- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Leviathan said:
Meaning you respect Hitler more, or meaning he's worst than Bush? Kind of ambiguous there, y'know.
By the way, where does/did Saddam, Kim Jung-Il and the like stand on your list?
Ouch...
- Thread starter loyalcana
- Start date
Meaning you respect Hitler more, or meaning he's worst than Bush? Kind of ambiguous there, y'know.
By the way, where does/did Saddam, Kim Jung-Il and the like stand on your list?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
The "prisoners of war" you're defending so passionately are not, in fact, entitled to any of the rights a prisoner of war would expect because they are not PW's, they are un-uniformed insurgents (Guerrillas) who have taken up arms against a uniformed military. In the Geneva convention this makes them fair game. And yes there have been statements made by the authorities of Saddam and family sexually abusing members of the countries populace.Leviathan said:
Obviously you are a military and strategic genius and don't need to hear any advice from the rest of us...who have actually served in our respective nation's armed forces, and not sat around tossing out advice and blame from the sidelines.
They also didn't get the support to complete the war and do what should have been done during the first war. So then-president Bush called a halt to the hostilities in order to co operate with the rest of the coalition. Also I didn't hear any of the other Arab countries whining about the U.S. presence in the Gulf then...Could it be that they're using the U.S. for their own ends (Sarcasm!)
As I recall the vote is still out on that issue...Do you know something that the rest of us don't? Also if the only thing that you're using to look for WMD is a satillite then I can fool you into thinking that my country has them with a few 45 gallon drums sporting the appropriate markings...
The only way that he won't is if weak-minded sissies like you force him to stop through complaining about what the U.S. does no matter what their actions are. I think that the recent vote in Iraq is plenty of proof that the U.S. did the right thing.
I wonder how they felt for the decades that Saddam and Co. were in power? Happy perhaps...NOT! During the invasion the U.S went out of its way and often put the lives of its own soldiers at risk to avoid hurting the civilian population of Iraq or avoiding destroying critical infrastructure.
If you recall the world had never had an industrialized world war before and could not possibly understand on a global scale how the Treaty of Versailles could effect future events. However I do think that your argument is a cop-out. He did rebuild Germany but no one told him to start killing Jews, Poles and any other race he didn't like...Did any of those races make the Germans sign the Treaty of Versailles?! No...I don't think so!
Well I think that about wraps it up.
At least untill i receive Slim's rebuttal... or apology... (riiiiight... :)
The thing that I can't stand about people like you is that you automatically assume that we are responsible for all of the ills that the world suffers, and that we're bad and exploit the lesser countries to our own ends.
I'm here to tell you that you are far off base. If that were the case then most of the Middle East would be either a nuclear waste parking lot by now or invaded and under the rule of the west...Which it isn't. The U.S. looks out for its own interests...Sure who wouldn't. But you don't see other countries coming to the aid of so many poor nations do you! How about the French, they're selling guns to anyone who will buy them (including Africa and the Middle East)...I don't see you whining about that!
You are a 19 year old kid who is in love with the naive idea that the big bad west is responsible for all of the woes in the world. I would love to see what you would have to say if you were living under one of those regimes that the U.S. toppled so that you and your ungrateful family could be free and live in peace without the threat of kidnap, torture, your sisters and wives raped and everything else that existed under the Saddam regime.
Grow up before you shoot your mouth off next time. And what, in Heaven's name, made you think that I owe you an opology?!
Slim
P.S. Spellcheck would also be a good idea!
- Reaction score
- 10,157
- Points
- 1,260
Leviathan said:
I don't know, but probably well enough to throng to the streets of Baghdad and cheer the US Forces and to topple down monuments of Saddam's regime and hit him with their shoes.
I'm trying to read your posts, but I feel I've read it all before....because I have. Another youth preaching the proper morality of international relations and the reality of the world from his comfy suburban couch. Spare us the "lesson" - we've heard it before.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
Leviathan said:
This would be true only if the US had not had a "MANDATE" to free Kuwait only. They had no mandate to go into Iraq and defeat the government of Saddam Hussain. If you want to speculate on history do so, but don't state them as facts.
As for Oil, I do believe the largest oil interests in that part of the globe are owned by Petro Fina, a large French Oil company. I beilieve that Russia also has large oil interests there too. Interesting, no!
GW
L
Leviathan
Guest
"Grow up before you shoot your mouth off next time. And what, in Heaven's name, made you think that I owe you an opology?!
Slim
P.S. Spellcheck would also be a good idea!"~Slim
Uuuh... Sure thing Slim...
I'll get right on that... :blotto:
I'm humoured by the fact that there is only TWO WORDS between you last spelling error and your self-righteous admonishment of my own spelling.
Maybe we can sign up for the same spell-check class?
As for the apology... Starting with your spelling comment would be a good start.
"Obviously you are a military and strategic genius and don't need to hear any advice from the rest of us...who have actually served in our respective nation's armed forces, and not sat around tossing out advice and blame from the sidelines."~Slim
I don't need to be a "military and strategic genius" to figure out basic morality, or what I do or don't agree with.
If I didn't want to hear your opinions, I wouldn't be having this discussion.
Yes... That's right... I actually have the courage to MATURELY listen to opposing viewpoints.
And your military service makes you a "military and strategic genius?â ?
Why thank you Mr. Patton.
"the "prisoners of war" you're defending so passionately are not, in fact, entitled to any of the rights a prisoner of war would expect because they are not PW's, they are un-uniformed insurgents (Guerrillas) who have taken up arms against a uniformed military. In the Geneva convention this makes them fair game. And yes there have been statements made by the authorities of Saddam and family sexually abusing members of the countries populace."~Slim
Oh please let me have heard you wrong...
I don't give a darn about the Geneva convention if it is as hollow as you make it sound.
I find it DISGUSTING that you apparently find the prisoner abuses justified merely because the militia of a third world country is without uniforms.
NOBODY has the right to treat another human-being like that.
Even the venerable Mr. Bush agrees with me on that topic.
Also, If you could help me find those reports which you address, I would be much obliged, I have been looking for hours now.
"Also I didn't hear any of the other Arab countries whining about the U.S. presence in the Gulf then...Could it be that they're using the U.S. for their own ends (Sarcasm!)"~Slim
Of course they were playing both sides, I never said I agreed with Arabs any more than I agreed with Americans.
I'm sure there were many angry Arabs at the time, maybe they have more spine this time around?
Or would you rather than they cut off more heads of Westerners in the first Gulf War? :-
The reality is that they were unprepared to put up the same degree of resistance that you see on the news today.
This increased "whiningâ ? should be all the more proof that this incursion into Iraq is of LESS justified to MORE people than the last Gulf War.
"As I recall the vote is still out on that issue...Do you know something that the rest of us don't? Also if the only thing that you're using to look for WMD is a satillite then I can fool you into thinking that my country has them with a few 45 gallon drums sporting the appropriate markings..."~Slim
Ummm. He rolled a whole darn army into the country to look for WMD's...
That is considerably different than a satellite (not satillite) or two. :
"Duelfer's report to Congress, which officials say he is finishing and will be published by the end of June, said deposed Iraqi dictator <b>Saddam Hussein had the intent but not the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.</b>â ?~http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines05/0112-01.htm
Plenty of countries have the intent, but not the capacity to make WMD's. I don't see Americans too worried about those.
Other dictators have committed atrocities that make Saddam's regime look like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, and the American's take no action. ???
There are bigger and badder threats out there that the Americans nearly ignore for some reason.
But don't worry; I'm sure Oil isn't the ONLY reason... :
"The only way that he won't is if weak-minded sissies like you force him to stop through complaining about what the U.S. does no matter what their actions are. I think that the recent vote in Iraq is plenty of proof that the U.S. did the right thing...
...You are a 19 year old kid who is in love with the naive idea that the big bad west is responsible for all of the woes in the world...
...Grow up before you shoot your mouth off next time. And what, in Heaven's name, made you think that I owe you an opology?!â ?~Slim
I resent your insult, but will ignore it for the moment. :-
(oh... Im sure your gonna have fun with this... :) Errr... I'm not 19...
Not quite sure why I put that in my profile.
Probably a good reason at the time.
Thanks for pointing it out though! Anyways...
Back to the topic.
I find the fact that I am stating AND justifying my beliefs publicly makes me quite the opposite of "weak-minded.â ?
If I was "weak mindedâ ? I would be GOING ALONG with the majority on these forums, NOT standing out.
And the fact I can do so without calling other people childish names makes me MATURE as well as strong-minded.
I grew up a long time ago Slim, but I don't recall ever being in the place you come from now, EVEN at my most immature moments.
Please return for a civilised discussion at you earliest convenience, until then, I guess I will have to endure your taunts. :boring:
In the past, the people who regarded Democracy, (even the watered down version we have now), as a workable idea were regarded as Naïve as well.
Without "Naïveâ ? people like me, there would be no progress and we would all live in a brutal feudal state of violent, short, painful lives.
Kinda like Iraq actually....
You can thank me later for saving you from such a fate.
"If you recall the world had never had an industrialized world war before and could not possibly understand on a global scale how the Treaty of Versailles could effect future events. However I do think that your argument is a cop-out. He did rebuild Germany but no one told him to start killing Jews, Poles and any other race he didn't like...Did any of those races make the Germans sign the Treaty of Versailles?! No...I don't think so!â ?~Slim
Slim... READ THE darn BOOK I RECOMMENDED!
It would help you see his perspective, instead of trying to infer his opinion and mentality through you Right-wing viewpoint.
This is also completely difference topic than this thread which I only addressed because you attempted to draw a terribly distorted analogy (a "cop-outâ ? in itself) from it in you earlier posts.
The Treaty of Versailles, AS I ALLREADY HAVE SAID, was only responsible for allowing Hitler to attain power, and NOT responsible for the atrocities that he perpetrated. :
And I don't think you give our past politicians enough credit in the intelligence category.
There were plenty of people even IN THE SAME ROOM AS THE TREATY ITSELF that knew the principles of the Treaty were the foundation for future problems.
SEE <b>"JUST-PEACEâ ?</b> below... ;D
"The thing that I can't stand about people like you is that you automatically assume that we are responsible for all of the ills that the world suffers, and that we're bad and exploit the lesser countries to our own ends.â ?~Slim
I think perhaps YOU are content to paint everyone who has a differing viewpoint with the same brush, however this is NOT something I am prepared to do.
And I don't agree with anyone, whether they share my views or not, who IS content to do so. :-
Just because I disagree with the American actions in Iraq, does not mean I regard them as the spawn of Satan.
Americans have done great thing for humanity in the past, and I am sure that they will do great things in the future.
If you would like an example which ties into your WWII analogy, then here you are.
If I go way back to my high-school Social, I recall that it was the American delegation at the Versailles Conference that recommended a principle of "just-peace,â ? which allowed for a just settlement of responsibilities without taking unfair advantage of defeated Germany.
Had the American recommendation been followed, it is highly unlikely that Hitler would have ever attained power.
"Meaning you respect Hitler more, or meaning he's worst than Bush? Kind of ambiguous there, y'know.
By the way, where does/did Saddam, Kim Jung-Il and the like stand on your list?"~Fredrick
I apologise for the ambiguity, let me clarify. :-[
Saddam, Kim Jung-Li, Hitler and Osama are all worse human-beings IMHO than Bush.
The difference is: Bush does things I don't agree with, and I DON'T hate him for it.
The others do things that sicken me, and I do find myself hating them.
^That clear up any ambiguity?^
"I don't know, but probably well enough to throng to the streets of Baghdad and cheer the US Forces and to topple down monuments of Saddam's regime and hit him with their shoes.
I'm trying to read your posts, but I feel I've read it all before....because I have. Another youth preaching the proper morality of international relations and the reality of the world from his comfy suburban couch. Spare us the "lesson" - we've heard it before."~Infanteer
Yup... The same people who would cheer and burn the American flag if it was Saddam's troops in the tanks with guns.
I too grow weary of the same old arguments, and would be quite content to keep my opinions more to myself.
But if the topic DOES come up, then I see no reason to keep my opinions to myself if there exhists such a discussion.
So if YOU are tired I suggest you either don't read posts like this, or keep your opinion on the matter to yourself and I will do the same.
I am uncomfortable with the thought of shutting up merely because you find the opposite opinion more agreeable and amusing. :-
"This would be true only if the US had not had a "MANDATE" to free Kuwait only. They had no mandate to go into Iraq and defeat the government of Saddam Hussain. If you want to speculate on history do so, but don't state them as facts.
As for Oil, I do believe the largest oil interests in that part of the globe are owned by Petro Fina, a large French Oil company. I beilieve that Russia also has large oil interests there too. Interesting, no!â ?~Wallace
You are correct Wallace.
It IS sad that the most powerful nation on our planet bases its mandates on Oil reserves and not liberation of people from a corrupt dictator. :-
I also was only addressing America as it was the TOPIC of this thread.
To address every corrupt government or corporation would be an exhausting endeavour indeed. :boring:
Well... This has been fun. And I invite more CIVIL discussion.
I also thank those, including Slim, who have the patience to read my entire.... Ummm... Manifesto.
I mean it from the bottom of my heart when I say that you are all well worth the time and effort. 
Slim
P.S. Spellcheck would also be a good idea!"~Slim
Uuuh... Sure thing Slim...
I'll get right on that... :blotto:
I'm humoured by the fact that there is only TWO WORDS between you last spelling error and your self-righteous admonishment of my own spelling.
Maybe we can sign up for the same spell-check class?
As for the apology... Starting with your spelling comment would be a good start.
"Obviously you are a military and strategic genius and don't need to hear any advice from the rest of us...who have actually served in our respective nation's armed forces, and not sat around tossing out advice and blame from the sidelines."~Slim
I don't need to be a "military and strategic genius" to figure out basic morality, or what I do or don't agree with.
If I didn't want to hear your opinions, I wouldn't be having this discussion.
Yes... That's right... I actually have the courage to MATURELY listen to opposing viewpoints.
And your military service makes you a "military and strategic genius?â ?
Why thank you Mr. Patton.
"the "prisoners of war" you're defending so passionately are not, in fact, entitled to any of the rights a prisoner of war would expect because they are not PW's, they are un-uniformed insurgents (Guerrillas) who have taken up arms against a uniformed military. In the Geneva convention this makes them fair game. And yes there have been statements made by the authorities of Saddam and family sexually abusing members of the countries populace."~Slim
Oh please let me have heard you wrong...
I don't give a darn about the Geneva convention if it is as hollow as you make it sound.
I find it DISGUSTING that you apparently find the prisoner abuses justified merely because the militia of a third world country is without uniforms.
NOBODY has the right to treat another human-being like that.
Even the venerable Mr. Bush agrees with me on that topic.
Also, If you could help me find those reports which you address, I would be much obliged, I have been looking for hours now.
"Also I didn't hear any of the other Arab countries whining about the U.S. presence in the Gulf then...Could it be that they're using the U.S. for their own ends (Sarcasm!)"~Slim
Of course they were playing both sides, I never said I agreed with Arabs any more than I agreed with Americans.
I'm sure there were many angry Arabs at the time, maybe they have more spine this time around?
Or would you rather than they cut off more heads of Westerners in the first Gulf War? :-
The reality is that they were unprepared to put up the same degree of resistance that you see on the news today.
This increased "whiningâ ? should be all the more proof that this incursion into Iraq is of LESS justified to MORE people than the last Gulf War.
"As I recall the vote is still out on that issue...Do you know something that the rest of us don't? Also if the only thing that you're using to look for WMD is a satillite then I can fool you into thinking that my country has them with a few 45 gallon drums sporting the appropriate markings..."~Slim
Ummm. He rolled a whole darn army into the country to look for WMD's...
That is considerably different than a satellite (not satillite) or two. :
"Duelfer's report to Congress, which officials say he is finishing and will be published by the end of June, said deposed Iraqi dictator <b>Saddam Hussein had the intent but not the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.</b>â ?~http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines05/0112-01.htm
Plenty of countries have the intent, but not the capacity to make WMD's. I don't see Americans too worried about those.
Other dictators have committed atrocities that make Saddam's regime look like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, and the American's take no action. ???
There are bigger and badder threats out there that the Americans nearly ignore for some reason.
But don't worry; I'm sure Oil isn't the ONLY reason... :
"The only way that he won't is if weak-minded sissies like you force him to stop through complaining about what the U.S. does no matter what their actions are. I think that the recent vote in Iraq is plenty of proof that the U.S. did the right thing...
...You are a 19 year old kid who is in love with the naive idea that the big bad west is responsible for all of the woes in the world...
...Grow up before you shoot your mouth off next time. And what, in Heaven's name, made you think that I owe you an opology?!â ?~Slim
I resent your insult, but will ignore it for the moment. :-
(oh... Im sure your gonna have fun with this... :
) Errr... I'm not 19... Not quite sure why I put that in my profile.
Probably a good reason at the time.
Thanks for pointing it out though! Anyways...
Back to the topic.
I find the fact that I am stating AND justifying my beliefs publicly makes me quite the opposite of "weak-minded.â ?
If I was "weak mindedâ ? I would be GOING ALONG with the majority on these forums, NOT standing out.
And the fact I can do so without calling other people childish names makes me MATURE as well as strong-minded.
I grew up a long time ago Slim, but I don't recall ever being in the place you come from now, EVEN at my most immature moments.
Please return for a civilised discussion at you earliest convenience, until then, I guess I will have to endure your taunts. :boring:
In the past, the people who regarded Democracy, (even the watered down version we have now), as a workable idea were regarded as Naïve as well.
Without "Naïveâ ? people like me, there would be no progress and we would all live in a brutal feudal state of violent, short, painful lives.
Kinda like Iraq actually....
You can thank me later for saving you from such a fate.
"If you recall the world had never had an industrialized world war before and could not possibly understand on a global scale how the Treaty of Versailles could effect future events. However I do think that your argument is a cop-out. He did rebuild Germany but no one told him to start killing Jews, Poles and any other race he didn't like...Did any of those races make the Germans sign the Treaty of Versailles?! No...I don't think so!â ?~Slim
Slim... READ THE darn BOOK I RECOMMENDED!
It would help you see his perspective, instead of trying to infer his opinion and mentality through you Right-wing viewpoint.
This is also completely difference topic than this thread which I only addressed because you attempted to draw a terribly distorted analogy (a "cop-outâ ? in itself) from it in you earlier posts.
The Treaty of Versailles, AS I ALLREADY HAVE SAID, was only responsible for allowing Hitler to attain power, and NOT responsible for the atrocities that he perpetrated. :
And I don't think you give our past politicians enough credit in the intelligence category.
There were plenty of people even IN THE SAME ROOM AS THE TREATY ITSELF that knew the principles of the Treaty were the foundation for future problems.
SEE <b>"JUST-PEACEâ ?</b> below... ;D
"The thing that I can't stand about people like you is that you automatically assume that we are responsible for all of the ills that the world suffers, and that we're bad and exploit the lesser countries to our own ends.â ?~Slim
I think perhaps YOU are content to paint everyone who has a differing viewpoint with the same brush, however this is NOT something I am prepared to do.
And I don't agree with anyone, whether they share my views or not, who IS content to do so. :-
Just because I disagree with the American actions in Iraq, does not mean I regard them as the spawn of Satan.
Americans have done great thing for humanity in the past, and I am sure that they will do great things in the future.
If you would like an example which ties into your WWII analogy, then here you are.
If I go way back to my high-school Social, I recall that it was the American delegation at the Versailles Conference that recommended a principle of "just-peace,â ? which allowed for a just settlement of responsibilities without taking unfair advantage of defeated Germany.
Had the American recommendation been followed, it is highly unlikely that Hitler would have ever attained power.
"Meaning you respect Hitler more, or meaning he's worst than Bush? Kind of ambiguous there, y'know.
By the way, where does/did Saddam, Kim Jung-Il and the like stand on your list?"~Fredrick
I apologise for the ambiguity, let me clarify. :-[
Saddam, Kim Jung-Li, Hitler and Osama are all worse human-beings IMHO than Bush.
The difference is: Bush does things I don't agree with, and I DON'T hate him for it.
The others do things that sicken me, and I do find myself hating them.
^That clear up any ambiguity?^
"I don't know, but probably well enough to throng to the streets of Baghdad and cheer the US Forces and to topple down monuments of Saddam's regime and hit him with their shoes.
I'm trying to read your posts, but I feel I've read it all before....because I have. Another youth preaching the proper morality of international relations and the reality of the world from his comfy suburban couch. Spare us the "lesson" - we've heard it before."~Infanteer
Yup... The same people who would cheer and burn the American flag if it was Saddam's troops in the tanks with guns.
I too grow weary of the same old arguments, and would be quite content to keep my opinions more to myself.
But if the topic DOES come up, then I see no reason to keep my opinions to myself if there exhists such a discussion.
So if YOU are tired I suggest you either don't read posts like this, or keep your opinion on the matter to yourself and I will do the same.
I am uncomfortable with the thought of shutting up merely because you find the opposite opinion more agreeable and amusing. :-
"This would be true only if the US had not had a "MANDATE" to free Kuwait only. They had no mandate to go into Iraq and defeat the government of Saddam Hussain. If you want to speculate on history do so, but don't state them as facts.
As for Oil, I do believe the largest oil interests in that part of the globe are owned by Petro Fina, a large French Oil company. I beilieve that Russia also has large oil interests there too. Interesting, no!â ?~Wallace
You are correct Wallace.
It IS sad that the most powerful nation on our planet bases its mandates on Oil reserves and not liberation of people from a corrupt dictator. :-
I also was only addressing America as it was the TOPIC of this thread.
To address every corrupt government or corporation would be an exhausting endeavour indeed. :boring:
Well... This has been fun. And I invite more CIVIL discussion.
I also thank those, including Slim, who have the patience to read my entire.... Ummm... Manifesto.
I mean it from the bottom of my heart when I say that you are all well worth the time and effort.
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
Leviathan, your post would be more easily digested with proper use of the quote function in order to help separate your comments from those to which you are responding.
Thank you.
Thank you.
L
Leviathan
Guest
Michael OLeary said:
Ahh... Thank you for the pointer... I'll make use of it in the future.
I did my best to correct that post in the meantime as well.
Don't worry Infanteer, this topic is important enough <b>to me</b> that I would likely read any length post in order to understand others better.
I'm sure that some other feel the same way.
I does sadden me, however, that YOU do not.
Particularily since you are a member of the staff.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
Leviathan said:
Well, I see from your comment that you are going through life with blinders on. You accuse the Americans of being there only for OIL. This is a total cope out. Once again I will say it is European, namely the French, who have the OIL interests in Iraq, not the US.
The First Gulf War, that you think the Americans should have gone all the way into Iraq, was limited by the Mandate set for their actions. Without a doubt, you would be using the same arguments for any actions in Iraq taken by them then, as you do for their actions today. You are using fuzzy logic, to try and win an argument which keeps getting shredded to pieces by facts put forth by others. If you don't accept them, as I see is the case, your debate is sensless. (No matter what you may think, the sky is Blue.)
GW
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Yawn...Alright Mr Dexter-who-is-not-19-anymore, maybe ARMY.CA is the newest source of argument in your world since the bullies stopped hassling you for your lunch money. But, to us, you are just another in a long line of self-important whiners who know better than all the rest.
I, for one, don't want to spend the time and energy pounding my head against a brick wall (or brain in your case). Scream about the nasty U.S. and conspiracy theories till you turn blue for all I care...
Slim
P.S. If you say you're not 19 after posting it on your profile I believe that you have violated the user agreement here, which is not tollerated.
I, for one, don't want to spend the time and energy pounding my head against a brick wall (or brain in your case). Scream about the nasty U.S. and conspiracy theories till you turn blue for all I care...
Slim
P.S. If you say you're not 19 after posting it on your profile I believe that you have violated the user agreement here, which is not tollerated.
- Reaction score
- 5,692
- Points
- 1,060
Not to mention your credibility :
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
Slim said:
That pretty much is the jist Slim.....the Geneva Convention is there to ensure the safety, welfare, and health of PWs. As for insurgents (non uniformed combatants)..... it's a matter of implying the GC on their behalf when they are in detention.
That being said, they could just as well be shipped off to Guitmo, for safekeeping.
Now now Slim, he's not even done basic, exercises, been on tours, etc.....let him speak. :
Regards
Similar threads
