| Author |
 Topic  |
|
STITCHES
= Cult of Ray =
USA
915 Posts |
 Posted - 12/15/2003 : 13:41:28
|
is there such a thing, motor? the words "good" and "abuse" never really seem to go together to me
-----------------------
I MET A MAN, HE WAS A GOOD MAN |
 |
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5456 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 13:44:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
We're lucky to have Bush at this point in history; his election was legitimate; and the hatred toward and fear of him is little more than simple-minded hysteria.
I guess some of us are just too stupid to see things the way you do. Oh, what a wonderful it would be if we were all as smart as erebus. |
|
|
|
STITCHES
= Cult of Ray =
USA
915 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 13:45:44
|
he must have the really good weed
-----------------------
I MET A MAN, HE WAS A GOOD MAN |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11690 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 14:19:13
|
Erebus, ignoring the simple-minded jab you decided to take at me for some reason, perhaps it's worth considering Bush's motivations. Especially when you deride my country and others who did not blindly follow into war as making "business decisions". Is it impossible for countries to do what they feel is right? Is every decision business/politically based?
Regardless of your answer to that, if you think I'm being naive to ask these questions, then I would question how it is exactly that Bush manages to have done both, the right thing and for the right reason. So either it is possible for a country to do the right thing for the right reason, and Bush was behaving strictly altruistically and Canada and others who refused to go invade a sovereign nation on at best flimsy evidence of WMD were also behaving in this manner. Or it's likely that each country is deciding based on internal politics and foreign business and so forth. In this case, why is it that Bush and America and those who follow are exempt from this while the rest of the world falls by the moral wayside.
Why is it that Bush was so determined to go to war for Saddam's violation of the UN when Bush himself completely went against the UN's decision to not go to war? Funny how democracy works only when the leader is getting what he wants anyway.
I hardly see how you can feel proud for having invaded a sovereign nation that YOU don't think was run properly and disposing of the despot (an admittedly evil man, at least by my standards) because you wanted someone else in power. And if your pride comes from the fact that Saddam is evil and should not be in power, which I think most everyone here would agree is true (that Saddam + power = not good), then who exactly appointed the US as dictator for the rest of the world? Yes, you're powerful. That doesn't give you the right to invade a country that isn't being run the way you think it should be. This is why we have the UN, which the US was so happy to disregard. But, funnily, the majority of UN members were opposed. The US going against the UN is analagous to Bush going against Congress to do something that he wants to do. You wouldn't stand for it domestically, but it's OK if it's foreign affairs?
There are all sorts of non-simple reasons to be opposed to Bush, his government, and US foreign policy in general.
To say that those who would oppose are simple-minded seems to suggest you've not really thought it through yourself. I would at least say that I can see you side, even if I disagree.
 "Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
STITCHES
= Cult of Ray =
USA
915 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 14:23:23
|
well, Cult...that's gonna hurt your chances of beating bushie in this stupidest person poll. You've got to stop using complete sentences or coherent thoughts.....stop making so much damn sense, or you'll never get higher than 3rd place!!!
-----------------------
I MET A MAN, HE WAS A GOOD MAN |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11690 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 14:28:41
|
Crap, you're... uhh... right. i wunder if they'res room in my campayne manigm... mangem... manyg... ummm... staff for u 2 b werking for me to. i cud use some 1 like u to help. :)
"Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
STITCHES
= Cult of Ray =
USA
915 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 14:30:24
|
nah, you'd get sick of me....I type in all caps at the worst possible moments, and I talk alot of shit.....I'd probably end up just getting banned from your campaign for one week after another
-----------------------
I MET A MAN, HE WAS A GOOD MAN |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11690 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 14:39:01
|
Heh... yeah, that did cross my mind. :)
"Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
billgoodman
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Netherlands
6289 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 14:46:59
|
Go figure people,
When a big criminal like Saddam is captured they always make sure
that the criminal doesnīt commit suicide. They search for guns and blades but they also search for pills. Suicide pills or Poison Pills,
whatever they are called.
You can hide those pills anywhere. In your mouth for one, in your teeth.
For the people who saw Pulp Fiction (I saw it for the first time recently) will know whatīs comming:
Some US soldier or doctor has been inside Saddamīs Anus to search for such a pill. Thereīs no doubt about it, really, Iīm 100% sure.
Maybe itīs the same guy who searched his mouth, you know, that clip they are showing on CNN all the time sunday. That guy possibly has been in Saddamīs Anus with his hand but more likely with that whitestick they examined his mouth with (you can see it on the film). I hope they first examined his mouth and after that his anus, the other way around wouldnīt be that nice.
On the other hand I donīt give a damn how they treat him....
 "I joined the Culf of Frank/ And now I do not know what...to do" |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 15:11:36
|
Apologies CoF. I used your earlier post as a point of departure for what developed into a mini-rant, so those remarks were not intended for you as an individual. Before I made the post it did occur to me to include a remark to that effect but I decided not. Guess I made a mistake. I hardly think of you as simple-minded. Quite the contrary.
And I apologize for including Canada in my jabs at our "allies", especially in regard to selfish motivations. Most of my venom was aimed at France, with a little for Germany and Russia on the side. I don't think Canada was assisting Saddam under the table, unlike the other three main recalcitrants. However, I do think that if the major nations of the world had provided a united front all of this would not have been necessary, much as unity toward Cuba and the Soviet Union would have facilitated an early positive outcome.
You raise many worthwhile points, to which I will not be able to do justice. Instead I will skate through, most likely amusing and outraging many. No matter.
The WMD suspicion was a small part of the justification for invading Iraq. The concensus, American and international, was that he was up to no good in that regard, and that's good enough for me. My remark regarding contracts with Saddam was not intended to apply to Canada. (I believe that the US has already uncovered copious evidence of French, German, and Russian violations of international law but has been keeping it to itself, either to avoid destabilizing their regimes or so as to use the evidence later at a more advantageous juncture.)
The UN, that joke, had passed resolutions or whatever they call their drivel, to the effect that it would act if Saddam failed to comply. And for the umpteenth time in twelve years the UN backpedalled into doing nothing. Fuck the UN. The US should just drop out of that bogus outfit. So, I guess by my standards Saddam was entitled to flip off the UN, as was Bush. Force is all that has ever mattered, and it's staying that way for the next century at least.
I do not recall using the term "proud" or any of its cognates. The "sovereign" nation of Iraq assisted our enemies in attacking the US, so that sovereignity means nothing in the calculus of action. No one appointed the US dictator of the world, but it was the US that was attacked, and the world doesn't give a crap, so the US did what it had to. When you say that a majority of UN members were opposed you're saying that a majority of opinions that are completely for sale were opposed. So what? And China has a veto on the Security Council. What does that have to do with justice or morality? And why would anyone respect such an organization?
Finally, I equated simple-mindedness with hatred and fear of Bush, not with opposition. Again, I apologize for offending you personally. You acquit yourself rationally and civilly, in a manner which I have grown to respect. Sorry all this is so quick and dirty. Lots of cracks in the writing and the logic. Guess I'll just have rely on the generous reading I've grown to expect from my fellow FB nuts. |
|
|
|
Danishboy
- FB Fan -
Denmark
175 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 16:06:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by bedrock_barney
Danishboy, please explain!
 "Join the Cult of the Theremin / It's Velouriatastic!!"
Well are we looking for evil leaders, theres enough to go around.
Kim Jong(North-korea), Mugabe(Zimbabwe), Augusto Pinochet(Chile)
Mohammad Khatami(Iran) and itīs the last one i want you to bear in mind.
Look at the middeleast, Saddam Hussains Irak and the bath-parti.
How long would they last after his death? Would his sons try to take his place? I think that George Bush looked ahead and worked while the iron was hot, meaning that why wait for the problems to begin.
Irak would have a big chance of becomming a state like Iran under the control of the islams imams.
The biggest threat today is Iran, they allready have nuclear power and have said to produce uranium riched plutonium.
So to put a stop to this the Us put the foot in the door, and now their right next to them.
Just my thoughts maybe iīm wrong. So thatīs why i called Saddam Hussain a victime of circumstance, if you want to break a chain allways start with the weakest link.
Man of steel |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 17:25:25
|
I bet they'll catch Osama right before the next election..
Hey Erebus - didn't the US fund and assist Saddam for the longest time? Does that not make them complicit in the 9/11 bombings of..um..themselves?
Who was it..Cheney working with Saddam?
Isn't building them up with arms waaay worse than opposing votes in the UN? (Which is the 'assistance' you're suggesting France, Germany and Russia gave?) |
|
|
|
TOTIPOTENT
- Master of Differentiation -
USA
247 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 17:48:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Danishboy
quote:
Originally posted by bedrock_barney
Danishboy, please explain!
Well are we looking for evil leaders, theres enough to go around.
Kim Jong(North-korea), Mugabe(Zimbabwe), Augusto Pinochet(Chile)
Mohammad Khatami(Iran) and itīs the last one i want you to bear in mind.
Look at the middeleast, Saddam Hussains Irak and the bath-parti.
How long would they last after his death? Would his sons try to take his place? I think that George Bush looked ahead and worked while the iron was hot, meaning that why wait for the problems to begin.
Irak would have a big chance of becomming a state like Iran under the control of the islams imams.
The biggest threat today is Iran, they allready have nuclear power and have said to produce uranium riched plutonium.
So to put a stop to this the Us put the foot in the door, and now their right next to them.
Just my thoughts maybe iīm wrong. So thatīs why i called Saddam Hussain a victime of circumstance, if you want to break a chain allways start with the weakest link.
Thank you DB. Pretty good facet.
 "I joined the Cult of Frank / 'Cause those damn search engines didn't do my site justice" |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11690 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 18:08:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Apologies CoF. I used your earlier post as a point of departure for what developed into a mini-rant, so those remarks were not intended for you as an individual. Before I made the post it did occur to me to include a remark to that effect but I decided not. Guess I made a mistake. I hardly think of you as simple-minded. Quite the contrary.
And I apologize for including Canada in my jabs at our "allies", especially in regard to selfish motivations. Most of my venom was aimed at France, with a little for Germany and Russia on the side. I don't think Canada was assisting Saddam under the table, unlike the other three main recalcitrants. However, I do think that if the major nations of the world had provided a united front all of this would not have been necessary, much as unity toward Cuba and the Soviet Union would have facilitated an early positive outcome.
You raise many worthwhile points, to which I will not be able to do justice. Instead I will skate through, most likely amusing and outraging many. No matter.
The WMD suspicion was a small part of the justification for invading Iraq. The concensus, American and international, was that he was up to no good in that regard, and that's good enough for me. My remark regarding contracts with Saddam was not intended to apply to Canada. (I believe that the US has already uncovered copious evidence of French, German, and Russian violations of international law but has been keeping it to itself, either to avoid destabilizing their regimes or so as to use the evidence later at a more advantageous juncture.)
The UN, that joke, had passed resolutions or whatever they call their drivel, to the effect that it would act if Saddam failed to comply. And for the umpteenth time in twelve years the UN backpedalled into doing nothing. Fuck the UN. The US should just drop out of that bogus outfit. So, I guess by my standards Saddam was entitled to flip off the UN, as was Bush. Force is all that has ever mattered, and it's staying that way for the next century at least.
I do not recall using the term "proud" or any of its cognates. The "sovereign" nation of Iraq assisted our enemies in attacking the US, so that sovereignity means nothing in the calculus of action. No one appointed the US dictator of the world, but it was the US that was attacked, and the world doesn't give a crap, so the US did what it had to. When you say that a majority of UN members were opposed you're saying that a majority of opinions that are completely for sale were opposed. So what? And China has a veto on the Security Council. What does that have to do with justice or morality? And why would anyone respect such an organization?
Finally, I equated simple-mindedness with hatred and fear of Bush, not with opposition. Again, I apologize for offending you personally. You acquit yourself rationally and civilly, in a manner which I have grown to respect. Sorry all this is so quick and dirty. Lots of cracks in the writing and the logic. Guess I'll just have rely on the generous reading I've grown to expect from my fellow FB nuts.
That's OK, Erebus, seems like a simple miscommunication. I also agree with many of the points you've raised, though I'm not sure that we follow them to the same conclusion. Well, put better perhaps, we don't.
Despite the fact that I was not in favour of this war, I was thoroughly unimpressed with Mr. Chirac's "veto anything" stance. As a matter of point, I really don't like the concept of a veto vote at any rate, but to blindly threaten to use it before a proposition has even been made seems ignorant in the extreme as well as undemocratic. China having a veto disturbs me, but no more so than any other country. Their domestic policy seems very similar to others' foreign policy at times. Not to insinuate that the US does not believe in human rights abroad, but it seems interesting that there is such a dichotomy between foreign and domestic policy. Still, try getting China to lay down it's veto. Or any of the possessing countries, including the US. The veto has nothing to do with justice nor morality, only with appeasing the greater powers to become part of the organization and avoid another of the League's failings.
I further suspect that they and other countries (Russia and Germany, I believe you named) do have ulterior motives for opposing the war. The point I make, or try to, is that they are certainly not the only ones with ulterior motives and hidden agendas. So it seems unfair to target them without at least considering the ulterior motives of all the major players.
I suspect that, if this is not already the impetus, the 'veto' vote privilege will lead to the UN's imminent downfall; an Achilles' heel much like elements of the Treaty of Versailles for the League of Nations. Inaction is also a problem common to both organizations, and indeed almost any organization with so large a scope. I don't have any solutions for these problems that don't involve a large overhaul. The UN is far from perfect, perhaps, because of its scope, the most imperfect organization in the world. But for it to work, we have to work with it. I think that the ideal and the concepts are good ones.
But sadly, ideals are never lived up to. Votes for sale? Sure! Why not. The US took advantage of that as much as anyone though, did they not? Perhaps money to certain poorer countries (in Africa for example) were fortunately timed, perhaps contracts and trade deals both at home and abroad were completely coincidental, but under this criteria then, could not any country claim that their stance had nothing to do with money? Or oil? Or foreign investment?
They could, but it would likely be a fallacy. Every country in the world places itself first. There was tremendous pressure in Canada to go to war simply because to not go to war would hurt relations and trade with the United States. Admittedly, we did not follow despite this, and there have in fact been strained relations and reduced trade, but the point is that noone is exempt from self-interest. Not us, not France, not the US. And the fact is that the US has the economic and military power to force - if you'll permit me to use the word against you - weaker countries to do what it wills by withdrawing of investment, aid, and trade or worse. As well as to coax hesitant countries with promises of the same.
At any rate, I'm happy we can discuss and debate this intelligently.
"Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
TheCroutonFuton
- Mr. Setlists -
USA
1728 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 18:37:44
|
We really should have more intelligent conversations on this forum.
I'm not a big believer of conspiracy theories...but as far as Bush goes..the only way he could have been elected president must have had something to do with the Skull & Bones. (New World Order; illuminati. In fact...FDR was part of the society and the backside of the dollar bill has the occult unfinished pyramid with the Eye of Horus [Lucifer] atop.) It's all pretty creepy..
 "Join the Cult of Gunn / And Then You'll Be Destined to be a Rock and Roll Star of Epical Proportions!" |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 19:25:56
|
I'd agree that a world without Saddam is a better place for sure, but I 100 disagree with the way the US (mainly the US) and it's allies have steamed into Iraq..... He's an evil man there is no doubt in that, but why in recent history have the US funded such people? In recent history this seems to be a common trend, they were behind the coup in Chile, whereby they were instrumental in the overthrow of the democratically elected president Allende and replaced him with Augustine Pinochet, a brutal dictator who was responsible for the death of thousands people. Then of course there is evidence of the CIA's involvement with Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein.
The US and Britain claim to be concerned about human rights throughout the world, and are prepared to go to war on behalf of people who are being mistreated by their leaders.... If so then why are the US and Britain supporting Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan who is currently responsible for acts of brutallity against religious and political figures in the country. A recent article in the Guardian Weekly claims that there are more than 6000 religious and political prisoners in Uzbekistan, and that every year a large number are horrifically tortured to death.
Since 1999 US forces have been training Karimovs soldiers, and have tripled its aid to this dictator, the Guardian quotes that 'Last year he (Karimov) recieved $500m of which $79m went to the police and intelligence services who are responsible for the torture.' But it doesn't end with the US. Tony Blair at the beginning of this year gave permission for Karimov to import whatever weapons from the UK he fancies.... Furthermore, Craig Murray, the ambassador to Uzbekistan has been sending dossiers to the UK detailing horrific human rights abuses and evidence of where the government have crushed democracy movements in Uzbekistan. However Tony Blairs reaction to these dossiers have been to 'threaten the ambassador with the sack, investigate the ambassador for a series of trumped up charges and persecute the ambassador so relentlessly that he has had to spend time in a psychiatric ward, though in his case for sound clinical reasons (as excerised on the orders of No:10)'
So again there is evidence to suggest that the US and UK are funding a brutal regime to clamp down on the Islamic extremists, and again there is the chance that this is another funded dictatorship which will turn around and bite the US and UK on the arse. I would have to agree with Dave's quote suggesting that if Saddam was involved with Sept 11th, then surely the US have also played a part against themselves. If they build these kind of people up then they shouldn't whinge when these people turn against them.
What about Henry Kissinger and the evidence of the attrocities that he is responsible for, when is he going to be held accountable for his crimes? Thats the problem with the US, they are so short sighted that they cannot see what they have done to cause people to react against their country. It's ok for them to do it to another country, but it creates an international world threatening shit storm when it happens to them.
Who's the man that won't cop out when there's danger all about? |
|
|
|
glacial906
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1738 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 20:06:00
|
Hey there, Stuart! Where the hell you been, man?
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.
Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2003 : 20:58:27
|
Thanks Glacial..... I've been busy, travelling around China, lazy.... but have come back to an interesting forum topic. How have you been??
Who's the man that won't cop out when there's danger all about? |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11690 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2003 : 06:39:50
|
Stuart, it's been so long since I have been clopsed that I've almost forgotten what it is! Good to see 'ya old bean.
"Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
STITCHES
= Cult of Ray =
USA
915 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2003 : 06:44:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
And I apologize for including Canada in my jabs at our "allies", especially in regard to selfish motivations. Most of my venom was aimed at France, with a little for Germany and Russia on the side. I don't think Canada was assisting Saddam under the table, unlike the other three main recalcitrants. However, I do think that if the major nations of the world had provided a united front all of this would not have been necessary, much as unity toward Cuba and the Soviet Union would have facilitated an early positive outcome.
aiding Iraq under the table? you mean like we (the US) did in the 80's????
quote:
The WMD suspicion was a small part of the justification for invading Iraq. The concensus, American and international, was that he was up to no good in that regard, and that's good enough for me. My remark regarding contracts with Saddam was not intended to apply to Canada. (I believe that the US has already uncovered copious evidence of French, German, and Russian violations of international law but has been keeping it to itself, either to avoid destabilizing their regimes or so as to use the evidence later at a more advantageous juncture.)
I"m sure everyone on this board remembers where they were that fateful day when we found Iraq's stockpile of chemical and nuclear weapons!!!!!(oh wait, we never did find any...weird)
quote:
I do not recall using the term "proud" or any of its cognates. The "sovereign" nation of Iraq assisted our enemies in attacking the US, so that sovereignity means nothing in the calculus of action. No one appointed the US dictator of the world, but it was the US that was attacked, and the world doesn't give a crap, so the US did what it had to. When you say that a majority of UN members were opposed you're saying that a majority of opinions that are completely for sale were opposed. So what? And China has a veto on the Security Council. What does that have to do with justice or morality? And why would anyone respect such an organization?
Assisted which enemies? the Taliban???that was proven to be untrue a LONG time ago....as for the opinions for sale comment: jesus christ, our government is just as for sale as any other. Defense contractors OWN the presidency right now, sport!
quote:
[Finally, I equated simple-mindedness with hatred and fear of Bush, not with opposition. Again, I apologize for offending you personally. You acquit yourself rationally and civilly, in a manner which I have grown to respect. Sorry all this is so quick and dirty. Lots of cracks in the writing and the logic. Guess I'll just have rely on the generous reading I've grown to expect from my fellow FB nuts.
how can you consider yourself an American and NOT fear Bush! my god, he's functionally illiterate, getting revenge for his father!!! Those two things alone (not to mention his other countless flaws) horrify me about him
-----------------------
I MET A MAN, HE WAS A GOOD MAN |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2003 : 07:12:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
Stuart, it's been so long since I have been clopsed that I've almost forgotten what it is! Good to see 'ya old bean.
"Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened"
Alright COF.... never knew you'd been clopsed before, congratulations!! As they say, you're not a man til you've had a clopse. By the way Ive finally got my spanners on a copy of Max Payne.... not bad although I haven't played it a great deal so far as Ive been travelling around a bit. Will let you know how I get on with it.
Who's the man that won't cop out when there's danger all about? |
|
|
|
billgoodman
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Netherlands
6289 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2003 : 10:28:53
|
'they allowed him to bath and save'
go figure people,
what's one of the best ways to commit suicide?
Cute yourself on the wrists with a razorblade and take a bath.
But the American soldiers aren't that stupid, so when Saddam asked
for a shave and a bath someone had to go with him.
An US soldier saw Saddam's weener!!!
wow!
"I joined the Culf of Frank/ And now I do not know what...to do" |
|
|
|
TOTIPOTENT
- Master of Differentiation -
USA
247 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2003 : 10:41:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by billgoodman
'they allowed him to bath and save'
go figure people,
what's one of the best ways to commit suicide?
Cute yourself on the wrists with a razorblade and take a bath.
But the American soldiers aren't that stupid, so when Saddam asked
for a shave and a bath someone had to go with him.
An US soldier saw Saddam's weener!!!
wow!
"I joined the Cult of Frank / 'Cause those damn search engines didn't do my site justice" |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
