Terrorists do things to make people afraid - to disrupt people's everyday lives. In Israel, people are afraid of taking the bus, much less eating a restauraunt because they do not know if a suicide bomber will walk in and blow them up.

Here is an interesting opinon article from my school's newpaper. He is Jewish and he has his opinions on the terrorism which goes on almost daily.

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=23110

I do not advocate this article in any way, I am just saying read it and formulate your own opinions.

It seems the premise of his whole article is that Israel wants peace...which is debatable.  The citizens do, but the goverment/military don't seem to want it too much.

Also about this "Israelis know that the terror won't stop unless a solution is found."

One solution although Israelis won't confront it is that Israel not be where it is.  I don't know of any solution that is as sure to work as that...or for that matter any solution that will work at all beside that.

Bondo,

How does this sound as a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem: All the Palestinians pack up and move to Jordan, Egypt, Iraq etc......?
Absurd? Yes, but not more than saying that the only solution is for Israel to "go away". Go read my reply to your posts in the other thread that ended on this topic......i don't get why you are so biased towards the palestinians and refuse to accept the fact that israelis have the same right as you and i to live without the fear that some shitbag is gonna hop on your bus and blow everyone to pieces.
personally, im not a big fan of arik sharon, but he is only trying to achieve peace and security for israel in the best way he can.....through military force. just like saddam hussein, hamas doesnt respond to 'diplomacy' or 'reasoning' so the only way to deal with scum like them is the same way the US is dealing with alqaida: hunt them down like cockroaches.....and kill them. I'm glad people like you arent deciding these things because otherwise there we would bending over backwards to accomodate scum like bin laden & co. and hamas........
and btw yes, it was some retarded middle aged guy who tossed a homemade firebomb into a subway car.

You know, Israel's small, but it's not like there's not enough room in the area for people to co-exist peacefully if they weren't all vitrolic demented freaks about their respective religions.  That, and who gives a shit any more about what someone's grandfather did to another's.  

I'm wondering when they're all just going to get over themselves.  Is it at all possible that everyone has equal rights to the land?  The viewpoints don't have to be mutually exclusive.