Jack
Forum
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 67
And, was President justified in blockading Cuba in 1962? I reread your last post Greenfyre...did I miss your answer? Your not avoiding that question, are you??
Gang of Four: Regarding Iran and America's naval blockade of Cuba in 1962---your answer please. Obfuscation will NOT be overlooked. I am asking for your collective opinions. Your credibility is at stake here. You can be child like (and only one of you has the right to be that) and bring up web sites, stats, charts, whic is a form of avoidance, and the like....but I am soliciting your opinion. We're waiting. Speak individually, speak collectively but please engage your brain prior to placing your pen/keyboard in gear.
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 01:29)
<Clarification: Is anyone agreeing with me that President Kennedy was justified in blockading Cuba in1962?? A Yes or No will do.>
Hmm... well the Embargo which still carries on to this very day.... some debate that it is the only thing which keeps Fidel in power.... we can only truly tell that when it reliquishes.
However, appraisal for when it was lifted due to the terrible Hurricane damage in 2000 was it (forgive me.. I cannot remember the date.... must look it up).
Right. Lv2read - here is one history lesson for you.
Fidel seizes power. For a few years the world does not know whether he will go communist or not. Then he nationalizes the Casinos (as well as other industries) in Cuba. The Mob had invested huge amounts of $$ into the project - it was going to be the Las Vegas of the Carribbean.
But it all goes pear-shaped when Fidel nationalizes the industries and kicks out quite a lot of right-wing (criminals).
So, the Mafia are pretty annoyed with this.
The CIA have already initiated training camps in Gautamala for a potential invasion - but once cuban exiles reach Florida shores - it is not too long before there is a home-grown one.
The mafia by this time have BOUGHT Jack his presedency, on the condition that he keeps his brother on toe and does not carry on with the Mob-lynching he is eager to do.
The Mafia have also part funded the CIA training camps as well.
So it is ALL very cosy.
The mafia want their casinos back.
The mafia are funding this training camp to get their casinos back.
They really want Jack to send out that second air strike.
Bad-back Jack DOES NOT.
Now, I think that is enough for you to realise the situation.
And not the black and white one of
'Cuba is bad because it is communist.'
I am of the opinion that Jack was indifferent to the whole situation, until the Bay of Pigs that is.
I most definitely deviated from the question there, but I felt it was important to set the scene before contemplating answering the question.
But - do I think Jack was justified?
Then, no.
>>By Tchock (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 01:35)
i've gone to bed..........it's late.
just in case you're wondering why the discussion went quiet all of a sudden, lv2read in particular - as it is only 4.40pm where you are.... and around 5hrs ahead of ottowa i would image..............
>>By Tchock (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 01:41)
The Mafia....are you kidding? There are some here that believe the Vice President had Kennedy killed. Your words reflect your age---pure lunacy--pure lunacy. Any other members of the Gang of Four that agree with her hypothesis??
And President Kennedy was not justified in blockading Cuba. Your words are nothing short of stupid. I'll have to apologize for saying that to you, but perhaps one of your co-conspiritors will counsil you. You do have an over-active imagination---let me guess, have you ever been told that before? You're probably wondering how I know that....the answer is....you give it away.
Does the Maniac have an opinnion on this?
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 02:11)
the "maniac" has just logged on and cant believe what he has seen written here
these are your words L2R and I quote
"reread your last post Greenfyre...did I miss your answer? Your not avoiding that question, are you??"
seeing as you dont like people avoiding the question
Why did you not fight in Vietnam Love2read...... I have asked countless times now, and you have avoided that question
re Iran i answered your question, you didnt like my answer well thats tough, thats called 'matter of opinion' I suggested we ask a question and answer it honestly, i have answered your first question, stop be such a coward and answer mine.....why did you not fight in Vietnam......
I have come to beleive that you would make a wonderful politician L2R, a perfect one... ill informed, unable to seek out the correct information for your arguments, you twist words to suit your self and you just wont give a straight answer.... Lordy how come you arent sitting in the whitehouse....
now answer the question and we can back onto Iran if you wish......but you can't can you, you are deeply ashamed of answering that particular question
>>By BushisaManiac (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 05:26)
GreenFyre
I think perhaps this board was originally dedicated to jack kerosene...er bivouack...er perhaps thats why the surname was left off.. :-)
tchock
Lordy you know your stuff...and greenfyre isnt exactly sat in the corner with a big D on his hat. either ..but I wish I had your maturity when I was your age...wish i had been so well informed..L2R as the Oldest one on this board so presumably the one whom has experienced the most in this life, someone whom has had more time to absorb information and knowledge
this girl puts you to shame, you haven't got a patch on her all you are doing is making yourself look rather small and silly with your arguments as to what she has to say.... i really feel sorry for you now
>>By BushisaManiac (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 05:35)
oh I forgot tchock...bushites... is the inflection on the 'Bush' or the 'Shites' ..... :-P
>>By BushisaManiac (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 05:37)
I'll begin by apologizing for my past sarcasm by noting that I have a relatively low tolerance level when issues of real importance are treated flippantly. We have been talking about things that involve the life and death of tens of thousands of people, and the physical and emotional scarring of tens of thousands more. When a subject of such gravity is treated as though it were some trivial party game and the only issue of consequence is winning, then I confess I get rather impatient.
Come to think of it, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who get all worked up to "win" trivial party games either. All in all it is egotistical and immature in either context.
Nor do I have a lot of patience for dismissing people based on irrelevant criteria. Tchock is being dismissed because of her alleged age even though she has proven herself to be an informed and thoughtful participant. What next? because she is female?
Besides, the net being what it is we have no way of knowing whether she is actually an elderly male policy analyst in Maryland who derives some private amusement from posing as a young woman on the net. This place should be a meritocracy where people are judged by the quality of their participation and on no other basis.
Back to Iraq ...
Perhaps the most interesting question raised here is 'so what happens now?' in Iraq? I guess it depends whether we are talking about the war in Iraq, or the war on Iraq. The two are inextricably entwined, but they are nonetheless seperate entities. Solving one will not solve the other. They are metaphoric Siamese twins and the operation required is complicated and dangerous.
Tchock is right, the Coalition has created a real pigs breakfast in Iraq and there is no easy solution. There are many suggestions all over the place, but many of them are not very credible (eg http://www.newamericancentury.org/ NOSPACE iraqmiddleeast.htm ) "There is always an easy solution to every human problem - neat, plausible and wrong." H.L. Menken
I suspect any succesfull solution must include, above all, a credibile Iraqi civilian authority. Regardless of the true integrity or lack thereof in the various American institutions, they are all probably too discredited to have any significant role in any real solutions. Thus creating Iraqi government credibility will probably require:
1) Negotiation with all of the significant factions. Not merely Shiite, Sunni and Kurd, but also the various political factions. I do realize that the politics are not distinct from the theological and ethnic identities, but they are not synonyms either.
Negotiation means seeking to really understand what the competing interests are, and then creating some sort of framework that is flexible and offers the hope of eventual satisfaction of the real needs of the people of the various factions.
2) Barring US firms from any significant role in Iraqi reconstruction, Iraqi oil, or any other economic exploitation of the country. Toss out Haliburton and Co and give the contracts to Iraqi firms.
3) Remove command of coalition forces from the US and place it in the hands of someone the Iraqi people will find credible. Unfortunately that would have to be someone the people believe would not be intimidated by the US, so that actually rules out the Iraqis themselves. So who? the Russians? the Chinese? Damned if I know - this one is a real conundrum.
4) Defuse the tension between the Shiites and Sunnis. It has been done before, so perhaps there are lessons from history that can be helpful.
Unfortunately I suspect the things that would be politically acceptable in Iraq would be anathema in the US, and vice versa.
As such we are left with the Iraqization of the war where fighting the insurgencey is gradually turned over to the ARVN, I mean the Iraqi Army, and a suspect civilian government with little or no actual authority is handed the whole mess. They struggle along for a couple of years before being toppled and Saigon, I mean Baghdad, is renamed.
As Stephen Colbert noted, if the the Government that governs best is the one that governe least, then the US has created a truely awesome government in Iraq.
"The greater the state, the more wrong and cruel its patriotism, and the greater is the sum of suffering upon which its power is founded." Leo Tolstoy
>>By greenfyre (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 05:56)
Greenfyre:
What are you saying---other than the part about Haliburton---that President Bush has not said? As soon as the govt is self sufficient and its security forces can defend themselves, the US will withdraw. You must give the Iraqi's a chance as they just ratified their Constitution and firmed their government less than 10 weeks ago. Why are you drawing such immature conclusions?? Can't you see that progress is being made....slowly but surely. Where are you getting YOUR news. For example, do you believe that there is broad public support for their new Constitutiom? Well, I do. Do you believe that their election turnout was good?? Well, I do. Do you believe that their security (police) force is becoming more competent each day?? Well, I do...and Tony Blair does, and President Bush does, and many, many others also agree. But if you believe that the free press in the US is all lies, your ignorance is just plain disgusting. The mainstream press largest papers..NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post a;; supported Bush'es opponent in the last election and their editorial policies are very critical of the administration. As for CNN and Fox...I know very little about them.
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 06:29)
What the invasion of iraq has created is a classic catch 22 situation, whilst undoubtedly a vast number of people in Iraq want the US to stay, because they fear the inevitable bloodletting that would occur if the US pulled out, or for whatever reason, there is still an equally vast number that want them to go...unfortunately both sides are armed to the teeth,
you make analogies to Vietnam GF and thats what will happpen, despite the jingoism of we "will triumph over terrorism"....we will not there are just to many of them...and as happened in Northern Ireland over 30 odd years, the kids that threw stones at the patrols matured and their hatred matured with them....what may have been fun chucking stones becomes serious shooting bullets or making bombs....the 13 year old kids will look up to whomever is their hero figures..and try to emulate them...the number of insurgents wont go down over time it will either raise or keep pace with current figures
The cost in lives in attempting to triumph will eventually become unpalatable for the US public, and we all know that all Presidents be they republican or democrat value their ratings more than anything else..
When their standing drops too much one president, be it the one after Bush or maybe the fifth after Bush will organise a withdrawal , be it a rout like Siagon in 75, or be it orderly and then the real 'fun' begins...then perhaps you have to have a secondary 'peacekeeping force brought in', the UN perhaps, who are about as usefull as turn signals on a submarine... and you may easily head back to suare one...
>>By BushisaManiac (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 06:32)
>> What are you saying---other than the part about Haliburton---that President Bush has not said?
Bush is suggesting that Russia, China or equivalent take over supreme command of the Coalition Forces? including all US forces in the middle east?
Man, I have got to start following the news better; I missed that one completely!
Um, do you have a link? UPI or something? Google doesn't get me anything, and I can't find it at whitehouse.gov. Wait, is this it? http://whitehouse.org/
Don't kid yourself about the difference. I am saying the US needs to relenquish authority ASAP to someone else, almost anyone else, as long as they are credible to the Iraqi people. Bush is saying that the US will do it when they feel good and ready, and not before. There is a difference there, a huge one actually.
Further, the Haliburton thing is also huge. Given that quite a few people believe that the US is really setting itself up for the economic exploitation of Iraq, they will not get any credibility while they are economically exploiting Iraq. Doing exactly what people suspect you of doing does not tend to allay thier suspicions.
>>By greenfyre (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 08:06)
Whoopsy
Here's a couple more excellent US sites voicing their undying support of the President - enjoy
http://whitehouse.org/iraq/index.asp
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html
Enjoy
>>By greenfyre (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 08:22)
Heh, I couldn't resist getting in on this one. Just a quick question/comment and I'll let you boys get back to it...
I noticed lv2read keeps getting asked if he served in Vietnam. Since that war was morally unjustifiable (at least in my opinion), wouldn't participating in it be worse than not joining in? I notice a tendency for people to follow any anti-Iraq (or other) war comment with a quick "I was in the military/know someone in the military/support our troops" etc., but it seems to me that if the war is wrong, staying out of it is the better moral choice.
I don't "support" troops who fight in unethical wars--I may feel sorry for them, and I certainly hope they escape unharmed, but I don't consider them experts on the ethics of warfare.
I guess my point is, really--how does having served make your belief that a given military action is unjustified more valid than, say, mine? Last time I checked, they didn't let soldiers start the wars anyway.
Pardon my interruption, I'll sit back and enjoy the continued fireworks!
>>By Just Jon (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 13:53)
JJ
Not necessarily. Earlier in this thread the point was made that the "did you serve" question is usually out of bounds and NOT relevant; everyone has a right to their opinions about any conflict regardless of service.
However, L2R has been questioning peoples credential and credibility based on citizenship, age, etc. As such BiaM decided to enquire about L2R's credential wrt service.
One reason I don't generally like the question is it is misleading wrt to what someone knows, creating a completely false authority for some, or lack of it for others. Not that it isn't valid up to a point, just that we immediately assume that it means much more than it often does.
In any given conflict the range of experience for even active personnel could be quite different. eg A Nam vet might have done several tours as a tunnel rat, or a single tour just humping Connex containers in Danag. Having served in the Wehrmacht could mean anything from Stalingrad to guarding a section of coast in Denmark - two very different wars.
Equally, many civies have more direct experience of the reality of war, or at least aspects of it, then many of those in service. How do we weigh the credability of a uniformed paper pusher based in Qatar for Gulf War 1 vs the citizens of Sarajevo or Banja Luka?
It also creates the impression that soldiers are the only ones affected by war and invalidates the experience of everyone else. Yes, obviously in something like WWI the poor bastards in the trenchs went through bloody hell (for the most part) and comparatively everyone else did not have it too bad at all.
However, every widow, mother who lost a child, person who lost a sibling, bombing victim, refugee, war orphan etc has had their lives significantly impacted by war, perhaps more so than many service personnel.
Then there are all those who have lived under occupation. We don't like to talk about it because of course 'our boys never do that', but the fact is that significant numbers of females (not just 'women') in occupied territories have been raped, often repeatedly. Not all, and some theatres and conflicts have been much worse than others, but it is common all the same.
And so on.
I am going to take issue with you about good vs bad wars. The truth is that for 95% of the population in any country at any time all the avg citizen knows is more or less what their government tells them. Just about every grunt goes off thinking he is going to a good war, regardless of the war or his/her nationality or the period.
Most are motivated by patriotism of some form, and most of them would have served as well (or poorly) for the other side had they been born in a different place. Different branchs of my family wound up facing each other in WWI, never mind all the civil wars.
The fact that in hind site some wars turned out to be what we now call bad, let's say Axis in WWII, vs good, is exactly that, hind site. It tells us nothing about the people who were there. The truth is that in most cases there was almost no difference between the guys facing each other except colour of uniform and the name of the country they were protecting.
Further, iIt tells us nothing about the behaviour and actions of the individuals. For example, how do we weigh the Nam vet who did his absolute best to treat te enemy with dignity, protect civilians, etc vs a WWII Allied Vet who raped and looted whenever he could, brutalized civilians, etc?
And then there is the whole 'why' of someone served or not. Did he do it because he was a typical teenaged male? or because he was a rabid Nazis? because he believed he was protecting SE Asia from communism? or because he was just too scared not to.
Or those who did not serve, are they all equal? Hardly. There are cowards and there are consciencious objectors. There are those who would serve in what they consider morale wars, but not immoral ones. There are/were many valid medical deferments, and many phony ones.
And what about those who served, but then deserted? for political reasons, or out of terror, or because they were just too traumatized to go on, or because it just seemed to be a futile and pointless horror.
And of course then there is the whole issue of how they saw it and what it meant. Two people who served in the same unit at the same time can have wildly different perspectives on what happened, what it meant, and what it tells them about the world.
So I would say everyone's actual experience is valid and brings it's own perspective to the discussion, but that in the end it boils down to what people actually say.
If someone is spouting total nonsense, the fact that they served multiple tours in multiple conflicts does not change the fact that they are talking nonsense. If someone is making good sense then that is true whether or not they have ever seen a rifle in their life.
Take our own little situation here. If we believe everyone's profle then BiaM and Tchock are quite different. One is a young woman who I assume has no combat experience, while the other is an older male vet who served in the military and saw active combat, yet their perspectives are quite similar and for many of the same reasons.
So yeah, the real issue is how informed a persons perspective is. One may be informed by reading, talking to others, or direct experience. Equally, we may be misinformed by any and all of the above ... including one's own experience.
>>By greenfyre (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 15:31)
Tchock _ I am impressed by the maturity of someone so young.
Greenfyre: your post immediately above is full of sense. However, I think we must speak to those on this thread that have no sense.
Bushmaniac: you continue to talk sense, despite this blathering idiot
To those that fail to appreciate the subtetlies of geo-political or historical discourse....Those are only capable of viewing conflicts in terms of right/wrong winner/loser and so forth....
If someone is incapable of acknowledging the extra-legal nature of the Iraq invasion and the disastrous implications for the rule of law for the next generation or so, then I doubt that we can convince him of the folly of the current engagement.
The basic issue is that he doesn't understand the enormity of what George W has committed America to, nor can he understand the failure of those policies.
I guess some issues just go over some people's heads (iv2unread has more than deomstrated his incapacity to actually comprehend what anyone else on this thread - or the unfortunate Brokeback Mountain thread - has actually written) I'd be going with either terminal stupidity. i.e. an IQ of 80 or less (in which case we need to be compassionate or kind to his feelings) or a level of indoctrination that would rival the best efforts of that loony in North Korea. The sheer probability of this is with the former.
Whichever sad alternative it turns out to be, just think yourself lucky that this dickwit isn't actually in a position of power or influence anywhere. At this point IVRtoounread you jump out of the closet and reveal yourself as the senio rpolicymaker inthe current US administration. At which point I struggle to feign any sort of surprise beacause - god knows - you couldn't be any dumber than those fucks!
Well yes, you could. the difference between them and you is that you actually believe the bulllshit that they have sprouted for the last five years or so. No one in power could possibly be that stupid. [if you want to know why I believe this the answer is that we are all still here: we would all be dead if people as stupid as you were in charge]
The point of the above is that the rationale for invasion ofIraq has lacked rigor from the beginninng and even more so now. What exactly is America fighting for and why? Spare us the diatribe of your democracy raves as there is no one left who can believe that. At this point we are talking general populations in a global sense iv2unread.....have you actually even taken a peek at what the whole world think of your country's misadventure {at which point I can lay money on his pronouncement that the USA doesn't need the world's approval for whatever it thinks the world should have....and in the next breath will espouce the value of democracy {which must obviously be in IV2unread's terms as outlined by Greenfyre and Bushmaniac above else they bear no correspondence with the reality}
So come on Iv2unread.....did you even finish high school?
>>By Sarcophilus (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 16:59)
jeez if only i could have put it as eloquently.
My harping on with this question, is for two reasons,
1) To try to gain an understanding of someone whom despises communism, the radical muslims and all that is not american, who has actively said that the 'new found democracy' in Iraq is worth casualties thousands of times over, who lambasts the gold star mothers because they criticise the president and the reasons why their child dies.....who's only sense of remorse is one sweeping and brief statement that 'we mourn the losses'... who basically doesnt care who gets killed and in how many numbers because his government views are sacrosanct...and yet doesn't have the balls to admit when the marine issue boots were pottentially on his feet...... he ran. Concientous objectors have balls, those who admit they dodged the draft cos they didnt believe in the war in south east Asia they have my respect....those who dodged the draft cos they didnt want to die, hey thats bloody understandable...but I just can't fathom out someone who is such a hawk now but didnt have the balls to back up his beleifs then, and who hasnt got the balls to admit it now.
2) the guy is ever so selective in what he wants to criticise, and discuss, he harps on abpout other members of this discussion, not answering the question, with phrase such as:-
"did I miss your answer? Your not avoiding that question, are you??"
yest he has'nt got the good manners to answer a straight forward question put to him
Okay i will drop the question, I know the answer anyway, a friend of mine on flork, an overt lesbian, recieved an unsolicited message from L2R last year, where at first he was polite, questioning her lesbianism, but when she didnt agree with his views or answer to his satisfaction, he started to get personal, i dont know how the conversation got on to Military service but she was a driver in the Brit forces, and she asked him about Nam, he admitted that he didnt serve, and I gather ran to Canada, I cant clarify the second bit, she hasnt been on flork for ages...so really his honest answer to my question would have been all clarifying..
Since i have dropped that question one of my other original questions still stands
Love2 read...what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
somehow i know you wont attempt to answer this one because we all know, including your holy government that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 and if we know that then we know that the invasion & occupation of Iraq was an illegal and wholly aggressive act by one soveriegn nation against another. and before you go off on one about how bad saddam was...may i just Clarify EVERONE AGREES WITH YOU, LOOK BACK THROUGH THE POSTS, HERE AND ON BROKEBACK AND YOU WILL SEE THAT NOBODY HAS SAID OTHERWISE!! but just because the fella was bad doesnt mean you can invade his country
>>By BushisaManiac (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 17:05)
bugger!! sorry about all the spelling mistakes, thats what happens when you try to 'type' with passion and end up just typing with big sausage fingers
>>By BushisaManiac (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 17:14)
I must say that I appreciated the depth of your thinking regarding the above, greenfyre.
One aspect I wonder about is when a soldier is ordered to fight when their government has become 'extra-legal' in the conflict they have engaged in.
A couple of instances spring to mind here: where does that place the ethics of the regular militia re: the USA UK and Australia vis a vis Iraq? [NB: there is currently a case in the UK courts that involves the legality of the Iraq invasion and whether a British soldier can be compelled to fight in an illegal war - illegal in this sense constituting an invasion outside the terms of treaties the invading country is signatory to] .......where does that place regular German combatants in WWII, for example? Were their [those within Geneva convention] actions illegal because their government was illegal - or beacause they failed some greater ethical test?
Can any war be justfied, except in terms of extending the agressor's hegemon or territory? Can anyone name a 'just' war that didn't?
Even WWII, commonly seen as a fight between fascism/racism and everyone else, doesn't stand up under that justification when one examines the domestic policies of the allies at the time { the UK was still an agressive empire and the US practiced brutal segregation across most of the south at the time that they both objected to the Nazis - but we must never forget that neither of them counted the holocaust in their rationale for fighting the Nazis at the time}
In terms of WWII I am glad that the fascists were defeated. {But - as little as I like their regime - am forced to concede that the Allies could not have won without the communists being on the same side} I still struggle to understand how an Ally in WWII can ethically be re-branded the most heinous of enemies the minute the Nazis conceded defeat. But anyone who views international relations in terms of ethics is naive at best.
That's your biggest give-away IV2unread: no one "in the know" could ever express themselves so bluntly....I'm with Greenyre....you have got to be an al quaeda stooge: express yourself as an American in terms so offensive you inspire more al quaeda recruits.....
Mind you.... it's amazing how much I have galvanised some young, dis-interested people into anti-war action after showing them your posts.....
IV2unread....could I please ask you a favour....could you please keep posting rubbish like you have on this thread...I think you could just be the ant-war catalyst we have been awaiting for the last few years....
>>By Sarcophilus (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 17:35)
A final statement tonight about Jack....
WE are Jack.
This becomes the self-fulfilling author the internet was bound to spawn.
At the point this thread began, all the contributors moved beyond the definitions of 20th century literature.
This is 21st century literature. We don't even NEED a novel to talk about: we are all happy entertaining the premise of one without any of us actually having to read it, let alone express an opinion about it. The Novel and Author become nominal:: a fitting antidote to the early 21 century obsession with celebrity: we cut out the middle man for you!
Even a moron like IV2unread (or is it IV2undead???) gets a say......
There is no place in this literature for concepts like good or bad, of course. the only criteria remaining must be more or less interesting....
Lowest Common Denominator.
I guess you get to set the baseline IV2undead.....
at least you achieve something, I suppose, because fooling anyone other than yourself with your arguments would be highly unlikely to say the least.
Go on......tell me.... when did you last actually listen to someone? It's OK....I'm expecting an answer of 50 years or more.....
You can get help for your condition....
Denial can be overcome: It's not easy but with extensive counselling who knows? You might even come to terms with the reality of WWI within a decade! Who knows how far you could get from there?
I really am rooting for you IV2unread.....I can see you are a special* person needing the love and compassion of those you encounter. I must admit I was small minded to begin with but I can now see that I need to make allowances for special* people like you.
So where is your special* workshop? Do you make pegs or cardboard boxes?
>>By Sarcophilus (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 17:54)
Within the first couple of pages of course, the tussle for pre-eminent character is played out....
Will it be the stoic Greenfyre, the wise Bushmaniac or the young fresh, preciocious Tchock that grabs our attention?
Or does the gollem steal the limelight yet again {that will probably be you IV2unread!}
I'm happy to be the bitch that slags off all and sundry from the sidelines {lol}
Protagonists! Start your engines!!!
>>By Sarcophilus (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 18:00)
<<<For example, how do we weigh the Nam vet who did his absolute best to treat te enemy with dignity, protect civilians, etc vs a WWII Allied Vet who raped and looted whenever he could, brutalized civilians, etc?>>>
You have redefined stupidity. There are always abuses, yet the actions of the Allies in WWII was profoundly heroic. What is your problem?? People like Tchock are going to read those words and believe that that War was pointles, unnecessary nothing but a chronicle of American, British and Russian abuses. You are totally irresponsible. Ask the families of 6 million European Jews if the War was justified. Ask academics if we should have allowed Hitler his space as opposed to crushing the Nazi war machine.
You degrade the whole concept of pacifism.
And the American President will leave Iraq after the war has been won. The hearts and souls of peace loving Iraqis have been with the Coalition all along. Now the Communist Daily Worker and the Al Qaida Chronicle will dispute that and those entities (probably) have placed (their propaganda) in writing and on a Web site for you to visit, and people of your persuasion will eat it up hook line and sinker. Their views must be true. Right??
It is about time that you come to earth. Your mockery of reality is intolerable. I will list your extremely foolish beliefs in the order of their absurdity:
1 You believe that the insurgents enjoy broad public support. That is more thasn inaccurate....that is stupid.
2. You believe that the Iraqi election is invalid. ALL were invited to participate---some refused. The election wasw not going to be postponed indefinitely to appease extremists.
3. You don't have a clue as to what Democracy is IF you don't believe that the seeds of Democracy have been planted in Iraq. Democracy is participatory government ruled by the majority. Democracy is individual rights---not to be confused with anarchy--as enumerated in a Constitution. And you know all of this as I do.
There are manymore foolish things that you say and you are only encouraged by the Gang of Four. Not one of them has the courage to point out to you that you are woefully off target, saying foolish things, and discrediting the heroic efforts being made in Iraq today.
And the Ostrich syndrome is very, very foolish with respect to Iran. I believe that I respect their determination much more than you do, Does the Al Qaida Chronicle tell you to give them space, to allow their Prime Minister/President space to work out his anger, that things will be better soon?? What is your problem??
Should we wait until Iran bombs Israel?? Are you serious?? How much further do thing have to escalate before action must be taken?? How foolish can you be??
Redeem yourself.
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 18:08)
L2R
Tchock has proven herself to be more than capable of thnking for herself. Your patroning, arrogant, condecending 'concern' is contemptable.
My maternal grandfather was a communist named Goldstein in Nazis Germany. I know perfectly well what happened to dissenters, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and many others.
Don't you DARE lecture me about the Holocaust.
Now I am going to take a break before I really spell out what I think of you and your insufferable arrogance.
>>By greenfyre (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 18:59)
Greenfyre,
I'm waiting for you.........here.
Are you familiar with Bill O'Reilly's, No Spin Zone? It is an American telecast by a conservastive to moderate journalist wherein politically correct statements aren't permitted. Sugar coating statementas aren't permitted there. You might catch one broadcast if you can. You'll consider it all lies, but it may broaden you a bit.
You got under my skin on your second to last post...but I required no break from the fray!!!!!
And if the simplistic observations of a 17 year old impress you, again there is little that I can do for you. And, if at any time you want to terminate this discussion, I'll respect that and will not taunt you from the sidelines. Your mean spiritedness wears thin, but I can conceal my frustration/anger better than you or the Gang.
Until you recognize the presence of Democracy in Iraq, until you applaud the recent election, until you appreciate their new Constitution, until those things happen I will cut you no slack. Face the reality of the situation in Iraq today.
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 19:18)
Your powers of selective perception IV2unread, must be truly powerful.
Where in this thread did anyone say that WWII was pointless? My understanding was that the question revolved around ethics: a different beast entirely, my intellectually-challenged friend...
Anyone who believes that ethics, war - or indeed any form of foreign policy - bears any inter-connection is dangerously off the pace.
Ethics has never had anything to do with the above. I never expected it to: REALPOLIK has ruled the world since at least the end of WWII. Realpolitik - as espoused by great communists like Truman and Kissinger - has - by definition - an ethical bypass. The very meaning of the concept revolves around its disconnection from what is right.
My argument is that it is misleading to view WWII in terms of right and wrong: mainly because the victors had no consideration of the merits of their action beyond stopping an insane despot enslaving most of Europe and fucking up their markets. There is compelling evidence that - while all the major players were aware of what was going on in occupied Europe - none of their motivation was concerned with the obscenity that was being committed. In short they knew what was happening and their response respectively was to send refugees back to certain death [in the case of the US] and to bomb concentration camps [in the case of UK].... in terms of the end game that may have been justified: God knows what the world would have been like if those crazy fucks had won...My point is that the actions of the allies had nothing to do with the merits that IV2unread is now espousing.
Ditto Iraq.
The rationale that our governments gave us were WMD, IV2Unread. Now there were some of us that realised that was bulshit from the outset, while others were conned by the media onslaught that accompanied the build-up. Now it didn't take that long for everyone to know it was bullshit. Which is where your primary argument comes in, IV2unread...
The whole purpose was regmie change....if that was really the case, why couldn't the coaltition of the willing have waited for sign-off from the UN security council?
Look no one comes out of this episode looking good, IV2undead....the USA to benefit Haliburton and some delusion that they could capture the oil [and the extremely dumb idea that the infrastructure would be intact - after they had bombed the fuck out of it], Australia so they could continue Wheat Exports (at vastly inflated prices - producing the Alice-In-Wonderland situation where they were providing hundred of millions of dollars in kick-backs to Saddam Hussein at the very same time they were making plans to invade him) and the UK? well I've never been able to work exactly what their angle could have been because God knows they acheived nil benefit..perhaps you can elucidate IV2unread...everyone else were just bit players: arse-lickers to the new Emperor (that'd be George W, Iv2unread)
Well, now it appears the Emperor has no clothes. His kangaroo courts have been ruled illegal by the Supreme court and - given time - other, higher powers will conclude that the whole episode has been illegal. Who knows? American may even recover their civil rights after the most concerted attack on them in the history of te nation. I guess the moral of this story IV2unread, is that you shouldn't sign treaties if you're not planning to abide by them. It might also help if an elected official is capable of reading - and understanding - the constitution that most other elected officials have proved capable of understanding and abiding by over the last 200 hundred years, but - and this is where the problem arises, IV2unread - you wlill neither hear nor accept any criticism of his actions.
No one has a problem with the fall of Saddam Hussein. What I object to is the extra-legal manner it has been carried out. That and the fact that the dumb fuck YOU have the temerity to call a great President had no idea what he was going to do once Saddam Hussein was defeated.
In that sense, the blood of everyone who has subsequently died is on his hands. And every other apologist for his actions (that means you IV2unread!). It was possible to see an end to Saddam's regime without invading and making the mess the world now has to contend with.
This wasn't the only way of ridding the world of a tyrant.
There was ample evidence that the regime was close to collapse - largely due to the damage done during Gulf War v 1.0 and the sanctions that had been in place since then - so what was the hurry, IV2unread? Haliburton needed some extra cash? The thought of all that cheap oil? I know I'm asking a lot of you here, IV2unread, but have you ever heard the term 'cui bono?'
Even the neocons must consider you a moron, IV2Unread....at least they have an angle on it. You can't manage anything more than the intangibles of 'democracy' and the patent lie that everyone in Iraq is better off.
Even an insane dictator like Saddam Hussein could at least keep a lid on ethnic tensions (he was equal opportunity in the sense that he terrorised everyone sufficiently that there was little unrest) He also had his hand in the till but at least he was Iraqi....throwing a huge occupying power into the ethnically fraught reality of Iraq is like sticking a really big stick into a really big hornets nest.
The most likely outcome will not be dissimilar to [the brand new enemy on the block] Iran: given that the only organised structures left in that country are relgious ones, it is only a matter of time before one of the fundamentalist loonies gets the upper hand. and then the world will be dealing with another large, industrialised nation (with an inordinate share of the world's oil resources) governed by the religious lunaic fringe....at least they'll have something in common with the USA, I suppose.
And what about the other tyrants that can rest comfortably, knowing that the USA (and its few remaining allies) are completely pre-occupied with its own paper tiger? Ever heard of Zimbabwe, IV2unread? DO you really think that Pakistan is a model democracy IV2unread? If you do I'd be indebted if you could show me the section where it says that dictators can still be democratic.
What saddens me most of all IV2unread, is your sad attempt to label those that don't agree with you, conspirators, communists or worse.
I personally find any form of totaliarianism abhorrent, be it socialism, fascism, stalinism, maoism or mcCarthyism. FRom what they have said on previous postings, I think that all of your antagnists on this thread are the same.
Since when has liberalism (intrinsically, respect for the rights of others to think and act as they seee fit within a broad moral framework, regardless of race, gender, sexuality or specific belief systems) qualified as a pejorative in itself? Anyone who has a problem with that but have serious problems with the notion of democracy as any meaningful deifnition would have it. You can't have democracy without plurality, stupid!
What should be apparent to even someone with your obviously limited intelligence is that your own precious George W and the Taliban have more in common than any of us do. They (and, I suspect, you) are faith-based zealots.
At least we have the sense not to confuse any of this with right or wrong. That is a problem for everyone's own individual consciences. As Locke, Mills, Franklin and Jefferson put it, governments have no business interfering in anything beyond the utility of their citizens.
The idea that you could impose democracy on someone is absurd.
Well I for one am praying for your 'rapture' to happen ASAP: I only hope the world is still left by the time you've all gone to your (what must be an obviously demented*) creator.
*your creator must be demented if he possesses any values and still has time for the likes of you. Otherwise he would have to as crazy as you fucks
>>By Sarcophilus (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 20:00)
One other matter I feel compelled to challenge you about IV2unread....
You intimate in a number of postings (largely through your derisory terms like 'twins' and 'gang of four') that the repsonse to you is an evil conspiracy designed to thwart your valiant attempts to attempt the truth.
Hate to disappoint you, but I don't even know who these other people are....none of us do....
Flork appears designed to prevent that sort of community developing. The only exchanges any of us can have are on public discussion boards.
I guess that leaves one less thing to be paraniod about (albeit minor in the conxtext of 2/3 of USA being opposed to your Governments actions - but they must all be communists, right?)
You can't have everything, I guess
>>By Sarcophilus (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 20:50)
To the Sarcoidiot,
Do you like playing this way? Now should I point out your moronic views or just obliquely refer to them? Your words---do you know trhe expression--full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
What do you propose should be done re Iran PRIOR TO THEM DEVEKIOING A NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITY? In plain English, and without 100 words why don't you say? In the meanwhile their research is ongoing. What is it about their leader's words that you do not understand. That the Secty General of the UN does not understand, that China, Russia, England, the US and many more countries do not understand??
Show me than you are not a Sarcoidiot. You can show me here....and now.
Do you want to continue the namecalling? It's all up to you, and the Gang of Four.
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 20:55)
L2R
re: your comments from above, yet again, because someone disagrees with your view your labelled them totally opposite to what they are...how wonderfully simplistic your life must be how easy each decision must be for you....some of us here have views about WW2 which dont align with yours so OBVIOUSLY we must have been against that war too, we MUST have been on the side of the nazi regime because... hey if we dont agree with you 100% we must be with them...there can be no other possible reason can there...
and re what you have written... "yet the actions of the Allies in WWII was profoundly heroic" ..... does that include the british Pilot who fired off his wing cannons at a young girl of 13 & her younger brother out collecting firewood in the winter of 44, killing three Polish prisoners of war who were digging a ditch for the Germans, across the road from them! does that include the US soldiers who gang -raped the same young Girl a few months later, when they advanced through the town in which she lived.... or are you going to say that my mother was a liar? what about the mass mass rapes of women of all ages when the soviets moved through every country on their advance, czech women, hungarian women, and thousands of german women, ....and because these things did happen and I dare write about them then OBVIOUSLY IN YOUR MIND that means that I am an ardent nazi who applauded the holocaust who idolised the nazi regime and all they stood for ...
and re your pathetic question on Iran read the post at the top of this page dim-wit,, the Israelis are the ones directly at risk from the Iranian nuclear capability...do you seriously believe that they have the capability to build ICBM's... is that what Bush says?...even the Russian ICBM's were discoverd to be useless bits of shite when dis-armament occured after perestroika, at the very most the Iranians could possibly build a copy of the venerable scud.....and that doesnt have the range to hit anyone except immediate neighbours, probably 700km, at the most 13~1500 km... mmmm a direct threat to the US yep Bush better get in there and waste a couple of hundred more thaousand lives...
and if you bothered to read the post at the top of this page then you would know..although not believe because how dare we criticise the ability of the US, that the Israelis are the only ones with the ability to take out the right targets, the US airforce would just look for the nearest british afv's and canadian infantry to vapourise. or they'd just crash and burn in the desert if they sent in helicopter borne troops..
and i repeat again why dont you answer the fucking question put to you...dont you read too well?
can you please explain what Iraq had to do with 9/11?
>>By BushisaManiac (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 21:29)
Shit I think i have disovered why you are so ardently for this war and any future ones that wee georgie dubya the greatest of all idiots is contemplating....you are aa businessman, self employed...I'll bet your company makes body bags for the US Military doesnt it... yoour jingoism could only mean one of two things...either you are as I suspect bordering on the fringes of insanity..or maybe alzheimers...or you are direcctly profiteering from the war...
I asked you in a private message on flork, that if the elections were such a success for freedom and democracy how you would feel in your heart of hearts if you were told to move your company to the newly democratic Baghdad...it was a hypothetiical question.... and yet you didnt even think about it.. your inane answer was and i quote directly
"Being an American Jew I would have little interest living in a muslim country. Also, owing and operating a medium sized business, I can't imagine a healthier business climate than that in Newport Beach, California. I am happy where I'm at."
too right you are happpy where you are at, you dont risk being shredded everytime you go to the shops. but of course the Iraqis well if they want this glorious US style democracy they must accept a few little risks every now and then before you can give them their much needed burger king franchises and walmarts on every street corner
>>By BushisaManiac (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 21:51)
L2R
Quick, quick, there he is again ... the person using your account to make personal attacks which you would never do
>> To the Sarcoidiot,
>> your moronic views
Maybe Marek can track the the ISP and find out who the imposter is!
>> --full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
How apt that you quote a petty tyrant who's blind ambition leads him into a war that he cannot win, but never mind that ...
Assuming you have read MacBeth, do you happen to remember the context of that speech? It's Act 5 Scene V
Thou comest to use thy tongue; thy story quickly ....
>>By greenfyre (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 22:03)
Given the current US administration's obvious disregard for the rule of law why should I view the POTENTAL of Iran develping even one nuclear weapon differently than I might view the thousands I know USA posesses?
The USA has become the rogue state that is the nightmare of the world.
I am opposed to nuclear arsenals possessed by any nation: the world has never seen a goverment that can be trusted enough to be repsonsible for that kind of power. Someone, sooner or later fucks up and untold millions will pay the price for that.
But the idea that the world should cower about Iran gaining the capabilty that those other bastions of the free world: like Russia, China, Pakistan, Israel and India already possess is laughable!
The leader of Iraq might be a crazy bastard but - so far - he's given me less reason to fear him than that crazy bastard running your country!
The leader of Iraq - at least so far - hasn't illegally invaded anyone lately. Can you say the same of your villiage idiot?
I've heard the mad mullah's rave about how the holocaust didn't happen but is it really any crazier than the stories your stooge is sprouting every day about how things are getting better in Iraq?
Does the mad mullah have a camp full of prisoners in some god-forsaken place that are still awaiting trials after five years? Your administration tried to set up Kangaroo courts for them (mainly because they would have no charges to face under any other system) - your own supreme court rules them illegal and what do you do then? Some other dodgy vehicle that wil deny them justice no doubt.
And what about that other crazy bastard in North Korea?
You fail to appreciate the point that breaking the rules to defeat someone - no matter how bad you think they are - makes you as bad as the very bastard you're trying to remove.
If there is no rule of law there is no hope for any of us. What meaning does 'democracy' have if any of us can be held without charge indefinitely and in secret? if none of us have a right to a fair trail? if any of our telephone conversations, emails, postings are under surveillance beause we "might be a threat"?.....What''s left of anything we value if all of that is taken away?
Just step outside Fox news sometime and see who it is that the world really fears: You'll find that - to a large extent it is you and your Government.
You were the last superpower and you've let us all down very badly. No one expected the descent into disregard for international law we have witnessed over the last few years. [ok: we've noticed for a few years that you have no regard for your own consistution so i guess we should have known] As for the democracy you claim to possess, what kind of democrafcy engages on the large-scale disenfranchisment of anyone who doesn't vote the way you like (that's code for blacks, hispanics and poor white trash, IV2unread) that we've witnessed your country do for the last few years? And don't get me started on those voting machines.....
Your country can't even organise a credible election but you think you have some god-given right to dictate to the rest of the world the kinds of governance we should all have? The term arrogance doesn't even touch the sides, really.....
So tell me IV2unread: when did the other 6 billion inhabitants of this planet get to vote George W into power?
As his finger is on the trigger of the whole planet's destruction, I guess it's only fair that we should get an answer to that question.
But you wouldn't like that , would you? It wouldn't fit with your somewhat special* definition of democracy, n'est pas?
I almost find myself yearning for a return of the USSR: sure they were corrupt and incompetent and no one had any freedom in that country...but at least they kept you bastards in check. The current shenanigans in Iraq would have been unthinkable until they collapsed....
We never knew when we had it so good.
And you have the temerity to lecture others on the kind of government they have? Look to your own house, my friend....
>>By Sarcophilus (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 22:18)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 67
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW BOOKS