1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Come On, Give Us a List

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ShinyTop, Nov 11, 2002.

  1. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    First we were told President Bush did not have the backing of Congress.

    When that was obtained we were told we needed the backing of the world. We now have that and are giving Saddam another opportunity to humilitate us by his two faced bull.

    Now we are told we have to please 500,000 people who gathered in Rome for another reason and started chanting against war.

    Well no shit. We are all against war. I just think some things are worth fighting for.

    So, please, all of you who think we have to keep getting someone else's approval, give us one frigging list. But don't be surprised when the administration quits jumping through hoops.
     
  2. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    Shiny,

    Would it be ok to request a list of times
    when it is acceptable to attack another
    country.

    Please base the list for all countries to adhere to.
    In other words, if the US can do it, so can they.

    Thank you.
     
  3. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Nope, will not be drawn down that path. In this case we have ample evidence and threats and a broken treaty. Will not digress to the path you request. Every country has to decide for itself. Our country has decided. Now, let's have the list.
     
  4. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    <small>Shiny said,</small>
    That would make your list a formality?
    In that case, you have no need of a
    list. Please feel free to commence at
    your leisure. Be prepared to reap the
    consequences as they appear. The war
    we fought ten years ago isn't over yet.
    Why pretend to need a new reason?
     
  5. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    No, the list is so we can get started early. Every time another quarter has been heard from that needs to approve our actions you post pointing out we had better ask them. After you convinced yourself that the 500,000 in Rome were all seriously anti-war I just want to know who else we have to placate/convince.
     
  6. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    Why Shiny,

    Why would we care if half a million people protest our action?
    Or a million? President Bush (for better of worse) has never
    shown any inclination towards listening to protests.

    There is no need for a list. Why would we feel it is important the
    citizens of the world agree with our action. It's not like a group of
    citizens could actually attack us or anything.

    <i>Oop, check that!</i>

    Well, it's not like people would get so mad as to launch a war.

    <i>Oops, no that doesn't work.</i>

    Ok, why should we give a shit? Well, that's it then. I guess there
    is no reason why we shouldn't get some feeling as to how the world
    will respond to our attack. I mean, we never did before, why should we
    now? Like I said, it's not like 19 guys are going to get together and do
    something horriffic, is it?

    arrogance

    \Ar"ro*gance\, n. [F., fr. L. arrogantia, fr. arrogans. See Arrogant.]
    The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing
    manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank,
    dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of
    the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness;
    haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption.

    I hate not you for her proud arrogance. --Shak.

    Syn: Haughtiness; hauteur; assumption; lordliness; presumption; pride;
    disdain; insolence; conceit; conceitedness. See Haughtiness.
    <small>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.</small>
     
  7. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    We had millions protest before and we will again. The people who are going to crash into buildings are not protesting. It is not arrogance to fight a war to disarm a maniac and then to want to finish the job. And yes, if arrogance is deciding what is best for our country and then acting in our own self interest I want to be arrogant. Like the rest of the freaking world. I do not feel because we are the biggest with the best armed forces that we have to apologize to everybody on the planet. I don't think we throw our weight around more than necessary. If anything, the world should be domonstrating with praise that we are so temperate in our actions considering how they behave towards us. Beat yourself up Ken, but leave the country out of it. I am not wearing the hair shirt and carrying the whips.
     
  8. aedumo

    aedumo Veteran Member

    If you get punched in the nose, do you have to ask your neighbor to punch back?
     
  9. Omar

    Omar Registered User

    Depends who punched you, why they punched you, and what you know will happen when you will punch back.

    Besides, if this is in context that America was the country that was attacked first then it's bad logic.
     
  10. jamming

    jamming Banned

    That's Bad Logic? I guess if you mean who fought in Iraq, we did first with our bombing. Or did you forget about Sadaam's little foray into a Saudi town we were using to observe Iraqi Operations along the border, which occurred before the beginning of the Campaign. Several US Marines were killed and injured by the Iraqi's on the Saudi side of the border. Or was that merely more propoganda of the west?

    If you approach the broader picture it was the Kuwaiti's that force was used on first then the Iraqi started to collect all the westerners in Kuwait. I am sure we would of sent all our forces over to the Middle East just because they needed exercise. But wait, a foreign government occupies another nation that we have a long term relationship with and we should just let that happen because it is the Middle East, I guess.

    If the Iraqi's had never invaded Kuwait there would of been no need of American involvement. Your causation argument is a bit on the biased side. How about this question, if your grocer down the street has a robbery, do you tell the police in your neighborhood to ignore helping because the robber killed the policemen in his neighborhood first? Or do you just ignore it because the thugs share the same cultural heritage that the grocer does?
     
  11. Omar

    Omar Registered User

    Jamming, I am afraid I do not follow what you are replying to?

    My post was in general on the attacks from the west, not specific to Iraq, the Gulf War of 1991, or anything of the sort.
     
  12. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    Who punched first?

    Could it be they think we punched first and we look at it as though they
    hit us with no provocation.

    Would this be one of the many valid issues we might learn about if we
    started a dialog with the "political" arm of the extremists?

    As best I can determine, short of completely eradicating everyone who
    disagrees with us, we are going to have to talk to them sometimes.

    I am not suggesting capitulation, postponement of any action or the
    complete forgiveness (save the kneejerk dittohead replies) of anybody
    just that we are missing a big opportunity here.

    <small>Jim said,</small>
    This illustrates what I am trying to say. We view this as a series of events
    starting in maybe 1990.

    They view it as a history of being stabbed in the back since 1940 or perhaps
    before. (I don't know, we don't talk to them.)

    If you look at our long-term history in the region (not the US by itself but
    all western countries lumped together as a whole) maybe you can get a
    better understanding of their feelings toward us.

    They have caught our attention (referring to 9-11) and we have to ask
    ourselves, are we doing everything possible to avert another disaster?
    Without real dialog between both sides, I would have to say we are not.

    Bin Laden is warning (we are assuming it is Bin Laden) there is going to
    be another attack. This message is being sent very clearly. It is believable
    that he (if it is him) has the means and ability to carry this threat out.

    I find this threat real, pretty much indefensible against and frightening.
     
  13. DSL Dan

    DSL Dan Registered User

    Will someone please point to the last time "talking" with SOB's like Hussein persuaded them to abandon their evil plans. Hmm...maybe it was the stunning success of the Nobel Peace Prize winner in North Korea? Nope, that's not a good example. Anyone?
     
  14. pupowski

    pupowski Banned

    Ken, the people who founded this country protested some of the very behaviors in question, when England was the superpower. The founding fathers wrote extensively about the principles embodied in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Pre-emptive attacks without clear and present danger, blatent imperialism, and a president who claims the right to deny citizens their rights without judicial scrutiny were not part of the plan. Some of those dismissing the protestors out of hand, whether foreign or domestic, are Bushistas, or pseudo-conservative neocons more skilled at excusing this extremist regime than explaining what legal, logical, or moral principles justify some of its more egregious behaviors.
     
  15. pupowski

    pupowski Banned

    Re: Who punched first?

    There are several versions of this story, and the one most frequently cited to support pre-emptive attack is not consistent with the record. The matter of US Ambassador April Gillespie personally telling Saddam Hussein that Kuwait was an inter-Arab problem that did not concern the US is difficult to explain. Other US state department personnel had said for the record that we had no treaty obligation to defend Kuwait. That was exactly the kind of go-ahead Saddam had received when the US wanted him to attack Iran a few years earlier. There are numerous other inconsistencies or outright lies in this administrations ever changing portfolio of rationalles for attack. The one thing beyond dispute is that Saddam is a monster, but that was OK for years when he was "our monster".

    http://moise.sefarad.org/belsef.php/id/390/

    http://www.vancourier.com/095202/opinion/095202op3.html
     

Share This Page