|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
One of the scary aspects of this is that W's brand of Fundamentalism believes in "the end of days" scenario. Which includes - you guessed it - war in the middle east and a strong Israel. The funny thing about these "Christians" btw is that they act as far from the way Jesus would as you can imagine. I actually heard one of them try to rationalize the war in Iraq as something Jesus would have done. [ April 15, 2003, 20:35: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
The first point is shown to be obviously wrong by low number of casualties in the war compared to the number of deaths, and horrible atrocities commited by the regime. No, the real aim of the war was not the liberation of the Iraqi people, I don't attempt to claim that. But the horrible human suffering commited everyday by the regime upon it's own people and it's neighbors remove any weight from that particular argument by the anti war crowd. The second point is not so easily dismissed, as only time will tell the true consequences of the war. And since action was taken we now have no way of knowing the true consequences of failing to act and weigh those against the consequences of taking the action we did. Much of the anger in the arab world can yet be amiliorated if the rebuilding of Iraq is handled properly and the colaition troops are withdrawn quickly. But there will always be those that hate and seek to demonstrate their hatred in volient ways. Many of these individuals and Groups may in fact commit heinous acts in the future and point to the Iraq war as justification. But this is not a logical argument as the former regime killed and maimed many more muslims then this brief war has, and the regime displaced and killed many more muslims then even the "great evil Isreal." By saying it's not a logical argument I don't mean it won't be used. However, if those that hate will use a illogical argument to hate, then there us really nothing that can be done to prevent it. If not for the Iraq war they would find some other reason to hate. Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
(popping in to the thread to see what's up...)
Well, it may be heated, but it seems to be losing whatever connection to Iraq it may have once had... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Sadam is not dead...
http://www.madbLast.com/view.cfm?typ...h&display=2186 Bomb Sadam... http://www.madbLast.com/view.cfm?typ...h&display=2183 Smaky that Iraqi http://www.politicaltoons.com/flash/saddam_smacky.cfm [ April 15, 2003, 23:01: Message edited by: Wardad ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
The human life is cheap, very cheap. And more when we consider the death of people in the context of relations between countries.
I'm old enough, to remember the times when Saddam was the paladin of the western democracies, fighting against the evil Iran. He was the front line of occident against the evil Ayatollah Homeini! During these times, occident was not worried about the use of chemical weapons against the soldiers or civilians of Iran or against the Kurds... and in fact, Saddam was helped by USA and other western countries. Also, after the first GW1 occident had the opportunity to demote Saddam, but finally was decided to let him continue, because he was considered the lesser evil... and because this, he was able to kill more Kurds and Shiites and more people of the opposition. At the end, the people that Saddam killed during more aprox 25 years, was considered by occident as "collateral damage". Then, why use the argument that Saddam killed more people during his government than this War, when for action or for omission, occident was his accomplice? I can't accept that the current "collateral damage" was needed to fix the previous "collateral damage". |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
I hope you aren't. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
One of the scary aspects of this is that W's brand of Fundamentalism believes in "the end of days" scenario. Which includes - you guessed it - war in the middle east and a strong Israel. The funny thing about these "Christians" btw is that they act as far from the way Jesus would as you can imagine. I actually heard one of them try to rationalize the war in Iraq as something Jesus would have done.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If we went to war simply to assure a steady supply of oil, then yes, I agree Jesus would have opposed the war. But if we went to war to liberate the Iraqi people from a harsh dictator intent on the perpetuation of evil deeds against his own innocent people, then I think there is ample Biblical support to show that Jesus would have supported the war. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
One of the scary aspects of this is that W's brand of Fundamentalism believes in "the end of days" scenario. Which includes - you guessed it - war in the middle east and a strong Israel. The funny thing about these "Christians" btw is that they act as far from the way Jesus would as you can imagine. I actually heard one of them try to rationalize the war in Iraq as something Jesus would have done.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're confusing Dubya with Ashcroft; he's the one who's a feverent christian. And how would dividing up Israel make it stronger? Giving birth to a Palestinian nation would seem to be on dubya's to do list; even Shraon himself that Israel would have to give up some Israelite settlements in the west bank. [ April 16, 2003, 00:13: Message edited by: TerranC ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
One of the scary aspects of this is that W's brand of Fundamentalism believes in "the end of days" scenario. Which includes - you guessed it - war in the middle east and a strong Israel. The funny thing about these "Christians" btw is that they act as far from the way Jesus would as you can imagine. I actually heard one of them try to rationalize the war in Iraq as something Jesus would have done.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bible-believing Christians (that's all "Fundamentalist" means, anyway), don't all agree on every issue, including the use and role of military force or the various "end times" theories. Sure, there are some out there that can't put forward a rational argument or defend a position with anything more than out-of-context Bible verses or "What would Jesus do" arguments, but just because there are some who defend a position poorly does not mean that the position itself is poor. And just because there are others who set a horrible example by their behavior, that doesn't mean that all Christians are hypocrites or that Christianity is hogwash. All it means is that the church is made up of (GASP) people too. Regarding eschatology (end times)--there are very very few who hold that it is our ROLE as Christians to actually BRING ABOUT the Last days by our actions or behaviour. Just because someone has a religious belief that someday the world will end doesn't mean that they are supposed to bring it about. Regarding war/fighting--I was raised in a church that held to the doctrine of pacifism--that all fighting is immoral, even to defend your own life or family. I had just graduated from high school when the first gulf war broke out, and I actually prepared documents to declare myself a conscientious objector (CO) if a draft was instated. More recently, however, I have become convinced that war/fighting is not always the greatest evil. The most persuasive argument that led me to this position was: "If good men do not fight evil, then evil will prevail." So there is something actually WORSE than war--and that is to allow an evil dictator like Saddam Hussein to torture his own people. Now this is a MORAL argument, and doesn't speak to all relevant political issues, but I do believe that this is a major part of the reasoning behind this war. This is surprising to many people from around the world, because there are lots (even in the US) that would say "Good and Evil are such archaic concepts--who are you to say that you are better than another--who are you to decide what is good and what is evil?" This is a huge issue, and ultimately comes back to fundamental philosophical and religous beliefs (on BOTH sides--"there is no absolute standard of good and evil" is a "faith-based" position as much as "there IS a standard"). There is a lot of good writing and thinking out there on these kinds of issues, and they are not trivial in the least. A man I admire uses a phrase that I'll end with: "Clarity is more important than agreement." |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
I'm saying that at the end of the GW1, he was not demoted, and occident let him to continue with their crimes. I'm saying that people who died under his bloody rule, died (specially after GW1) because occident was "looking to other place". I'm saying that to use the argument that Saddam killed more people during his government than this War, when for action or for omission, occident was his "accomplice", is in my view absurd. Edit: added a few things, and removed the Last phrase, because I don't wanted be aggressive but after read the post again, it looked to me something "violent". [ April 16, 2003, 01:32: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
As far as GW1 goes I believe now and believed then, as many other Americans do, that we made a huge mistake not completeing the job at the time. I dis not believe that Iraq was the lesser of two evils as Bush senior apparently did. Right or wrong our policy at the time was more about making sure the coalition members, primarily the Saudi's, were happy. They would not allow any consideration of taking out the regime. At the very least we should have encouraged and protected the revolting Kurds and Sh'ites in the months following the war. Our failure to do so was unconsionable, and something that we are feeling repurcusions from yet in this war. None of this detracts from our justification for taking action. This main gola of this war wasn't to liberate the Iraqi people and save them from the regime. That was merely a very pleasant side effect. If anything our poor record in the past made it mroe our responsibility to clean up the mess we made. Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
As far as GW1 goes I believe now and believed then, as many other Americans do, that we made a huge mistake not completeing the job at the time. I dis not believe that Iraq was the lesser of two evils as Bush senior apparently did. Right or wrong our policy at the time was more about making sure the coalition members, primarily the Saudi's, were happy. They would not allow any consideration of taking out the regime. At the very least we should have encouraged and protected the revolting Kurds and Sh'ites in the months following the war. Our failure to do so was unconsionable, and something that we are feeling repurcusions from yet in this war. None of this detracts from our justification for taking action. This main gola of this war wasn't to liberate the Iraqi people and save them from the regime. That was merely a very pleasant side effect. If anything our poor record in the past made it mroe our responsibility to clean up the mess we made. Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This time we concur, my friend. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
fyron... it is not too way out to lunch.....
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Jesus was a pacifist. I am not a practicing Christian but after twelve years of Christian education - I would say unequivocally that Jesus would never have supported any war under any circumstances. Most Fundamentalists (especially the t.v. kind) try to point to the post gospel books and the O.T. to support war mongering. [quote]Originally posted by MegaTrain: Quote:
[ April 16, 2003, 00:19: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Jesus was not a pacifist by modern standards. Read the account of Jesus overturning the money changers tables and drivign them out of the Temple with a whip of cords. Does this sound like the actions of a pacifist? He would likely not have actively supported the war, but you wouldn't have seen him marching in a peace rally either. He would have taught the people and encouraged them to get right in their hearts for his Kingdom was in Heaven. He would have been more concerned with the spiritual needs of the people then getting involved in the war arguments on either side. He was quite adept at not allowing himself to be trapped into hypothetical and political arguments that the Pharises threw at him on a regular basis. If given the opportunity he would have been in Bagdad, not as a human shield, but ministering to the spiritual and physical needs of the citizenry, ignoring his own personal danger. If dragged before Hussein he would have no doubt had many direct words regarding the treatment of his people. But you wouldn't have seen him on CNN espousing the virtues of military intervention either or shaking hands with Bush in a rose garden photo op.
Geoschmo [ April 16, 2003, 00:47: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
So now everyone is talking about the positions of a guy who has been dead for about 2000 years and didn't write a single thing about himself or anything else in his own hand?
So we are stating what a 2000 year old dead person believed based on second and third, fourth, fifth, to the umpteenth hand information? [ April 16, 2003, 00:55: Message edited by: Cyrien ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
You are treading on dangerous ground there Cyrien...
[ April 16, 2003, 01:09: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Hrmm... I tend to do that alot... Oh well.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Yeah... so do I... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Although, I noted with no small level of distaste that a book linking Saddam to Babylon (which was originally printed for Gulf War I) has been re-issued... just in time to see Saddam fall flat on his face again. This sort of concoction of bad theology and worse timing, frankly, is an embarassment to thoughtful believers... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif [ April 16, 2003, 02:32: Message edited by: General Woundwort ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
"This sort of concoction of bad theology and worse timing, frankly, is an embarassment to thoughtful believers..."
It's not as bad as the group that predicted the end of the world on a specific date. Twice. Did I mention this was in the 1800s? And somehow they're still around, too.. Phoenix-D |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Third time is the charm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Fyron - I'm sure most Germans didn't expect to get what they got either http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Everyone - Please lets not talk about god and jesus. Anything but god and jesus. I live in a secular nation where officials go to great lengths to never say the g word, where we find it very amusing that the only two sides that mentioned the g word in the war were US and Iraq, and the Last thing I want is to have an interesting discussion derailed with talk about god. Askan |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I second that motion.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Askan, Germany only had a democratic form of government for a few decades (or less). The people were used to strong, authoritarian governments. So, the regime change was not such a big change of pace. But in the US, the country has had a democratic form of government for centuries. The people would not sit idly by if a military regime seized power. There is a huge difference between the US and post WWI Germany.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Fyron, before the Florida debacle would you have said that the people of America would never had sat idly by and let that sort of thing happen? If that happened in Australia I don't think I could ever talk about our democracy with a straight face.
Askan |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
You live in a secular country where (I assume) the greatest proportion of the people oppose the war. In the US, a largely religious nation(historically at least), recent polls show 75% and higher support for military action. This tells us something about how philosophical and religious ideology can affect your worldview. We (in the US) largely view this as a question of "right and wrong", "good vs evil". Much of the rest of the world (and many on the left in the U.S.) view this as a question of legal vs illegal. This is why there is such a huge divide between those that say that U.N. support/approval is absolutely required, and those of us that say "The UN is wrong. This action is the right thing to do, and though we would like others around the world to agree and support us, the lack of a UN vote for military action will not prevent us from doing that which is necessary and right." Again, I belive that clarity is more important than agreement, and if we understand more about the philosophic basis behind the disparity of views, that helps bring clarity. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So opposition to Bush for the sake of his party is nonsense. Opposition to the individual though, is entirely true and entirely valid and justified: He has the world's only superpower at his command and he doesn't care what or who he f**ks up in order to make money. Sure, the world is full of politicians like that, but it's not often you see one taking it to these extremes. I'm not sure what he's got that lets him get away with it (although I think his manipulation of 9/11 has a lot to do with that) but there are plenty of people in this world who see him as a monster that has to be stopped. We've already seen the parallels drawn between Bush and 1930s Hitler. I really hope they turn out to be nothing more than a coincidence. Here's something to think about: I wonder if this was inevitable after the fall of the Soviet Union- does anyone think that without a balancing force to keep it in check, the US was bound to go on the rampage like this? [ April 16, 2003, 16:13: Message edited by: dogscoff ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
If these positions are held by more than a handful around the world then that is some scary sh**, and doesn't bode well for the future of the planet. I admit I haven't read all 95 pages of this thread, but I really can't imagine a defensible argument saying that Bush and Hitler are moral equivalents. A couple of points: 1) Motivation of individuals is both impossible to determine and largely irrelevant. There are plenty of situations where good motivations have led to evil actions or policies (communism), or selfish motivation has lead to good results (capitalism). I happen to believe that Bush is motivated by a desire to protect the US of today and for our children from terrorism and WMD, and a desire to rid the world and the Iraqi citizens of an evil oppressive regime. You don't belive that to be true, but as I said motivation is not the key issue. 2) The ACTIONS of the US now and throughout history is what needs to be judged--and I'm the first to say that our record isn't spotless. But I definitely agree with the following address by Colin Powell: (in response to a question by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, about the US relying too much on "Hard Power" of military might vs the "Soft Power" of diplomacy") Quote:
My views: Oil $$: the Iraqi oil $$ will be used to rebuild that country, and may not be sufficient to do so. We have already spent billions, and the US taxpayers will likely pour billions more into Iraq in aid, rebuilding, and keeping the peace while a leadership structure is determined. This is not and cannot possibly be a profitable action for the US. US Occupation: We will be there as long as we need, and no longer. We will likely maintain a military base in Iraq indefinitely, but certainly you don't view that as "occupation of the country", otherwise we'd be "occupying" many dozens of countries throughout the world. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Hmmm...
Seems to me that Jesus was born into a war-torn and forcibly occupied land - sort of like Iraq, Palestine (though it's not a country yet), Afghanistan, Liberia, etc etc. Isreal had been undergoing civil unrest since the military conquest of the land by the Greeks right up until the Maccabees, and then went to war when the Romans arrived. Having been under various foreign dictators for a good long time, it has been estimated that at the time of Jesus birth a good 20% of capable men had been killed by foreign occupiers in one way or another (via out-and-out war, uprisings, civil disobedience, etc) Then there were the ones who continued to want to overthrow the Romans, the Zealots. Jesus had at least one (two I think) of this political persuasion in his closest knit group, but yet he consistantly avoided proclaiming for or against the Romans. Instead he stressed the need for internal spiritual renewal, which could only be brought about by (i) repentance from sin, (2) acceptance of himself, and (3) worship of God. So what would Jesus do? He'd likely move to a smaller outlying town outside of Baghdad and proclaim that, regardless of the circumstances, every member of humankind is duty bound to turn back to God. Would he pretend to like Sadam? No, I doubt this, because Jesus mocked the political leaders of his time. Would he encourage revolt? I think he wouldn't, because another rebellion - the one in people's hearts - was more important to him. Now that's what I think Jesus would do. Does that mean that no followers of Jesus should ever enter politics or pursue positions of power? I personally don't think that Jesus would have a problem with people choosing one of these "lesser careers" vs. what he and his cousin did (essentially evangelism). There is at least one example of a Roman centurian coming to Jesus for help, and Jesus helped him. At no point did Jesus tell him to leave the army though... Well, that's my biblical scholarship for the day http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Take it for what it's worth, I'm a microbiologist, not a priest. Edit: OOOPS. I was a little behind and reading on page two, then decided to post a reply. I didn't realize that the discussion had moved on from WWJD and back to the evil that is Bush. Sorry if my "out of the blue" response confused anyone. Edit2: and Askan, I'm sorry about your alergic reaction to anything g*d related. You really should see a specialist about that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif [ April 16, 2003, 17:18: Message edited by: jimbob ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
But yes, a pretty well established law of psychology is that you become what you dwell on, and whether you dwell on it in admiration or opposition does not matter. After more than 2 decades of fear and loathing of 'communists' prior to WW II and then a bit more than 4 more decades of direct opposition in the 'Cold War' we do have a pretty well entrenched habit in the US institutions (and society! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ) of viewing the external world in a militaristic way as something needing to be controlled. But even before this, as the Central Americans will tell you, we already had pretty noticeable Imperialistic tendencies. So on the one hand, I'd say yes it was fairly predictable that the US would become more difficult to live with once the 'Big Enemy' was gone and all that energy was freed up from opposition to one target. But on the other hand we were never a very good neighbor, and advanced technology has made everyone neighbors in the contemporary world. But you seem to have ignored my earlier question about the direction of British politics. Do you really think Britain is more strongly allied with Europe than the US? (The French bashing in the UK was certainly not any less than it was here.) Or is it just possible that the 'far right' segment of the British political spectrum wants ro reclaim Imperial glory by proxy, in alliance with the US? Under a similar 'rationalization' of defending against those evil terrorists, of course. This seems to be a phenomena sweeping the English speaking world. There are major anti-immigrant sentiments in Australia as well. And they were one of very few nations other than the US and Britain to send actual combat troops to Iraq. We may see the development of a US/British/Australian axis along the lines of George Orwell's Oceana... [ April 16, 2003, 17:33: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Waaayyy OT but,
Seems to me that Florida has a pretty dumb voting system. We've got a "complete the arrow" system in Canada. The poll-operators give you a pencil, you go to the booth, and then select your candidate by filling in the correct broken arrow with said pencil. No hanging chits, no accidental chit removals, etc. That said, a teacher in Florida made a test for grade 1 students in which they identified their favorite cartoon character using the chit system, and not a single error in his class! Does this indicate that the problem isn't with the system, but with the voter? Perhaps the "debacle" isn't with the system or the electee, perhaps the debacle is the electorate. [ April 16, 2003, 20:01: Message edited by: jimbob ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Well the whiners were mostly complaining about senile old people that couldn't figure out how to use the self-explanatory ballot...
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I don't think you can take a single class that most likely is composed of less than 100 children and say that that is proportional to bad election results in an state of millions where only thousands of ballots where off. Percentage wise the number of off ballots was quite small. The problem was that the race was so damn close that those small numbers off could throw it one way or another.
People put way too much emphasis on the whole ballot thing. Missed results etc happen everywhere at almost every election, but it only gets attention when the election is decided because of it. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
But those small numbers ALWAYS threw it TOWARD Bush and not Gore. EVERY vote count and re-count that was done, including by different media outlets at later times said that BUSH was the victor.
And I shudder to think what it would have been like with Gore in the White House after September 11. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Actually, no ballots were off. The recounts never actually came to the conclusion that more than a handful of ballots were miscounted against Gore.
[ April 16, 2003, 20:56: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
The U.S. isn't on a rampage. The U.S. hasn't been on a rampage. Yes the U.S. has done some bad things. And so did Englang, and France, and Germany, and Italy, and Russia, and the Soviet Union, and CHina, and Japan, and Rome, and Persia, and every single other powerful nation in the world that also dealt with weaker nations.
It may be harsh to think of it in those terms but that is the way it has been historically. Stronger nations do have a tendency to be harsh and use strong arm tactics when faced by opposition from weaker opponents. After all if you are the boss and someone beneath you objects to your plan AND you feel that that view point is entirely wrong as a matter of principle... do you just overrule them and use your authority or do you go down and talk it out? In the modern world increasingly you talk it out. But that is a VERY new trend. Historically you use your authority and simply overrule them, often militarily. Personally I think an approach right in the middle of the two is best. You need to apply military power at times. It is unavoidable in the real world. But you also don't want to leave to many hard feelings behind so you need to ballance it out with talk and not just absorbing the others, something which hasn't been done for quite awhile but which Iraq under Sadam tried to do. I feel that the war is justified. Maybe the motivations for it are wrong. But you can do the right things for the wrong reasons, you just have to make sure those wrong reasons don't taint the process. Just for the record I am against Bush I did vote for Gore but I support the War because it is the right thing to do. Getting rid of Sadam that is. Most would consider me a Democrat and I probably am but I also almost always vote for several Republicans because I agree with them in areas. I vote for who I believe is best for the job, it just happens that most of the time that seems to be a Democrat for me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
That was my point. The whole ballot thing in Florida was just blown all out of proportion. If it wasn't for our silly Electoral College system it wouldn't even have been an issue!
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
What was that thing with the United Fruit Company? You may argue that it was not a rampage, and I probably agree. It was more like business. Anyway, whatever the US do will be seen as something evil, because being hated by the rest of the world always comes with the title of superpower. Yes, I agree European countries have done worst, far worst, but that doesn't take the US off the hook. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Do you guys get the new Discovery Times Channel?
Its a co-production between Discovery and the New York Times, and is a little politically incorrect, if you know how to read between lines..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Yesterday they claimed that the US didn't win the Afghan war..... |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
You are right. It doesn't take the U.S. off the hook. And none of the other nations are off the hook yet either. Historical abuses by strong nations of weak nations is probably a leading cause of modern violence against different ethnic, cultural, national, etc Groups in the modern world. Most probably aren't even aware of the ancient reasons. But the grandfather and great-grandfather and great-great-great-great-great-etc... all hated them and they hate us so lets go get em!
People continue to dislike and hate others long after the first reasons for it have been forgotten to all but students of history. But that won't stop em. After all it isn't hard to think up reasons to justify something that you are already doing. Much harder to admit that maybe you were wrong and the other guy might have been right or that just maybe both of you were wrong. After all... if you are wrong what has the point of it all been? And if both are wrong then it was all just a big waste. Much easier to just decieve yourself and say it all has a point and is for X, Y, and Z. Maintain the status quo of humans getting rid of humans for stupid reasons. Can we make things betters? Yes. Will we? I'm not holding my breath, but here is to hoping. *Cheers* Some have called me an optimist and others a pessimist. I tend to think I am a realist with optimistic hopes and pessimistic expectations. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Nope. Never seen the Discovery Times Channel cept in a few commercials. [ April 16, 2003, 22:00: Message edited by: Cyrien ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, I do believe in an object right and wrong, good and evil (go back a page or two for more on this). |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
So even though Bush was selected he certainly didn't have a mandate. Also Bush had a plan in place to challenge the election if the situation had been reversed - where he won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote - so I am not sure where all the moral superiority comes from. The fact of the matter is the vote was a statistical tie and the closeness of the vote highlighted the problems that are in inherant in EVERY election - so the state should have been allowed to make it's own decision instead of having a decision imposed upon it at the federal leve. This would have been consistant with Republican politics and the majority of the court - until of course the election. Also Bush's diplomatic team has been a dismal failure and I am absolutely sure that Gore would have done as good a job if not better. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Intentions are irrelevant. It is who you voted for that matters. And there was nothing at all confusing about any ballot tickets. They were all very self-explanatory and had clear instructions written on them.
And, that statement about more going in with the intent to vote for Gore is mere propaganda. You have absolutely no valid evidence of such a statement. None of my Posts have mentioned anything about moral superiority. Don't insert statements that I never made. [ April 16, 2003, 23:53: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.