The_Dark - if you so choose to continue the debate

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

Spunoff from here.

And yes it is your viewpoint... Right/Wrong/Grey.. all subjective. You don't know any better than anyone else what is "right" and what is not. That's whats scary about your "movement". You think you know whats good for this country and your willing to destroy it to make it better... even if the people don't agree with you. Your better than what we have why?

You might want to leave Religion out of the equation with Iraq.. Saddam's regiem was secular.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does Saddam's regime being secular have to do with anything? God's word does not say:

"ALL CHRISTIAN, JEWISH, OR MUSLIM AUTHORITIES THAT EXIST HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY GOD"

It says:

"ALL AUTHORITIES THAT EXIST HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY GOD"

To assume this to be untrue, would be to call God a liar. Being that the motives behind our hostile takeover of an independent nation consisted of money and greed, I can't even see how you can justify this.

[The_Dark]

Oh nice way to spin it... I had not realized you were going biblical when you made that qoute. I don't base my political views on my religion.. or at least I try not to.

But.. by your own logic.. what right do you have to forcably take over and change this government? Hypocrit much?

Your right, I don't know squat about your movement other than what you have hinted at. Those hints lead me to beleive you would start a rather intraverted socialist government that would kill anyone that didn't agree with it or conform to it's idealology... I cant in anyway support that.

As I said.. you don't know me... you don't know my motives for supporting this war.. infact, you dont even care enough to ask what they are even though I have brought that fact up a couple times. Thats another reason I can't support you.. you don't care about the average man even though you claim to.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

Oh nice way to spin it... I had not realized you were going biblical when you made that qoute. I don't base my political views on my religion.. or at least I try not to.

But.. by your own logic.. what right do you have to forcably take over and change this government? Hypocrit much?

Your right, I don't know squat about your movement other than what you have hinted at. Those hints lead me to beleive you would start a rather intraverted socialist government that would kill anyone that didn't agree with it or conform to it's idealology... I cant in anyway support that.

As I said.. you don't know me... you don't know my motives for supporting this war.. infact, you dont even care enough to ask what they are even though I have brought that fact up a couple times. Thats another reason I can't support you.. you don't care about the average man even though you claim to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't base my political views on religion either, however I was merely making a point, that you can't even justify the war with religion.

You're way off base... The "movement" is designed to not only protect our rights and freedoms, but also to better the quality of life for the average American.

Yes you have brought up a few times that you support the war, and you haven't offered an explanation why. It is not that I don't care about your opinion, but you seem more interested in acting mine without backing up your attacks. So what are your viewpoints on the war?

Don't even bother with the not caring about other people's opinions line. You've already proved in this post alone that you don't even pay attention to anyone else's but your own:

But.. by your own logic.. what right do you have to forcably take over and change this government? Hypocrit much?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently you read nothing of this movement requiring a majority approval.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Off topic:

Crunchy thanks for spinning this topic off from the other one. Much apreciated.

On topic (or at least somewhat on topic hah):

Im under the impression that both of you (Meaning The Dark and Crunchy) have fairly deeply held spiritual views.

My internal ethical/spiritual/philosophical beliefs are the basis from which all other viewpoints stem. They are the core ideas (albeit some of them very open to change) that all my other civic-minded concepts would be formed from. This would include, political views.

When you get down to your core thoughts, these are the same basic components that you use to form all your other viewpoints, and for many this would include their religious beliefs.

I understand the age-old concept of "separation of church and state" but , that doesn't, separate ones own personal spiritual/philosophical beliefs from their own worldview and civic / political ideas.

How can our philosophical/spiritual/religious concepts do anything BUT color our politics? If they dont, im thinking that we might have to re-think what a "deeply held belief" is. Right?

[The_Dark]

Troy,

You will note I said Religion, not spirituality. They are not really the same thing.

CP,

In your posts you talked of putting a man in power.. who pretended to be a member of a popular party, so as to get votes.. Once he was in power, he would change his affiliation and start working as your puppet.. not your words, but they have the same meaning as the ones you used...or perhaps you meant yourself as that man... Then somehow.. with that one man in a government office, you plan on getting congress to somehow throw out the constitution and rewrite it... and get at least 37 states to ratifie this new constitution... and if the government wont do as you want, your somehow going to get the whole military to back you in your civil war attempt.. without anyone but the military having guns... Or maybe I read those things wrong.. maybe you plan on getting all the way to the presidency and then trying to throw out the constitution and having the military enforce your new rule... even though the people in the military are sworn to pretect that same said constitution...

You know, you'll disappear before that ever happens. The moment that you look like a real threat, you'll be found floating in a river somewhere or hanged for high treason.

Why I support the war. Iraq was a constitutional Democracy until the Baathist take over. Iraq broke international law when it attacked Iran and fought that 8 year war. That war was very much over oil and it wasn;t a hidden fact at all. Then Iraq broke international law and ivaded Kuwait. Again, openly, over oil. Iraq then moved it;s forces along it southeren border. Saudi Arabia asked the US to protect them. President Bush Sr. asked the UN for permission to do that. The UN voted and approvced Military action, but only enough to push Iraq back into it's borders. The US beat Iraq's ass like a spoiled child. Iraq signed a peace treaty with the USA, not the UN. The UN was named to oversee that peace. Under the condition of surrender, Iraq had to do certain things. One of those things was destroy all long range weapons, all Chemical and Biological weapons and dismantel it's nuclear program. They also had to prove they had done these things. Iraq refused.. For 10 years we wasted time and money as inpsectors were constantly kicked out of the country or barred from seeing sites they needed to see. Legally, under international law, Iraq broke the conditions of the treaty.. therefore, military response was legal and justified.

At the same time all this was going on.. there was the Oil for Food program.. The UN stood by as it's leaders lined their pockets with money that was sopposed to feed the children of Iraq, to give them health care, to give them education.. Saddam was bleeding his country to death and the UN was helping him. France, Germany and Russia all were against military action... ever wonder why? They were making billions, on the side, with illegal dealings with Saddam.

I was for this war because I have close friends that grew up in and managed to escape from Iraq... I have heard first hand accounts of the horrors commited under Saddam...

If it were up to me.. there would be a World Police.. Made up of men and women from all over the world. Politicians and Business men would not be in control of them. It's ruling body would be made up of 2 random people from every country.

When something like whats going on in Dafur happens.. the World Police would go in and fix it. I beleive in Justice. and for the record.. Laws do not = justice.

[Paint it Black]

"Team America - Fuck Yea!"

But seriously, The Dark, I pretty much agree with your views on the war in Iraq, I supported it and still do, though I think the admin seriously mucked up the occupation in a lot of ways. But that's probably another thread.

A lot of people say that war is not moral.

I look at it differently, I think it is immoral to have the means and the will to remove tyrants yet not doing so.

Saddam Hussein was an abomination. He was a tyrant who molded himself on Joseph Stalin, who was probably the most successful murder in the world's history.

I believe Thomas Jefferson once said (paraphrase) "The Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots."

We have lost a lot of patriots in Iraq (Coalition and Iraqi) and killed a lot more tyrants and, sadly, the violence doesn't appear to be ending any time soon. But in my opinion, the sacrifice of a bloody present is worth it for a peaceful future, especially if that peace can spread throughout the region.

Iraq can be a great nation some day, but for that to happen many more sacrifices are going to have to be made. No one ever said that freedom was free.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

Troy,

You will note I said Religion, not spirituality. They are not really the same thing.

CP,

In your posts you talked of putting a man in power.. who pretended to be a member of a popular party, so as to get votes.. Once he was in power, he would change his affiliation and start working as your puppet.. not your words, but they have the same meaning as the ones you used...or perhaps you meant yourself as that man... Then somehow.. with that one man in a government office, you plan on getting congress to somehow throw out the constitution and rewrite it... and get at least 37 states to ratifie this new constitution... and if the government wont do as you want, your somehow going to get the whole military to back you in your civil war attempt.. without anyone but the military having guns... Or maybe I read those things wrong.. maybe you plan on getting all the way to the presidency and then trying to throw out the constitution and having the military enforce your new rule... even though the people in the military are sworn to pretect that same said constitution...

You know, you'll disappear before that ever happens. The moment that you look like a real threat, you'll be found floating in a river somewhere or hanged for high treason.

Why I support the war. Iraq was a constitutional Democracy until the Baathist take over. Iraq broke international law when it attacked Iran and fought that 8 year war. That war was very much over oil and it wasn;t a hidden fact at all. Then Iraq broke international law and ivaded Kuwait. Again, openly, over oil. Iraq then moved it;s forces along it southeren border. Saudi Arabia asked the US to protect them. President Bush Sr. asked the UN for permission to do that. The UN voted and approvced Military action, but only enough to push Iraq back into it's borders. The US beat Iraq's ass like a spoiled child. Iraq signed a peace treaty with the USA, not the UN. The UN was named to oversee that peace. Under the condition of surrender, Iraq had to do certain things. One of those things was destroy all long range weapons, all Chemical and Biological weapons and dismantel it's nuclear program. They also had to prove they had done these things. Iraq refused.. For 10 years we wasted time and money as inpsectors were constantly kicked out of the country or barred from seeing sites they needed to see. Legally, under international law, Iraq broke the conditions of the treaty.. therefore, military response was legal and justified.

At the same time all this was going on.. there was the Oil for Food program.. The UN stood by as it's leaders lined their pockets with money that was sopposed to feed the children of Iraq, to give them health care, to give them education.. Saddam was bleeding his country to death and the UN was helping him. France, Germany and Russia all were against military action... ever wonder why? They were making billions, on the side, with illegal dealings with Saddam.

I was for this war because I have close friends that grew up in and managed to escape from Iraq... I have heard first hand accounts of the horrors commited under Saddam...

If it were up to me.. there would be a World Police.. Made up of men and women from all over the world. Politicians and Business men would not be in control of them. It's ruling body would be made up of 2 random people from every country.

When something like whats going on in Dafur happens.. the World Police would go in and fix it. I beleive in Justice. and for the record.. Laws do not = justice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You definitely misunderstood me. I said nothing about throwing out the constitution. I spoke of major revision that would better reflect and preserve our rights and freedoms, as well as clearly define them since apparently our Judiciary branch has a tough time reading black and white.

Where Iraq is concerned, we have no proof that they have not honored their treaty. We live in a country that is supposed to believe in innocence until guilt is proven and doubtless, however we still imprison innocent men who were never proven to be guilty beyond all doubt. We do not practice these philosophies in our foreign affairs either. While, I can understand that if we have reason to fear that a country can be a threat to us, and they have threatened to take action against us, we might want to take some actions, those actions should not result in full scale war unless it is a last result. We have had no such evidence that Iraq would be a continuing threat to anyone, much less us. We can go on all day about intelligence reports, but I have more than enough reason to be suspicous of intelligence reports existing that are not very intelligent at all. Am I a conspiracy theorist for believing that we have an extraordinary system that would not allow very much room for failure?

If you want my honest opinion, I think Bush knew about 9-11 long before it happened (much longer than other suspect), and welcomed it. Though it had nothing to do with Iraq, it would upset America enough to support his war effort against Iraq. I am curious to hear the stories of your Iraqi-American friends, because I also have a few myself who have never said anything bad of their country. Why did they leave? They had more oppurtunity to succeed here.

[The_Dark]

restructure our Constitution

How is that different from re-writing it?

[The_Dark]

We have 10 years of blocked attempts at inspections. On top of that, the treaty doesn't say we have to supply proof of anything, it says Iraq has to prove things. They failed, I think 10 years was long enough to show that proof. Another thing you seem to hve missed... Saddam had openly said, even before the first gulf war, that if he got his hands on a nuke it would be used on the USA. He also said if he found a way to get his Chemical and bio weapons into a major US city.. he would. he was a threat, not our fault he was bluffing.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

We have 10 years of blocked attempts at inspections. On top of that, the treaty doesn't say we have to supply proof of anything, it says Iraq has to prove things. They failed, I think 10 years was long enough to show that proof. Another thing you seem to hve missed... Saddam had openly said, even before the first gulf war, that if he got his hands on a nuke it would be used on the USA. He also said if he found a way to get his Chemical and bio weapons into a major US city.. he would. he was a threat, not our fault he was bluffing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know, I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one. I'm sorry if I could never see Iraq as a threat to us. I'm sure he's had plenty of oppurtunity to get his hands on a nuke. Where would he launch it from? As far as Kuwait goes, the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait was not entirely unjustifiable. Kuwait had never been an independent nation prior to 1899, and it's status as an independent nation was recognized by Britain who swore to protect Kuwait from the Ottoman Empire and colonial forces at the time. What right did Britain have to make Kuwait an independent state when it was a province that was controlled by the Ottoman Empire?

There's two sides to every story, and there were many people in Kuwait that felt the same that they were only a province of the Ottoman Empire and there was never a border between them and Iraq. A lot of them even preferred Iraqi sovereignty, but Kuwait wasn't exactly a democratic country either where the voice of the people mattered. Historical accuracy is partially to blame for the border dispute as are hearsay claims of letters passed, hands being shaken, and what it all boils down to is this was a serious screw up on the part of Great Britain. This very dispute has been resolved, and left unresolved many times over the years, and our involvement in the Persian Gulf War again had little to do with the dispute or Kuwait asking us for help, nor did it have anything to do with the treatment of the Kurds.

Divide and conquer works just as well in business as it does in war. It was to our benefit that we aided Kuwait in this border dispute just as it was to our advantage when we assisted Iraq's weapons program by building up their military and supplying them with weapons to fight the Iranians.

If I am wrong in this, then why did we turn a blind eye to Iraq using chemical warfare against the Iranians. The Reagan administration not only defied the U.N. by disregarding it's requests for disarmament of chemical weapons in 1980, but also by supplying Iraq with these weapons to help them win the war. Though Reagan may have asked for a ban on chemical warfare in 1984, and Bush signed a treaty with the Soviet Union to stop chemical warfare production as well as each of us destroying our chemical warfare stockpiles, we have still not honored this treaty.

How many lives will be lost in the Middle East due to our mistakes? I stand by my statement that our involvment there is only reflective of our greed. We have wreaked more havoc over there than Iraq has by far, whether it be with our own military or by encouraging war. We can find a justifiable cause to side with anybody.

Personally, I don't really care about the disputes in the Middle East. I care about our soldiers and our people. I care about the status of the economy, and the number of people I see suffering on our very streets. People see suffering children on television and it breaks their hearts, but they see suffering adults asking for change and it means nothing. Sure we might spare some change, but what reforms have we made to make sure that every US citizen has a home, a job, and everything they need? Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. All the money that we waste needlessly could be used for these efforts. If we focused more on our economy, keeping jobs in America, and finding ways to help those who suffer, maybe our money would be worth more than it is. Maybe a waitress could go to work without worry of how much she made in tips that night, because her quality of life had drastically improved due to our efforts. I've had a lot of ideas on economic reform ranging from more fairness in distribution of corporate profits (meaning paying people what they're worth, rather than as little as you can to keep them interested in working) to taxing big businesses to assist the poor (meaning people who actually do work that don't make much money).

I wonder how much money has been wasted on the war on drugs alone, that would be better spent somewhere else. Drugs are a marketable product. Education on the effects and dangers of drug use is important, but do you think if drugs were legal more people would do them? Using drugs is a choice whether legal or illegal. If crack cocaine became legal tomorrow, would you go out and smoke it? In most cases, I'd guess no. This would also drastically reduce the costs of housing prisoners who would be better off being rehabilitated and put into the workforce. I would of course encourage jobs to do drug testing as well however, to make sure the workplace is drug-free and safe. I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with me on this opinion, but I don't think I have a right to tell someone else what they can do to their body. Would you prefer someone to die of an overdose, or kill one of your loved one's in a drunk driving accident? The war on drugs is not only a war that is losing, but it's one that's promoting drug-related crimes, such as drive by shootings, robbery, etc.

Why are their laws against prostitution? People are only going to be as promiscuous as they choose to be. All these laws do is prevent ugly men from getting laid.

Personally, I think the ability to tax drug dealers, prostitutes and pimps is a great idea.

Our biggest problem now is our education system. I tested for a post high school education in the 4th grade, and scored higher on the SAT test than 90% of the high school students that take it while I was in the 5th grade. Yet, I still had to go through 6-12th grade earning credits for showing up. What does this say about our education system? Maybe if we focused more on progressional learning rather than age oriented learning as well as ethics, values, self confidence, job training, military training, empowerment, logic, goal orientation, and adult preparation (such as the fundamentals of credit establishment, budgeting, etc.) in our public school systems, we wouldn't face many of the problems we face now, and our future leaders would make more logical, intelligent decisions.

[Paint it Black]

Kuwait had never been an independent nation prior to 1899,

There has also never been an independent Palestinian state.

What right did Britain have to make Kuwait an independent state when it was a province that was controlled by the Ottoman Empire?

The same right the Ottoman's had. It's the rule of conquest. The Ottoman's weren't from Kuwait any more than the British were.

Historical accuracy is partially to blame for the border dispute as are hearsay claims of letters passed, hands being shaken, and what it all boils down to is this was a serious screw up on the part of Great Britain. This very dispute has been resolved, and left unresolved many times over the years, and our involvement in the Persian Gulf War again had little to do with the dispute or Kuwait asking us for help, nor did it have anything to do with the treatment of the Kurds.

Our involvement in Middle Eastern politics has to do with many things, which is why just about every nation in the world has a stake in what goes on there.

Divide and conquer works just as well in business as it does in war. It was to our benefit that we aided Kuwait in this border dispute just as it was to our advantage when we assisted Iraq's weapons program by building up their military and supplying them with weapons to fight the Iranians.

Actually, we could have purchased oil cheaper from the Iraqis than the Kuwaitis were selling it for.

BUt you are right about assisting Iraq to fight Iran.

If I am wrong in this, then why did we turn a blind eye to Iraq using chemical warfare against the Iranians.

What would you suppose we do about that?

The Reagan administration not only defied the U.N. by disregarding it's requests for disarmament of chemical weapons in 1980, but also by supplying Iraq with these weapons to help them win the war.

Can you prove that?

Though Reagan may have asked for a ban on chemical warfare in 1984, and Bush signed a treaty with the Soviet Union to stop chemical warfare production as well as each of us destroying our chemical warfare stockpiles, we have still not honored this treaty.

Neither have the Soviets (Russians).

How many lives will be lost in the Middle East due to our mistakes? I stand by my statement that our involvment there is only reflective of our greed. We have wreaked more havoc over there than Iraq has by far, whether it be with our own military or by encouraging war. We can find a justifiable cause to side with anybody.

That's the reality of Realpolitik, especially during the Cold War. Sad, but true. Thats how the world works.

I strongly disagree that we have done more damage than Iraq, though. Iraq is responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead Iranians. Thousands of dead Kuwaitis, and thousands of dead Iraqis...

but what reforms have we made to make sure that every US citizen has a home, a job, and everything they need?

IMO, the government should be responsible for making sure everyone has everything they need. People need to work for what they need.

I've had a lot of ideas on economic reform ranging from more fairness in distribution of corporate profits (meaning paying people what they're worth, rather than as little as you can to keep them interested in working) to taxing big businesses to assist the poor (meaning people who actually do work that don't make much money).

That reeks of socialism, damn near communism.

I wonder how much money has been wasted on the war on drugs alone, that would be better spent somewhere else. Drugs are a marketable product. Education on the effects and dangers of drug use is important, but do you think if drugs were legal more people would do them? Using drugs is a choice whether legal or illegal. If crack cocaine became legal tomorrow, would you go out and smoke it? In most cases, I'd guess no. This would also drastically reduce the costs of housing prisoners who would be better off being rehabilitated and put into the workforce. I would of course encourage jobs to do drug testing as well however, to make sure the workplace is drug-free and safe. I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with me on this opinion, but I don't think I have a right to tell someone else what they can do to their body.

I actually agree with you on this one.

Would you prefer someone to die of an overdose, or kill one of your loved one's in a drunk driving accident? The war on drugs is not only a war that is losing, but it's one that's promoting drug-related crimes, such as drive by shootings, robbery, etc.

No, it's a war that cannot be won. It's a war that is not supposed to won. It's a fake war. It's a joke. The government wants certain portions of the population on drugs and they want to be able to lock them up for it as well.

Why are their laws against prostitution? People are only going to be as promiscuous as they choose to be. All these laws do is prevent ugly men from getting laid.

LOL. Prostitution should be legal as well.

This is all just my opinion, BTW. But my opinion happens to be the right one... :grin

j/k

[The_Dark]

You complelty ignore 2000 years of mid-east/westeren history and another 1000 years of mid-east history. Or maybe you don't know it. Kuwait was founded in 1710 by immagrants from the arabic pennisula. Noone else claimed the land before that. In 1756 the Sabah dynasty set itself up a rulers with a shaykh as the leader. Common arabic practice for 1000 years or so. What was un-common was that they were puppets of the Ottaman Empire. They were independant and elf ruled though. In 1899 the Ottamnas tried to take controll with aid from germany. The came to the aid of Kuwait and helped drive the germans and the Ottamans out. In 1914 Britian recognized Kuwait as a full fledge country. The Wahhbis immediatly attacked Kuwait. That war lasted till 1921, but by 1917 the Ottoman empire had collapsed. In 1918 Iraq became its own country again for the first time in 660 years. Before that it was known as Mesopotamia. In 1923 borders were drawn between Iraq and Kuwait.

See, I know the history of that area of the world rather well... What I dont know off hand I can look up. Don't spout crap without actually knowing something. You can't really look at the politics of the world NOW, without knowing and understanding the politics of the world THEN. Everything has a lead up. Nothing is "suddenly". Look beyond the 20 somes years you have lived.

I also really think you should look into all the treatys that cover weapons. It might lead you to understand why some people can have certain things and other can not.

Let me finish in saying.

When people talk about the big picture... you really have no idea how big that picture can be.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

You complelty ignore 2000 years of mid-east/westeren history and another 1000 years of mid-east history. Or maybe you don't know it. Kuwait was founded in 1710 by immagrants from the arabic pennisula. Noone else claimed the land before that. In 1756 the Sabah dynasty set itself up a rulers with a shaykh as the leader. Common arabic practice for 1000 years or so. What was un-common was that they were puppets of the Ottaman Empire. They were independant and elf ruled though. In 1899 the Ottamnas tried to take controll with aid from germany. The came to the aid of Kuwait and helped drive the germans and the Ottamans out. In 1914 Britian recognized Kuwait as a full fledge country. The Wahhbis immediatly attacked Kuwait. That war lasted till 1921, but by 1917 the Ottoman empire had collapsed. In 1918 Iraq became its own country again for the first time in 660 years. Before that it was known as Mesopotamia. In 1923 borders were drawn between Iraq and Kuwait. 

See, I know the history of that area of the world rather well... What I dont know off hand I can look up. Don't spout crap without actually knowing something. You can't really look at the politics of the world NOW, without knowing and understanding the politics of the world THEN. Everything has a lead up. Nothing is "suddenly". Look beyond the 20 somes years you have lived.

I also really think you should look into all the treatys that cover weapons. It might lead you to understand why some people can have certain things and other can not.

Let me finish in saying.

When people talk about the big picture... you really have no idea how big that picture can be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh, trust me I know not only how big that picture can be, but how distorted that picture can get when people have the ability to rewrite history. All I can say is believe only half of what you read. In addition to this, check your sources. Personally, I prefer to look into as many non-American sources as possible as well as some American sources. When history is written by the one's who win the wars, it requires a bit more research than what you can learn in an American college, website, book, or otherwise.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

There has also never been an independent Palestinian state.

The same right the Ottoman's had. It's the rule of conquest. The Ottoman's weren't from Kuwait any more than the British were.

Our involvement in Middle Eastern politics has to do with many things, which is why just about every nation in the world has a stake in what goes on there.

Actually, we could have purchased oil cheaper from the Iraqis than the Kuwaitis were selling it for.

Yes, but this also allows for competition, rather than forming a monopoly.

Can you prove that?

This actually doesn't require proof. It's no big secret to anybody that we supplied Iraq with chemical warfare.

Neither have the Soviets (Russians).

This hardly justifies our lack of action.

That's the reality of Realpolitik, especially during the Cold War. Sad, but true. Thats how the world works.

Sad, but true is the basis for my argument.

I strongly disagree that we have done more damage than Iraq, though. Iraq is responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead Iranians. Thousands of dead Kuwaitis, and thousands of dead Iraqis...

We've incited these wars however to ensure a competitive oil market exists, and supplying them with weapons to kill each other if one nation becomes too strong.

IMO, the government should be responsible for making sure everyone has every

thing they need.  People need to work for what they need.

I don't disagree with this statement at all, however it is our social responsibility to make sure people have work. We don't exactly make things very easy for people in the job market. One fine example is you need a car to work, but you need to work to get a car. This seems somewhat circular and unfair to me. Most people don't have the luxury of being able to get a a job anywhere, yet we only increase this difficulty not only by outsourcing, but also by employing foreigners here in America who will work cheaper. Call me prejudice, but as a businessman myself, I'd hire an American over a foreigner any day of the week.

That reeks of socialism, damn near communism. 

I don't disagree with the principles of socialism and communism, however I don't feel either would be good for our economy. Not to mention the fact that a mixed economy provides people with a lot more oppurtunity. I do however believe that the poor should be taken care of. If poverty exists in America who can we blame but America? We allow not only unfair business practices, but we also allow too many people to slip through the cracks of our public education system. Not only do we still leave children behind, but for decades now we have been leaving students so far ahead that they come to a screeching halt. This is not good for the development of any human. When a human is not challenged during their growth and development process, they not only become bored, but often times seek unhealthy alternatives to overcome this boredom.

The bottom line in all of this is not very many people are very resourceful. Because of this, a lot of them miss out on many oppurtunities in life. If our education system was designed to help people become mature, driven, goal oriented, resourceful adults, there would be much less crime and poverty in this nation.

This is all just my opinion, BTW. But my opinion happens to be the right one...    :grin   

j/k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I agree with most of your opinions, so they must be right. :laughing

P.S. I wonder if there's a setting in this board to allow for the quoting of the original statements being replied to? I guess it's not all that necessary, but it sure makes chronological reading much easier.

[Dollardave]

If u keep posting long ass posts like these you're gonna develop carpal tunnel syndrome.

[Paint it Black]

This actually doesn't require proof.  It's no big secret to anybody that we supplied

Yes, it does need proof.

ORIGIN OF THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS

The UN report provides only negative evidence of the origin of the mustard gas sample. The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East. For more positive evidence other sources of information must be used. Over the years since the mid-1960s quite a lot of information has been published purporting to describe Iraqi chemical weapons, but much of it is contradictory and all of it is of a reliability which SIPRI is in no position to judge. A major caveat must be entered: chemical warfare is such an emotive subject that it lends itself very readily to campaigns of disinformation and black propaganda, campaigns which the politics both of the Gulf War and of the current chemical-weapons negotiations have unquestionably stimulated to no small degree.

We may look first at the nature of the chemical-weapons technology which Iraq has been reported to have acquired.

In addition to bulk-filled free-fall aircraft bombs, at least two other categories of chemical munition have reportedly been employed: artillery shell and air-to-ground rockets. Iranians sent for hospital treatment in London who were suffering from what must almost certainly have been mustard-gas burns have attributed their injuries to all three categories of munition. There is no evidence that mustard-filled air-to-ground rockets have ever been stockpiled by Western countries. The rockets whose use was described by one of the Iranians apparently had submunition warheads, a relatively sophisticated design.

And then...

Indigenous or external sources of supply?

With the exceptions, maybe, of the last two of these different categories of putative Iraqi agent, sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplier, for the reason that the USSR is said, on evidence that has yet to be solidly substantiated but which has nonetheless attracted some firm believers, to have weaponized all three of them in recent years. For its part, the USSR has expressly denied supplying Iraq with toxic weapons. Reports of Soviet supply attributed to US and other intelligence sources have nonetheless recurred. The earliest predate reports of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War.

Official Iranian commentaries, too, have pointed to the USSR as a supplier of the Iraqi weapons. These sources have also accused Brazil, France and, most conspicuously, Britain of supplying the weapons. No basis for any of these Iranian accusations has been disclosed. France, alongside Czechoslovakia and both Germanies, is reportedly also rumoured, among "foreign military and diplomatic sources" in Baghdad, to have supplied Iraq with chemical precursors needed for an indigenous production effort. Unofficial published sources have cited Egypt as a possible supplier of actual chemical weapons. In the mid-1960s, when Iraq was alleged to be using chemical weapons against insurgent Kurdish forces, Swiss and German sources of supply were reported in the Western press.

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

The United States did not supply Iraq with WMD. Did not happen. I would like you to provide a reliable source which has proof otherwise.

This hardly justifies our lack of action.

It completely justifies it.

If we made an agreement with the Russians that we both destroy all of our ICBM nuclear weapons and they don't, would you want us too?

We've incited these wars however to ensure a competitive oil market exists, and supplying them with weapons to kill each other if one nation becomes too strong.

I think 'incite' goes to far. We certainly didn't try our hardest to stop them. And some wars do work in the best interest of US foreign policy.

I don't disagree with this statement at all, however it is our social responsibility to make sure people have work.  We don't exactly make things very easy for people in the job market.  One fine example is you need a car to work, but you need to work to get a car.  This seems somewhat circular and unfair to me.  Most people don't have the luxury of being able to get a a job anywhere, yet we only increase this difficulty not only by outsourcing, but also by employing foreigners here in America who will work cheaper.  Call me prejudice, but as a businessman myself, I'd hire an American over a foreigner any day of the week.

Fair enough...

Well, I agree with most of your opinions, so they must be right.    :laughing

Domestic policy and economics are not my strongest suit. But I'm willing to let you opinions and stand and not challenege them, since I doubt either of us will change our minds here. That being said, you put them across fine and I respect that very much.

P.S.  I wonder if there's a setting in this board to allow for the quoting of the original statements being replied to?  I guess it's not all that necessary, but it sure makes chronological reading much easier.

I don't know what I did wrong with quotings your posts but something didn't hapopen right and it was too late for me to do anything about it.

[Paint it Black]

WTF am I doing wrong?

does

not work or something?

[The_Dark]

I would like to point out that we are in fact destroying our chemical weapons stock piles.. The problem is logistics. It's far easyer to make VX than detroy it without killing anyone. You just cant let it out in an empty part of the dessert and wait for it to loose it's potency in a day. We have built a rather large complex to destroy it, a couple for that matter. We have chemical destruction plants at:

Deseret, Utah

Aberdeen, Md.

Anniston, Ala.

Umatilla, Ore.

Two other plants — at Newport, Ind., and Pine Bluff, Ark. have as yet to start operations.. they are stuck in legal battles with the local hippy love ins. Seems the hippys want the weapons destroyed somewhere else. Boo-hooo.

Two more plants are schedualed to be built in Pueblo, Colo., and Blue Grass, Ky.

BTW, according to the treatys, we have until 2012 to destroy our chemical weapons.

Lets look into something else too.. the Iraq and Saddam side of it with the inspectors. We did infact find banned weapons... Long range missles, hundreds of thousands of tons of yellow cake uranium, Drones mounted with chemical weapons sprayers... Chemical artillery shells.... and the list goes on.

For some reason.. all that stuff doesn't count. I have never had anyone give me an explination for why they didn't count that made sense.

Look at the yellow cake uranium. The reason it was not counted.... it was enriched enough. What the fuck do you think they had it for? There is no real use for yellow cake uranium but to make a weapon. In the state it was found, it's great for dirty bombs.

What about the warehouse in downtown Iraq filled with 55 gallon drums of heavy water that was so radioactive that the soldiers that found it had to go through radiation treatment so they would not die? It wasn't waste from a hospital.... What was it for? I can think of a few pretty scary ideas... like water supplys... and crop dusters....

Nope.. Iraq was not a threat (thats me being delusional and blinded by the mass media)

This hardly justifies our lack of action

It most certainly does.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

I think you're treading the line of being insulting in that last post, although I'm not insulted lol. I don't feel that I'm delusional or blinded by the mass media, however I would say that neither you, paint it black, or myself can really prove anything. We've all provided enough hearsay evidence to support a million arguments, but being that the evidence is hearsay, and we're not exactly privy to documentation, test results, validity, and credibility, I'm starting to lose my interest. While I do understand why both of you have your viewpoints regarding these matters, I don't agree with all of them. If I feel it necessary to do some more research at another time and provide sources that backup my claims, I may do so, however the information I've provided thus far has required nothing more than providing examples of information I've retained over the years. Call me lazy, but I don't really have the time to continue this debate at this point or look anything up.

I do of course stand by the points that I've made, but in the end what's done is done and what will be will be. We have no control of this situation, but we can debate it to the grave if we really are so inclined. This is not a white flag, but merely a handshake and a smile for now. I'm sure at some point in the near future we'll have more evidence to support our claims right out of Iraq.

On a lighter note:

[The_Dark]

I wasn't insulting you, I was mocking you.

btw....

I win.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

WTF am I doing wrong?

does

not work or something?

Its probably the lack of the "/" in the

[/quotes] thats messing up the quoting feature.

Comment on the term "mocking" mocking = slightly less abrasive form of direct insult. Cut me some slack, just stop the insulting responses. If you dont like someones line of reasoning, just explain why you dont like it without the insults please. If you cant do that, then just take a deep breath, and dont respond at all. Make it easy on us poor mods.

Other than the random barbs here and there, this has been a great thread to be honest. Lots of long-detailed posts. At its best i think this is what DGN is good for. =)

[The_Dark]

Sorry man.. I was possed or something.

[Black Sunday9]

I was in mild support of the war because I had Iraqi co-workers who told me horror stories and I pretty much wanted the suffering ended......and I think the middle east needed restructering altogether and that part has slowly came about, there are seeds of democracy in the middle east now (election reform in several countries as a direct result of the Iraq war).

However, I too think Bush messed up the war on several fronts. I didn't vote for Bush in either election but I think the anti-Bush people are hysterical, I mean, I think they deal in hysterics. People have called Bush a fascist but he on no level meets the definition of a fascist and people who use that word have no idea what real facism is, someone else on this site even said Bush was responsible for the recession we are in. But um, we're not in a recession. The GDP did not fall in 2 or more quarters, in fact the U.S. GDP was higher than all of Europe combined in fiscal year 2004.

Ok now I am getting off the subject.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

I was in mild support of the war because I had Iraqi co-workers who told me horror stories and I pretty much wanted the suffering ended......and I think the middle east needed restructering altogether and that part has slowly came about, there are seeds of democracy in the middle east now (election reform in several countries as a direct result of the Iraq war).

However, I too think Bush messed up the war on several fronts.  I didn't vote for Bush in either election but I think the anti-Bush people are hysterical, I mean, I think they deal in hysterics.  People have called Bush a fascist but he on no level meets the definition of a fascist and people who use that word have no idea what real facism is, someone else on this site even said Bush was responsible for the recession we are in.  But um, we're not in a recession.  The GDP did not fall in 2 or more quarters, in fact the U.S. GDP was higher than all of Europe combined in fiscal year 2004.

Ok now I am getting off the subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't really think it's recession people are worried about. Unemployment seems to be the major problem with America. The reason the GDP is up in value, is because businesses are capitalizing on profits earned from sending our jobs overseas, hiring foreigners who will work cheap, hiring more temporary employees in both skilled and unskilled jobs to dodge paying for medical coverage as well as many other American needs, shutting down various plants as newer technologies are making it possible to supply more than enough product to cover demand, and all while watching poverty, unemployment, social security, crime, and costs of living rise. This war is great for big business. I wonder how great life will be for these 200,000 soldiers when they come back.

Although, I don't support this war, I do think still that if we had no other option but to destroy a country, then we should've took more cost effective measures to do so. To those of you who make $15/hour or less you already know how difficult it is to manage not only bills, but also debts. These business trends will only lead to more unemployment in America. I've seen people making $150,000/year have to sell their homes, cars, boats, and throw away everything they worked hard for, including future retirement benefits.

Why do we have laws that prevent companies from hiring those who are not authorized to work in America, but not have laws that prevent these same companies from hiring people who live outside of America? There's a loophole in there somewhere. Personally, I'm rather sick of needing an interpreter to interpret English for me, while on the phone with some of these companies.

Though, I still stand firm in my opinion regarding this war with Iraq, and feel that they were never a great enough threat for us to go to war, I can at least understand the viewpoints of others. However, in future years, I feel we will live to regret not fighting a war on big business, and a less than satisfactory public education system. American greed will eventually destroy America. It may not even be in our lifetimes, though I don't see how this is escapable, but it will happen eventually. What will happen to big business when they have to suffer the losses of not having American citizens who can afford to purchase their products and services? Will I have to move to India to secure an IT position for an American company? The fiscal year of 2004 has little to do with our future. Things always look better in paper than they do in theory and practice though. One of these things is GDP reflecting quality of life in any way, shape, or form. I just hope I'm wrong about my theories.

The increase of our GDP in 2004 is probably more reflective of hurricane activity on the east coast as well as other natural disasters, divorce rate increases, pollution, and crime anyways. Yes, it does take all of these into account.

[Black Sunday9]

Unemployment is at 5% which is pretty low, wages are relatively high as well.