The Marine who shot dead an injured man

[Guest SideFXs]

But I will continue to be hard on him as long as he continues to makes sweeping generalizations and borderline retarded statements like "liberalism is a mental disease." 

Ok Smitty, here goes…

 

I believe that liberals of today are mentally weak.. I believe liberals can’t take care of themselves and need to bother the rest of us. Liberals believe that somehow achievement is evil. Liberals believe they are victims and want to blame everyone else, except themselves for their problems. They champion the weak and want to take from the successful. They believe government will take care of them and they don’t have a clue about self-reliance. Liberals today justify lying, as long as it furthers their cause. They are blind to truth and they will use ridicule against anyone with a different point of view.

 

Every conservative thinking person I know or have known, are self reliant, responsible, dedicated to truth.

 

As regard to this U.S. marine. This man, who is defending your nation against terrorism. Well, the media has proven time after time, that they do not like this President. They do not like this war and will resort to deception and negative imagery to achieve their goals. The media believe that America is to blame for getting attacked on 911. They want to demoralize our military. They refuse to see the evil we are up against. They will not show the beheadings, the horrible things Hussein did, or those images that Swift Terror, provided of burnt Americans hung on a bridge. Yet, we get months of reporting on Abu Ghrab and pictures, and accusations.

 

So now they have this image. And they condemned our soldier. And they refuse to show us what our enemy is. They will be quick to blame America and take anyone else’s side, including the terrorist.

 

So when I say Liberalism is a mental disease, maybe you understand more, from where this generalization comes.

 

That’s it, that’s all, flame off.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'm applauding, man.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Achievement is so evil.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I believe that liberals of today are mentally weak.

 

What do you mean by this?

 

believe liberals can’t take care of themselves and need to bother the rest of us.

 

I take care of myself.

 

Liberals believe that somehow achievement is evil.

 

No, I don't.

 

Liberals believe they are victims and want to blame everyone else, except themselves for their problems.

 

Nope, I don't.

 

They champion the weak and want to take from the successful.

 

I stand up for the weak, yes. And I believe successful people, such as myself, should concern themselves with the plight of those that are less fortunate.

 

They believe government will take care of them and they don’t have a clue about self-reliance.

 

Nope, again, I take care of myself. I do believe that government can make positive changes in society and correct for market failures.

 

Liberals today justify lying, as long as it furthers their cause.

 

No. I think lying is wrong. And I think both sides lie.

 

They are blind to truth

 

What truth? Whose truth? Yours?

 

they will use ridicule against anyone with a different point of view.

 

I don't think that I do that. I respect thoughtful conservatives and I have good, close friends who are conservative.

 

I think you are being hypocritical by saying that liberals ridicule people with a different point of view and then saying that "liberalism is a mental disease."

 

Every conservative thinking person I know or have known, are self reliant, responsible, dedicated to truth.

 

And when they crap, pure silk comes out, right?

[NoCalMike 0]

Weird how the Blue states who receive less kickbacks from the government and put back in more then they get back are the ones that "are against acheivement" and think the "government should take care of them"

[CBright7831 0]

I would have to see the audio or video of this before I make judgement.

 

Anyone got it on them?

[Myxamatosis 0]

Smitty, I respect you taking a stand here in Current Events. After reading some of the one-sided idoicy, both "liberal" and "conservative," that spawns out of this folder, I see you're basically a fighting these battles alone.

 

But, you do realize you're not going to change any ideals here, right?

 

I mean, if you do, that's cool. But that's a battle that will never be won.

[Guest MikeSC]

1: Cerberus: Give yourself a pat on the back for being the leading guru on the Geneva Convention and other military legalities. If you step down from your high horse for a second, you'd realize that various war crimes have been committed during this invasion/occupation, which was the point I was trying to make .

Except, unlike you, Cerebus has a clue what the hell he's talking about. That is a SMALL difference in the two of you.

And thank you, I will continue to read articles from Common Dreams and other progressive sites, since they relay stories that might otherwise be ignored by the 'big media' and often depict a realistic picture of what is going on the world.

Because the press is SO hostile to left-wing viewpoints.

Chomsky, although controversial also exemplifies these truths that escape the media, and does so through extensively with footnotes and resources in all of his works.

And who is footnoted MOST often in Chomsky works?

 

Chomsky.

 

Sad, but true.

I would however, like to hear your conservative spin on Iraq's past, be sure to include the part where the US supported Saddam during his rise to power (which mainstram media typically ignores) and how they were still supporting him as the injustices the Iraqi people suffered, which ironically they are saving them from now.

Except we dropped him the moment we learned of his gassing of the Kurds --- which the more progressive countries of Europe ignored.

2. Powerplay: Yes, women in Iraq basically had to vote for Saddam, but the point of that statement was in relation to how women's rights are worse in other US supported dictatorships.

No rights are no rights. Your point is as laughable as claiming that the trials of "traitors" in the USSR were legitimate legal proceedings.

Mike's point about such support being reasonable is very weak, and dosen't validate the hypocrisy involved here. The initial reason for this war was WMD and regieme change.

Regime change taken care of. WMD not a threat.

 

Two-for-two on those.

Only the latter can be considered a reasonable excuse since there were no WMD.

Since Saddam's own advisors were unaware of that --- it is laughable to assume we would.

So to save face, we have the notion of bringing 'democracy' to a country that the US essentially helped to oppress in yesteryears and all of a sudden the US cares about them?

Amazing how much you support "progressive" values --- until something is ACTUALLY done to realize them.

But the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt amongst others, are of lesser concern? Because the US still supports their regiemes? The 'threat of terror' is all to convenient of an excuse. Which leads to...

Do you support us going into those countries?

 

I would bet not.

3. Mike: The sanctions placed led to a dependency on Saddam.

No, the gov't controlling the economy led to a dependance on Saddam. Saddam hoarding money for himself, his cronies, and his bribed co-horts --- such as that fucktwat George Galloway --- led to the problems in Iraq.

Money was not flowing into the country as well as it could be, so they were essentially forced to cooperate with the Ba'ath government.

Saddam gave out over $21B --- IN BRIBES. Money was not lacking.

Had the US supported the Shiite uprising, he would have been gone. And why not? It's not like the US hasn't overthrown enough democratically elected leaders they didn't like in the past, so why not Saddam? Instead, they sat back and refused to supporrt the uprising and tens of thousands died as a result, and torture rooms, rapes and other horrible atrocities became even more the norm.

Actually, we did what people like YOU say we should do and listened to the UN, who asked us not to.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

On the last post: while they may have been multiple reasons for going to war, were they expressed to the U.S. people, or congress? I payed careful attention during the ramp up to the war and ALL I heard about were WMDs and Al-Qaeda. Maybe they retroactively went back and found some good reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that the reasons they expressed for wanting to go to war were those two.

Actually, yes, they were stated to the people. A college student actually did a paper listing some obscenely large number of reasons given for the war.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Smitty, I respect you taking a stand here in Current Events. After reading some of the one-sided idoicy, both "liberal" and "conservative," that spawns out of this folder, I see you're basically a fighting these battles alone.

 

But, you do realize you're not going to change any ideals here, right?

 

I mean, if you do, that's cool. But that's a battle that will never be won.

There are a lot of thoughtful, non-ideologues here...Cerebus, Czech, Nocal, 2Gold, Karl Rove et. al. I think the ideologues are just louder.

[Guest BDC]

Smitty, I respect you taking a stand here in Current Events. After reading some of the one-sided idoicy, both "liberal" and "conservative," that spawns out of this folder, I see you're basically a fighting these battles alone.

 

But, you do realize you're not going to change any ideals here, right?

 

I mean, if you do, that's cool. But that's a battle that will never be won.

There are a lot of thoughtful, non-ideologues here...Cerebus, Czech, Nocal, 2Gold, Karl Rove et. al. I think the ideologues are just louder.

Congrats, Tyler.

[The Czech Republic 0]

They champion the weak and want to take from the successful.

 

I stand up for the weak, yes. And I believe successful people, such as myself, should concern themselves with the plight of those that are less fortunate.

 

They believe government will take care of them and they don’t have a clue about self-reliance.

 

Nope, again, I take care of myself. I do believe that government can make positive changes in society and correct for market failures.

Here's my stand on the rich man's burden. Do successful people have an obligation to give something back to the community, whether neighborhood, city, state, or nation, after amassing significant wealth? Absolutely.

 

I know that if I make lots of money in life, God willing, I'd like to give back to my original hometown of Arlington Heights, preferably the public library. But I think the obligation to help out others should be a moral one, not a legal one.

 

Thus, the government is not justified to impose obscenely high taxes on people who earned their money. If people can't be bothered to help out those in need, or do something to improve the community, shame on them.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

They champion the weak and want to take from the successful.

 

I stand up for the weak, yes. And I believe successful people, such as myself, should concern themselves with the plight of those that are less fortunate.

 

They believe government will take care of them and they don’t have a clue about self-reliance.

 

Nope, again, I take care of myself. I do believe that government can make positive changes in society and correct for market failures.

Here's my stand on the rich man's burden. Do successful people have an obligation to give something back to the community, whether neighborhood, city, state, or nation, after amassing significant wealth? Absolutely.

 

I know that if I make lots of money in life, God willing, I'd like to give back to my original hometown of Arlington Heights, preferably the public library. But I think the obligation to help out others should be a moral one, not a legal one.

 

Thus, the government is not justified to impose obscenely high taxes on people who earned their money. If people can't be bothered to help out those in need, or do something to improve the community, shame on them.

I agree that tax rates shouldn't be obscenely high but I do think the government should provide a safety net in case things don't work out for people. I know decent, hardworking people who have simply fallen upon hard times and had to turn to government assistance. Private charity is neither organized nor expansive enough to do so.

 

When I start my career after graduate school, I will proudly pay my taxes because I will know that I wouldn't have made the money without the government's help.

[cbacon 0]

You are a rock. Seriously, you just don't comprehend the idea of multiple reasons for going into a country. I gave a long rant in another thread (Which, for all intents and purposes, you ignored to spout off more tired, irrelevant talking points) about the full reason of why we chose Iraq. That contains WMDs, Humanitarian reasons, the Regieme change, and many others.

 

You also claimed that Saddam was on the verge of obtaining weapons. But I guess thats not that big of a deal, so you didn't mention it here. Even if that was the case, there's no evidence that it would point towards an attack on the US, the basis of this whole 'war on terror'. So lets look at the other reasons:

 

WMD's: Well, we all know about those

 

Humanitarian reasons: This wasn't mentioned before the war. There's been humanitarian crisis in Iraq for years. So that whole agrument can basically be used as an excuse to pander to already duped American public into thinking that they're the good guys. Nevermind my already mentioned points about other dicatorships and the fact that thousands of Iraqi's are dying in vast numbers, 800 of them since the attack on Fallujah.

 

Regieme change: Bingo. Although to think this change is a result of my aforementioned points in regards to "Iraqi freedom" is false. The reasons are rather obvious and i've mentioned them before.

 

 

We helped oppress? Are you kidding me? Get past the one time we helped them out and give us something substantial here: where is the US's continued support of Saddam? We have nothing on most European nations when it comes to supporting, arming, and funding Saddam. It's inane to try and compare our meager support to theirs.

 

By providing Saddam with weapons , yes the US had it's hand in the oppression of the Iraqi people. I'm not saying that was their intentions, but it happened, and they knew what was going on. The sanctions they imposed proved to be far disasterous. And in regards to European nations, they're not the ones waging war on the country.

 

Here's a cheery quote from the US Secretary of State regarding the issue:

 

"When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."" -- John Pilger, "Squeezed to Death", Guardian, March 4, 2000

 

Glad you questioned the US suppport of Saddam, even during his most dispicable crimes:

 

In November 1979 came the Iranian hostage crisis, when students took Americans at the US embassy in Tehran hostage, and held them for over a year.

 

In late 1979 President Jimmy Carter's State Dept. put Iraq on list of countries sponsoring "terrorist" groups.

 

In 1980, the US Defense Intelligence Agency reported that Iraq had been actively acquiring chemical weapons capacities since the mid-1970s.

 

In September 1980 the eight-year long Iran-Iraq war begins.

 

Ronald Reagan takes office in Jan 1981.

 

1982:

 

Spring of 1982 marked the beginning of tilt toward Iraq by Reagan. This tilt was formalized in a secret National Security Decision Directive issued in June 1982. While the US was officially neutral, this NSDD declared that the US would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing its war against Iran.

 

 

Apparently without consulting Congress, Reagan also removed Iraq from the State Dept. list of terrorist sponors. This meant that Iraq was now eligible for US dual-use and military technology.

 

This shift marked the beginning of a very close relationship between the Reagan and Bush administrations and Saddam Hussein. The US over following years actively supported Iraq, supplying billions of dollars of credits, US military intelligence and advice, and ensuring that necessary weaponry got to Iraq.

 

1983:

 

The State Dept. once again reported that Iraq was continuing to support terrorist groups

 

- Iraq had also been using chemical weapons against Iranian troops since 1982; this use of chemical weapons increased in 1983. The State Dept. and the National Security Council were well aware of this.

 

- Overriding NSC concerns, the Secretaries of Commerce and State pressured the NSC to approve the sale to Iraq of Bell helicopters "for crop dusting" (these same helicopters were used to gas Iraqi Kurds in 1988).

 

In late 1983, Reagan secretly allowed Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, to transfer US weapons to Iraq; Reagan also asked the Italian prime minister to channel arms to Iraq

 

December 1983 was a particularly interesting month; it was the month that Donald Rumsfeld -- currently US Secretary of Defense and one of the most vocal proponents of attacking Iraq -- paid a visit to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad as Reagan's envoy.

 

Rumsfeld claims now that the meeting was about terrorism in Lebanon.

 

But State Dept. documents show that in fact, Rumsfeld was carrying a message from Reagan expressing his desire to have a closer and better relationship with Saddam Hussein.

 

Just a few months before Rumsfeld's visit, Iraq had used poison gas against Iranian troops. This fact was known to the US. Also known was that Iraq was building a chemical weapons infrastructure.

 

NBC and The New York Times have recently reported that Rumsfeld was a key player in the Reagan administration's strong support for Iraq, despite knowing of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. This relationship became so close that both Reagan and VP Bush personally delivered military advice to Saddam Hussein. [1]

 

 

1984

 

In March, the State Dept. reported that Iraq was using chemical weapons and nerve gas in the war against Iran; these facts were confirmed by European doctors who examined Iranian soldiers

 

The Washington Post (in an article in Dec.1986 by Bob Woodward) reported that in 1984 the CIA began secretly giving information to Iraqi intelligence to help them "calibrate" poison gas attacks against Iranian troops.

 

1985

 

The CIA established direct intelligence links with Baghdad, and began giving Iraq "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography" to help in the war.

 

This same year, the US House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on State Dept. supporters of terrorism list.

 

The Reagan administration -- in the person of Secretary of State George Schultz -- pressured the bill's sponsor to drop it the bill. The bill is dropped, and Iraq remains off the terrorist list.

 

Iraq labs send a letter to the Commerce Dept with details showing that Iraq was developing ballistic missiles.

 

Between 1985-1990 the Commerce Dept. approved the sale of many computers to Iraq's weapons lab. (The UN inspectors in 1991 found that: 40% of the equipment in Iraq's weapons lab were of US origin)

 

1985 is also a key year because the Reagan administration approved the export to Iraq of biological cultures that are precursors to bioweapons: anthrax, botulism, etc.; these cultures were "not attenuated or weakened, and were capable of reproduction."

 

There were over 70 shipments of such cultures between 1985-1988.

 

The Bush administration also authorized an additional 8 shipments of biological cultures that the Center for Disease Control classified as "having biological warfare significance."

 

This information comes from the Senate Banking Committee's report from 1994. The report stated that "these microorganisms exported by the US were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

 

Senator Riegle, who headed the committee, noted that: "They seemed to give him anything he wanted. It's right out of a science fiction movie as to why we would send this kind of stuff to anybody." [2]

 

1988

 

The Reagan administration's Commerce Dept. approved exports to Iraq's SCUD missile program; it was these exports that allowed the extension of the SCUDs' range so that in 1991 they were able to reach Israel and US bases in Saudi Arabia.

 

In March, the Financial Times of London reported that Saddam had recently used chemical weapons against Kurds in Halabja, using US helicopters bought in 1983.

 

Two months later, an Asst. Secretary of State pushed for more US-Iraq economic cooperation.

 

In September of that year, Reagan prevented the Senate from putting sanctions on Iraq for its violation of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons.

 

The US also voted against a UN Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons. [3]

 

1989

 

In March, the CIA director reported to Congress that Iraq was the largest chemical weapons producer in the world.

 

The State Dept reported that Iraq continued to develop chemical and biological weapons, as well as new missiles

 

The Bush administration that year approved dozens of export licenses for sophisticated dual-use equipment to Iraq's weapons ministry.

 

In October, international banks cut off all loans to Iraq. The Bush administration responded by issuing National Security Directive 26, which mandated closer links with Iraq, and included a $1 billion loan guarantee.

 

This loan guarantee freed up cash for Iraq to buy and develop WMDs.

 

This directive was suspended only on August 2, 1990, the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.

 

One US firm reportedly contacted the Commerce Dept. two times, concerned that its product could be used for nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Bush's Commerce Dept requested and received written guarantees from Iraq that the equipment was only for civilian use.

 

1990

 

Between July 18 and August 1 (the day before the invasion), the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology sales to Iraq's weapons ministry and to weapons labs that were known to have worked on biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

 

So when US ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam the US did not have an official position on disputes between Arab countries, is it any wonder that he thought the US would look the other way when he invaded Kuwait? After this close and very supportive relationship with the Republican administrations throughout the 1980s?

 

 

 

We all know about the Gulf War. But I want to bring in one more piece of history here, from after the Gulf War.

 

Dick Cheney, before becoming Vice President, was CEO of Halliburton Corp. from 1995 until August 2000, when he retired with a $34 million retirement package.

 

According to the Financial Times of London, Halliburton in that time period sold $23.8 million of oil industry equipment and services to Iraq, to help rebuild its war-damaged oil production infrastructure. For political reasons, Halliburton used subsidiaries to hide this. [4]

 

More recently, the Washington Post on June 23, 2001, reported that figure was actually $73 million.

 

The head of the subsidiary said he is certain Cheney knew about these sales.

 

Halliburton did more business with Saddam Hussein than any other US company.

 

Asked about this by journalists by ABC News in August 2000, Cheney lied and said "I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal." [5]

 

The US media never followed up on this.

 

http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

 

Fuck, let's just invade them all, right?

 

First off, give me your solution to the region. You refuse to because you lack one and I'm going to continue to call you out on this. If you don't have a solution, I don't see how you can criticize what I've been saying.

 

I don't know where you got the notion that I would advocate invading Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In case you haven't noticed, i've been very vocal against this war, and using violence for the sake of political means in general . That's quite the outrageous accusation for you to make. How about the US stop supporting dicatorships? Heck, even acknowledge that they are and that these counrties are with atrocious human rights records. To the individual who believes the war was waged on to help the Iraqi's, then waging war on Saudi Arabia and Egypt would make sense.

 

 

Secondly, give us time. Changing the face of a region takes a lot of time. You still don't seem to understand that changing Saudi Arabia through invasion would actually cause the outrage you seem to think is happening all over the world.

 

The only 'time' you speak of is the time needed for the US to extended it's influence and power in the Middle East. You really honsetly believe that the US are over there to fight for the typical stuggling Arab man? Like I said, I never advocated for invading the country, you implied that I did. Tell me , how much time will be needed for the Saudi Arabians or Egyptians to be liberated? Or will the US cut off ties before that? Somehow, I suspect neither will be happening.

 

The outrage I 'seem' to think is happening around the world you say? Buddy, the world is outraged by what is going on right now, all you have to do is look at any international media source or look at the results of polls in Europe to find the world is most definetly outraged.

 

Thirdly, gotta love the hypocracy. We should continue to invade other countries besides Iraq, even though you certainly wouldn't support it? Asking us why we haven't invaded other countries yet is not a defense because you wouldn't invade them either. It's a sad talking point. Explain to me this: Why not Iraq? It's the safest of the three, has the worst leader of the three, and is perhaps the best foothold that the US can get into the region. Explain to me why we should consider the other 2 over Iraq?

 

The invasion thing I covered, but the part I bolded is quite accurate.

 

Changed for Accuracy. The UN and Powell didn't want to support the Shiites, not Bush Sr. Seriously, you were talking before about the Shiites rising up against Saddam in a few years. Why did they need US support then, when they were stronger and Saddam's military was in shambles? Or was that you talking out of your ass there?

 

I never claimed that his military was in shambles, but rather his strength was not as prominent as it was during the Gulf War, and since it's been proven that he did not possess any WMD's before the invasion.

 

 

Yeah, Saddam, that excellent 'democratically-elected' leader. Then again, many of the Democratically elected leaders were, well, communist, and if Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, and Ho Chi Minh were any indication on how communist leaders turn their country around, that's something we REALLY wanted to keep around.you?

 

Never said Saddam was democratically elected, but pointed out that the US had removed other leaders that were. You also conveniently selected all of the communist leaders that were oppressing their citizens at the time, failing to mention the atrocities that occured in Latin America. You said something along the lines of 'well, they'll turn out like their predecessors anyway, so we have to invade before it gets bad'. To say that communist regimes oppress populations and are detrimental to their citizens is an argument that simply cannot be made effectively. The problem for the US in Latin America was that these populist/socialist/communist (whatever label you want to give them) started nationalizing lands owned by foreigners (US owned). That's a recipe for disaster in Latin America - when you nationalize lands or corporations you have problems usually in the form of the CIA. So, if you take away foreign ownership and give the land to the people (usually indigenous, which you can read as 'communist' if you like) it removes high profit margins for US companies, control of the country's elite business class, and you get overthrown (Guatemala, Chile, etc etc). Then you get replaced with a brutal military junta in the form of, say, Pinochet or School of the Americas trained Guatemalan hit squads. These people usually win elections, much like Kim Jong Il wins elections, and the US has delivered democracy yet again to a poor, commie-threatened country.

 

. Not say that some of them didn't turn out well, but then again they are nothing compared to any of the communist regiemes above

 

"Whoops, our bad! No hard feelings though?" Of course the US did nothing after install various brutal tyrants in places like Chile and Panama so that right there contradicts removing the threat of evil dictators for the sake of the people as justification.

 

Wow, isn't that you suggesting we stay out of it? Hypocrit. The US, along with that PNAC that you demonize so often, were teh ones who wanted to go in and stop this stuff. You are the one who wanted to sit back and let the UN handle it. The UN didn't want to back the Shiite uprising. Where is your scorn on that one? Then you go out and suggest that the Shiites can now defeat Saddam on their own when they couldn't when he was at his weakest...

 

You are the hypocrit, not us.

 

Um, no, I suggested that the Shiite uprising could have worked without the sanctions and if they had the support of the US. Obviously that wouldn't fit in with the US best intersts at the time, so they were SOL.

[cbacon 0]

I never pretended to be a "guru." I don't know much about the Geneva Convention or military law. However, I know more than you do and I'm still not willing to claim "war crime" on anything.

 

Sarcastically spouting off "you would know Article 317!" "Article 84!" "The soldiers handbook" and the like would indicate that that you were.

 

The fact that you do shows what you really are. A dumb ass. (No, not a leftist, that would be an insult to NoCal, Tyler, Jobber, and the other intelligent members of our board who are to the left)

 

*cries*

 

If by "realistic" you mean an incredibly skewed to one side view. So go ahead, continue to get all your news from a leftist website. You're no better than people who watch nothing but Fox News but probably even less interesting to listen to.

 

Never claimed I got all my news from such sites, but they usually include items often missed by the media radar.

 

Chomsky is a linguist. Few political scientists consider his works anything more than ranting written by someone who has little to no formal training politics. Which, in truth, he is. I wouldn't pretend to know anything about linguists, why does he pretend to know jack shit about politics? The fact that you're willing to lick his ass just shows you're willing to bend over for anyone who dislikes Bush, damn whether or not he's coherent, intelligent, or knows what the hell they're talking about

 

Of course it's easy to just label Chomsky as someone who merely dislikes Bush, and to assume i'm a fan of his for merely that reason. Chomsky has been writing about politics for decades, and his works are some of the most revered. The fact that he's also a linguist only furthers his understanding of such issues.

 

And Mike, if you checked the bibliographies in any of his books, you'd see that he dosen't merely reference himself.

 

He represents nothing beyond morons who most likely spent all of 9/11/01 masturbating and salivating at the thought of America getting comuppence. 

 

You've got quite the thing of finding parelles between supposed anti-American ideology and masturbation. I'd look into that.

 

You mean the Saddam that you praised for protecting women's rights and democracy? You're a fucking joke.

 

Um, I 'praised' him all of a sudden? I merely pointed out that women's rights were worse in other US supported dictatorships. Talk about getting the wrong message...

[Guest MikeSC]

You are a rock. Seriously, you just don't comprehend the idea of multiple reasons for going into a country. I gave a long rant in another thread (Which, for all intents and purposes, you ignored to spout off more tired, irrelevant talking points) about the full reason of why we chose Iraq. That contains WMDs, Humanitarian reasons, the Regieme change, and many others.

You also claimed that Saddam was on the verge of obtaining weapons. But I guess thats not that big of a deal, so you didn't mention it here. . So lets look at the other reasons:

Saddam's own people felt he was on the verge of getting them. But, hey, we should know better than Saddam's own advisors.

Even if that was the case, there's no evidence that it would point towards an attack on the US, the basis of this whole 'war on terror'

So, Putin lied about it?

Humanitarian reasons: This wasn't mentioned before the war.

Actually, it was. Repeatedly. Just because you don't remember --- or chose to ignore --- does not make it so.

There's been humanitarian crisis in Iraq for years. So that whole agrument can basically be used as an excuse to pander to already duped American public into thinking that they're the good guys.

Yes, there's been a humanitarian crisis for years. As we've seen, the UN can do approximately SQUAT about humanitarian crises. So, we gave them about 12 years and they failed. Over and over.

 

Somebody had to actually do the work.

Nevermind my already mentioned points about other dicatorships and the fact that thousands of Iraqi's are dying in vast numbers, 800 of them since the attack on Fallujah.

Can you provide even REMOTELY impartial sources for any of this?

 

And, you know, considering that you don't give two damns about the other dictatorships (you only mentioned them in the last 2 days), I'm not sure your moralty is of great import.

We helped oppress? Are you kidding me? Get past the one time we helped them out and give us something substantial here: where is the US's continued support of Saddam? We have nothing on most European nations when it comes to supporting, arming, and funding Saddam. It's inane to try and compare our meager support to theirs.

By providing Saddam and weapons , yes the US had it's hand in the oppression of the Iraqi people.

Then where does that leave countries like France?

I'm not saying that was their intentions, but it happened. The sanctions they imposed proved to be far disasterous. And in regards to European nations, they're not the ones waging war on the country.

They're the ones who sat back, took money, and allowed Iraqis to die by the truckload. Don't insult me by DARING to play the role of moral man here.

 

Your timeline, while quite interesting, is both irrelevant and REALLY makes Europe look bad, since they willingly took bribes from this man knowing all of this, while we refused to do business with him.

I don't know where you got the notion that I would advocate invading Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In case you haven't noticed, i've been very vocal against this war, and using violence for the sake of political means in general .

So, in simple terms, you hate suffering --- but you hate doing ANYTHING to stop it that much more?

 

Interesting morality ya got there.

 

Of course, interesting meaning shitty in this case.

That's quite the outrageous accusation for you to make. How about the US stop supporting dicatorships?

And allow WORSE governments? Yeah, BRILLIANT plan. Allowing the Shah to go and be replaced by the theocracy has worked wonders thus far.

Heck, even acknowledge that they are and that these counrties are with atrocious human rights records.

Actually, we do. You might want to read up on things.

The outrage I 'seem' to think is happening around the world you say? Buddy, the world is outraged by what is going on right now, all you have to do is look at any international media source or look at the results of polls in Europe to find the world is most definetly outraged.

Europe and the world have a nasty habit of selling people to slaughter to fatten their own wallets.

 

Fuck Europe. Fuck the world.

Changed for Accuracy. The UN and Powell didn't want to support the Shiites, not Bush Sr. Seriously, you were talking before about the Shiites rising up against Saddam in a few years. Why did they need US support then, when they were stronger and Saddam's military was in shambles? Or was that you talking out of your ass there?

I never claimed that his military was in shambles, but rather his strength was not as prominent as it was during the Gulf War, and since it's been proven that he did not possess any WMD's before the invasion.

The evidence is ALSO there that he was actively seeking them and the moment his sanctions went away (which heartless shits such as yourself support), he'd ramp it all up. Big-time.

You also conveniently selected all of the  communist leaders that were oppressing their citizens at the time, failing to mention the atrocities that occured in Latin America.

Hate to break it to you --- every single Communist leader had the exact same problem.

 

Every last one.

You said something along the lines of 'well, they'll turn out like their predecessors anyway, so we have to invade before it gets bad'. To say that communist regimes oppress populations and are detrimental to their citizens is an argument that simply cannot be made effectively.

Yes, it can. EVERY SINGLE COMMUNIST COUNTRY IN HISTORY HAD THE EXACT SAME HORRENDOUS RECORD ON RIGHTS.

. Not say that some of them didn't turn out well, but then again they are nothing compared to any of the communist regiemes above

"Whoops, our bad! No hard feelings though?" Of course the US did nothing after install various brutal tyrants in places like Chile and Panama so that right there contradicts removing the threat of evil dictators for the sake of the people as justification.

They were infinitely better than the alternatives.

Um, no, I suggested that the Shiite uprising could have worked without the sanctions and if they had the support of the US. Obviously that wouldn't fit in with the US best intersts at the time, so they were SOL.

Blame Bush Sr. for listening to the world. He should have learned that most of the world lacks any sense of morality.

I never pretended to be a "guru." I don't know much about the Geneva Convention or military law. However, I know more than you do and I'm still not willing to claim "war crime" on anything.

Sarcastically spouting off "you would know Article 317!" "Article 84!" "The soldiers handbook" and the like would indicate that that you were.

No, it just shows how much more he knows about the topic than you.

Of course it's easy to just label Chomsky as someone who merely dislikes Bush, and to assume i'm a fan of his for merely that reason. Chomsky has been writing about politics for decades, and his works are some of the most revered. The fact that he's also a linguist only furthers his understanding of such issues.

 

And Mike, if you checked the bibliographies in any of his books, you'd see that he dosen't merely reference himself.

Actually, Chomsky is a joke. This is the man who DENIED the existance of the Cambodian genocide for a decade. He denies that Castro suppresses dissent. In every single situation, he blames America and excuses Communist excesses.

 

He also is VERY close with neo-Nazis in Europe. Just to let you know where the anti-Semite joke of a linguist (yes, his linguistic theories have been shot down LONG ago as well) stands.

 

And, try to follow his citations. Go ahead. The vast majority of them either cite him --- or cite people citing him.

 

 

He's LESS credible than Zinn --- and that takes some doing.

Um, I 'praised' him all of a sudden? I merely pointed out that women's rights were worse in other US supported dictatorships. Talk about getting the wrong message...

Hardly. The women's rights were rather shitty in all of them.

 

Unlike you, I'm not defending the other tyrannies.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

Fuck Europe. Fuck the world.

Oh great. C-Bacon turned A MikeSC into a depressed suburban teenager!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I see, you are not fond of the policy that they are carrying out....but you are fond of how they carry out the policy...

 

You need to examine your thinking on this.

I think generally people remember Vietnam and while this war doesn't statistacally compare with that conflict, people remember how returning veterans were poorly treated by people who wanted to take out their opinion about the war on anyone, and the poor chap who just got back from fighting it would do.

 

It is a good thing that we take special consideration that we pardon the people fighting the war while still disapproving of the war, and that we have realized they have very little say in the matter.

[Guest MikeSC]

Fuck Europe. Fuck the world.

Oh great. C-Bacon turned A MikeSC into a depressed suburban teenager!

Holy shit!

 

I'm wearing flannel!

 

I don't even OWN flannel!

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Chomsky, although controversial also exemplifies these truths that escape the media, and does so through extensively with footnotes and resources in all of his works.

 

The guy knows nothing about politics. There are people that post on this board who are more qualified on politicial science than he is. Hell my two years with political science as my major is probably more than whatever that piece of shit has.

 

But it doesn't really surprise me that you'd so glady ally yourself with one of the biggest Jew haters since Nazi Germany.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Fuck Europe. Fuck the world.

Oh great. C-Bacon turned A MikeSC into a depressed suburban teenager!

Holy shit!

 

I'm wearing flannel!

 

I don't even OWN flannel!

-=Mike

Why don't you go borrow daddy's car and hang out at Hot Topic, then cause a ruckus at the food court.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Chomsky, although controversial also exemplifies these truths that escape the media, and does so through extensively with footnotes and resources in all of his works.

 

The guy knows nothing about politics. There are people that post on this board who are more qualified on politicial science than he is. Hell my two years with political science as my major is probably more than whatever that piece of shit has.

 

But it doesn't really surprise me that you'd so glady ally yourself with one of the biggest Jew haters since Nazi Germany.

Didn't he say something like "Why do the Jews need Israel when they have New York City?" If so, kick this guy hard.

[Guest INXS]

I'd drag the bodies of their civilian contractors through the streets and become an 'insurgent' as well.

This really solidifies you as a morally dangerous shithead. In fact, I think you just moved beyond that and became a morally irredeemable piece of subhuman shit. You would kill CIVILIANS and drag their bodies thru the streets? *Civilians*, who are there to do work that helps your country and have nothing to do with the military conflict? Fuck you. I hope you die, miserable and alone, in a pool of your own blood, excrement, and vomit, after weeks of unspeakable agony, you absolutely worthless waste of sperm and egg.

 

By not quoting my whole paragraph, you have taken my comments out of context. I said that in the situation of America invading England, with American troops invading my country, i'd pretty much hate all Americans, especially those in my country whether they be military or civilian contractor which his exactly the way many Iraqi's are feeling.

[Guest INXS]

The stupidity level from INXS has reached a baffling high in this thread. I can't stop laughing, from claiming he'd join the insurgency, to explaining how stringing up bodies is part of Arab culture, to championing Saddam for women's rights to claiming how Iraqis had the right to vote, I don't know when he'll stop topping himself. It reminds me of the SNL skit from a year or so ago where "Al Sharpton" was on Hardball saying all these outrageous conspiracy and race baiting things, and "Chris Mathews" just kept laughing and going "this guy is great, gimme another, c'mon say something else outrageous". Cerebus, powerplay, et. all, good luck, but really, what's the point? C-Bacon has been just as moronic just without the brazenly ignorant style of INXS...

I never said i'd join the insurgency - that's a lie or you have misunderstood.

 

Stringing up the bodies of treasoners/rebellers is not Arabic culture - it's Iraqi culture and has been for 100's of years.

 

I wasn't 'championing Saddam'on womens rights; that's imposible as his human rights record is appalling but he DID, and this isnt, championing Saddam, its a fact, provide training and jobs for women which was unheard of in Iraq.

 

I have no where mentioned anything about Iraqi's being allowed to vote, why are you making stuff up?

 

You're claiming I have said things that I haven't said!

[Guest INXS]

INXS (renamed #1 Dubya Disciple since he lost a bet with me over the election)

Actually, the bet was for you to choose my avatar for a 30 day period, nothing about name change was mentioned.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

My step-father worked for years as a counselor to veterens in area where I grew up. So many years of after school sitting in the waiting room of the offices listening to these guys tell me stories about what they went through. I can still feel the sting to this day of how betrayed most of them felt. Coming home to people who were pissed at that them. The baby-killer taunts, Agent Orange, lost limbs, lack of support in the following years,etc. You know the deal. My uncle, my father, my grandfathers all of them have similar experiences. This was the primary reason I was against going into Iraq (note that I did NOT include NOT going into Afganistan). The recent history of the Untied Staes has not been very kind to our heros. They work cheap, they pay in blood, and we have a real hard time paying the piper after the dice have been rolled. Its sickening.

 

I confess that many of my other reasons are strictly partisian. This reason is not one of them. I do not blame the marine for what he did. He most likely made a very bad mistake. Send him home.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Stringing up the bodies of treasoners/rebellers is not Arabic culture - it's Iraqi culture and has been for 100's of years.

Well that's certainly astounding, because Iraq hasn't even existed for one hundred years, let alone several of them.

 

EDIT: by "astounding" I mean "fucking ignorant"

[Guest P!NK.]

I believe that  liberals of today are mentally weak..  I believe liberals can’t take care of themselves and need to bother the rest of us.  Liberals believe that somehow achievement is evil.  Liberals believe they are victims and want to blame everyone else, except themselves for their problems.  They champion the weak and want to take from the successful.  They believe government will take care of them and they don’t have a clue about self-reliance.  Liberals today justify lying, as long as it furthers their cause.  They are blind to truth and they will use ridicule against anyone with a different point of view.

Sounds like you own a copy of the Unabomber's Manifesto.

[2GOLD 0]

Stringing up the bodies of treasoners/rebellers is not Arabic culture - it's Iraqi culture and has been for 100's of years.

Well that's certainly astounding, because Iraq hasn't even existed for one hundred years, let alone several of them.

 

EDIT: by "astounding" I mean "fucking ignorant"

 

Now you are starting to see why I just skip everything they type.

 

If I even remotely think about the sheer stupidity of some of the things they have posted, blood will come shooting out of my nose like a lawn sprinkler.

[Guest Cerebus]

Thank you Czech.