Off Topic Messages

Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:16 pm

ColinB wrote:Pete -

Try telling a bereaved mother that it's OK, her child wasn't 'targetted', just a bit of 'collateral damage'.

That will cheer her up no end.

Dead is dead.


So are we then not supposed to take action against the terrorists and those who harbor and/or enable them because of the potential for civilian casualties? Of course not, to do so would play into the hands of the terrorists. We try to minimize civilian casualties, while recognizing that they will tragically occur. And yes dead is dead, but the fact that we recognize these deaths as tragic, and did not deliberately intend these deaths is what separates us from the terrorists. The ultimate responsibility for these deaths lies with the terrorists. If they would cease & desist then we wouldn't be forced to take military action against them, which tragically results in civilian casualties!

Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:14 pm

IMO we are fighting too "nice" of a war. The civilian casualties are what actually make the outcry for peace happen. i.e. Japan.

Still it is a different time now and peace lovers like to have it both ways. Sad to the nth degree.

Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:47 pm

Colin, let's not forget......these simpering cowards DELIBERATELY place themselves among the innocent civilian population. That way they can deter retaliation, and take the propaganda victory in the sad event that innocents are killed.

Also, have you read the survey done in your country where fully over 40% of the Muslims in your midst admit that they would NOT turn in terrorists plotting bombings if they had foreknowledge?? Many times these "innocents" are willingly abetting the terrorists, hiding them from justiceboth there and in Iraq. To assume that all casualties who are not actually building the bombs have clean hands is naive. . You really must familiarize yourself with the tribal mentality that is such an integral part of their culture.

Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:40 pm

Yet...I hope it get clear before a family member is bombed themselves. There is nothing more eye opening then having it in your backyard.

Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:44 am

Cowards is a bad description for a suicide bomber. Hello they don't care if they their lose lives.

You have the rank and file reluctant to turn a potential terrorists because of the fact that civilians have been bombed, because of the fact that we have painted the war as good versus evil.

Stalin was evil. Kruschecv was not. There is no question the party leadership wanted to spread communism, what I take issue with is your word "enslave" which is to me naive and silly and trapped in 1950. It is/was a system of political economic belief no more, no less benign than any other.

I bring up the need to understand "why" because it points away form good versus evil because when you think good versus evil you don't think why.

The comment about North Korea, China et. al was not meant as any description of their beliefs. The comment was meant as a statement in reality. They have massive armys and nuclear capability. Mutual co-existence is the only option. And when you throw around phrases like the Axis of Evil especially regard to a fundamentalist country like Iran you make it that much difficult to negotiate to get anything done.

You completely miss the point about the witch trials. These men in the United States and England were able to get away with the most evil acts (and petty evil acts) because everyone was convinced they were doing good. A near genocide was perpetrated on the American Indian because they were considered evil "Godless savages". What did Southern leaders use for years and years to deny rights to blacks? Oh yes good and evil propaganda. Blacks were "lazy", "shiftless" "untrustworthy degenerates". Same arguments, same perversion of facts.

The evil party is self-evident to both sides; as long as that attitude has sway don't count on this being over anytime soon.

If good and evil helps you sleep at night, that's fine. But, in the real world there's questions that have to be asked and the answers are not clear cut and not pretty and the answers come down to what is more important to you. Good and evil has no play. Just one last example but can you think of anything more immoral than dropping an atomic bomb. Yet we dropped not one but two. A 100,000 dead in an instant, a city destroyed, many who survived permanently injured, a generation born with birth defects. Yet it shortened the war and saved the lives of countless Americans. No good, no evil, just an action that took place. Truman decided ending the war and saving American lives was worth the impact.

And we did not go to war for UN sanctions. We went to war for WMD. There were none. Were it Al Gore that were president the outcry on the right would be immense and he would have probably impeached under the same circumstances especially since they had no compunction about impeaching over an act that affected maybe five people worldwide. Also, had Al Gore been president he would have blamed for his inaction in relation to 9/11 had he chose the same course that the president did which was to not even hold a cabinet level meeting on the topic until August.

Of course Tsunamis do not plan their activities. This is what makes it so important to learn about human problems because you can prevent the things that causes them. You can't prevent an Earthquake.

Most of the time in politics a quick decision is a dumb decision. I shudder to think what would have happened had cowboy- no consequences Bush been running the show during the Cuban missile crisis. We are still arguably here because JFK didn't want to make any quick or foolish decisions even though hawkish advisers advised him otherwise.

Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:53 am

likethebike wrote:And we did not go to war for UN sanctions. We went to war for WMD. There were none. Were it Al Gore that were president the outcry on the right would be immense and he would have probably impeached under the same circumstances especially since they had no compunction about impeaching over an act that affected maybe five people worldwide. Also, had Al Gore been president he would have blamed for his inaction in relation to 9/11 had he chose the same course that the president did which was to not even hold a cabinet level meeting on the topic until August.

[ snip ]

Most of the time in politics a quick decision is a dumb decision. I shudder to think what would have happened had cowboy- no consequences Bush been running the show during the Cuban missile crisis. We are still arguably here because JFK didn't want to make any quick or foolish decisions even though hawkish advisers advised him otherwise.

This MB isn't good enough for your thoughtful and spot-on postings, LTB.

Sadly, the people you choose to debate seldom catch a clue from any of your erudite commentary. This is but one reason why many here don't bother to try.

DJC

Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:17 am

Sorry, but yes someone that dies with the intention of killing nothing but innocents is a flat out COWARD.

As far as the broad stroked labeling of Bush.....many think him to be some kind of uneducated fool, and that is where they are mistaken. Bush wasn't just rich of his dad's money...he was in the trenches of pollitics from the very beginning. Bush Sr. isn't half the pollitician that his son is.

Al Gore going to war would have been the right decision and yes, without a doubt, that is the path he would have chosen. The war in Iraq is not just "GW's War". Congress declares war.

9/11 is deeply related to Iraq and it is funny to me how you want to belittle the decision on one basis alone. WMD was ONE of the reason's...one of many that Bush has relayed over and over again.

Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:59 am

Bike.....what your post proves is what the original premise stated many,many words ago. The Left is incapable of providing security and prosecuting this war. This self flagellation and moral vacillation in the face of the obvious is the nexus of the problem. Relativism.......the road to defeat.

Oh yeah, and Doc....can you actually contribute on your own and move beyond the "YEAH Bike.....whatever you say Bike. That's what I think too Bike. I wish I had said that Bike. This MB isn't good enough for you Bike "PANTPANTPANT.
Get off the poor man's coattails!!!!It's embarrassing to watch. Fortunately though......it's pretty damn funny :lol: :lol: :lol: .

Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:35 pm

You can analyze and take action as well. When the stakes are very high deliberation is generally required.

I understand the use of the word coward but implies something different than the reality. It implies that they can be cowed into certain type of action and that's really a mistaken impression. Part of the problem is that they don't care if they die, they don't care if other Muslims die by the bushel (This sadly has been the case as Iraqis have taken the greatest brunt of the suicide bombings. I think it's something like a 10-1 ratio of Iraqis killed to Americans by the bombers.) The idea that we could do something that would make them afraid or backoff is mistaken. We could kill them, we could catch them and we can prevent them from winning future bombers but it's tough to scare them.

Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:32 pm

genesim -

You wrote:
WMD was ONE of the reason's...one of many that Bush has relayed over and over again.


Not so in the UK.

We were sold the idea that, not only did he have them, but could deploy them within 45 minutes.

That was the sole reason for the invasion.

Our Members of Parliament bought it, and voted accordingly.

A lot of them regret that decision now.

Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:13 pm

Al-Qaida's No. 2 Threatens London, U.S
AP - 44 minutes ago
CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida's No. 2 embraced the London suicide bombings Thursday, warned Britain that more destruction lies ahead and promised tens of thousands of U.S. casualties in Iraq in a brazen assertion of the terror group's global reach. Ayman al-Zawahri also renewed terror threats to other countries with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming they had shunned Osama bin Laden's offer last year of a truce if foreign forces left the battleground

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

If 9/11 and Iraq are not connected then why are we being threatened??? To this day Al-Qaida operatives are being sheltered in Iraq by civilians and yet it is the "innocent" that we are only targeting. :roll:

Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:21 pm

genesim wrote:Al-Qaida's No. 2 Threatens London, U.S
AP - 44 minutes ago
CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida's No. 2 embraced the London suicide bombings Thursday, warned Britain that more destruction lies ahead


now let's all be sure to tolerate him
okay?

Just tolerate those threats and whatever minions he has infilitrated into UK society

Tolerance is what we need to make the world a whole lot brighter la la la

Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:39 pm

Oh sure..we have plenty of that.....plenty

Image

Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:21 am

likethebike wrote:
Stalin was evil. Kruschecv was not. There is no question the party leadership wanted to spread communism, what I take issue with is your word "enslave" which is to me naive and silly and trapped in 1950. It is/was a system of political economic belief no more, no less benign than any other.


It was decidedly not benign Bike. The KGB/secret police. The gulags for political dissenants. The modus operandi that the Soviets had the 'right' to 'interfere' in the workings of all of their satellite countries.

likethebike wrote:
And we did not go to war for UN sanctions. We went to war for WMD. There were none.


No we did not go to war over sanctions. We went to war because the U.N. security council, which included Hussein/Iraq business partners France, Russia, and Germany, who were trying to get the sanctions lifted, refused to enforce it's own resolutions - resolutions that Hussein refused to comply with. Resolutions designed to strip Hussein of his WMD capability. He had WMD in the past. And there were dormant programs. And there is material unnaccounted for.

likethebike wrote:
Most of the time in politics a quick decision is a dumb decision. I shudder to think what would have happened had cowboy- no consequences Bush been running the show during the Cuban missile crisis. We are still arguably here because JFK didn't want to make any quick or foolish decisions even though hawkish advisers advised him otherwise.


LTB, you'll never hear me say that this administration is above criticism, just the opposite. They should be roundly criticized for the gross miss-calculation of the insugency. Personally, I think it's time for Rumsfeld to resign. I also think that the timing of the war is a valid point of criticism (although I disagree with it). But in my view this war was inevitable. Hussein wasn't going to comply, just continue his same games. We were going to have to oust him eventually. And the U.N. wasn't going to do much about him - especially given the oil-for-food scam! But imagine this: what if we gave the inspections program more time, Blix gave him a clean bill of health, and the sanctions got lifted. Then with the heat off Hussein, enriched by the oil-for-food scam, revives the dormant programs and gets up & running WMD! And uses it. What would the left be saying then? Why didn't Bush do something when he had the chance blah, blah, blah.

For me personally this war has never been about Bush, vs. Kerry, Clinton, Gore, republicans vs. democrats, conservatives vs. liberals, left wing vs. right wing. The left uses the war as yet another reason to bash Bush, whom they hate. Liberal/democratic politicians use it to play partisan politics - although the majority of them were convinced Hussein had WMD by the very same intelligence used by the Bush administration. The right uses it to paint the liberals/democrats as soft on defence. All of this keeps us from focusing on the problem.

Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:33 am

I hate him because he has done a staggeringly bad job. The war is a disaster (on the farthest left criticized the Afghanistan invasion by the way) and it turns out unnecessary. When top Iraqi officials are laughing at the idea of WMD you know you were off base. The administration refuses to take any criticism and is constantly hiding things from the public and the press. They are petty and use publicity to destroy their opponents rather than debate and defend their policies. They underfund homeland security and then claim to be the defenders against terrorism. The economy has reached depths it hasn't in generations. Bush has declared war on basically every New Deal policy that served as the foundation for the nation's economic growth for a period of almost 70 years. He has declared war on the bottom income levels with policies like the new bankruptcy law. He has abused the power of the government with stuff like Guantanamo Bay. He has basically taken campaign contributions and formulated policy to conform to those contributions without even so much as attempt to hide the chicanery. His administration has used its power arbitrarily to destroy enemies like the CIA/Valerie Plame leaking controversy. A move that very well could have cost the lives of US operatives. It has fostered hate and dissension among the American people with its obnoxious gay baiting and bashing. It got re-elected, after stealing the first election, by selling the American people a message of fear and death. "Vote for us or die". The supreme irony being that September 11 happened on their watch. This is a man who would sell our environment for oil. How about his wonderful plan to tap the Alaskan oil reserves, destroying the ecology for a few months supply of oil.

And the American people are finally catching on. A recent poll conducted I think by Newsweek found that 53 percent disapprove of the job he is doing.

He's not just bad, he's staggeringly bad. There is just so much damage that this administration has done that it's going to take decades to untangle. The Iraqi may very well go down as the worst decision ever made by an American president.

Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:50 am

likethebike wrote:I hate him because he has done a staggeringly bad job. The war is a disaster (on the farthest left criticized the Afghanistan invasion by the way) and it turns out unnecessary. When top Iraqi officials are laughing at the idea of WMD you know you were off base. The administration refuses to take any criticism and is constantly hiding things from the public and the press. They are petty and use publicity to destroy their opponents rather than debate and defend their policies. They underfund homeland security and then claim to be the defenders against terrorism. The economy has reached depths it hasn't in generations. Bush has declared war on basically every New Deal policy that served as the foundation for the nation's economic growth for a period of almost 70 years. He has declared war on the bottom income levels with policies like the new bankruptcy law. He has abused the power of the government with stuff like Guantanamo Bay. He has basically taken campaign contributions and formulated policy to conform to those contributions without even so much as attempt to hide the chicanery. His administration has used its power arbitrarily to destroy enemies like the CIA/Valerie Plame leaking controversy. A move that very well could have cost the lives of US operatives. It has fostered hate and dissension among the American people with its obnoxious gay baiting and bashing. It got re-elected, after stealing the first election, by selling the American people a message of fear and death. "Vote for us or die". The supreme irony being that September 11 happened on their watch. This is a man who would sell our environment for oil. How about his wonderful plan to tap the Alaskan oil reserves, destroying the ecology for a few months supply of oil.

And the American people are finally catching on. A recent poll conducted I think by Newsweek found that 53 percent disapprove of the job he is doing.

He's not just bad, he's staggeringly bad. There is just so much damage that this administration has done that it's going to take decades to untangle. The Iraqi may very well go down as the worst decision ever made by an American president.

Hey, LTB, no fair piggybacking on my ideas. It was I who long ago stated that Bush JR is likely the worst president in the history of the United Staes.

Lovely, spot-on posting, by the way. His regime is indeed a disaster for everyone, save the upper 1%.

DJC

Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:58 am

LTB -

You wrote:
It got re-elected, after stealing the first election, by selling the American people a message of fear and death. "Vote for us or die".


I was wondering why the US electorate wanted another term from him.

In the UK, whilst Tony Blair's decision to go to war against Iraq is pretty well universally derided, most of his other achievements have been laudable [unlike Bush].

The minimum wage, stable economy, low interest rates, low inflation, low unemployment, children taken out of poverty etc.

And, of course, he has shown up the Tories as the mean-spirited, out-of-touch, old-fashioned, class-ridden, unelectable lot that they are.

We gave him his third term, which he says will be his last.

Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:19 am

ColinB wrote:I was wondering why the US electorate wanted another term from him.

Maybe they didn't. Don't worry, we'll know for sure in about 30 or 40 years.

DJC

Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:26 pm

ColinB wrote:genesim -

You wrote:
WMD was ONE of the reason's...one of many that Bush has relayed over and over again.


Not so in the UK.

We were sold the idea that, not only did he have them, but could deploy them within 45 minutes.

That was the sole reason for the invasion.

Our Members of Parliament bought it, and voted accordingly.

A lot of them regret that decision now.


The idea of Parliament "buying it" suggests that Blair knew there were no WMD and was intentionally deceiving Parliament. There is no evidence for deceit on that scale. I get frustrated every time I hear the 45 minutes point, as it was a complete non-issue in the run up to the war. It received one mention in Hansard in the six months following its appearance in the September dossier - a dossier which most considered fairly innocuous at the time. The only reason any noise was made about this several months into the war was because of the investigation into David Kelly's death - a chap who supported the war and believed that Iraq had WMD and could regretably only be disarmed militarily. At that point, people began to rewrite history and portray the 45 minutes issue as the predominant reason for going to war. The truth is that it wasn't even mentioned in Blair's address to Parliament just prior to the war, nor in the lengthy debate that followed. Blair's address was articulate and frank about the events leading up to the conflict and I think more people should read it, rather than putting words in his mouth.

Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:28 pm

ColinB wrote:LTB -

You wrote:
It got re-elected, after stealing the first election, by selling the American people a message of fear and death. "Vote for us or die".


I was wondering why the US electorate wanted another term from him.

In the UK, whilst Tony Blair's decision to go to war against Iraq is pretty well universally derided, most of his other achievements have been laudable [unlike Bush].

The minimum wage, stable economy, low interest rates, low inflation, low unemployment, children taken out of poverty etc.

And, of course, he has shown up the Tories as the mean-spirited, out-of-touch, old-fashioned, class-ridden, unelectable lot that they are.

We gave him his third term, which he says will be his last.


All great achievements which don't get enough attention in the media. I'd say that your comment about the decision to go to war being "universally derided" is overstating it, but certainly there are more with a dissenting voice.

Sat Aug 06, 2005 12:13 am

Doc, they tried to steal the election the first time and lost on every count. The second time wasn't near as close. It is only the sore losers that can't take the COLD REALITY.

As far as the supposedly superior socialistic qualities of our European allies...that is why the UK and France are in their place regarding world economy.

Some people work for their living...and others want to steal from the fellow man to pay for their mistakes. Microsoft was a good thing..not bad. I like the idea of being whatever I want to be, and not only what a failing system wants to keep us at. Don't like it...then stay loyal to your country. I am glad I am in mine.

Sat Aug 06, 2005 6:59 am

likethebike wrote:I hate him because......


HATE???

As a verb???

You actually hate

wow - so when is hate wrong?

:lol:
- but it's LTB who admits having hate
(and note Doc agreed spot-on with LTB; he too hates)

:roll: You're smarter than that right? Of course.

Liberals certainly have a fluctuating flexible glossary
of what's hate
and what's good hate and bad hate,
and what's tolerance and what's intolerance.

Are you intolerant of the 2004 election outcome
but are tolerant of foreign nuts who hate America?


Left always Defining and Justifying Actions and Reactions to suit them as they see fit.

warped
Last edited by Graceland Gardener on Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:31 am

TJ -

You wrote:
The idea of Parliament "buying it" suggests that Blair knew there were no WMD and was intentionally deceiving Parliament.


Because Tony Blair had decided [with Bush] that Saddam 'must go', he then seized on the intelligence about WMD's and 'talked it up'.

He thrashed about trying to find a legitimate excuse to do what he had already decided to do.

He didn't know that WMD's didn't exist; he didn't know they did either !

Deceiving Parliament ?

Well, that's a bit harsh !

With good intentions, he over emphasised and perhaps exaggerated the findings of the intelligence services to get Parliament's backing for the war.

He presented a kind of 'nudge-nudge-wink-wink, if only you knew what I know' sort of case to Parliament, and they bought it.

They know better now.

The electorate do, too, but they've given him his third term, so they must agree with my conclusion that the good he's done outweighs the bad !

Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:19 pm

Graceland Gardener wrote:
likethebike wrote:I hate him because......


HATE???

As a verb???

You actually hate

wow - so when is hate wrong?

:lol:
- but it's LTB who admits having hate
(and note Doc agreed spot-on with LTB; he too hates)

:roll: You're smarter than that right? Of course.

Liberals certainly have a fluctuating flexible glossary
of what's hate
and what's good hate and bad hate,
and what's tolerance and what's intolerance.

Are you intolerant of the 2004 election outcome
but are tolerant of foreign nuts who hate America?


Left always Defining and Justifying Actions and Reactions to suit them as they see fit.

warped


It's called relativism GG.....it's a handy paradigm to adopt since it requires no logic.

Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:15 pm

hating Bush is really no different than someone hating Jesse Jackson or Nelson Mandella
or Howard Cosell or Kermit the Frog for that matter.
Hate is hate.

But a liberal tries to justify their hatred as a
socially-conscious eco-caring righteous hate. It's OK Hate
:lol:
yeh whatever

LTB admits to hating Bush - and Doc jumps in to heartily agree!
(of course, to Doc, you're his token think-a-like peer and he gushes compliments on you alot) :oops: get a room.

What do you think the replies here would be if I said I hated Kofi Annon?
That sinister corrupt impeachable politician running the U.N.

Huh?

is it okey for GG to hate Annan? Can I get a "ditto" from doc too?

Or what if Scatter said he hated the Sheik of Al Camelcrap?
or if SAM hated yams?


Is hate for the President.....=> a Hate Crime?
Assuming that likethebike is a white dude, then his admitted hate for a white dude (President)
technically disqualifies him from a racism charge.
Clever son, clever.

Shall you be the first to point fingers at someone who hates a black politicial figure?

hate is hate is hate is hate.

wise up.