Why did we go to war?

[shutupandshave]

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
By Anonymous

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense.

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: I give up!

[Weavern]

Seen it so many times it ceases to be interesting or funny.

[JADezimar]

It is old and stupid for both sides. Its so far back in the pasts now, you do know good trying to argue over something that is already been done in the pasts. Those that want to build a better future will try to live in the present.

Have we forgotten that the title of this forums section is Current events.

[Burned]

It is old and stupid for both sides. Its so far back in the pasts now, you do know good trying to argue over something that is already been done in the pasts. Those that want to build a better future will try to live in the present.

Have we forgotten that the title of this forums section is Current events.

U dont consider Iraq a current event?

[JADezimar]

I do not consider the blab of how it started current. Whenever someone brings that up, I get a picture painted in my head that you should not go to war or continue it.

Either of those options is not possible now.

[Morpheus]

First time I've seen this, I think it is pretty funny, actually. Bottom line is, "delivering freedom" is an just an excuse, there are other not so "holy" reasons of why we invaded Iraq. Good luck getting the truth from our elected representitives, though.

Why is it that those representitives always think that they know better than the majority of citizens what's good for the country?

[stats]

I read it and thought it was Karmashock bait.

[shutupandshave]

I read it for the first time today and thought it was funny. It wasn't Karma bait, but I did feel it was a political statement, and not just a joke... which is why it's here.

As far as I feel, Karma and I seem to be getting on reasonably well at the moment.

JAD I think it is very important to consider the reasons that we went to war. When the war is over, and things have settled down, it wont be current for me anymore.

[Shackled Phoenix]

I just laugh, that warmonger was sucha shitty debater.

[Karmashock]

Question the wisdom of going in if you like but don't question our motives.

We want to free up that region of the world. We feel it is important for our national security, for international stability, to say nothing of the fact that we believe freedom to be the birthright of all human kind. Tyranny in any form is offensive to us. We tolerate it in the same way that a vegetarian can believe that meat is murder while also not punching every person that likely eats meat in the street that they come across. Tyranny is the root of most global problems… and freedom is the solution. It’s just that simple.



If this war was about oil, then it has failed. We’re getting less oil at a higher price.

If this war is about creating a puppet state in the Middle East, then it has failed... Iraq will be free or it will be a mess.



The world will be a better place because of what we have done whatever you think about it.


I am sorry that the political situation in Europe that forced us to go through your objections. I really wish France and Germany could have seen the wisdom of it. We in fact thought that France HAD signed on to our plans. But they only said that so we wouldn’t be prepared for the moment when they said no. It was a political stunt at our expense… Powell was extremely pissed at them and wouldn’t return their calls for about 2 weeks. In retrospect perhaps we should have made clear what they had done behind closed doors… it was cheap and underhanded.

As of today just don’t say we're evil. If you feel like insulting us, then call us naive or idealistic.


But there is no evil in what we are doing.

With no facetiousness now or ever…

Love and Peace, Karmashock.

[Morpheus]

We want to free up that region of the world. We feel it is important for our national security, for international stability, to say nothing of the fact that we believe freedom to be the birthright of all human kind. Tyranny in any form is offensive to us. We tolerate it in the same way that a vegetarian can believe that meat is murder while also not punching every person that likely eats meat in the street that they come across. Tyranny is the root of most global problems… and freedom is the solution. It’s just that simple.


If this is true, then why lie and deceive your own people, making up some claims that cannot be backed up? Tell this straight to the nation and see if they want that war.

[JADezimar]

People do not understand long term goals. People in general are to led by what is right and wrong, led by there hearts etc. You cannot expect people to think about things logically, and for the better of the nation.

[MVB]

The only thing I'll say is that, for the millionth time, Bush and his immediate cabinet did not -- in my opinion -- knowingly mislead the American people. They trusted their own intelligence service, and that is -- again, in my opinion -- is their only real "fault." Now they can simply be commended for trusting their military advisors on how to go about the war (instead of trying to come up with plans on their own as simple politicians), and staying the course, instead of knee-jerking and pulling out, leaving a ruined country still in need of a strong occupation force.

[shutupandshave]

Karma, I see your point, but I would be interested to see you tell that to a woman who lost her non-political and non-combatant family in a bombing raid. Tell her that her life is better.

There is no PROOF that the world will be a better place. You cannot say that for certain... the only thing that IS certain is that there is a whole lot of civilians hurting in Iraq now, and from all the evidence I've seen, people over the world feel less safe than they did before the war.

MVB, I dont know whether or not I believe that statement. I think it's a reasonable argument though....however once again, you're placing your trust in a group of people that already got it wrong.

Also, how can they go about the war, if the war is over?

;)

Whether or not it was the president and his immediate staff that lied or not - someone said something that wasn't true, and like it or not - the buck stops with the president on this one. It's his job to make sure that this kind of evidence isn't flawed.

I think just as little about Blair and the Cabinet war supporters with regards to this incident, as I do about Bush. This is not anti-bush.

[Karmashock]

If this is true, then why lie and deceive your own people, making up some claims that cannot be backed up? Tell this straight to the nation and see if they want that war.
MVB said it as well as I could... we did believe there were WMD programs in there and we couldn't bear to have Saddam with a nuke... we always planned on going back and if he had nukes, then that would be hard.


if you read our justification, we didn't think he HAD WMDs, it was that we thought he WOULD have WMDs 'soon'.
================
Karma, I see your point, but I would be interested to see you tell that to a woman who lost her non-political and non-combatant family in a bombing raid. Tell her that her life is better.
Justify the American Revolutionary war or the American civil war on those terms?

Was it worth it to a woman that lost her family to British regulars? Wouldn't she prefer to live under British rule then under the new United States without her family?


See, you're falling back on dishonest arguments again. Circular logic, moral relativism, and now you're using what I think is called a false premise or analogy or proof or something... it's called a false something... I think...

Anyway, you know it's a bad argument because it works on anything. Would a woman rather live under Hitler with a healthy family or in a free republic with her whole family murdered?

See... it's a silly argument... it works on anything and therefore is useful at proving NOTHING.



The only thing I can say to this argument is that the children or the children’s children of that society would likely appreciate it.

I certainly appreciate the sacrifices that the colonies went through to throw off British imperial rule… just as you no doubt appreciate that your grandfathers fought so hard to keep your country free of the Reich.

I say this with no rancor towards you or your people by the way. I've stated many times that the US got over it's 'issues' with Britain by about 1850-60... not bad considering we had to threaten to invade Canada in the war of 1812 for you to officially recognize our independence (if you said no we were going to methodically take all your remaining possessions in the Americas) ... prior then you had a habit to take our ships at sea and impress (apparently what you called it when you took them) our people into the Royal navy or confiscate our cargo... which is just annoying.

however once again, you're placing your trust in a group of people that already got it wrong.
Everyone gets it wrong; the question is what you do once you've made a mistake.

Leaving Iraq or giving it back to saddam would be far far worse... and in the end I think the world will be a better place... or a least one with 30 million more free souls in it (I have no idea what the population of Iraq is... I think its between 20 and 30... but that's just a guess).

Whether or not it was the president and his immediate staff that lied or not - someone said something that wasn't true, and like it or not - the buck stops with the president on this one. It's his job to make sure that this kind of evidence isn't flawed.
Actually, it's his job to lead the armed forces and other elements of the executive branch of the federal government. The intelligence cabinet member is supposed to over see the intelligence department.

I think just as little about Blair and the Cabinet war supporters with regards to this incident, as I do about Bush. This is not anti-bush.
Did you support our actions in Bosnia?... if so, what's the difference?

The only one I can think of is that Bosnia had the support of France and Russia… which seems to mean to most people that the “world” supported it… because god knows that if France or Russia don’t support something the “world” doesn’t support it.

Love and Peace, Karmashock.

[Morpheus]

Whatever Bush and his cabinet were thinking is not that important, you can't prove or disprove that right now. What is important is how the information was presented to American people - misleading to say the least.

But anyways, Karma, do you believe it is perfectly ok for politicians to knownly lie to their own people?

[Karmashock]

I think it can be proven that it was MORE likely that they were not lying then not.

Furthermore, I do not think its alright to lie to your people in a democratic society.


there is a realist that says it might be useful to do so during time of war... that doing so might save lives or give hope when hope is more imporant then truth.

But that is the risk you run when you go for a democratic society. The resolve and wisdom must be in the people, not the leaders.


So lying is wrong.

This does not extend to 'withholding' information from the general public such as military secrets. The design plans to our ICBMs BELONG to the people. Those plans are ours. However, the details of those plans should not be made public because they would instantly fall into the hands of enemy powers... and china having MX peacekeeper icbms would be bad.

I think I've covered all the bases with that answer... tell me if you want an elaboration on a point.

[Morpheus]

Nah, looks good. I just think that getting a simple truth from a politician even in a democratic society is like telling Earth to stop spinning.

[Karmashock]

You're talking about 'spin'.
Spin is not lying... spin is selling... it's packaging... it's advertising... there is a difference between a good advertisement and a lie.

One is a requirement of office... one's honesty is a matter of personal integrity.

A great politician can/should be honest... but he cannot survive without spin or the skill of 'selling' his agenda.


Bush packaged the war in several different forms... none of which were lies.

[Morpheus]

You know, I think that you're right. Democracy is all about "selling", wether goods or political agenda. Straight out lies are used, no doubt about it, just not that often. Most of the time, truth is "bent" to achieve one's desire(what you call "packaged"). Later it can always be blamed on "bad choice of words". That's the problem - once a candidate becomes a president, he can always say : "No, that's not what I meant, you guys misunderstood me."

[Karmashock]

that isn't what I'm saying... There are opinions... If I write "tastes great" on the side of a can of soda... is that true?

It's just my opinion. If I believe it, it's true.

The question is if you think bush lied. I don't think he did.

[shutupandshave]

Justify the American Revolutionary war or the American civil war on those terms?
Wait, you dont see the difference between Americans fighting for America values and Americans invading another country and imposing their values on it?

The intelligence cabinet member is supposed to over see the intelligence department
And who does he report too?

I know it is worse to pull out - I have said this many times.

I remember you once told me that you believe all politicians are scum. Why the support of Bush now?

[Karmashock]

Wait, you dont see the difference between Americans fighting for America values and Americans invading another country and imposing their values on it?
That wasn't in your argument. You said, "what good is it to her?". What good is anything someone that loses so much? Some will always lose a great deal in war or conflict. It does not mean that it was not worth it or worth it. It is irrelevant.

The point is that you were using logic that existed with a predefined conclusion independent of context. It's equivalent to pasting the word "wrong" at the end of an equation without bothering to look at the rest of the equation.

It is therefore a specious argument and is logically thrown out on those grounds.

Truly ask a question instead of coming to the conclusion you want and then graphing something else on to it.


And who does he report too?
You can hardly expect the president to sift through all that data and all those people.

The whole CIA has been found to be fundamentally corrupt. It is currently undergoing a pretty big cleaning. Lots of top officials are losing their heads. The system will be purged until it functions. It has been accumulating dead wood for roughly 30 years... the most in the last 12. Though it has always been a bit of a country club… Hopefully this will change.

I remember you once told me that you believe all politicians are scum. Why the support of Bush now?
He's doing things that I like.

[shutupandshave]

But he wasn't a year or two ago when we had this discussion?

As for the difference between the war of indepedence and the liberation of Iraq... I disagree, if enough people lose too much it ceases to become worth it. However, that is not the issue, and I certainly have no idea of where that line would be.

Going back to the reasons for going to war (and I see what you're saying about using the woman as an example, but I dont think it's an isolated incident however it was not a good example to use). We've agreed that the major reason we went to war was because of weapons of mass destruction. This was a reason that was found out to be false - and I for one am not arguing that the misleading was deliberate, but the fact is - that is the main reason we went to war and it was discovered that it was false information, and so I think that the reasons for going to war have every right to be torn apart.

You use the vegetarian as an example, however the allies DID punch the meat eaters - and not just that, they went to the meat eaters house and destroyed it, promising that they would rebuild it better than before (which they probably will), but they took away the choice of the meat eater to decide to be vegetarian himself, and the people living in that house the freedom to decide to tell the house owner they wanted to be vegetarian.

Our motives for going to war were based on flawed evidence, and there can be no denial of that.

[Karmashock]

But he wasn't a year or two ago when we had this discussion?
I believe i was supportive of bush then too...

As for the difference between the war of indepedence and the liberation of Iraq... I disagree, if enough people lose too much it ceases to become worth it. However, that is not the issue, and I certainly have no idea of where that line would be.
I still don't see your argument that says its better to live under tyranny forever and suffer small horrors then it is to live in freedom after suffering a large but not massive horror.

All humanity yurns to be free. All humanity deserves it.

This was a reason that was found out to be false - and I for one am not arguing that the misleading was deliberate, but the fact is - that is the main reason we went to war and it was discovered that it was false information, and so I think that the reasons for going to war have every right to be torn apart.
No... it just means he had no active weapons program taht we can find. The security threat was real as are all the other reasons we have set out before.

I'm very happy with the justification. Saddam was dangerous and people should be free.... good enough for me.

You use the vegetarian as an example, however the allies DID punch the meat eaters - and not just that, they went to the meat eaters house and destroyed it, promising that they would rebuild it better than before (which they probably will), but they took away the choice of the meat eater to decide to be vegetarian himself, and the people living in that house the freedom to decide to tell the house owner they wanted to be vegetarian.
I have no idea what you're talking about... I'm lost... give me a map. :D


Our motives for going to war were based on flawed evidence, and there can be no denial of that.
One of them was... but only in part. Saddam was a threat... just not an eminent one.

Why wait?… The world is a better place without his filth.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

Calling him lying pondscum (or whatever phrase you used to describe ALL politicians without exception) is hardly supportive.

I also believe in freedom for everyone but I dont believe that the methods used to achieve it in Iraq were right.

I also still dont believe the Saddam was as bad as people think. The estimated highest death toll from 1) being in the Iran-Iraq war (something we supported him doing by the way). 2) general hangings and murders and dissappearances etc comes to under a million people.

The Western death toll against Iraq due to sanctions and the two wars comes to about 1.3 million.
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm
Now, as I have said, these are worst case scenarios from both sides. More likely the Saddam death tool is about 100-200 thousand, and about 400-500 thousands including wars. Anyway, I am digressing.


The security threat I was told about involved 45 mins and chemical weapons. What security threat were you told about?

Saddam was a dangerous man, but Iraq was (previous to the sanctions) in a pretty good shape.

I just dont believe in imposing anything on people like that, and the Allies' view of freedom comes under that banner.

[Karmashock]

the threat of Iraq becoming a nuclear power.

[shutupandshave]

I think the US is at much greater risk from being hit with a nuclear weapon now than it was.
I think it is going to happen if the foreign policy remains the same.

It wont be N.Korea launching a missile or anything like that, it'll be a flash of light (or a large TNT explosion) that engulfs new york or DC and that'll be the first you know of it - because whomever set it up was already in America.

You're talking about pre-emptive strikes here - and that's nasty stuff to start getting into. Killing people because you think they might develop the capability to hurt you in the future. Nasty nasty shit. That is the WRONG reason to go to war.

[Karmashock]

not killing people... stoping a government and freeing its people before they are used to advance the forces of tyranny.


As to the nuke in my nation. We take that risk... there will be consiqences to our way of life and foriegn policy if that happens.

But, unlike the spanish, it will not cause us to retreat. It will propell us forward.


So the terrorists had better hope they don't do that... it will send us completely off the edge.



Understand this... We will not lose.

One way or another, this threat well be brought to heel. If the survival of my nation is seriously threatened, then heaven help them.

[Burned]

Spainish retreated?

[Karmashock]

how else would you like to phrase it?

[Blizzard]

War is War

[shutupandshave]

3 words and have my 1280x1024 screen is taken up.

Make your sig go away please.

You can defeat terrorism, so therefore you're going to lose. Eventually. The goal posts will have to be moved.

[Karmashock]

First, what do you mean 'war is war'?

Second, you over estimate the problem. You stop this by destroying the source. In time their agents will die of old age if nothing else. We'll still be here... and the land that spawned them will be transformed beyond their recognition. They will be hunted men in their places of birth... pursued by their own people... freed from the sick shackles of their perpetual enslavement.

[Burned]

how else would you like to phrase it?

I mean when did they retreated?Of what?


Edit--

If u mean retrreated from Iraq, the spanish ppl never wanted our soldiers to go iraq, only the dumbfuck president sent them because he was licking Bush's shoes the whole day.When there were elections, we changed president(thx god), if he had been reelcted i would have been ashamed of saying im Spanish.

[shutupandshave]

Yes he mean retreated from Iraq.

These terrorists have children and familes Karma. It's not so simple as to say "once this lot of terrorists are dead, there will be no more" in fact, I strongly disagree with you there.

In addition, you have the problem of violent people being violent for the sake of it. Killing blacks, jews, whites, whatever - If/When the Muslim cause is existed a lot of these people will just find a new cause.

[Karmashock]

I mean when did they retreated?Of what?


Edit--

If u mean retrreated from Iraq, the spanish ppl never wanted our soldiers to go iraq, only the dumbfuck president sent them because he was licking Bush's shoes the whole day.When there were elections, we changed president(thx god), if he had been reelcted i would have been ashamed of saying im Spanish.
The terrorists took that as a victory... read their websites and publications. They think you're weak now.

If you see it another way, then just know that's how they perceive you. If they think terrorism works on you, then they're more likely to do it again.


Terrorism doesn't work on the US... it just pisses us off.
==============================
These terrorists have children and familes Karma. It's not so simple as to say "once this lot of terrorists are dead, there will be no more" in fact, I strongly disagree with you there.
If what you were saying were true then most of the people we would be fighting by now would be revenge killers.

They are not.

We are fighting remainders of Saddam's regime and foreign radicals.

FIX THAT IN YOUR MIND! Those are the people who are the problem, the rest are happier with what we are doing.

As to terrorists... this expresses my feelings towards them best.
American getting his head cut off on tape (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/berg_killing.wmv)

In addition, you have the problem of violent people being violent for the sake of it. Killing blacks, jews, whites, whatever - If/When the Muslim cause is existed a lot of these people will just find a new cause.
That cause would be no greater in any nation. So how much of a problem do the Swiss have with that (considering the ethnic issues, I suspect the best we could do is about what they’ve got in Israel… but they should lose a lot of support after the US leaves and they keep blowing up Muslims.)?... that's about how much your figure is worth.

People kill the above groups not because they like to kill, but because they hate, fear, and/or do not wish said people in their community or society.

If you took blacks out of the south prior to end of slavery, then you wouldn't find southerners killing white people instead or sailing to Africa to kill black people.

As to jews, I think there is just some really weird paranoia about Jewish people in Europe... Americans don't get it as they're just like everyone else here. But I assume it's the same principle.

The solution in the south was not to remove black people and the solution in the middle east is not to remove all non Muslims.


Terrorists get shot.

[shutupandshave]

If what you were saying were true then most of the people we would be fighting by now would be revenge killers.
Not at all, I am saying the revenge killers would appear at a later date. I am saying that by liberating Iraq you are not necessarily destroying terrorism. I think it unlikely you can ever completely destroy the source - and if you can, feel free to let me know.

You forget sometimes, that the UK has dealt with more terrorism in the past 20 years than the US has EVER. We have a shakey peace in Ireland, but people there are still killing each other... however the Ex-IRA are now turning up in various countries training other terrorists.... Hence my constant statements that terrorism doesn't just always die out.

Yes there is no terrorism in Switzerland, but Swizterland has not invaded any countries or been invaded in any wars for a very long time. I doubt the US would have any or much terrorism if it had adopted a similar attitude.

So, explain to me why there are in places like South America if they're only trying to fight for the unification of Ireland?

[Karmashock]

Not at all, I am saying the revenge killers would appear at a later date. I am saying that by liberating Iraq you are not necessarily destroying terrorism. I think it unlikely you can ever completely destroy the source - and if you can, feel free to let me know.
Nope, if you free the people and make it a better place, most will take it for what it is. The end.

You forget sometimes, that the UK has dealt with more terrorism in the past 20 years than the US has EVER. We have a shakey peace in Ireland, but people there are still killing each other... however the Ex-IRA are now turning up in various countries training other terrorists.... Hence my constant statements that terrorism doesn't just always die out.
The ex-IRA guys you just have to wait for them to die of old age... same deal with the terrorists we’re dealing with. However, the better and freer Ireland/Iraq is the less they will resort to such tactics.

England brutalized Ireland for centuries... the US has no such record with Iraq.

Be careful with your comparisons.

You perhaps forget where most Irish people went when they lost hope for their country ever being free.

They came to America... we treated them like shit at first too... but we gave them an honest days pay for an honest days work... and we even opened up the frontier for them... look up the homestead act of 1862. As you likely know, much of the funding for the IRA came from Irish Americans… It was something we tried to control… but they had family back in Ireland and there wasn’t much we could do to control it.

Yes there is no terrorism in Switzerland, but Swizterland has not invaded any countries or been invaded in any wars for a very long time. I doubt the US would have any or much terrorism if it had adopted a similar attitude.
... no... I'm not comparing Switzerland to the US... I'm comparing it to the Saudi Arabia. The Saudis don't get 'many' attacks upon them either... but they do create a lot of terrorists. Morocco produces a lot of terrorists too... though they don't suffer them themselves much.

Why is that? What has the US done to Morocco? Jack shit.

So, explain to me why there are in places like South America if they're only trying to fight for the unification of Ireland?
Again, that generation has to die off. What's important is that they're dying off faster then they're being replaced. At a certain point that whole terrorist culture in Ireland will collapse... the connections will break down... and you'll just have the occasional nut.

[Morpheus]

Terrorism is religion-based. I"m sorry Karma, there's no way, IMO, anyone can defeat religion with wars. Terrorism thrives on it.

[Karmashock]

Terrorism is not religion based any more then ship of the line battles are religion based.

It is a military tactic that uses unskilled expendable infiltratiors.

Jihad is religious.

We are dealing with both issues. The terrorism is generally not hitting our people... they're killing innocent iraqis more then anything... and we can't really stop that... it's just not possible unless we walled off the whole country. Eventually, the people there will take a hint from isreal about how to deal with this and start shooting these bastards on sight.

As to jihad, that's where democracy comes in. Some of the religious leaders have called "democracy the enemy of Islam", which isn't true. Democracy is the enemy of the tyrannical power structure that lets them do things like call jihad or put out fatwahs. The religion will if any thing be healthier with it's people after democracy. It will more imporantly, be much more peaceful and reasonable.

So, both issues sorted.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Wicksy]

On their way to a peace rally, two urban leftist dilettantes take a wrong turn, and somehow find themselves far away from Commercial Street, and instead are lost in an untrendy and rough part of town.

As they fearfully make their way along the sidewalk, blaming large kkkorporations and kkkapitalists for making them lost, they hear anguished moans of pain coming from a nearby alley. Tremblingly, they look in the alley to see where the sounds are coming from.

Suddenly, they come across a man lying on the ground, covered in blood. His shoes are missing, and his clothes are torn. Several of his teeth are missing and he has bruises all over his face. In shock, one of the leftists stutters,
"M-M-My Goddess! What happened to you?"
The injured man on the ground replies,
"I was violently assaulted and mugged by a gang of street urchins. They almost beat me to death ... "

The two leftists pause to let this sink in, and then one turns to the other and says,
"This is terrible! Whoever did this needs our help!"

[laserflip]

holy mother of fuck! wicksyBiB?!?!?!??!?!!??!!?!?!?


P.S., if we just sent karmashock over to the middle east and had him talk to every arab and jew, world peace would probably be established! you just cant win an argument with karmashock about this shit. period. lol

[Wicksy]

Yea! :howdy:
Who goes there?!

[laserflip]

You're talking about pre-emptive strikes here - and that's nasty stuff to start getting into. Killing people because you think they might develop the capability to hurt you in the future. Nasty nasty shit. That is the WRONG reason to go to war.


yes, look at what happened to japan in WW2

[Wicksy]

1. I also still dont believe the Saddam was as bad as people think....

2. Sanctions etc...

3. I just dont believe in imposing anything on people like that, and the Allies' view of freedom comes under that banner.
:fuctupshi
1. Yes. He was an angel. He didn't torture, gas or murder anyone. The mass graves uncovered in Iraq are just a bad dream.

2. They were UN sanctions, not Allies' sanctions. Your magical alternative proposal that avoided all suffering and war was?

3. The allies' view of freedom comes under the banner of democracy. That's why there's gonna be a VOTE (shock, horror!) in Iraq TODAY. That's why Iraqis have been queueing up to vote... coz of the eeevillll of democracy.

Incidentally, that's also why the TERRORISTS have been murdering (or threatening to murder...) ANYONE involved in the election process. Be they election volunteers, politicians or even VOTERS. Because democracy is eeevillll and terrorism is great.

[Karmashock]

holy mother of fuck! wicksyBiB?!?!?!??!?!!??!!?!?!?


P.S., if we just sent karmashock over to the middle east and had him talk to every arab and jew, world peace would probably be established! you just cant win an argument with karmashock about this shit. period. lol
If the middle east were 'near' the US... as 'in' our sphere of influence... this shit would never have happened...

We just don't tolerate this nonsense.

this is just funny shit...
http://img80.exs.cx/img80/9176/gman3no.jpg

[shutupandshave]

Yay wix is here.

and we begin here as we left off on the FC forums...
Yes. He was an angel.
I never said that, dont put words in my mouth
They were UN sanctions, not Allies' sanctions. Your magical alternative proposal that avoided all suffering and war was?
Did I say I had a magical alternative? When did I ever say I could use magic?
That's why Iraqis have been queueing up to vote... coz of the eeevillll of democracy.
No it's not.
There are a lot of Americans on these boards, try not to use too much sarcasm because you'll end up looking stupider than I know you already will.

:) Welcome to the forums.

[Karmashock]

Did I say I had a magical alternative? When did I ever say I could use magic?
I think he's saying that, minus magic, you have no solution.

No it's not.
That's just your opinion. The opinion of the terrorists is that democracy is evil. A moral nation would not need to debate because there is only one moral solution to any issue... this solution is obvious to the faithful.

So debating can only open the door to selfishness and corruption. There is only one way and that is Islam.

This is why they kill. In every nation they have held elections in, the rule was that after they got into power, there would be no more elections... because democracy is evil.

The US can't help but fight that... we believe the exact opposite.

[shutupandshave]

That's just your opinion.
No it's fact.

You're saying that democracy is definitely evil? Because all I was saying that it wasn't definitely evil.

Wix has a problem with absolutes (he uses them all the time), which a lot of people also do - however he also complains when other people use them, so I make it a point to show him when he's using them.

[Critta]

England brutalized Ireland for centuries... the US has no such record with Iraq.

No, we've "just" been bombing them for a decade.

Eventually, the people there will take a hint from isreal about how to deal with this and start shooting these bastards on sight.

Because that's helped the terrorism situation in Israel sooo much. Israel choose to shoot them, they keep coming. They've been trying that tactic for 50 years, it hasn't worked.

The opinion of the terrorists is that democracy is evil. A moral nation would not need to debate because there is only one moral solution to any issue... this solution is obvious to the faithful.

I disagree, I think that the terrorists don't trust a democracy set up by America.

[Karmashock]

No it's fact.

You're saying that democracy is definitely evil? Because all I was saying that it wasn't definitely evil.

Wix has a problem with absolutes (he uses them all the time), which a lot of people also do - however he also complains when other people use them, so I make it a point to show him when he's using them.
Read again, I was saying that the islamic radicals think democracy is evil.

I think the opposite.

READ.
======================
No, we've "just" been bombing them for a decade.
Are you really going to compare the US's treatment with England's treatment of Ireland?

Don't even go there.
Like the US with slavery and Germany with the Jews... just don't even start trying to rationalize it.



Because that's helped the terrorism situation in Israel sooo much. Israel choose to shoot them, they keep coming. They've been trying that tactic for 50 years, it hasn't worked.
Actually, it's only been a problem more recently as the radicals have been enboldened by new leaders and the resolve to make peace work has weakened.



I disagree, I think that the terrorists don't trust a democracy set up by America.
Do you read any thing they write?

They don't trust democracy PERIOD. They think democracy is inherently immoral. It askes the people what they want instead of asking what is moral and in keeping iwth god's wishes. As democracy doesn't ask moral questions but the majority, it is inherently evil... according to the radicals.


This is why they will lose. We will appeal to the people and the radicals will appeal to a radical interpretation of their god.

If Allah does exist, I doubt he favors Osama... so it will be the free people of islam V a vengeful god that will never come.

Love and peace shall spread over the land, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

Why would the Iraqi's be voting because of the evil of democracy Karma?

I dont think people think democracy is evil, and if they do, they shouldn't be.
Democracy is a representative of evil in their eyes.

To say democracy is evil is like saying that "an apple is moon". The sentance doesn't fit together.

[Karmashock]

Regardless of what you think of that statement, it is the PROFESSED belief of the terrorists. These are not my words, they are their words.

Furthermore, they've been saying this for YEARS... well before the US was hit by 9/11...

This is what we are fighting. The forces of tyranny.

They will be stripped of their slaves.... and all shall live in peace and freedom.

Love and Peace, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

Yup, and if they said that I was a fish they'd also be wrong... for no matter how long they said it.

They said it because it's a simpler way of looking things, not because it's 100% accurate. You can have an opinion, but it can be incorrect by definition.

Please, no need for the propaganda lines at the end of so many of your posts, they're getting a bit much for me.

[Karmashock]

No propaganda here... I say what I believe.


As to their ideas... they are as I have said them. What you think of them is irrelevant. That is what they have believed for a long time.

[shutupandshave]

Saying what you believe is one thing, repeating it over and over again is another.

[Critta]

Are you really going to compare the US's treatment with England's treatment of Ireland?

Don't even go there.
Like the US with slavery and Germany with the Jews... just don't even start trying to rationalize it.

So, they had a famine that lasted 2 years, the main cause of which was the blight, a disease that nobody had any control of. We could have helped out in this famine, but our economic views at the time followed a laissez-faire policy, so as our views dictated, we let it pass and ignored the problem. Add to this the fact that the British government was fiercely anti-catholic by this point and Ireland was almost completely Catholic probably helped the government to ignore their plight. The British response to the famine was described as "too little, too late".

It is not known exactly how many Irish people died during the famine, but it has been extimated in the region of 400,000-750,000

Iraq has had 10 years of famine and disease, the main cause of which was the bombing of their entire infrastructure "back to the pre-industrial age" and subsequent imposing of sanctions as well as bombs missing their intended targets and striking civilian buildings. The Iraqi regieme were attempting to maintain control of the country after a major war and as such ignored the problem. The UN could have eased the famine by removing sanctions kept in place only because of the mistaken belief that Iraq possesed WMD. The UN oil for food programme was described by many as "too little, too late".

It is not known exactly how many Iraqi people died during the famine, but it has been extimated in the region of 500,000-1,000,000

British fault in the potato famine was indirect at very best, we did not ship food over to feed the Irish. I hope you can see the difference between this and the systematic genocide of millions of people?

I hope you can also see the similarity of causes of death and numbers dead in both Ireland and in Iraq as well as the failings from the authorities in charge in both cases are also similar (they didn't care). In both cases aid was given to try and resolve the problem, but it came too late to make much of a difference.

[Karmashock]

I'll say it until you stop creating situtations where that's all I can say...

you question our motives and that needs to be countered.

[Critta]

So you have no comeback to my points then?

By your own reasoning there is never any situation where a country should be likened to Nazi Germany.

If you look at my reasoning (which you convinently tried to ignore) you can see that the cause of feath in both cases is similar, the number of people who died is similar and if anything, the British government was less involved in causung the situation than the UN was in the case of Iraq.

I'm still waiting for you to attack my argment here!

[Karmashock]

I didn't see it... pretty offensive, but not uncommon for a culture to talk down it's crimes.

The US has a blind eye on the native americans... we have a bit of one on slavery too...

as to Iraq, you've simplified it to the point where it isn't honest anymore. You're not dishonest... I don't think that is your reasoning up there... someone explained it that way... and they were liars.

Oh well... If you really want to talk about ireland or iraq, I'm going shock you at least on with ireland... it's the only way to get people out of such delusions.

[shutupandshave]

You know what's strange about this...

When I talk about America I dont understand it cos I am not there.
When I talk about the UK, Karma has a better understanding of it, because he's looking in from the outside.

You could, Karma, be saying that you have a better view on things than me in general, but seeing as I've won almost (or all?) of our big arguments I find that hard to believe...

[Critta]

I didn't see it... pretty offensive, but not uncommon for a culture to talk down it's crimes.

The US has a blind eye on the native americans... we have a bit of one on slavery too...

as to Iraq, you've simplified it to the point where it isn't honest anymore. You're not dishonest... I don't think that is your reasoning up there... someone explained it that way... and they were liars.

Oh well... If you really want to talk about ireland or iraq, I'm going shock you at least on with ireland... it's the only way to get people out of such delusions.

I've simplified both to the base facts. On paper they are both very similar situations. The only difference between the two is that one has American popular opinion against it, the other has American popular opinion in favour of it ;)

At the moment you have yet again provided no evidence of anything you say, you (yet again) choose to attack me with comments that I am "offensive", "dishonest" and "delusional". If there is so much you can shock me with related to Irealand, hurry up and shock me and stop bloody well insulting me in the meantime.

I ask you (yet again) to attack my argument.

[Karmashock]

You know what's strange about this...
<usual silly horse shit>
To say that England didn't cause the abject poverty and STAVATION in Ireland at that time is a complete lie. The potato crop failed but the rest of the country's food was good. What did the english overlords do?

Exported it.
If there is so much you can shock me with related to Irealand, hurry up and shock me and stop bloody well insulting me in the meantime.

I ask you (yet again) to attack my argument.
Like f'ing germans laughing in a concentration camp... what the hell is wrong with you? Seriously?

My country has commited genocide... we have enslaved millions... this we admit to and mostly are extremely sorry for.

Your nation has its own black stains upon its soul. To deny them is just amasing to me.


As you insist....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_potato_famine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Irish_population_change_%281841-1851%29.png
The Irish Potato Famine, also called The Great Famine or The Great Hunger (Irish: An Gorta Mór), is the name given to a famine which struck Ireland between 1846 and 1849. The Famine was at least fifty years in the making, due to the disastrous interaction of British economic policy, destructive farming methods, and the unfortunate appearance of "the Blight" —the potato fungus that almost instantly destroyed the major food source for the majority population. The immediate after-effects of The Famine continued until 1851, and in the five years from 1846 some 750,000 deaths are attributed to starvation (estimates vary), and much the same number of people emigrated to Britain, the United States, Canada and Australia (see the Irish Diaspora).

The immediate effect on Ireland was devastating, and its long-term effects proved immense, permanently changing Irish culture and tradition up to today. The Irish Potato Famine was the culmination of a social, biological, political and economic catastrophe, caused by both Irish and British factors, which would have sharp and lasting influences on the World.
That the Famine "amounted to genocide" by the British against the Irish is a divisive issue and largely representative of the difference in perspective and attitudes among the Irish-Americans from Irish nationals. Few Irish historians accept outright such a definition, as "genocide" implies a deliberate policy of extermination. All are agreed that the British policies during the Famine, particularly those applied under Lord John Russell, were misguided, ill-informed and disastrous. Professor Joe Lee once called what happened a holocaust.

There is little or no conflict on the facts. The records are incomplete, however, for whatever cause. Thus the "debate" is largely a moral one attempting to ascertain whether within the policies of the British Empire lay a racist, forgetful, or simply inconsiderate mentality that, despite its power, made it impotent to handle a humanitarian crisis in its own backyard.

Irish, British and US historians F.S.L. Lyons, John A. Murphy, Joe Lee, Roy Foster, and James S. Donnelly, Jr., as well as historians Cecil Woodham-Smith, Peter Gray, Ruth Dudley Edwards and many others have long dismissed claims of a deliberate policy of extermination. This dismissal usually does not preclude any assessment of British Imperial rule as ill-mannered or unresponsive toward its subjects.

The notable difference between the Famine and other humanitarian crises was that it occurred so apparently close to the imperial homeland, at a time well into the modern prosperity of the Victorian and Industrial age. Even today, such crises tend to be far away from centers of power such that the subjects of empire, almost by definition, are of distant cultures, languages and religious beliefs. Within the imperial culture, the reportage of a crisis among its subjects moreoften uses dismissive and dehumanizing terms, and treats otherwise urgent matters with little relevancy or interest. The Great Famine however repesents a rare example of "imperial treatment" towards a people so apparently similar, according to the apparent common criteria. Although human suffering during the Great Famine itself was never photographed, it immediately and profoundly altered the course of generations of Irish and Irish diaspora —for whom history has a rich record.


Fucking stupid worthless subhuman Irish though... right?

All I'm demanding is that you face your due demons.

[laserflip]

The only thing I'll say is that, for the millionth time, Bush and his immediate cabinet did not -- in my opinion -- knowingly mislead the American people. They trusted their own intelligence service, and that is -- again, in my opinion -- is their only real "fault." Now they can simply be commended for trusting their military advisors on how to go about the war (instead of trying to come up with plans on their own as simple politicians), and staying the course, instead of knee-jerking and pulling out, leaving a ruined country still in need of a strong occupation force.

yea, blame the fucking intelligence for sucking. any system in america based on figuring ANYTHING out is bound to get 95% of it wrong

[Karmashock]

CIA is getting torn appart... they threatened some congressmen and senators... tried to black mail them... also they've been feeding info to the press against their secrecy oaths and agreements... they're a rogue group and they're going down.

[shutupandshave]

To say that England didn't cause the abject poverty and STAVATION in Ireland at that time is a complete lie.
And I said that when?

The British did not CAUSE the famine, the British did not help enough. Ancient history though, as you would say?

Incidently what's the US up to in Sudan at the moment? You know, in that place you have officially stated Genocide is going on.

We all have demons in the past... Some have demons in the present.

The US's treatment of the American Indians or the Nazi's treatment of Jews, is not comparable to Ireland.
Our crime was ignoring it... and yes it was heinous, and wrong... but not helping someone live is different to killing them.

Do people that walk past tramps without giving them money get put in prison if he dies of starvation on the streets? No.

[MVB]

The US treatment of American Indians is not comparable to Nazi treatment of the Jews. Of course, we could talk about British treatment of South African Afrikaners, too. There, Brits actually put Afrikaners in concentration camps where they died, so ...

Anyway, this is all silly. Britain's been around longer, and has committed an immense # more atrocities than the US, but none of it really matters in the present. Patriotism aside, the US and Britain are more or less one nation these days anyway, as they'll pretty much always do things along the same routes, regardless of what the noisy minority or even noisy majority want to say.

[shutupandshave]

The US treatment of American Indians is not comparable to Nazi treatment of the Jews.
Well that's not the issue really. I think they can be compared, as can a lot of things... although not by finding comparisons in one area and assuming comparisons in another. Karma likes bringing the Nazi's up anyway...

I've always thought most of the Indians died when people in the US were Englishmen or Spaniards anyway...

I am interested though MVB, how many atrocities has the UK committed, and how many has the US committed?

[Karmashock]

And I said that when?
if you're not backing up stats, then you didn't. that's what I was talking about.

The British did not CAUSE the famine, the British did not help enough. Ancient history though, as you would say?
Yes you did. You didn't cause the blight, but you were the cause of the starvation. Ireland had enough food if the peasants were allowed to eat anything but potatos... but you exported all their other food to england.

Good work.

Incidently what's the US up to in Sudan at the moment? You know, in that place you have officially stated Genocide is going on.
Not sure... though, as I said... the fact that we acknowledged it didn't impress you... even though you said it would.

We all have demons in the past... Some have demons in the present.
none in power in america at this time.

Our crime was ignoring it... and yes it was heinous, and wrong... but not helping someone live is different to killing them.
no, you exported food from their country when they were starving.

Do people that walk past tramps without giving them money get put in prison if he dies of starvation on the streets? No.
no one starves in america.... unless they fall into a cave or something and no one can find them...

Well that's not the issue really. I think they can be compared, as can a lot of things... although not by finding comparisons in one area and assuming comparisons in another. Karma likes bringing the Nazi's up anyway...
actually, I don't... I prefer to avoid them because I think they're over used.

I've always thought most of the Indians died when people in the US were Englishmen or Spaniards anyway...
Disease mostly... but we methodically took their land one mile at a time, killing them where they stood if they refused to back up.

I am interested though MVB, how many atrocities has the UK committed, and how many has the US committed?
that's just giving work for people.

list ours and we'll make a list for you.

[shutupandshave]

if you're not backing up stats, then you didn't. that's what I was talking about.
How can I prove something DIDN'T happen...anyway the sources from your wiki article suggest that the famine was caused by the blight, and it's debatable as to whether or not the British CAUSED the starvation, so there is no proof... however as you want me to prove something didn't happen, I will ask you to do the same lower down.

but you exported all their other food to england.
If we exported ALL of their food, then how did ANY of them survive?
How much food did we export?

Not sure... though, as I said... the fact that we acknowledged it didn't impress you... even though you said it would.
Only because it was my understanding that acknowledging it, meant it had to be dealt with... therefore acknowledging it = dealing with it.
You still did less than the EU.
none in power in america at this time
Bush is a Demon

no, you exported food from their country when they were starving.
I did?
And YOU blockaded food going into Iraq... a few years ago.
Anyway, I quote from the article you posted
"Critics have observed how during this time, Irish & Anglo-Irish landowners exported corn (and other crops) which could have saved the lives of many Irish people. Conversely, it may be argued that such arguments mis-understand the nature of the famine economy, where many estates were only kept afloat and so were able to avoid mass evictions, provide famine relief through their rates to the Poor Law Union or were able to reduce rents, through the grain exports income"

So your solution may have killed even more? Great job Karma.

no one starves in america
Proof? Prove no one has starved to death in America... whether by choice, or from homelessness...or from malnutrition or whatever.
Prove it.

edit: whoops hit post to early
actually, I don't... I prefer to avoid them because I think they're over used.
It was more a gentle reminder to MVB that it was not me that bought it up.

that's just giving work for people.
list ours and we'll make a list for you.
I agree it's a lot of work, but the fact that MVB said it must mean he have some kind of evidence to back it up - I would also like him to take into his account the fact that the UK is only 50 years old or whatever, and America is 200 years old - remember?

[Karmashock]

How can I prove something DIDN'T happen...anyway the sources from your wiki article suggest that the famine was caused by the blight, and it's debatable as to whether or not the British CAUSED the starvation, so there is no proof... however as you want me to prove something didn't happen, I will ask you to do the same lower down.
Just shut up... just shut the fuck up. If I started moralizing slavery, then you could tell me to shut up too... but you need to shut the fuck up.

Just wow.

If we exported ALL of their food, then how did ANY of them survive?
How much food did we export?
Being anal and making an arguement are two different things. This isn't an arguement.

You continued to export food while they were starving and you kept them from their land. Just wow... little things like this tell me how much farther the US has come in its understanding of its own crimes. You're just sticking your head in the sand. I've seen this in some southerners in the US... mostly very poorly educated ones that you couldn't expect much from anyway... just wow.


Only because it was my understanding that acknowledging it, meant it had to be dealt with... therefore acknowledging it = dealing with it.
You still did less than the EU.


Like I said, it will never be enough. You'll just move the bar another 2 feet. It's fucking pointless.
Bush is a Demon
Yep, america = Great satan

Please strap a bomb to yourself and threaten childen in Iraq or something... I have a need to put underwear on your head.


I did?
Yep, you personally did it... again, being anal is not making an arguement.

And YOU blockaded food going into Iraq... a few years ago.
I don't think we did.

So your solution may have killed even more? Great job Karma.
only if you consider keeping the STOLEN lands profitable to ENGLISH land owners.

You squeezed that land until it bled irish blood. THat is on your nation and there is no way to deny that.


Proof? Prove no one has starved to death in America... whether by choice, or from homelessness...or from malnutrition or whatever.
Prove it.
You're the one accusing. You prove it. Innocent until proven guilty.

if it happens, it's a freak. Most bums I see in LA are fat.

It was more a gentle reminder to MVB that it was not me that bought it up.
Typically is though.
I agree it's a lot of work, but the fact that MVB said it must mean he have some kind of evidence to back it up - I would also like him to take into his account the fact that the UK is only 50 years old or whatever, and America is 200 years old - remember?
First, you like to busy the arguement into the ground. I'm not going to waste my time provign things that are obvious unless you at least do it too. This sets a limit on the nonsense you can put me through.

Furthermore, I'm happy to accept the older age and the sins that come with it, if you're willing to accept your loss of senority.

Which would your prefer?

The clean spirit or the status?

no brainer... you'll try and take them both. :rolleyes:

[shutupandshave]

You fail to address the point that your link says there is no proof to your claim that it was the British, which is what all your arguments rest on. Great Job.

[Karmashock]

Wash your hands all you like, the stain will never come off.
Accept it and move on.
A blight upon the potatoes of Ireland forever changed the histories of Ireland, England, and the United States of America. The blight that we now know was a water mold (and not a fungus as originally believed), Phytophthora infestans, attacked the cash crop of the Irish Catholic peasant farmer. This was the crop with which the Irish paid their rent to the English and Protestant landlords.

Starving Irish peasants tried to eat the rotten potatoes and fell ill to cholera and typhus and whole villages were struck down. Many landlords evicted the starving tenants who could be found dying on sides of roads with mouths green from eating grass to fill their bellies. Other families were sent to workhouses where the overcrowding and poor conditions led to more starvation, sickness, and ultimately death. Going to a workhouse was akin to marching to one's own death. Some more sympathetic landlords paid the passage for their tenants to emigrate to America, Canada, and Australia. Ship owners took advantage of the situation and wedged hundreds of diseased and desperate Irish into ships that were hardly sea-worthy for the Trans-Atlantic trip. These ships became known as "coffin ships" as more than one-third of the passengers died on the voyage.

The Irish that did survive the trip to America, Canada, or Australia on the coffin ships drummed up awareness and more importantly, aid in the form of food. But for every one ship sailing into Ireland with food, more were exporting grain-based alcohol, wool and flax, and other necessities such as wheat, oats, barley, butter, eggs, beef, and pork that could have helped feed the Irish people. The Irish themselves were accused of bringing the famine on themselves as they were viewed as a lazy, overpopulated race of people - never mind that they were not legally able to fish or hunt under British law. They starved in the midst of plenty because they were not allowed to provide for themselves and their families by any means other than agriculture.

The Famine, or An Górta Mór, the Great Hunger, took more than one million lives, between those that died of starvation and those that left Ireland for a better life in America or elsewhere in the world. Those who were left behind in Ireland experienced a desperation that led to a massive change in politics and nationalism - it was only a few years later, in 1858 that the Irish Republican Brotherhood was founded. The British government and the British and Irish Protestant landowners still required the Irish peasants and laborers to pay their rent for the land they could not work due to the blight and the hunger upon them. In a lush island surrounded by water teaming with fish and land that fattened pig and cattle alike, how could one failed crop cause a Famine? According to British law, Irish Catholics could not apply for fishing or hunting licenses. Their pigs and cattle were sent to England to feed the British and to export for trade, while the landlords kept the fine cuts for themselves. Ireland was part of the British Empire, the most powerful empire in the world at that time - yet the British government stood by and did nothing to help their subjects overcome this hardship. In our time, an enforced famine such as this would be labeled genocide yet in the 1800s it was merely an unfortunate tragedy. As defined in the United Nation's 1948 Genocide Convention and the 1987 Genocide Convention Implementation Act, the legal definition of genocide is any of the acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, including by killing its members; causing them serious bodily or mental harm; deliberately inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The British policy of mass starvation inflicted on Ireland from 1845 to 1850 constituted "genocide" against the Irish People as legally defined by the United Nations. A quote by John Mitchell (who published The United Irishman) states that "The Almighty indeed sent the potato blight, but the English created the Famine."

[shutupandshave]

The failure of Britain to control the behaviour of landlords has often been criticised. However in the mid-nineteenth century, few states internationally restricted the rights of landlords; restrictions in Ireland were only imposed from the 1870s, as under the Land Acts which conceded the Irish nationalist demand for the Three Fs and which finally allowed tenants to buy their farms.
This was not the British government evicting people... this was individuals... since when did we judge the government of a nation on the act of a minority of individuals Karma.


There is little or no conflict on the facts. The records are incomplete, however, for whatever cause. Thus the "debate" is largely a moral one attempting to ascertain whether within the policies of the British Empire lay a racist, forgetful, or simply inconsiderate mentality that, despite its power, made it impotent to handle a humanitarian crisis in its own backyard.
Except that Karma, seems to have proof that no one else does.

go Karma!

[Karmashock]

keep scrubbing.

[shutupandshave]

Ignoring the facts, and resulting to insults again.

[Dibujante]

Actually, the CIA repeatedly indicated that its intelligence was flawed, debunking stories like the yellowcake.

Further, since the invasion, $30 billion worth of oil has been exported from Iraq at whatever price the U.S. has seen fit to set it at.

Finally, Bush lied about the draft, too. The head of the draft board recently admitted that the U.S. was gearing up to practice a selective draft of doctors, linguists and computer techs. It seems to me that there is a very fine distinction between "lying" and "withholding information" for this man.

Additionally, the president is responsible for all actions of cabinet members, since they derive authority from him and from the Vice President. The constitution does not establish a "cabinet of intelligence" and give it responsability. The 2nd article establishes the presidency as the sole executive power in the nation and the only power with responsability for actions taken in the name of the executive.

Finally, how dare you assert that the U.S.'s actions have, historically, been opposed to tyranny? Don't you remember the dozens of dictators you supported in Latin America? The democratic movements crushed? The people murdered? You've exported terrorists, trained on U.S. SOIL at the School of the Americas, to the rest of the world. You have no shame. And millions of dead are testament to that.

Regards,
Dibujante

[Karmashock]

Actually, the CIA repeatedly indicated that its intelligence was flawed, debunking stories like the yellowcake.
Segments of the CIA have said many different things. They have also threatened senators and congressmen. This is duplicidious at best. They should be glad they're not going to jail.

Further, since the invasion, $30 billion worth of oil has been exported from Iraq at whatever price the U.S. has seen fit to set it at.

Which just happened to be market price.
Finally, Bush lied about the draft, too. The head of the draft board recently admitted that the U.S. was gearing up to practice a selective draft of doctors, linguists and computer techs. It seems to me that there is a very fine distinction between "lying" and "withholding information" for this man.
The government plans many things... doesn't mean they were going to do it... just htat they would be ready.

Additionally, the president is responsible for all actions of cabinet members, since they derive authority from him and from the Vice President. The constitution does not establish a "cabinet of intelligence" and give it responsability. The 2nd article establishes the presidency as the sole executive power in the nation and the only power with responsability for actions taken in the name of the executive.
... Read your civics.

Finally, how dare you assert that the U.S.'s actions have, historically, been opposed to tyranny? Don't you remember the dozens of dictators you supported in Latin America? The democratic movements crushed? The people murdered? You've exported terrorists, trained on U.S. SOIL at the School of the Americas, to the rest of the world. You have no shame. And millions of dead are testament to that.
That was Henry Kissinger... that was realpolitik. The Neocons driving US foriegn policy consider Kissinger very near a war criminal.


You're well out of your depth, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

... Read your civics.

That was Henry Kissinger... that was realpolitik. The Neocons driving US foriegn policy consider Kissinger very near a war criminal.


No, read yours, child. I'm a constitutional scholar. I really do know what I'm talking about. You really don't. The Intelligence agencies and departments are not enumerated in the Constitution. Instead is enumerated the President's power to create and appoint them. Sigh. Please tell me you don't vote.

US Constitution, article 2, clause 2:

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States..."

Further, if they consider Kissenger to be a war criminal, then why is he still collaborating with Bush on, say, the Sept 11th investigation commission? Further, why did he appoint Negroponte, who was as involved as Kissenger, to be ambassador to Iraq? Your argument doesn't hold water. You are delusional. *turns flame off now*

Finally, a degree of separation does not make someone innocent. Eichmann and Himmler weren't pulling any triggers or opening any Chlorine gas valves....are they innocent? Anyone who supports or promotes the actions of war criminals is an accomplice to war crimes.

Regards,
Dibujante

[Karmashock]

sigh...

It seems we’re all scholars here uh?… we’re all rocket scientists, genetic engineers, and the occasional queen of France thrown in for shits and giggles… fucking asinine bullshit.

Moving beyond this infantile posturing.


He is either using a power he had or he got congress to pass the legislation to get said authority. So you have absolutely no case. If you’d like, I can likely pull up the info in 5 minutes via google.

If you think you do, then take it to the democrats and have them roast Bush. They'll crown you king of the universe... Or laugh and stop returning your calls... betting the latter as I don't think you know what you're talking about.

As to kissinger, he was useful in that instance. So long as he doesn't ever make our foreign policy ever again, I'm happy. The things that man did are just ridiculous... his reasoning in no small way contributed to our loss in Nam... Mcnamara fucked it up proper before then anyway... but kissinger made us into monsters.

L&P, KS.

[Dibujante]

He is either using a power he had or he got congress to pass the legislation to get said authority. So you have absolutely no case. If you’d like, I can likely pull up the info in 5 minutes via google.


That statement does not make sense. I never indicated that it was not Bush's presidential prerogative to appoint Kissenger. I indicated that association with war criminals made one an accomplice. It's not outside the President's power to associate with war criminals.
Regards,
Dibujante

[Karmashock]

they were seperate statements. The first part had nothing to do with Kissinger.

[Dibujante]

So you'll concede that Bush is a war criminal associate?
Regards,
Dibujante

[Karmashock]

I'll agree that Henry Kissinger shouldn't be let anywhere near the whitehouse and that it was a big mistake to use him. I don't think he was given a long enough leash to do anything... but I don't want the man anywhere near the people planning our foreign policy.

[Dibujante]

So this action of Bush's is anti-thetical to an American foreign policy of democracy and freedom promoted across the planet?
And I reassert, is he not an associate of a war criminal now?
Regards,
Dibujante

[Karmashock]

What action?
and no.
L&P, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

So associating with a war criminal does not make someone an associate of a war criminal? Also, associating with a war criminal in no way hinders a moral commitment to freedom and democracy?
I don't really think you have anything to say. You have nice ideals, but you lavish them upon the wrong nation. Or at least, upon the wrong leaders (can't think of any significantly better U.S. leaders, but I'll leave that possibility open). If it looks like a War Criminal, and it walks like a War Criminal, then it is a War Criminal.
Regards,
Dibujante

[Karmashock]

again, what action?

And Kissinger, Bush, and the Neocons represent three separate groups.

Kissinger was the best that nihilistic power based Realpolitik diplomacy ever made. He was a genius of it... but utterly without morality or social preference. He was given a side to play for and advanced it ruthlessly. He was a perfect moral relativist… he could walk through the fires of hell and just complain that the temperature was too high or that the shouting was too loud and annoying.

Bush is a Christian fundamentalist. Generally good, though so politically vulnerable that he can't be sustained without back up. Dependable, consistent, and moralistic…

The Neocons are something entirely different. They can take care of themselves, but they're always vastly outnumbered. Too complex to go into here as most people have absolutely no f’ing idea who they are… they tend to just blend with conservatives which only right in the sense that a whale and a bat are both mammals.

Kissinger represents the failure and immorality of a dead system... the Bush/neocon alliance represents a possible replacement. Obviously the Neocons will survive after bush... they will tend to bond themselves to quasi-religious or at least moralistic individuals. It's one of their key reasons for being.


Anyway, you seem more interested in fencing with me, all be it unsuccessfully, then having a discussion. If you want to talk, then change your tone. This pretension is silly and uninteresting.

[Dibujante]

Dodging questions without answering them is pretentious and undeserving. The "action", as reiterated, is placing Kissenger in charge of the Sept. 11th investigation. Further "action" is assigning Negroponte to the position of Ambassador to Iraq.
You've just broken down Kissenger, Bush and the Neocons into three groups, but what does that do? That doesn't somehow cleanse anyone of the taint of associating with a war criminal. If the Neocons were opposed to Kissenger, they would have put pressure on Bush to appoint someone else. If Bush were opposed to Kissenger, he would have appointed someone else. So what gives? Why any association with a war criminal at all?
Regards,
Dibujante

[Karmashock]

it's fairly obvious... you're bright enough to come up with some cleaver fabrications, you should be able to connect the dots.

and seriously, don't just rush to infantil "they're all war criminals" conclusion"... I should hope that you're above at least that.

[Dibujante]

Do not accuse me of fabrications, American.
Also, you have refused to answer my question once more. I'm out of here, hope you actually develop an answer to that issue, rather than simply ignoring it entirely.
Regards,
Dibujante

[laserflip]

your mother was a war criminal

[shutupandshave]

Your mother was a criminal laser - criminally ugly.

[Karmashock]

*thinks of a good yo momma joke... fails* :)

[Critta]

I always favoured "Yo momma's so fat she's got more chins than a hong kong phonebook"