War on Iraq: Bush is gettin pwned

[The Voice of Bander V]

LMAO, does'nt it say something about your arguments if they are that easy to "fickup"?

Pass auf einmal kleiner: Du Schwammerl glaubst wohl du bist auf der Nudellsuppe dahersgschwommen hearst! Mach mich net deppat an wegen scheiss englisch oder lern gef?lligst deutsch du penner!

Fick Dich, Fickkopf, Fickerei, Fickmaus, Fickfilm. Need more "arguments" that you cant handle?

as for the "flamecrap".....i just looked over the thread and it seems to me that you started it. before your first post, everybody's comments were respectful, even if the debate got a bit heated, as it always does over this issue.

If someone calls me a nazi only cuz i live in austria, and compares my country with hitler shit then i assume that person has all his "Political euro info" from a ceap hollywood movie, if someone makes fun of my accent while typing here, if someone steps on my nerves: Go and find another pile of shiat where u can small on. I dont really care if someone gets "hurt" by my answer in this fucking forum. The plan must be to prevent that someone gets hurt in REAL. You talk about killing people here and are upset if i call u a moron or a jackass then? totally laughtable!

having a discussion and being an ass are two completely different things, bander.....maybe you should learn the difference.

I am having an discussion and you are an ass.
Guess i learned the difference. Booyaka!

Bander

P.S.: you pussies - i will only answer to your follow up crap if i should be MASSIVELY bored at work again.

Salam & peace to all normal people ~

[The Ghost of Bondo]

If someone calls me a nazi only cuz i live in austria, and compares my country with hitler shit then i assume that person has all his "Political euro info" from a ceap hollywood movie.

Know what I find odd.  I used Hitler and Grifter in the same sentance (for a very legitimate reason) and it was treated as if I was the worst person alive.  They use you and Hitler in the same sentance and no one cares.  Do I smell hypocricy?

[Bandersnatch]

Yeah Bondo my friend,

this annoys me. but what else to expect from a Bushaneer?
Some emty air that smells like gay-porn?

Yes!

People like him are just a poor accident wich happened during tha evolution - or while his dad used a condom.  Tnx for your concern - but i really dont care what a biatch like him says or not. He just has no real arguments to answer my posts - so he writes some emty air again garned with some nazi shiat. (maybe he also thinks hitler was in power till 1972 - LOL - damn, i cant help him. Send him back to shool (ah i forgot - he wont learn anything there too LOL)

bondo just ignore that flatboxer. if i am bored i will fuck him up again a little. btw.: do u play GHR demo dude? we could rock a little again

Bander

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I know they do a lot of livestock stuff up in Michigan

Even your attempts at jokes are wrong.

In that post I said you call anyone who gets on your badside a dumbass.  I never said that cookie, tasty, or kami got on your wrongside so I don't know why I must show you when you called them dumbasses.  I never said that cookie, tasty, or kami got on your wrongside so I don't know why I must show you when you called them dumbasses.?

OK, let's compare this statement of Bondo's to this one:

Abe, do you even read what Bucc posts or are you to busy sucking his undersized dick (which he makes himself feel better about by having such long posts).  He ridicules every single person who disagrees with him.  

You say I ridicule every single person who disagrees with me.  Since I've pointed out the people I don't ridicule that don't agree with me, and you are still persisting in this bullshit, I'd have to say you sir, are a complete moron.  You keep struggling to prove a point that you are so obviously wrong about.  I don't "attack" or "ridicule" everyone that doesn't agree with me.  Just the ones, like you and Bander, that really earn it.

Also, when was I trying to discredit your points by discrediting you.? Unless of course your point was that certain people are a dumbass...in which case what I posted is directly related to discrediting your point.? You succeed in showing how stupid posts are in your own mind.? Saying a post is stupid by posting a contrary point with absolutely no greater factual base does not qualify as proving the first was stupid.?

Bondo, you contribution to this has been nothing but to bitch about ME, not talk about my opinions, or positioins.  But ONLY ME.  You would be the one doing exactly what you accuse me of.  While, like in my example above, I show exactly what a dumbass you are, using two of your own posts from this very thread.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Once again, you claim you've proven something...just like the US claims it has proven that our attacking Iraq is justified.  But like the world isn't convinced by the US, the people on this forum aren't convinced by you.  To keep claiming that you've proven something makes you exactly what Bush is...delusional.

There, I've spoken out on the topic of the thread.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The United State should not attack Iraq. In our judicial system we, as the U.S.A. operate on one basic judicial rule: Innocent until proven guilty. Unilateral military action in the Middle East before we have the evidence of Iraq?s plans to build and use weapons of mass destruction would go against our own cherished ideals of fairness and justice.

No Zaitsev, this is unapplicable in this case.  If you are putting Iraq in the analgous position in our judicial system, it would be that of someone on parole.  They were already found guilty of a crime, and part of the judgement in that previous case was to abide by a set of rules.  The UN (and inspectors) would be considered the parole officers.

On parole, you don't have the rights to a trial.  If you violate it, that's it, game over.  When on parole, you agree never to carry a gun.  Iraq agreed to many things at the end of the last war, to which they don't seem to be holding up their end.  So, if it is shown that they aren't, they should be punished.

Most of our domestic views carry to our foreign policy, Why shouldn?t this be the case in Iraq? Although we have inspectors there daily, searching in every corner for nuclear weapons none have been found. Our case against Saddam Hussein is not much more then a hunch, so why, I ask, do we act as though he has been tried and convicted and we are prepared to carry out the death penalty on both Iraq?s leader and its innocent people? Before attacking Iraq the United States needs substantial evidence that Iraq has broken international law. Until this evidence is found they are innocent, just the same as people within our communities.

Again, no.  The US doesn't need substantial evidence that Iraq has broken international law.  It just needs evidence that Iraq hasn't lived up to it's end of the peace agreements.  Guess what, it hasn't and everyone knows it (it was supposed to account for all the biological weapons it had stockpiled being destroyed, it hasn't and that's one of the key points the UN agrees on).  

As for the inspectors, they have all complained about the lack of cooperation from the Iraqis, and, if you remember, have been kicked out on more then one occasion (or, does the last 10 years mean nothing, and only the last 10 months mean everything?)

???Above a car, a house, and property, the ting that is valued the most should be human life.

There are things to be valued more then human life in my opinion.  There are things worth dieing for.  Are you saying there is nothing worth that?

As is the in all armed intervention, lives will be lost. 300 U.S. military personnel were killed in the conflict and nearly 500 were wounded. 250,000 Iraqis were killed (at least) and many more have died from special bombs that were used by allied forces. Half a million people were wounded as well. To have these staggering figures re-occur would be genocide. To take down one man, you don?t need to kill hundreds of thousands of other.

First of all, don't use scare words like "genocide".  It really doesn't have any application when talking about Iraq, unless you are talking about what they tried to do with the Kurds.  

Second, let me point out how many deaths the "peaceful intervention" has caused.  According the the Iraqi ambassador to the UN, over 1.8 million Iraqis have died due directly to the trade embargo's.  (yes, you can look it up Bondo, it's on the BBC web site amongst other places).  Now, I don't actually believe that number is completely accurate, as most people inflate numbers to help their own case.  

But, if it is, doesn't that mean that following the peaceful, political ways we are killing off ten times more people then what you say would happend with armed intervention?

And where do you consider how many people Iraq has already killed, and how many more they may?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

To take down one man, you don?t need to kill hundreds of thousands of other. The last gulf war cost the United State 61 billion dollars. That is not counting the 54 billion our allies paid for us. These same allies will not be assisting us this time around and over 100 billion dollars will be lost and increase our nation?s debt.

Ok, now where is Bander bitching about careing more about money?

The money doens't matter Zaitsev.  It should never be about the money.

The United States shares responsibility for world altering events across the glove because we belong to groups such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. When an ally from within these groups is in need of aid, we send it. When the U.S. is investigating events such as September 11 all our allies comply. To them our opinion is highly regarded and theirs should be to us. None of our usual allies support us in this random campaign of violence.

Sorry, this one is just bullshit.

First, read more about NATO and France before you say things about NATO allies complying.

Second, you say that NONE of our usual allies support us?  What have you been reading?  Who in NATO isn't supporting the US on this?  Out of what, 19 nations in NATO, 3 are not backing the US (France, Belgium and Germany).  Is that NONE?  Turkey has given permission for us to use bases for Air and troops, not as many as the US asked for, but still many bases.  What about Canada and the UK?  I think their governments have pretty much backed the US so far.  

So much for NONE.  

Nothing has change in Iraq, but the media has flared up on the subject because our president has as well. Until we have consent from our highly regarded allies it would be foolish to try to muscle our way to Baghdad.

Well, what makes you think nothing has changed in Iraq.  I mean, I haven't made up my mind yet, but you seem sure.  What are your sources, they may help.  Don't just blame the media and Bush, where do you get your evidence that nothing has changed?

Oh, and since we have concent from most of our highly regarded allies, does that mean it's not foolish?

There are many moral and pricey reasons for peace, and none for war. We lack evidence to support our gung-ho ways, we face a huge economic deficit, we will kill thousands of innocent people, and we are ignoring our allies. Until we have more then a suspicious feeling against Iraq we have no reason to begin a massacre.

Funny, you make Iraq out to be the completely innocent victim.  You also use scare words like massacre and genocide.  You talk about a huge economic deficit (but, didn't Clinton whipe out $500 BILLION of the deficit in just a couple years?) and you talk about the thousands of innocents.  What about the guilty?

What about the guilty?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

First of all, don't use scare words like "genocide".  It really doesn't have any application when talking about Iraq, unless you are talking about what they tried to do with the Kurds.  

Zait can't use the "scare word" genocide, but it is okay for Bush to use the scare word "Weapons of Mass Destruction", "Al Queda" , or "nucular"?  

Also, no Clinton didn't get rid of the deficit...but he did not, while he was in office, add to it.  Then again Zait never claimed that Clinton did get rid of the debt.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Zait can't use the "scare word" genocide, but it is okay for Bush to use the scare word "Weapons of Mass Destruction", "Al Queda" , or "nucular"?  

Yes, because at least Bushes speach writers are using the words correctly.  

Also, no Clinton didn't get rid of the deficit...but he did not, while he was in office, add to it.  Then again Zait never claimed that Clinton did get rid of the debt.

Did I say that Clinton got rid of the deficit?  Nope.  I said he managed to eliminate $500 Billion in a couple years, which he did.  My point is to show that Zaitsev is making $100 Billion out to be much more then it really is.

Now why not touch any of the other points?  You said it was a great paper Blindo, how was I wrong?

[abe]

Mach mich net deppat an wegen scheiss englisch oder lern gef?lligst deutsch du penner!

Erstens, Bander, must du verstehen, dass Deutsch ebenfalls meine muttersprache ist und dass ich mich nicht ueber deine english kentnisse lustig mache. das waehre sinnloss und wuerde nichts zur diskussion beifuehren. Ich habe bloss gesagt, dass wenn es so enifach his deine argumente abzuschiesen (egal in welcher sprache) dann sind es wahrscheinlich nicht sehr gut auch wenn du flussig english koenntest. egal...und du kannst dich selber ficken gehen, uebrigens. ich will damit nichts zu tun haben.
soll ich auf deutsch weitermachen??
btw, rumsfeld said that about "old-europe" not powell. if your gonna quote ppl at least get it right.
papagei hast du schon selber uebersetzt.....schwanzlutscher. so i am a parrot  because, in this instance, i agree with somthing our government says. give me a break. in that case you are a parrot for repeating the anti-war arguments that gerhard schroeder and the european press have already made.
i agree that people who glorify and promote war before all else are idiots. but in this case the feeling is that over the past 12 years, all those other options have been tried to no avail.
saddam cannot be removed from within, as every iraqi knows, so if the goal is to remove saddam, war is the only option. imo, as ive already said, installing a new regime will help iraq more than the war would hurt it. bander, you take it as a given that the next iraqi regime will be as bad as the current. what makes you say that? if the europeans get involved in the reconstruction and state-building, i don't see why it should be impossibe to create somthing other than a new dictator.
as far as having good relations with arab regimes, this is a double edged sword: being too cozy with egypt or saudi arabia gets us heat for supporting "oppresive regimes", while going it alone gets us heat for being insensitive to arab governments' concerns. take the example of Saddam: you claim the US installed him and the baath, well i hate to break it to ya, but the USSR had more to do with that than we did. our affair with saddam actually start a bit later (ie. late 70s) when the iranian revolution threatens our oil supplying buddys. yet, people like yourself like to point out the "fact" that the US put saddam in power. bs i say. just let me say that i don;t blindly support everything the US does in it's foreign policy. but i believe my goverment is protecting me and my interests as well as it can, as i hope yours does for you. ok, so we have to go abroad to do this somtimes but thats the price of being a superpower.
Bander, you seem to be such a humanitarian, yet every crime saddam has ever committed you brush off by saying it was the US' fault for installing him. stop defending this psychopath!
and for everyone who claims that this war will kill all these poor innocent iraqis: it hasent happened, yet so don't start countng casualties. one possible outcome (and this is what i would prefer to see) would be that somone in saddam's entourage (maybe in the military or intelligence services) who can read the writing on the wall and wants to prevent bloodshed would simply kill or depose him. in that scenario, military pressure would be effective, but not one iraqi (other than saddam) would shed any blood. nobody wants a war and i belive that this outcome would be acceptable for bush.
and im not dumping on europe. in fact i am european and i grew up in europe. it is normal that they have their own priorities, but when the US needs their support, they should be by our side, even if they have reservations about the way the US goes about it. when europe needed nato and US help in the kosovo thing, america did'nt turn its back.....i am sure somone is going to start telling me that kosovo was wrong too, but that not the point, because it was somthing that the US and all of Europe saw eye to eye on.
and bs about good relations with arab countries preventing terrorist attacks. the only reason no Arab terrorist goes to austria is because they dont give a shit about you and your knodelsuppe. in fact one of the reasons bin laden hates the US is because we ARE good freinds with the Saudi monarchy.
bander i dont have a beef with you personally and i am sorry if i came on a bit strong in my last post. you did respond to the points this time so way to go!!! i know you already have me catalogued as a moron because i'm in disagreement with you here, but i do arrive at my conclusions by thinking and not by gulping down what others want me to think. i don't assume that you believe a war is wrong because of what the austrian government's position is, but because you have probably thought about it and come to that conclusion. why can't you extend me the same courtesy?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Abe, well said.  My only fear is it makes too much sense for them to actually focus on.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I find Abe's weakness to be the lack of paragraphs and punctuation personally.  It is a pain in the head to read.

About the Clinton/deficit thing...the way you stated it made the context seem different than you meant it.  That is the downside of written text, I can't tell if you were saying something as a fact or if you were being sarcastic as to something he said.  So sorry about misinterpreting that.

As for it being a great paper...I unlike you am not anal about making sure every detail is perfect.  I thought the overall reasoning makes sense...even if Iraq doesn't technically get the innocent till proven guilty protection.

[tasty]

I have been reading a lot of criticism regarding the fact that many people see me and others as merely opposing the president and not looking at reasons for war independent of the president. Well, despite the fact that I would oppose the war anyway (not what this thread is about however) I don't think its possible to seperate the president from his policies. More important to me than international politics is what happens domestically in this country. I want what's best for this country, and I think whats best for this country is to get the Bush regime out of power as quickly as possible. I fear that if we do have a war in Iraq and it is a success than Bush's popularity will inevitably rise and he will become unbeatable in the next election. I think that this is the worst thing that could happen for the United States. This inner psychological reasoning has a large effect on how I feel on the war.

Look at the other topics now. Even for most of you that do support the war, you agree that the domestic things Bush has done/plans to do are bad (patriot acts, tax cuts for the rich, irresponsible spending). If Bush gets another term in office, he will undoubtedly get to make supreme court nominations and take an even greater license with our already waning freedom. In addition to moral reasons, I cannot support a war in Iraq for these reasons.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I find Abe's weakness to be the lack of paragraphs and punctuation personally.  It is a pain in the head to read.

I see paragraphs and punctuation.  He could use a few line breaks and some capitalization maybe.  But I could follow it without a problem.  

Now how about focusing on what he said.

About the Clinton/deficit thing...the way you stated it made the context seem different than you meant it.  That is the downside of written text, I can't tell if you were saying something as a fact or if you were being sarcastic as to something he said.  So sorry about misinterpreting that.

Well this is a first.  Accepted.

As for it being a great paper...I unlike you am not anal about making sure every detail is perfect.  I thought the overall reasoning makes sense...even if Iraq doesn't technically get the innocent till proven guilty protection.

First, give me a break.  You are pointing out grammar in Abe's posts, nothing to do with context.  Again.

Second, what made sense?  I didn't pick on tiny details, I hammered the whole paper.  Tell me what I got wrong:
A) when it comes to doing right, money shouldn't matter.  From a liberal point of view, you should not have a problem accepting that.  
B) he basis a large part of his argument on NONE of our allies supporting the US.  That is just plain false.  Most of the governments have pledged their support.
C) there are things worth dieing for.
D) the number of people killed in Iraq due to "peaceful" protests.
E) pointing out how he ignores the possibility of Iraq being guilty.

So, what did he get right?  Come on, tell me.

I have been reading a lot of criticism regarding the fact that many people see me and others as merely opposing the president and not looking at reasons for war independent of the president. Well, despite the fact that I would oppose the war anyway (not what this thread is about however) I don't think its possible to seperate the president from his policies. More important to me than international politics is what happens domestically in this country. I want what's best for this country, and I think whats best for this country is to get the Bush regime out of power as quickly as possible. I fear that if we do have a war in Iraq and it is a success than Bush's popularity will inevitably rise and he will become unbeatable in the next election. I think that this is the worst thing that could happen for the United States. This inner psychological reasoning has a large effect on how I feel on the war.

Tasty, as the one dishing out most of that criticism, let me say that I can sympathize with what you just said.  I don't agree with you though.

The problem I have, and it's not just with you, there are many guilty of it, is peole focusing on Bush and not the issues.  If you oppose the war based on the issues, that's well and good, and we can argue those.  If you oppose the war only because Bush is for it, that makes you as short sighted as him.  (I know you said you'd oppose it anyway Tasty, but like I said, this is for more then you).  Pointing at Bush's domestic policy (or lack thereof) is not a reason to ignore what's going on in Iraq or anywhere else.

No matter how much I dispise Bondo or Bander, I'd not disagree with them if they were right.  Even if they were right for the wrong reasons.  

So while I completely agree with you on most of what you wrote about Bush, ecology and the latest security act, I have problems when it comes to letting those issues color other issues, like those in Iraq.  

I have a real problem with the people that think if you don't oppose the war 100% then you are a blind Bush supporter (again, not you here Tasty).  

Too many people can't talk about the actual issues without bringing him into it.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I see paragraphs and punctuation.  He could use a few line breaks and some capitalization maybe.  But I could follow it without a problem.  

Now how about focusing on what he said.

Like I said, it was too difficult to read...and it isn't like it is my duty to reply to everything.  Sorry, but if something isn't typed in a accessable manner I'm not going to bother.  That is something that you definately offer, and I think you'd admit it is something I offer.

Second, what made sense?  I didn't pick on tiny details, I hammered the whole paper.  Tell me what I got wrong:
A) when it comes to doing right, money shouldn't matter.  From a liberal point of view, you should not have a problem accepting that.  
B) he basis a large part of his argument on NONE of our allies supporting the US.  That is just plain false.  Most of the governments have pledged their support.
C) there are things worth dieing for.
D) the number of people killed in Iraq due to "peaceful" protests.
E) pointing out how he ignores the possibility of Iraq being guilty.

So, what did he get right?  Come on, tell me.

A. Money isn't completely out of the picture...he mentions many things including money.  It would be stupid to not consider that at all.  He also mentions loss of life and other such costs that are not financial.
B. Well, none of our allies publics support the war.  I agree that if talking about countries none is incorrect and to say some would be better.
C. Yes, things are worth dying for, but there is no reason to think that the reasoning for having this war is something worth dying for.
D. True, but not every letter needs to be fair and balanced.  Part of politics is to mention the stats that support a side.  Given, I don't think saying war shouldn't happen is the same as saying the embargo should happen instead.
E.  He says they haven't been proven to be guilty and gives his reason for thinking that.  He never says they couldn't possibly be guilty.  He thinks the inspectors should be given more time to determine guilt.

Anyway Bucc, you say first time I've apologized and you accept that...I hope you can honestly see that I'm trying to just argue straight up here.  Perhaps we can bury the hatchet?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Like I said, it was too difficult to read...and it isn't like it is my duty to reply to everything.  Sorry, but if something isn't typed in a accessable manner I'm not going to bother.

You've read and responded to worse.  He makes good points, it's worth the effort.  And you have admitted to not reading all my posts in the past as well.  It would be better to put forth that effort.  Like you have said about Zaitsev, the content is important (when people picked on his jr high writing).

A. Money isn't completely out of the picture...he mentions many things including money.  It would be stupid to not consider that at all.  He also mentions loss of life and other such costs that are not financial.
B. Well, none of our allies publics support the war.  I agree that if talking about countries none is incorrect and to say some would be better.
C. Yes, things are worth dying for, but there is no reason to think that the reasoning for having this war is something worth dying for.
D. True, but not every letter needs to be fair and balanced.  Part of politics is to mention the stats that support a side.  Given, I don't think saying war shouldn't happen is the same as saying the embargo should happen instead.
E.  He says they haven't been proven to be guilty and gives his reason for thinking that.  He never says they couldn't possibly be guilty.  He thinks the inspectors should be given more time to determine guilt.

A) he made a rather big deal about the money, not just considered it.  It was one of his major themes.  It shouldn't be.
B) when discussing allies, and in his context, we are talking about governments (he mentioned NATO for example).  Most of the NATO countries have backed the US position.  16-3 or so in favor of the US.  I'd say this doesn't rate a some, but maybe a couple or few.  And not the postion he gave it.
C) I disagree.  This war MAY be something worth dieing for.  We have yet to see everything.  But Zaitsev made it sound like nothing was.  And this was about his post, which would then be wrong.
D) part of a good argument is always looking at both sides, and not just one.
E) Yes, he says they have to be proven guilty.  And that's wrong.  They signed agreements that they would prove all those weapons would be destroyed.  They still haven't.  The burden of proof is on them, even without the parole analogy being corrected.

All in all, for a post you thougt was great, you didn't seem to find all that much that was great about it.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

D) part of a good argument is always looking at both sides, and not just one.
All in all, for a post you thougt was great, you didn't seem to find all that much that was great about it.

You have to remember this is a letter to the editor that he was writing.  Not an essay relying on empirical proof as would be required in a more acedemic piece.  I think considering the context of the argument some of the things you pick out aren't needed to be good.  I did regardless of its flaws in data, think it made a point and was reasonably written in that it made sense literally and had some general support that makes sense.  If I was trying to take it as more than a letter to the editor than perhaps I would not have thought it as good.

[Mr. Lothario]

I find Abe's weakness to be the lack of paragraphs and punctuation personally.  It is a pain in the head to read.

     *gasp of shock!* What's this? Bondo, ignoring an argument for a specious reason? Wow. I, for one, am amazed. This is the first time I've ever seen this happen.

     Bucc, I admire your forum-fu. It is highly impressive. Kind of like watching Jackie Chan fight two opponents at once.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

*gasp of shock!* What's this? Bondo, ignoring an argument for a specious reason? Wow. I, for one, am amazed. This is the first time I've ever seen this happen.

I did read enough of it to know it was a reply to Bander not to me, so I'm not ignoring an argument.  But I'm not going to go out of my way to reply to it when it is so messy.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bondo, why should a letter to the editor have lower standards as you state?  It wasn't a response, but an editorial.  And like any other argument is either good or bad, depending on how it is made.  A letter to the editor is meant for the general public (being published in a paper or magazine usually), so, as a member of the public, I expect more.

Maybe my standards are just a little higer then yours.

And I still don't see how you could think that the argument was well made.  It's not like there was a single flaw in his argument, or that he just got a number wrong, those are not a big deal to me either.  The foundation for his arguments were seriously flawed, as I pointed out.  And nothing stands on a weak foundation for long.  

Loth, you just made me think of "Legend of the Drunken Master".  Think about it.