How do you feel about Iraq?

[Guest]

Stop talking sense in this folder.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

You got it

[snuffbox 0]

If it was absolutely necessary to attack a second country...was Iraq really a bigger threat than Iran or North Korea or others? Or, if this boatload of cash really NEEDED to be spent, might it not gone to something like an all-out hunt for Osama bin Laden?

 

Damn, this war is costing a fucking lot...and I'm really not seeing much stability or demise of 'Islamofascism' going on. Maybe its just my Daily Liberal Brainwashing on C-SPAN.

[Guest]

It was absolutely necessary to attack Iraq, and it could be necessary to attack North Korea when we know more about the situation. We do NOT know jack shit about North Korea, or have any real idea.

 

We THOUGHT Iraq had the stuff that Iran is trying to get. This conflict in the Middle East is just beginning, all out war is on the horizon.

[SuperJerk 0]

Okay, you're right. There's nowhere to go but up and the next few years are going to be the glorious avenging of a free people against those who tried to take away that freedom, but right now it's easy to call us pretty goddamn stupid to even be in this position.

And I'm saying we do stuff like this all the time, and the fact that we're doing it now isn't a sign that the concept of America is crumbling beneath us.

 

If you pull your head out of your ass and look at it in an honest, objective way, you can clearly see that the Iraq war did not have to be spun as being a part of the War On Terror, it was from the beginning. The people that say only Afghanistan was acceptable show a fundamental lack of understanding as to why we were in this position in the first place. The whole point of the War on Terror was that we were not going to simply respond to the act committed on 9/11... we were going to root out Islamofascism for good. Successful democracy in Iraq is just another phase in the defeat of terrorism, because you cannot defeat it simply by killing all the terrorists... you have to give young people another option.

 

1. Islamofascism isn't even a real word.

 

2. The plan to "root out" these "Islamofascists" really seems to have backfired.

 

3. Give it a rest with the "look at it in an honest, objective way" and "fundamental lack of understanding" stuff. The answers to these issues were not that black and white, and pretending otherwise is an exercise in self-delusion.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

"Islamo-fascism" has been used in the media, SuperJerk. Hence it's fair game.

 

I get sick of hearing about "the War on Terror". Terrorism is a tactic, not a specific nation or group. Hence, you can't have a war on it. Are we currently at war with the IRA or ETA? No. We are at war with radical Islamic terrorists. I wish we could just SAY that, but our media and president are too worried about offending people.

[Guest Hemme]

It was absolutely necessary to attack Iraq, and it could be necessary to attack North Korea when we know more about the situation. We do NOT know jack shit about North Korea, or have any real idea.

 

We THOUGHT Iraq had the stuff that Iran is trying to get. This conflict in the Middle East is just beginning, all out war is on the horizon.

I really disagree here, I believe attacking Iraq was a huge mistake, simply because Iraq wasn't a threat, they were but since the Kuwait conflict they've been pretty quiet, there was no REAL immediate threat, invading a country because you think they might have WMDs is almost laughable.

[Guest]

It wasn't think, we had information (whether false or not, that's a different story) that said they had WMD's. Put that together with our prior encounter in the Gulf War and it was plain to see that the conflict was eminent.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

That thing Y2Jerk posted about Freedom of Speech not existing in Canada was stupid for a few reasons.

 

1) Exaggerate much? Even if true, expanding that we can't give off "hate speech" to mean that we have no freedom of speech (which sounds really bad) is pretty fucking dumb.

 

2) Wikipedia is a legitimate source now?

 

Christ, I didn't know my country didn't have freedom of speech or proper use of technology. Why didn't someone tell me?

 

I bet Czech was behind this. He's conservative AND young. That shit don't mix well together.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Okay, I remember that Keegstra case from Law class.

 

The whole thing stemmed from a very Anti-semitic teacher who tried to deny the holocaust to his students and other such nonsense. The Supreme Court's decision was essentially to make sure that students aren't taught by whackjobs and the like. You wanna say that shit in private? You will be *free* to use whatever *speech* you want.

 

So you support his right to teach his kids why the Jews are bad? And YOU are a teacher too? Wonderful.

[Slayer 0]

Christ, I didn't know my country didn't have freedom of speech or proper use of technology. Why didn't someone tell me?

Canadian Education?

[Art Sandusky 0]

I3K's right, this isn't really any war on terrorism, it's a war on terrorists who happen to live on top of the world's primary energy reserves.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Christ, I didn't know my country didn't have freedom of speech or proper use of technology. Why didn't someone tell me?

Canadian Education?

 

Well they taught me how to tap maple syrup, and also how to skate on ice. What else does a Canadian need to know really?

[Slayer 0]

"Are you gonna be a mountie or a fishing guide when you grow up?"

[SuperJerk 0]

That thing Y2Jerk posted about Freedom of Speech not existing in Canada was stupid for a few reasons.

 

1) Exaggerate much? Even if true, expanding that we can't give off "hate speech" to mean that we have no freedom of speech (which sounds really bad) is pretty fucking dumb.

No, I'm exactly right.

 

Free speech means you should be able to say what you think without the government punishing you for it. If the Canadian government can fine people for insulting gays, then free speech isn't all that free.

 

Try reading some Voltaire sometime.

 

2) Wikipedia is a legitimate source now?

 

In this case, I believe their information to be accurate. I could've used other sources, but their info was the easiest to find.

 

 

 

 

Okay, I remember that Keegstra case from Law class.

 

The whole thing stemmed from a very Anti-semitic teacher who tried to deny the holocaust to his students and other such nonsense. The Supreme Court's decision was essentially to make sure that students aren't taught by whackjobs and the like. You wanna say that shit in private? You will be *free* to use whatever *speech* you want.

 

So you support his right to teach his kids why the Jews are bad? And YOU are a teacher too? Wonderful.

 

Does anybody have any idea what the hell this stupid jackass is talking about? I sure don't. Nor do I remember ever saying I thought a teacher had a right to teach the Holocaust didn't happen. Don't put words in my mouth, you lying little shit.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

That thing Y2Jerk posted about Freedom of Speech not existing in Canada was stupid for a few reasons.

 

1) Exaggerate much? Even if true, expanding that we can't give off "hate speech" to mean that we have no freedom of speech (which sounds really bad) is pretty fucking dumb.

No, I'm exactly right.

 

Free speech means you should be able to say what you think without the government punishing you for it. If the Canadian government can fine people for insulting gays, then free speech isn't all that free.

 

Try reading some Voltaire sometime.

 

2) Wikipedia is a legitimate source now?

 

In this case, I believe their information to be accurate. I could've used other sources, but their info was the easiest to find.

 

Christ, I didn't know my country didn't have freedom of speech or proper use of technology. Why didn't someone tell me?

 

It shouldn't surprise you that Canada is dependent on the U.S. for its computer technology since you guys are also dependent on us for everything else that matters.

 

 

In the United States people get fired or reprimanded for insulting gays all the time, or any minority for that matter. I'm sure it happens in Canada though I've never heard of it. Please link me to a source for the government fining someone.

 

Again, you're REALLY nitpicking Y2JerkSC. Hate speech being fined on the rarest occasion is an example of how we don't have free speech? I suppose you think some of the Bush infringements on personal privacy makes him come across as a dictator as well?

 

I don't believe insulting gays in public leads to a fine because it doesn't unless in the rarest circumstances, like I stated earlier, due to a caveat from a law created to protect our education system EDIT:You finally noticed the post.

 

I HATE FAGS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

See? I'm still typing, I haven't been arrested or fined.....yet.

 

Oh Lord, we're dependant on you for everything that "matters"? That's such a "Hacksaw Deon Duggan" statement I won't bother refuting it.

 

If you want to talk about free speech IN THEORY as you seem to be doing, call one of the black kids in your school a nigger next time you see them (if there are any, you're in the midwest after all....kidding, you're overly sensitive about everything so you might have taken that seriously). When you get fired, appeal to the government that you're merely exercising your free speech. Tell us if you get your job back. If your free speech is really all that free, then the government should not only give you your job back but also compensate you for the embarrassment of getting fired over exercising your rights. I mean, if America allows free speech than that should be allowed right? Or are we making a distinction between government and country? Because if we are, what's the point of free speech if the country you live in won't allow it?

 

EDIT: As for that post, if you actually looked at the whole article rather than just skimmed through the first line or so of it(You know, looked at the context of the law rather than take the short cut) you would have noticed what caused the law to come to pass, and when it's exercised, and why it's not really taken seriously outside of that context. I assumed you would have read through at least a little bit of the link that YOU provided. My bad.

 

Anyway, my point was that rather than side with the lawmaker, you sided with the guy, since you knew why the law came to pass (to protect kids in school) yet you still sided with the anti-semite and his right to teach anti-semitism. Again, I guess I have to take that back since you didn't read the article. I gave you too much credit. You're not siding with an anti-semite, you're just a lazy moron.

[SuperJerk 0]

If you want to talk about free speech IN THEORY as you seem to be doing, call one of the black kids in your school a nigger next time you see them (if there are any, you're in the midwest after all....kidding, you're overly sensitive about everything so you might have taken that seriously). When you get fired, appeal to the government that you're merely exercising your free speech. Tell us if you get your job back. If your free speech is really all that free, then the government should not only give you your job back but also compensate you for the embarrassment of getting fired over exercising your rights. I mean, if America allows free speech than that should be allowed right? Or are we making a distinction between government and country? Because if we are, what's the point of free speech if the country you live in won't allow it?

That's not about free speech, thats about professional ethics.

 

The difference is that when I became a teacher, I willingly signed a contract that said I'd abide by a certain code of conduct.

 

Likewise, somene who denies the Holocaust shouldn't be teaching because its professionally incompetent for a history teacher to deny one of the most documented crimes in human history.

 

Anyway, my point was that rather than side with the lawmaker, you sided with the guy, since you knew why the law came to pass (to protect kids in school) yet you still sided with the anti-semite and his right to teach anti-semitism. Again, I guess I have to take that back since you didn't read the article. I gave you too much credit. You're not siding with an anti-semite, you're just a lazy moron.

 

I'd like to point out something...

 

I never sided with the guy!

 

The part of the article I was quoting wasn't the part that talked about the Keegstra case.

 

Damn, you're stupid.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Looking through Wikipedia, the source you thought legitimate enough to cite:

 

California, USA laws may declare hate speech is protected in public, but allows easy prosecution for alleged hate crimes, in verbal form as well in physical form. California law claims hate speech at the workplace does not constitute as "protected speech" and employers have the very right to terminate or discharge those who committed hate speech on workplace grounds.

 

In addition to legal prohibition in many jurisdictions, prohibition of the use of hate speech has been written into the bylaws of some governmental and non-governmental institutions such as public universities, trade unions and other organizations (see below), though the use of speech codes in public universities in the United States is blatantly illegal. Its use is also frowned upon by many publishing houses, broadcasting organizations and newspaper groups.

 

 

That's in America and that seems to say that you can't use hateful terms.

 

Y2JerkSC will probably try to spin his way out of this one though.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I know you never sided with him now, because I assume you read the whole thing. You still seem to not understand the context though.

[SuperJerk 0]

I know you never sided with him now, because I assume you read the whole thing. You still seem to not understand the context though.

Like I said...

 

The part of the article I was quoting wasn't the part that talked about the Keegstra case.

 

The article was called "Freedom of Speech," and not "The Keegstra case". The issue of free speech isn't limited to the Keegstra case. Was the Keegstra case the only time in Canadian history freedom of speech has been an issue or something?

 

Also...

Damn, you're stupid.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Isn't Jerk a teacher? I wonder what his students make fun of him about.

[SuperJerk 0]

Looking through Wikipedia, the source you thought legitimate enough to cite:

 

California, USA laws may declare hate speech is protected in public, but allows easy prosecution for alleged hate crimes, in verbal form as well in physical form. California law claims hate speech at the workplace does not constitute as "protected speech" and employers have the very right to terminate or discharge those who committed hate speech on workplace grounds.

 

In addition to legal prohibition in many jurisdictions, prohibition of the use of hate speech has been written into the bylaws of some governmental and non-governmental institutions such as public universities, trade unions and other organizations (see below), though the use of speech codes in public universities in the United States is blatantly illegal. Its use is also frowned upon by many publishing houses, broadcasting organizations and newspaper groups.

 

 

That's in America and that seems to say that you can't use hateful terms.

 

Y2JerkSC will probably try to spin his way out of this one though.

 

I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between private companies, unions and the government. The former are things that are volutarily joined, the latter is somehting which has jurisdiction over anything within a certain physical area.

 

I am against university speech codes, because they put limitations on debate, and its always possible a teachers or a student is only presenting views they don't necessarily agree with for the purpose of spurring debate.

 

Funny you keep mentioning MikeSC, since you're the only one here who keeps trying to use the Mike-like tactic of assuming you know what my positions are and setting up stupid straw man arguments around them.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Okay, I remember that Keegstra case from Law class.

 

The whole thing stemmed from a very Anti-semitic teacher who tried to deny the holocaust to his students and other such nonsense. The Supreme Court's decision was essentially to make sure that students aren't taught by whackjobs and the like. You wanna say that shit in private? You will be *free* to use whatever *speech* you want.

 

So you support his right to teach his kids why the Jews are bad? And YOU are a teacher too? Wonderful.

 

I don't normally side with Jerk, but you really are an idiot.

[cbacon 0]

Iraq parliament speaker calls for US withdrawal

 

BAGHDAD (AFP) -

Iraq's parliament speaker Mahmud Mashhadani bitterly criticized US forces in Iraq, accusing them of "butchery" and demanded that they pull out of the country.

 

Mashhadani was speaking at a UN-sponsored conference on transitional justice and reconciliation in Baghdad, and his strongly worded attack appeared to embarrass his international hosts, who grimaced on the podium.

 

"Just get your hands off Iraq and the Iraqi people and Muslim countries, and everything will be all right," the conservative Sunni Islamist said, in a speech opening the conference.

 

"What has been done in Iraq is a kind of butchery of the Iraqi people," he said in a long winded speech that criticized the tactics of the coalition forces as well as US support for Israeli strikes against Lebanon.

 

The two day conference, which was originally supposed to be opened by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, will address the issue of dealing with the crimes of previous Iraqi regimes and a plan to reconcile the country's warring factions.

 

The prime minister is expected to name a reconciliation committee Saturday.

 

Mashhadani bluntly told the audience of UN officials, foreign experts, Iraqi politicians and civil society representatives that the Iraqi people had little use for foreign advice on running the country or foreign-sponsored conferences.

 

"If a reconciliation project is going to work it has to talk to all the people," he said. "It must go through our Iraqi beliefs and perceptions. What we need is reconciliation between Iraqis only, there can be no third party."

 

To underscore his distaste for US forces in Iraq, he related an anecdote about how US soldiers keep people waiting in lines at checkpoints for hours because they insist on resting their bomb-sniffing dogs.

 

"The sleep of American dogs is more important than people being stopped in the street for hours," he said, evoking chuckles among Iraqi delegates.

 

The UN representative who then opened the conference subsequently referred to Mashhadani's speech as "spirited".

 

Mashhadani is a member of the main Sunni Arab parliamentary bloc, the National Concord Front, which is a member of Maliki's national unity government.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060722/wl_mi...raqusparliament

[Art Sandusky 0]

Haven't you been reading this thread? It isn't up to them when we leave.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

That's stupid even for you, Kotz.

 

Some long-winded speech by Iraq's Parliament Speaker does not equate to a referendum voted on by the citizens or a resolution drafted by their government. And you know that.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

EDIT: pretty bad time to have a double post, eh?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

EDIT: but it's the triple that kills me.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

That's stupid even for you, Kotz.

 

And you are teh stupid.

[Guest Felonies!]

Yeah, and C-Bacon posted that article, not Kotz, IIRC.

 

It didn't rock, though, which I do RC.