|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 22, 2003 19:10:30 GMT -5
This encapsulates perfectly the narrow-mindedness of the anti-Iraq war mentality. Where's is the contradiction? Where are your facts? You have NOTHING but suspicions. It's exceedingly irritating and exhausting to try and hold a serious debate with people who continuously make completely irrational statements and use misinformation to make extremely general statements.
Even when you baby step them through the facts, even after you point out all their inconsistencies and misinformation, it doesn't help.
Let's review the debate:
Anti-war argument #1
The Iraq war is all about oil!
Saddam is a brutal and oppressive dictator who’s used chemical weapons on his own people. He’s ignored UN resolutions for a dozen years and is now finally paying serious consequences. Additionally, Iraq is a proven supporter of terrorism (encouraging Palestinian terrorist bombers by providing funds to their families). How is this all about oil?
But there’s oil in Iraq!
So?
The oil is valuable!
It’ll remain in Iraqi hands, so what’s your point?
Uhh… it’s all about oil!
___
Anti-war argument #2
The US asked for September 11th, and now they are asking for it again!
This statement would be laughable if it weren’t so sickening. It is EXACTLY the same as saying the Jews asked for WW2 (because they came to Germany).
Uhh... I'll just ignore this inconvenient excellent point.
___
Anti-war argument #3
The US is always after their own self-centered interests!
The US liberated Europe, the US fought for democracy in Korea, the US liberated Kuwait, the US stopped the massacring of Muslims in both Kosovo and Bosnia, the US is liberating Iraq, and the US is trying to get the UN involved (despite the fact everyone is pushing to US to deal alone) in the issue concerning Iraq. In addition, nobody else in the world comes remotely close to giving as much money and food to the needy around the world as the US. Meanwhile, what has France, Germany, and Russia done? While UN sanctions are imposed on Iraq, they make sinister deals with the oppressive dictator.
But the US only really got involved in WW2 after war came to them!
And obviously they've learned their lesson. Isn't going to take a nuke in continental Europe for other countries to finally get involved in this war on terrorism?
Uhh...they'll never attack me 'cause...I'm not an infidel.
___
Anti-war argument #4
The UN inspectors should have been given more time!
12 years not enough? Besides, it was already determined that Iraq was not fully complying. The only reason there was any cooperation at all was pressure asserted by the US build-up of troops and threat of war.... pressure greatly reduced because of France and Germany's idiotic and selfish decisions to never support an Iraq war. Consequently, Saddam thinks he has world wide support enabling him to win against an ostricized US.
Uhh...more time! No? Oil! No also? Well it has to be something...I just freakin' hate America!
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 22, 2003 19:47:09 GMT -5
It's exceedingly irritating and exhausting to try and hold a serious debate with people who continuously make completely irrational statements and use misinformation to make extremely general statements. Even when you baby step them through the facts, even after you point out all their inconsistencies and misinformation, it doesn't help. Well then, it seems to me to be a situation that one either walks away from, accepts that there are people who don't agree with you, and/or you join their side. Name-calling and beating oneself up don't really seem to be viable solutions. "Stay on the sunny side, Always on the sunny side, Stay on the sunny side of life. (Of Life!) You'll feel the pain as I Drive you insane so Stay on the sunny side of life (Of Life!)" What else can you do? |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 19:53:11 GMT -5
Looks like Don Cherry agrees with Spozzy and TNG....
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 19:54:35 GMT -5
It's exceedingly irritating and exhausting to try and hold a serious debate with people who continuously make completely irrational statements and use misinformation to make extremely general statements. Even when you baby step them through the facts, even after you point out all their inconsistencies and misinformation, it doesn't help. For once we agree on something  |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 22, 2003 19:55:02 GMT -5
Looks like Don Cherry agrees with Spozzy and TNG.... Well, if Don's spoken, it's settled then. May as well pack up my placard and hang with my chick. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 20:00:24 GMT -5
Saddam is a brutal and oppressive dictator who’s used chemical weapons on his own people. He’s ignored UN resolutions for a dozen years and is now finally paying serious consequences. Additionally, Iraq is a proven supporter of terrorism (encouraging Palestinian terrorist bombers by providing funds to their families). How is this all about oil? How does any of that prove that it is not about oil or that those are the real motivations of the us government? Now THAT is a sickening statement. The US has refused to pay their membership fees to various organisations (possibly including the UN and NATO) for years. They are also among the richest countries in the world (their wealth is partly derived from oppression around the globe). They also "liberated" Viet Nam among other countries. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 20:12:29 GMT -5
Meanwhile, what has France, Germany, and Russia done? While UN sanctions are imposed on Iraq, they make sinister deals with the oppressive dictator. How are these deals any worse than the sinister deals the US made with Saddam in the past (and don't argue that they didn't because this has been well established)? Furthermore, so what if they did make sinister deals? How does that change whether the war is right or wrong, and how does it imply anything good about US motives? It only adds credence to the idea that the US is trying to undermine or stay ahead of Fr, Ger, and Rus. |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 22, 2003 20:39:32 GMT -5
How does any of that prove that it is not about oil or that those are the real motivations of the us government? The oil motive is YOUR burden to prove. What you are asking of the US is insane. It's a fact that Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN for 12 years. What happened September 11th is a fact. Saddam sponsoring terrorism is a fact. Saddam being an oppressive dictator is a fact. Saddam not fully cooperating with the most recent resolution is a fact. Yet, in order for the US to get your permission to go after Saddam, it has to prove its motives are not based on oil? How do you figure? Definitely is, but the parallel is easily drawn. The current status of its fees are not known to me, but the US indeed was deferring payment of some of its UN dues several years ago. I don't remember all the factors behind it though... Unless you have examples, let's talk about Iraq. The US only trades with Iraq through the oil-for-food program, perfectly legal. France, Germany, and Russia on the other hand.... Yeah, they tried to. People are taking democracy way too much for granted...as if it's a natural thing. All these countries that hate the US have hundreds of millions of people trying to flee to the US? Interesting that you don't hear Americans eager to go to these countries.... I'm not American, but when I see those anti-war protesters in San Francisco burning the American flag...it just makes me sick. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 22, 2003 20:45:46 GMT -5
I'm not American, but when I see those anti-war protesters in San Francisco burning the American flag...it just makes me sick. "As you may know, the Supreme Court has ruled that burning the American flag is a form of free speech that's protected by the US (United States) Constitution." - 1stam.umn.edu/main/pubop/flag-burning.htmDemocracy - cherish it. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 20:48:19 GMT -5
The oil motive is YOUR burden to prove. What you are asking of the US is insane. It's a fact that Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN for 12 years. What happened September 11th is a fact. Saddam sponsoring terrorism is a fact. Saddam being an oppressive dictator is a fact. Saddam not fully cooperating with the most recent resolution is a fact. Yet, in order for the US to get your permission to go after Saddam, it has to prove its motives are not based on oil? How do you figure? I feel it is proven, but you continually ignore or mock my arguments. Simply pointing out how bad Saddam is does not prove that the war will ultimately be a good thing or that the US is acting out of altruism. You want an example? How about most of Africa? How about US companies using virtual slave labour in other countries? How about the government deals with harsh regimes such as Saudi Arabia and formerly Iraq? If you are going to trumpet democracy, don't complain about the Chretien's decision not to participate in the war. |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 22, 2003 20:49:06 GMT -5
"As you may know, the Supreme Court has ruled that burning the American flag is a form of free speech that's protected by the US (United States) Constitution." - 1stam.umn.edu/main/pubop/flag-burning.htmDemocracy - cherish it. It just disgusts me to know that there are twisted people like that. Would they prefer to live in Iraq? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 22, 2003 20:52:59 GMT -5
Yeah, the US Supreme Court is a pretty twisted bunch alright. And the US Constitution is a really weird document. Imagine, granting people the right to disavow the government of the day. What a concept! Only in America.
|
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 22, 2003 21:10:53 GMT -5
Yeah, the US Supreme Court is a pretty twisted bunch alright. And the US Constitution is a really weird document. Imagine, granting people the right to disavow the government of the day. What a concept! Only in America. The American protesters have a right to burn the flag, and I reserve the right to call them morons who take democracy for granted. |
|
|
|
Post by Rhiessan on Mar 22, 2003 21:55:49 GMT -5
The American protesters have a right to burn the flag, and I reserve the right to call them morons who take democracy for granted. Ahh question....what symbolizes freedom more? Your flag itself or being able to burn your own flag? As far as bringing the Viet Nam "police action" and Korean war into this for defending the American foriegn policies...DON'T you will be shredded faster than an Enron document. Both were results of promises and agreements made during WWII by the Americans that were not or couldn't be kept. |
|
|
|
Post by Ged on Mar 22, 2003 22:43:41 GMT -5
Ahh question....what symbolizes freedom more? Your flag itself or being able to burn your own flag? I would say the flag itself. Burning ones flag would be more symbolic with the Timothy McVeigh's of the world. Where was the outrage in '98 when the U.S. and U.K. bombed Iraq after maddaS tossed the inspectors out? Where was the outrage when the U.N. didn't sanction action in Bosnia? There was none. Why? Cause it's all about politics. Democrats aren't held to the high standards that Republicans are. Dems can have a cigar in their mouth, and a mouth on their woody, and not a peep is said when Tomahawks fly into the Sudan or Afghanistan. On the other hand, if that's the best old Bill could do, you end up with far worse results. It was called Sep. 11th. USS Cole, Kobar Towers, two African Embassies, and a couple others that I'm missing, and the dud Dem just enjoyed the warm hummers from lasses who love power. Move ahead to mass murder in New York, and a Republican president who tries to do the right thing by removing a sadistic murderer, and the peaceniks scream bloody murder. Oops, I forgot about the oil. Gimme a break. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 23:37:15 GMT -5
Where was the outrage in '98 when the U.S. and U.K. bombed Iraq after maddaS tossed the inspectors out? Where was the outrage when the U.N. didn't sanction action in Bosnia? There was none. Why? Cause it's all about politics. Democrats aren't held to the high standards that Republicans are. Dems can have a cigar in their mouth, and a mouth on their woody, and not a peep is said when Tomahawks fly into the Sudan or Afghanistan. On the other hand, if that's the best old Bill could do, you end up with far worse results. It was called Sep. 11th. USS Cole, Kobar Towers, two African Embassies, and a couple others that I'm missing, and the dud Dem just enjoyed the warm hummers from lasses who love power. Move ahead to mass murder in New York, and a Republican president who tries to do the right thing by removing a sadistic murderer, and the peaceniks scream bloody murder. Oops, I forgot about the oil. Gimme a break. As I recall, there was outrage then too. The difference is the media coverage. The media is all over this war but didn't perhaps have so much to say about Bosnia, and the intermittent bombing of Iraq over the last decade has been all but ignored. I've said before that if there isn't much media coverage of an issue or if the frenzy dies down, people have a tendency to forget, which is why the media is so important. Some media person, or perhaps Al Gore, said as Clinton was nearing the end of his final term that he had presided over the "longest period of peace-time prosperity" in American history. I remember wondering how on earth they could call it "peace-time" given the various conflicts the US was involved in, the terrorist acts commited against the US overseas, and the serial bombing of Iraq. Apparently, as long as there's no actual fighting happening on US soil, there's peace on earth. |
|
|
|
Post by Rhiessan on Mar 22, 2003 23:50:56 GMT -5
Oops, I forgot about the oil. Gimme a break. Before we start down playing the whole oil thing again, can someone please tell me why exactly it was nessasary for the Japanese to attack the US and bring them into WWII again? |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 23:58:02 GMT -5
Before we start down playing the whole oil thing again, can someone please tell me why exactly it was nessasary for the Japanese to attack the US and bring them into WWII again? Actually it's interesting... but the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was a "pre-emptive strike".... The US had a big part of their navy staitioned at PH and Japan knew their only chance to win the war once the US got involved was to hit them hard early. They may also have thought the American people would be scared by the attack and would pressure the government not to enter the war - they certainly didn't expect the public to respond as it did. I don't remember all the details but Japan was planning invasions in the pacific that it knew the US would not tolerate. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 0:11:25 GMT -5
The Pearl Harbor attack transformed the US into a world power. Many say that the US goverment knew that it was coming but failed to do anything about it on purpose. No one can prove anything other then the fascinating fact that all the important "carriers" just happened to be at sea when this attack took place.
At the time, the US navy was convinced that the future lay in aircraft carriers so put them out to sea just before the attack.
Coincidence? You make your own judgemant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rhiessan on Mar 23, 2003 0:31:43 GMT -5
Actually it's interesting... but the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was a "pre-emptive strike".... The US had a big part of their navy staitioned at PH and Japan knew their only chance to win the war once the US got involved was to hit them hard early. They may also have thought the American people would be scared by the attack and would pressure the government not to enter the war - they certainly didn't expect the public to respond as it did. I don't remember all the details but Japan was planning invasions in the pacific that it knew the US would not tolerate. Or maybe it had something to do with Japan's dwindleing oil supply that was cut off along with all trade to Japan by the USA. Remember the Philippines was invaded and captured at the same time PH was attacked. Yamamoto advised against Japan going to war with the States("Do not awaken the sleeping giant" was pretty close to the phrase used) but was ordered to by his Govt after the choking off of Japan by the States really started taking it's toll. It has been estimated that the Japanese war machine would not of lasted another 4 monthes without an immediate infusion of fuel. |
|
|
|
Post by Ged on Mar 23, 2003 0:33:24 GMT -5
As I recall, there was outrage then too. The difference is the media coverage. The media is all over this war but didn't perhaps have so much to say about Bosnia, and the intermittent bombing of Iraq over the last decade has been all but ignored. I've said before that if there isn't much media coverage of an issue or if the frenzy dies down, people have a tendency to forget, which is why the media is so important. Some media person, or perhaps Al Gore, said as Clinton was nearing the end of his final term that he had presided over the "longest period of peace-time prosperity" in American history. I remember wondering how on earth they could call it "peace-time" given the various conflicts the US was involved in, the terrorist acts commited against the US overseas, and the serial bombing of Iraq. Apparently, as long as there's no actual fighting happening on US soil, there's peace on earth. Funny, I don't remember American flags being burnt in the streets for those actions. The world is a beautiful place when the economy is running pell-mell out of control, and the sh*t is hitting the fan overseas. Thank God for the only two term rule. Or else ol' Bill might have had to put his pecker back in his pants and make a real decision for the American people. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 0:37:19 GMT -5
d**n this oil.
Starting tomorrow morning, I am installing hoses to the asses of pigs, cows and humans and collecting all the methane gas I can store. I am going to call it, butt gas.
Does anyone want to buy shares in ButtGas Inc. ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rhiessan on Mar 23, 2003 0:40:01 GMT -5
The Pearl Harbor attack transformed the US into a world power. Many say that the US goverment knew that it was coming but failed to do anything about it on purpose. No one can prove anything other then the fascinating fact that all the important "carriers" just happened to be at sea when this attack took place. At the time, the US navy was convinced that the future lay in aircraft carriers so put them out to sea just before the attack. Coincidence? You make your own judgemant. Yes sir HA it was quite an amazing bit of luck especially considering how it reversed the opinions of the American public who wouldn't let their govt go to war because they didn't believe the war had anything to do with them and was not their business. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 23, 2003 1:21:05 GMT -5
Or maybe it had something to do with Japan's dwindleing oil supply that was cut off along with all trade to Japan by the USA. Remember the Philippines was invaded and captured at the same time PH was attacked. Yamamoto advised against Japan going to war with the States("Do not awaken the sleeping giant" was pretty close to the phrase used) but was ordered to by his Govt after the choking off of Japan by the States really started taking it's toll. It has been estimated that the Japanese war machine would not of lasted another 4 monthes without an immediate infusion of fuel. Ah, now I see why you asked that question. Yes what you say about the oil is 100% true. (Sometimes I am guilty of overlooking the obvious...) |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 23, 2003 1:23:54 GMT -5
Funny, I don't remember American flags being burnt in the streets for those actions. I think flag-burning was illegal back then. |
|
