straight from the asylum....Follow

Ok, I'm gonna try to give a nice explantation to why I disagree. I'm not gonna start calling people dumb c*nts or whatever because that isn't a good way to try and reason with people. I'm real bored now and leveling is going ******, so I guess I can try to voice an opinon. So anyways here goes nothing.......

First of all, this war is about much more than defending America because........

- If North Korea, China, and Tropoly have nukes and/or "weapons of mass destruction" why don't we invade there *** too? (Tropoly is a tiny country in Africa)

- All most all of the highjackers (15 out of 18) from 9/11 were actually from Saudi Araiba, (including Bin Laden) why aren't we attacking them then?

- If no weapons of mass destruction were found even after the fact we totally owned Iraq then that means.... There isn't any! So why are we still there? We got the main man.


Second.... Have we learned anything from Veitnam people? This is the exact same thing over again. Big Business (mainly oil companies this time) are profiting off of this war and since Bush is feeding his buddies more money and they are kissing his ***, why wouldn't he continue with his efforts?

Third. Seeing that the Tailban really had nothing to do with Iraq really baffles me on why we went after Iraq anyways.

That's like saying some guy you work with that you kind of know kills someone and so he gets sent to jail. But since you have established a minor relationship with them and have no idea of what they do outside of work; you still go to jail for the same thing because since you know him so then you must be in on it in theory.

I mean really, if Iraq came over here and started invading our land then we'd have every right to F*uck them up. But guess what? That didn't happen.

I hope this made some sense to it. Everyone has there own opinon however and I respect that....................

Even though I think the war is a total bonehead mistake :P






Edited, Tue Aug 31 18:15:39 2004 by DonkeyPuncherGo

P.S. Oh and by the way, if you don't think I know what I am talking about when it comes to the two minority groups, try me. I belong to both


You're a gay Muslim?

If this story is supposed to be an allegory on the Iraq war, then the flaws in it are numerous.

(1) The US did not actually witness Saddam committing crimes that would justify intervention; most, if not all accounts, were from Ahmed Chalabi an the Iraqi National Congress, as well as similar partisan sources.

(2) The UN found that there was not sufficient grounds to invade Iraq based in part upon premise #1.

(3) The stories about Saddam personally murdering children were war propaganda, nothing more.

(4) Saddam was no threat to his neighbors; he could barely defend his own country, let alone attack another. Consequently:

(5) Saddam was no threat to the United States.

But it doesn't end there. To continue with the scenario presented in the first post...

Say that the hypothetical situation takes place. Instead of taking a small force up to the murderer's house, you launch an all-out assault on the neighborhood. You bomb homes, shopping centers, hospitals, & whatever you deem necessary to put the population of the neighborhood in "shock and awe." You may murder as many people as the murderer did, but that's okay because it's just "collateral damage."
After you capture the murderer, you hold him incommunicado without charges or trial by jury. After the families of those he murdered demand you release him into their custody so they can give him a fair trial with the entire neighborhood involved, you refuse, because you always know best, and they're just a bunch of uncivilized ingrates.
But it doesn't stop there. Instead of turning in the murderer to the police and leaving his family and the neighborhood in peace, you instead get a bunch of your friends together and occupy the neighborhood at gunpoint. You routinely invade the homes of, and incarcerate, people even remotely suspected of being in cahoots with the murderer without a fair trial. You then leave the prisons unsupervised, allowing your friends to torture those captured. You restrict the press to only "pro-you" outlets, because anything else might publish something that might even remotely sympathize with the murderer. Even when the majority of the people in the neighborhood wish you to leave them in peace, you stay, because you're automatically right & you always know what's best for them. You are, after all, the most civilized person in the neighborhood, because you're the only one with big-screen TV's, boutique computers, and the ability to dine out at expensive restaurants, not to mention lots and lots of guns & bombs.

I wonder how, after presented with this scenario by his father, the child would react.

LargeRat: When it comes to statists (i.e. those who believe in the benevolent power of government) and anti-statists (those who believe that government is the greatest threat to the rights of the individual), there really isn't much common ground at all. And, unfortunately, this is where the true debate lies. For example, in response to your five main points:

(1) Statists believe that war is good if it is mandated by the government, because they believe that the government never errs. Anti-statists believe that war is always bad, because it infringes upon the sovereignty of other nations and the rights of the individual, both abroad and at home.

(2) Statists believe that government aid is best, while anti-statists believe that the choice whether to help or not should be left up to the individual.

(3) Statists believe that it is the government's right and prerogative to lie to protect the people. Anti-statists believe that no lie is good, because truth equals power, and too much government power equals the subjugation of its people.

(4) Statists believe the government knows everything, including what's best. Anti-statists do not.

(5) Statists believe that the Constitution should be suspended or infringed upon if it means the continuation of State power. Anti-statists believe that the Constitution is the only thing keeping the State in check, and should therefore be held as a sacred document.

So, as you can see, we cannot even agree on those five points.

I definitely like the analogy that Bush is a 9-year-old child with a belligerent war-mongerer for a father. wait, that was the analogy, right? ^^

edit: nah, i'll leave it at that ^^

Edited, Fri Sep 3 13:29:45 2004 by RolloX

Come now, anyone can do that - and far, far more honestly:

Your Father says you need to go next door and toss a man out of his house because he has a really big gun and with this big gun he can threaten you.

You may ask, but isn't that what the police are for?

He says the police aren't doing anything. So you call the police. They say yes, that man had a big gun, but we took it away. Your dad counters that he got another one, or is trying to get another one, and he has evidence. He presents the evidence to the police. They don't agree with him. The police say they used to inspect the house, but the man stopped complying with that and won't let them in anymore. Your dad tells the man to let the police inspect his house, or he will send you to throw him out.

The man let's the police come look and look. They find nothing.

He still says you have to throw the man out. The police don't agree. They know there is a chance they missed the big gun. They have missed it before, but they disagree about throwing the man out so long as they are allowed to inspect the house from time to time, as has been happening for years.

You go to throw the man out. He hides. While hiding, you are told to search the entire house for the really big gun. You find none.

Now you ask, why did we remove the man? And your dad says because he was a really bad man. It was good to remove him. And many of the bad man's children agree - he was horrible. They say thanks. Some of them want you to leave immediately. Your dad says keep looking for the man and his big gun, or evidence he was trying to get the big gun. Your dad milks the bad man's cow and sells the milk and uses the money to hire his best friend's former company to rebuild all the furnature you mashed up in the house.

You do, indeed, find the bad man. You throw him out. Still you stay. Still you look. Still some of the kids love you and thank you but they are asking you, quietly, to leave now. Other kids really hate you. Perhaps they hated the bad man, perhaps not, but they sure do hate you.

Trust your dad?

DonkeyButtMuncher wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Tropoly is a tiny country in Africa)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sacarastic asshat worte:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you mean "Tripoli" ( a 'city', not a country) in Libya, then you're talking ****.

If, on the other hand you think there's a country called "Tropoli", then I think you'll find you're talking ****.

Now put that down, you'll have somebody's eye out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meh, so I made a boo boo. Doesn't mean you have to be a total d*ckbag about it. Looks like Nobby's on the rag folks so watch out!

Edited, Fri Sep 3 20:16:37 2004 by DonkeyPuncherGo

Katie, please change your avatar back to that robot, that was teh best avatar.

http://www.clermontyellowribbon.com/untilthenflash.htm

She's an ugly ***** and a ho.

Sorry about the three edits, I was trying to get around the
C UNT filter.

Yes, you should care what we think. Good or bad. Me, I like reading your posts. I am suprised your not a GURU or at least a Sage. Some fuckers must be rating you down all the time. Mabye you were a bad poster before, I really don't know because I am new to these boards.