Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-01-2005, 11:24 AM   #41 (permalink)
Republican slayer
 
Hardknock's Avatar
 
Location: WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I'm sorry that you are a believer of the myth that gun control lowers violent crime rates. I find no shame in being in a minority opinion when the majority doesn't have a clue what its talking about. The fact that you think removing 'guns' will lower crime is rather frightening. Last I checked guns didn't commit crimes. The success of such a program could only be measured in terms of preventing crime and as such they are failures.

This discussion has been on the boards before and I won't go into it again beyond this.
Maybe we should kill them all. Just like every terrorist in the world that Bush seems to think we can catch.
Hardknock is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 01:00 PM   #42 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Look up your state laws. Many states make certain sex acts illegal. Oral sex is illegal in many of them. Anal is right out in a lot of them. In several (Va for one if I recall correctly) sex in any position but missionary is illegal. So yes, the governments of the US can and does intrude into your bedroom where it has no business being.
The reality of the situation is that such charges are only brought if there are other mitigating factors, and it did NOT occur in private. Why is this? It's because SCOTUS basically said that as long as it's in the bedroom, it's not the government's business. If ANY state tried to prosecute somebody for consentual sex acts between adults that occurred in private, they run the very real risk of having their state law overturned.

Quote:
Wanna bet? What religion is on the 10 commandments monuments outside hundreds of courtrooms? What religious book do you swear on when you're taking the stand in court? Note that our money says "in GOD we trust" not "in Allah" or "in Shiva." Who does the president always ask to bless the USA? This government is christian, it wants to endorse christianity, and any other religion can just take a hike. I have yet to see the 5 pillars of Islam on a monument outside a courtroom. . .
The 10 commandments are vital to three of the world's largest religions, and YES, they are still valid under Islam. And when peopletake the stand in court, they are given the option of "affirming" instead of swearing. "God" is a non-specific deity. "Shiva" is a very specific deity.

Quote:
Ahh yes, the typical irresponsible "I'm the only one that matters" response. I'd prefer it if my grand children and their children didn't have to deal with the environmental destruction we're busy causing right now. Just because it won't happen next Tuesday doesn't mean you don't have the responsibility to prevent it.
So you feel a responsibility to manage your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
grandchildren's lives? Did you ever consider that maybe they don't WANT your meddlesomeness? If that's the standard we're going to use, hey, the Sun's expansion is eventually going to destroy the Earth. WHY AREN'T YOU FIXING THAT???

Quote:
Since when, outside of Monty Python's "Meaning of Life" has a drug company EVER tried to do that to an American citizen? You don't seriously equate medial research to being disemboweled do you?
Ever hear of the Tuskeegee experiment? Didn't think so...


Quote:
Actually your party is forcing the issue. Carter tried to institute renewable energy solutions (solar, wind) back in the 70's. Reagan put a stop to that right quick when he took office. And now your party wants to push hydrogen powered cars, which are the biggest crock of crap to hit the automotive scene since turbocharged minivans. It takes more power to get the hydrogen than you get FROM the hydrogen, so that's not a good energy source. But they're pushing it because, surprise!, hydrogen comes from the methane found in oil wells. And it's easier and cheaper to get the methane than it is to get the oil, so the oil companies stand to profit even more than they already do. When you get right down to it, these hydrogen cars are nothing more than another sneaky trick being used to make rich people richer.
"It's all those evil damned Corporations and the Bourgoise, keepin the Proletariat DOWN. BLOOD IN THE STREETS! Death To America!" Oops, sorry. I was channelling again. Like I said, if you don't like it, fine. You are free to build the better mousetrap. If your work has merit, society will financially reward you for it.

Quote:
And I for one want a government that's less interested in that than they are in trying to make life better for EVERYONE, not just people with 7 figure incomes.
Oh, yeah, I forgot all about the concentration camps for the poor...How silly of me. In terms of raw dollars spent, what has happened to the social welfare programs since Bush took office? Has spending decreased over what they were during the Clinton years?
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 01:03 PM   #43 (permalink)
lascivious
 
Mantus's Avatar
 
Ustwo is corect. Gun control is yet another favorite American pastime of trying to alleviate the symptoms rather then preventing the disease.

There is less political risk in focusing on the short term and treating the symptom rather then the long term and fighting the cause. Thus our country has been burried in a quagmire of half-assed political decisions that always cost us more and solve absolutely nothing.
Mantus is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 01:08 PM   #44 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
They were used successfully in the past in both Australia and the UK after gun-toting crazies massacred innocents.

Mr Mephisto

Ummm, WRONG. They were not gun buybacks, they were gun CONFISCATIONS. Are you advocating confiscation of guns in America?

Have you seen what has happened in England and Wales afterwards? Did the raw numbers OR rates of gun crime decrease? No matter how you look at it, gun crime in the UK has skyrocketed since the ban, Scopes be damned.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...l&siteid=50143
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/14919.shtml

this last one is fascinating, given that ALL handguns were confiscated by the Government in 1997, IIRC.
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 01:16 PM   #45 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Fourtyrulz's Avatar
 
Location: io-where?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Since when, outside of Monty Python's "Meaning of Life" has a drug company EVER tried to do that to an American citizen? You don't seriously equate medial research to being disemboweled do you?
Ever hear of the Tuskeegee experiment? Didn't think so...
The Tuskegee experiment was perpetrated and approved by the United States government, not a private drug company. If anything, this should assert the point that governments don't always have their citizens best interests in mind when meddling with health care.
__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary
Fourtyrulz is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 01:18 PM   #46 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenmaster10665
Climate change IS occuring. Just because Rush Limbaugh and some conservatives with their hands in the oil-wealth pie can dig up a few scientists that contest this doesn't change the fact that global temperatures are rising at an abnormal rate. I went to university for Meteorology, I know that we are in a serious situation...besides, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution and the rest of the world rather than isolating ourselves further??
So, how long have we been keeping track of temperatures? Doesn't the Earth have a normal warming/cooling cycle? Isn't that what the ice ages were? You're looking at MAX a couple of hundred years of data, much of it suspect, and drawing grand conclusions which simply are not supported by all of the evidence. As for the rest of the world, they can kiss my...Democratic Party emblem.

Quote:
Ridiculous analogy. There are no viable options for someone to live in this society without petrochemicals. Our entire infrastructure is based upon it, from the fertiliser used to produce our foods to the fuel you put in your car to drive to that starbucks. I personally would prefer not to have a Starbucks on every corner, but that is for a different thread. There is no (logical) way of living completely without petrochemicals at this time...in my opinion we will all be forced to find a viable alternative when oil reaches 80 and the 100 dollars in the near future, but wouldnt it be nice if the US government were actually proactive for once??
Sure there is, I know people who do it. True, they live in caves deep in national forest land, and eat what they can find, but they consume almost no petrochemicals in any form. You say the government should be proactive. Where is the constitutional authority for them to do so?

Quote:
The US government knows that a oil crisis is imminent...it is even running simulations of the disaster....
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story....0GTu0nftKfssu8
The government warplays all kinds of bizarre scenarios. That's why they have a General Staff. Are you saying that ANY scenario that the Government warplays is actually going to happen?

Quote:
Just because the US Government (and the conservatives) close their collective eyes and pretend that things are not happening does not mean that they will go away...they only get worse.
Just because the Liberals scream and rend their garments doesn't mean that we're all going to die by next Tuesday unless we give them whatever they need for their latest cockamamie scheme.
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 01:58 PM   #47 (permalink)
Bokonist
 
Location: Location, Location, Location...
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
So, how long have we been keeping track of temperatures? Doesn't the Earth have a normal warming/cooling cycle? Isn't that what the ice ages were? You're looking at MAX a couple of hundred years of data, much of it suspect, and drawing grand conclusions which simply are not supported by all of the evidence.
The problem is that the cooling/warming cycle of the earth is not being followed...the earth is warming at a much higher rate than normal. If you studied this, you would understand the difference. I have. I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
As for the rest of the world, they can kiss my...Democratic Party emblem.
I dont think this needs any rebuttal. A statement like this only comes from someone who doesn't understand the rest of the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenoose
Sure there is, I know people who do it. True, they live in caves deep in national forest land, and eat what they can find, but they consume almost no petrochemicals in any form.
Right. I am not advocating a move to agrarian society, I am advocating a change in thought that supports sustainable energy rather than reliance on the middle east and other oil-bearing nations. 250 million people living in caves? I don't think there are enough to go around.


Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
You say the government should be proactive. Where is the constitutional authority for them to do so?
The US government has all the authority that they need to push thru energy reform. The fact of the matter is that there are too many people making too much money from the current situation for there to be any changes made.



Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
The government warplays all kinds of bizarre scenarios. That's why they have a General Staff. Are you saying that ANY scenario that the Government warplays is actually going to happen?
No, but I would suggeest that you look at the predictions of M. King Hubbert, who predicted the US soverign oil peak in the 1970's.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/

Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
Just because the Liberals scream and rend their garments doesn't mean that we're all going to die by next Tuesday unless we give them whatever they need for their latest cockamamie scheme.
This makes me yawn. I am not a liberal or a democrat. I AM a concerned National of the US, a resident of the UK and a citizen of the world...and it is short-sighted views like this that need to be addressed by the industrial nations of the world, not jus the USA.

"Dont worry, be happy" Right?


...Right??
__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut
zenmaster10665 is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 02:39 PM   #48 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenmaster10665
I dont think this needs any rebuttal. A statement like this only comes from someone who doesn't understand the rest of the world.
Wrong. I do understand the rest of the world, I just don't think that the rest of the world should be involved in OUR domestic policy. Our government was not elected to make the rest of the world happy, it was elected to take care of US.

Quote:
The US government has all the authority that they need to push thru energy reform. The fact of the matter is that there are too many people making too much money from the current situation for there to be any changes made.
If this is true, then you will have no problem citing the part of the US Constitution that is operable, right?

Quote:
No, but I would suggeest that you look at the predictions of M. King Hubbert, who predicted the US soverign oil peak in the 1970's.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
Why don't we look at the predictions of Nostradamus and base our policy on that then?

Quote:
This makes me yawn. I am not a liberal or a democrat. I AM a concerned National of the US, a resident of the UK and a citizen of the world...and it is short-sighted views like this that need to be addressed by the industrial nations of the world, not jus the USA.
So you have a "world passport"?

We have a right to have what you term "short-sighted views". We have a right to base our own governmental policies on what is best for US. If you don't like it? Well, sorry about that...
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 02:59 PM   #49 (permalink)
Psycho
 
connyosis's Avatar
 
Location: Sweden - Land of the sodomite damned
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
Wrong. I do understand the rest of the world, I just don't think that the rest of the world should be involved in OUR domestic policy. Our government was not elected to make the rest of the world happy, it was elected to take care of US.
Yeah but see, when your domestic policies affects the rest of the world, then we have the right to bitch at you. Simple as that.
__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
connyosis is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 04:02 PM   #50 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
Wrong. I do understand the rest of the world, I just don't think that the rest of the world should be involved in OUR domestic policy. Our government was not elected to make the rest of the world happy, it was elected to take care of US.



If this is true, then you will have no problem citing the part of the US Constitution that is operable, right?



Why don't we look at the predictions of Nostradamus and base our policy on that then?



So you have a "world passport"?

We have a right to have what you term "short-sighted views". We have a right to base our own governmental policies on what is best for US. If you don't like it? Well, sorry about that...
Attitudes like yours are what makes us looked upon as bullies or the wife beating husband...... and sadly what also makes us terrorist targets. IT IS NOT THE USA'S PLANET, it is every country's planet and if their agenda affects us, we slam them and expect them to change, the world community has the right to do so with us if we affect them in negative ways with our agendas that affect them in negative ways.

One of these days soon, we may need help from one of these countries you so laugh at and they will in turn laugh back at you.

May I need remind you that the poorer nations and the nations we aggitate towards hating us (with those "better and holier than thoy attitudes" so many these days seem to have in regard to foreign relations), are growing and are far younger and hungrier than us.

We may have nukes but that maybe all we have someday and eventually the nukes won't scare them.

If you think we are untouchable and that we are invincible that no country will ever take us down, ask Napolean, Rome, Stalin, Hitler at their height who would take them down.

Wars are won by who is the hungriest and has the least to lose.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 04:58 PM   #51 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Wars are won by who is the hungriest and has the least to lose.
And here I thought they were won by the "biggest and best battallions".

Other countries are able to tell the US to fuck off. Remember "Yankee go home"? So why don't we have the right to tell them to fuck off too? What's fair is fair, and if they can do it, we can do it too.

If they don't want our help, that's fine. They can remember that when the next Stalin or Hitler comes along. We'll see how much they enjoy the Communist Chinese system, and how thankful their families are when the government sends them the bill for the bullet.
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 04:58 PM   #52 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by connyosis
Yeah but see, when your domestic policies affects the rest of the world, then we have the right to bitch at you. Simple as that.
And we have the right to tell you where exactly to get off. Case in point: the Presidential election of 2004.
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 05:09 PM   #53 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
Ummm, WRONG. They were not gun buybacks, they were gun CONFISCATIONS. Are you advocating confiscation of guns in America?
And people were compensated. You're arguing pedantics.

And, as I said before, I am not adocating confiscation of guns in America. You guys can shoot the fuck out of each other and anything that moves for all I care.

What I AM advocating is that you stop trying to recommend the reintroduction of privately held firearms into the UK, Ireland and Australia (the three countries mentioned by myself) against the wishes of the vast majority of people.

Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 05:14 PM   #54 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
And people were compensated. You're arguing pedantics.

And, as I said before, I am not adocating confiscation of guns in America. You guys can shoot the fuck out of each other and anything that moves for all I care.

What I AM advocating is that you stop trying to recommend the reintroduction of privately held firearms into the UK, Ireland and Australia (the three countries mentioned by myself) against the wishes of the vast majority of people.

Mr Mephisto
Where have I advocated that? If the people there are willing to live as slaves, what business is it of mine? It just means I will not move there (or intentionally visit there). And I understand that they are very NICE manacles....gold-plated, and lined with fake fur...
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 06:47 PM   #55 (permalink)
Minion of the scaléd ones
 
Tophat665's Avatar
 
Location: Northeast Jesusland

Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
Wrong. I do understand the rest of the world, I just don't think that the rest of the world should be involved in OUR domestic policy. Our government was not elected to make the rest of the world happy, it was elected to take care of US.
Tell it to the Iraqis, mate. While you're at it, you may want to see what the Nicaraguans, Mexicans, Salvadorans, Iranians, Cubans, Chileans, and Phillipinos think about how well we have stayed out of their domestic policies.

And a fine job our government is doing taking care of us too. Global warming is a fine thing for now. So is gasoline nearly triple the price it was three years ago. Creating all those new terrorists has provided many an opportunity for a military career for promising young men and women. And, of course, paying quadruple the going global rates for prescription drugs and sugar makes me feel quite well cared for.

Quote:
Why don't we look at the predictions of Nostradamus and base our policy on that then?
Because he was French. Duh!

Actually, the fact that peak oil continues to recede does not mean that we will not catch up at some point. I will grant easily that we have more than enough oil left to continue using it for a very long time, but it will get progressivly more expensive, and, let's face it, since we stay out of the domestic affairs of other sovreign nations, we'll never have any problems with it being under the land of people who would be very happy to see our economy in shambles.

Quote:
We have a right to have what you term "short-sighted views". We have a right to base our own governmental policies on what is best for US.
You can't honestly say you don't see the glaring contradiction in that, can you? I mean, last I checked, the United States is still on the same planet as the rest of the world. I mean, other than in the White House.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Tophat665 is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 08:10 PM   #56 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tophat665
Tell it to the Iraqis, mate. While you're at it, you may want to see what the Nicaraguans, Mexicans, Salvadorans, Iranians, Cubans, Chileans, and Phillipinos think about how well we have stayed out of their domestic policies.
You can't have it both ways. Either the US needs to play "World Police", or we don't. If we DON'T, then whenever somebody foreign does something we don't think is kosher to us, expect us to bomb them. Why? Because it's the only way we'll have left to change their minds. America has tried to help damn near EVERYBODY on the planet at one point or another. You don't get the carrot without the stick. And frankly, the carrot is looking kinda wilted now...
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 09:21 PM   #57 (permalink)
Republican slayer
 
Hardknock's Avatar
 
Location: WA
Quote:
And we have the right to tell you where exactly to get off. Case in point: the Presidential election of 2004.
I don't think that there's any hope for this guy. For some reason he think that he can have his cake and eat it too. Tell the world to fuck off if they don't agree to our policies and at te same time, beg them to produce more oil?!? I don't see the logic in that one.

Quote:
And here I thought they were won by the "biggest and best battallions".
This biggest and the best isn't necessarily going to cut it. Our "best" can't even defeat a bunch of suicide boming thugs. How do you think that this mindset wins wars?

Quote:
Wrong. I do understand the rest of the world, I just don't think that the rest of the world should be involved in OUR domestic policy. Our government was not elected to make the rest of the world happy, it was elected to take care of US.
But we have the right to invade others becasue, per your logic, someone said "death to america!" But you are right, they were elected to take care of us. Too bad that they don't.

It's obvious that no one is going to change your mind that the "war" policy is the best way to go. We'll just see where we end up becasue of it.
Hardknock is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 02:15 AM   #58 (permalink)
Psycho
 
connyosis's Avatar
 
Location: Sweden - Land of the sodomite damned
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
And we have the right to tell you where exactly to get off. Case in point: the Presidential election of 2004.
Great. So you're saying that the rest of the world has the right to complain, but you wont listen anyway? Brilliant strategy I must say.
__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
connyosis is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 03:42 AM   #59 (permalink)
Bokonist
 
Location: Location, Location, Location...
Quote:
America has tried to help damn near EVERYBODY on the planet at one point or another.
America has tried to help some people on the planet when its own best interests were at heart.

Just like every other country in the world.

Is anyone helping the people of Zimbabwe? What about Darfur?

The US cannot and should not play "World Police" that is for an organisation like the UN. (Which is in dire need of reform to put some teeth back in its enforcement capabilities.)
__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut
zenmaster10665 is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 04:13 AM   #60 (permalink)
Minion of the scaléd ones
 
Tophat665's Avatar
 
Location: Northeast Jesusland
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
You can't have it both ways. Either the US needs to play "World Police", or we don't. If we DON'T, then whenever somebody foreign does something we don't think is kosher to us, expect us to bomb them. Why? Because it's the only way we'll have left to change their minds. America has tried to help damn near EVERYBODY on the planet at one point or another. You don't get the carrot without the stick. And frankly, the carrot is looking kinda wilted now...
Precisely, you can't have it both ways. If we want to be a global power for justice, which would be the only justification for the clusterfucks we have generated in the countries I cited, then we need to act in a global context. That would mean, at the very least, listening to and weighing the concerns of the global community. Kerry (who is a douchebag but for whom I voted anyway), mentioned a global test, to Karl Rove's unholy glee, but that is just what he was talking about: If we want to play world police, and apparently we have wanted to do so, then we need to attend to the fraud, embezzlement, and thievery as well as the murder, burglary, and domestic disturbances. Unfortunately, we seem to be dealing only with the latter, which are largely foreign in origin, rsther than the former, much of which (not all, but a goodly chunk) have their genesis closer to home.

So which planet are we on, my friend?

Incidentally, that was a nifty argument, but it works both ways.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Tophat665 is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 04:25 AM   #61 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
And here I thought they were won by the "biggest and best battallions".
Again ask Napolean, Hitler, Rome they all had the biggest and best battallions and they all lost. Ask the USSR in Afghanistan, ask the us in Korea and Vietnam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
Other countries are able to tell the US to fuck off. Remember "Yankee go home"? So why don't we have the right to tell them to fuck off too? What's fair is fair, and if they can do it, we can do it too.
Yeah but I don't see Iraqis or Australians, Brits or Germans interfering with our domestic policies, do you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
If they don't want our help, that's fine. They can remember that when the next Stalin or Hitler comes along. We'll see how much they enjoy the Communist Chinese system, and how thankful their families are when the government sends them the bill for the bullet.
Ah, but we're having our troops buy their gear are we not? And right now to at least the vast majority of the world, we look to be the next Stalin and Hitler...... and with the "fuck everyone else in the world and fuck the Dems, fuck the gays, fuck the non-Christians, fuck everyone who questions Bush" attitudes I see here, I wonder if we aren't.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 04:31 AM   #62 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Let's step back a second and look at Moosenose's arguments, because they are a classic example of how the Republicans are whipping the hell out of the Democrats.

He says (paraphrasing all of these) "Other countries don't have the right to interfere with our domestic policy"

So we say "But we're interfereing with the domestic policy of all these countries"

And then he says "You can't have it both ways. Either we can be the world police or we can't."


Now if you look at that example Moosenose is neatly shifting the topic of the argument while appearing to keep arguing the same thing. At first the argument was about whether or not OTHER countries have the right to be annoyed with the US for crapping out the environment. He didn't think so which is fine.

But when we pointed out that we seem to think we have the right to tell those other countries how to run THEIR governments, he rebutted with something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic. Complete shift in argument.


Now you might be asking why this is important, and it's here that I want to make it clear I'm not singling out Moosenose. See, this is a tactic used by just about every member of Bush's cabinet during press conferences, and it's one widely used by republicans in general, and frankly it's a brilliant one. You can continue to make it sound like you're arguing one point when in fact you're arguing something completely different. This makes it easy to dupe the public into thinking you think one way when in fact you think the opposite. If you came right out and said it (in this example, "I don't think anyone can tell us what to do, but we can certainly tell everyone else what to do because we're big and strong") people would object. But if you couch it in the right terms, people won't get it, and they'll support you.

It's this kind of debate that is why the Republican political machine is so successful: They're willing to do and say anything necessary to get elected, whether it's deceitful or not.

And it's this kind of debate that the public, and especially the democrats, need to be aware of if they want to have a prayer of ending the current dangerous political situaiton.
shakran is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 04:43 AM   #63 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Let's step back a second and look at Moosenose's arguments, because they are a classic example of how the Republicans are whipping the hell out of the Democrats.

He says (paraphrasing all of these) "Other countries don't have the right to interfere with our domestic policy"

So we say "But we're interfereing with the domestic policy of all these countries"

And then he says "You can't have it both ways. Either we can be the world police or we can't."


Now if you look at that example Moosenose is neatly shifting the topic of the argument while appearing to keep arguing the same thing. At first the argument was about whether or not OTHER countries have the right to be annoyed with the US for crapping out the environment. He didn't think so which is fine.

But when we pointed out that we seem to think we have the right to tell those other countries how to run THEIR governments, he rebutted with something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic. Complete shift in argument.


Now you might be asking why this is important, and it's here that I want to make it clear I'm not singling out Moosenose. See, this is a tactic used by just about every member of Bush's cabinet during press conferences, and it's one widely used by republicans in general, and frankly it's a brilliant one. You can continue to make it sound like you're arguing one point when in fact you're arguing something completely different. This makes it easy to dupe the public into thinking you think one way when in fact you think the opposite. If you came right out and said it (in this example, "I don't think anyone can tell us what to do, but we can certainly tell everyone else what to do because we're big and strong") people would object. But if you couch it in the right terms, people won't get it, and they'll support you.

It's this kind of debate that is why the Republican political machine is so successful: They're willing to do and say anything necessary to get elected, whether it's deceitful or not.

And it's this kind of debate that the public, and especially the democrats, need to be aware of if they want to have a prayer of ending the current dangerous political situaiton.
Very good read, Shakran. Informative, educational and extremely truthful.

The question is how do we keep the people focussed while the other side tends to lead them down the rosier road, saying what the people want to hear but doing the opposite?
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 09:31 AM   #64 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
Where have I advocated that? If the people there are willing to live as slaves, what business is it of mine? It just means I will not move there (or intentionally visit there). And I understand that they are very NICE manacles....gold-plated, and lined with fake fur...
What on EARTH are you talking about?

You're actually babbling now...


Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 09:02 PM   #65 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardknock
This biggest and the best isn't necessarily going to cut it. Our "best" can't even defeat a bunch of suicide boming thugs. How do you think that this mindset wins wars?
Ah, there's where you are wrong. We could defeat the suicide bombing thugs, we just lack the political will to do so. Ever read Tacitus? There's already a desert there...

Their weak points are the Madrassas or however you spell it. They are virtually suicide bomber incubators. Shut them down by whatever means are necessary, and a lot of the problem goes away.

Quote:
But we have the right to invade others becasue, per your logic, someone said "death to america!" But you are right, they were elected to take care of us. Too bad that they don't.

It's obvious that no one is going to change your mind that the "war" policy is the best way to go. We'll just see where we end up becasue of it.
"Death to America" has been the official Iranian State policy since the fall of the Shah. The level of rhetoric alone coming from them is casus belli, even if you completely ignore their internationally illegal attempts to produce nuclear weapons.
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 09:07 PM   #66 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenmaster10665
America has tried to help some people on the planet when its own best interests were at heart.

Just like every other country in the world.

Is anyone helping the people of Zimbabwe? What about Darfur?

The US cannot and should not play "World Police" that is for an organisation like the UN. (Which is in dire need of reform to put some teeth back in its enforcement capabilities.)
So we should invade Zimbabwe? OK, I'm game for that. Of course, as soon as we did, the people who now are saying "you should invade zimbabwe" will be out on the streets alleging absolutely anything they can dream up to smear the US military.

Anybody who would want to put ANY military power into the hands of the UN is either ignorant of very recent history or just a plain old fool. "Srebrenica" ring a bell? Anyone? Anyone?
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 09:18 PM   #67 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Again ask Napolean, Hitler, Rome they all had the biggest and best battallions and they all lost. Ask the USSR in Afghanistan, ask the us in Korea and Vietnam.
Napoleon had big battalions, but they were unprepared for the climate. Hitler never had 1/10th of the manpower under arms that the Soviets did. At the start of Barbarossa, IIRC, the German side of the line was held by 1 million men, the offensive forces were around 1.5 million men (something like 2.5 million total on the eastern front and in support) and they were facing over 15 million russian men on the front line ALONE, not counting reinforcements in-theater. During the first 30 days of Barbarossa, the Germans killed or captured FAR more Soviet troops than the combined number of German and their allied troops in theater. When Rome fell, it most certainly did NOT have the biggest and best battalions. their military was a pale shadow of what it had been.

Quote:
Yeah but I don't see Iraqis or Australians, Brits or Germans interfering with our domestic policies, do you?
Well, the North Koreans endorsed Kerry, yes? What do you think the huge anti-american protests overseas were about? Hell, what do you think the various european and australian anti-gun groups are doing now?

Quote:
Ah, but we're having our troops buy their gear are we not? And right now to at least the vast majority of the world, we look to be the next Stalin and Hitler...... and with the "fuck everyone else in the world and fuck the Dems, fuck the gays, fuck the non-Christians, fuck everyone who questions Bush" attitudes I see here, I wonder if we aren't.
Actually, no. There was talk of obtaining black berets from Communist China, but a federal law forbade it. They ended up being made in the USA, and just being phased in more slowly. BTW, I certainly have not said "fuck the gays" or "fuck the non-christians" or "fuck everyone who questions Bush". I don't think I've said "fuck everyone else in the world" or "fuck the Dems". And if the world choses to see us as the next Hitler and/or Stalin, hey, that's their right. They can enjoy becoming vassals or slaves of the Communist Chinese, just like the Tibetans. Find some nice Eastern Europeans to talk to, and offer them the choice of being an American ally or a Communist Chinese ally, and see what they say.
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 09:30 PM   #68 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Let's step back a second and look at Moosenose's arguments, because they are a classic example of how the Republicans are whipping the hell out of the Democrats.
Ohh, yay. I feel special. And NO, NOT in a "short bus" sense.

Quote:
He says (paraphrasing all of these) "Other countries don't have the right to interfere with our domestic policy"

So we say "But we're interfereing with the domestic policy of all these countries"

And then he says "You can't have it both ways. Either we can be the world police or we can't."
actually, I was leaning more towards their FOREIGN policy. I don't give a rat's ass about their DOMESTIC policy, unless it affects their FOREIGN policy and how it applies to us. If the goverment is domestically encouraging their people to chant "Death to America" while domestically providing shelter and funding for terrorists whose goal is to attack the US, THEN it's something that we should be concerned about. If, on the other hand, their domestic policy says "we will all drive on what the Americans say is the wrong side of the road", then it's none of our business.

Quote:
Now if you look at that example Moosenose is neatly shifting the topic of the argument while appearing to keep arguing the same thing. At first the argument was about whether or not OTHER countries have the right to be annoyed with the US for crapping out the environment. He didn't think so which is fine.
Annoyed? Sure, they can be annoyed. If you're annoyed, you don't send people Christmas or Hannukah or Ramadan or Whatever cards. Being "annoyed" does NOT encompass threatening the US. That's no longer "being annoyed", that's "committing an act of war". Subtle distinction there.

Quote:
But when we pointed out that we seem to think we have the right to tell those other countries how to run THEIR governments, he rebutted with something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic. Complete shift in argument.
We have a right to become highly pissed when they commit an act of war against us.

Quote:
Now you might be asking why this is important, and it's here that I want to make it clear I'm not singling out Moosenose.
So, by singling out me specifically at least four times before this comment, you're NOT singling out me? Why am I reminded of an Orwell quote here?

Last edited by moosenose; 07-02-2005 at 09:32 PM..
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 09:36 PM   #69 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
The question is how do we keep the people focussed while the other side tends to lead them down the rosier road, saying what the people want to hear but doing the opposite?
Well, you can always just lie to them. Hey, it's worked before...

Mods: no disrespect is intended, I'm just trying to inject some humor into the situation. If I was trying to be disrespectful, I'd have given specific examples, all drawn from a single party, while ignoring examples from other parties.
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 09:52 PM   #70 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
So we should invade Zimbabwe? OK, I'm game for that. Of course, as soon as we did, the people who now are saying "you should invade zimbabwe" will be out on the streets alleging absolutely anything they can dream up to smear the US military.

Anybody who would want to put ANY military power into the hands of the UN is either ignorant of very recent history or just a plain old fool. "Srebrenica" ring a bell? Anyone? Anyone?
The UN seems to have a track record that is overwhelmingly positive. What is more, the military monitoring and peace keeping missions that the world body chooses to fund and participate in seem to have less to do with geo-political and resource driven, self interest, than the places that the U.S.focuses on.
If the U.N. did not do it, it probably would not get done. It seems that as the integrity of the reputation of the U.S. deteriorates in the eyes of much of the rest of the world, the UN, in comparison, seems more welcome and influential.
Quote:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/bnote.htm
United Nations Peacekeeping Operations

Peacekeeping Operations since 1948: 60
Current Operations: 16

UNIFIL
Since March 1978
United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon
Strength: military 2,063; international civilian 104; local civilian 290
Fatalities: 250
Approved budget 07/04–06/05: $92.96 million (gross)

MINURSO
Since April 1991
United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara
Strength: military 226; civilian police 6; international civilian 124; local civilian 99
Fatalities: 10
Approved budget 07/04–06/05: $44.00 million (gross)

UNOMIG
Since August 1993
United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia
Strength: military 120; civilian police 10; international civilian 102; local civilian 181
Fatalities: 7
Approved budget 07/04–06/05: $31.93 million (gross)

UNMIK
Since June 1999
United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo
Strength: civilian police 2,709; military 36; international civilian 695; local civilian 2,636; UN volunteer 212
Fatalities: 33
Approved budget 07/04–06/05: $294.63 million (gross)

UNAMSIL
Since October 1999
United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone
Strength: military 3,371; civilian police 79; international civilian 228; local civilian 471; UN volunteer 92
Fatalities: 162
Approved budget 07/04–06/05: $291.60 million (gross)

MONUC
Since November 1999
United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Strength: military 15,901; civilian police 162; international civilian 753; local civilian 1,245; UN volunteer 469
Fatalities: 56
Approved budget 07/04–06/05: $957.83 million (gross)

UNMEE
Since July 2000
United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea
Strength: military 3,329; international civilian 247; local civilian 251; UN volunteer 79
Fatalities: 8
Approved budget 07/04–06/05: $205.33 million (gross)

UNMIL
Since September 2003
United Nations Mission in Liberia
Strength: military 14,820; civilian police 1,060; international civilian 505; local civilian 730; UN volunteer 442
Fatalities: 40
Approved budget 07/04–06/05: $822.11 million (gross)

UNOCI
Since April 2004
United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire
Current strength: military 6,038; civilian police 218; international civilian: 289; local civilian 266; UN volunteer 101
Fatalities: 3
Approved budget 07/04–06/05: $378.47 million (gross)

MINUSTAH
1 June 2004
United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti
Current strength: military 6,207; civilian police 1,437; international civilian 422; local civilian 800; UN volunteer 139
Fatalities: 7
Approved budget 07/04–06/05: $379.05 million (gross)

ONUB
1 June 2004
United Nations Operation in Burundi
Current strength: military 5,363; civilian police 106; international civilian 326; local civilian 335; UN volunteer 142
Fatalities: 10
Approved budget 07/04–06/05: $329.71 million (gross)

UNMIS
Since March 2005
United Nations Mission in the Sudan
Strength:
Authorized -- military 10,000, civilian police 715; Proposed -- international civilian 1,018; local civilian 2,632;
UN volunteer 214
Current strength: military 432; civilian police 26; international civilian 385; local civilian 421; UN Volunteers 25
Commitment authority 07/04–06/05: $279.50 million (gross)
Please consider the example that is being set by these two past presidents.
Their evolving friendship would not be possible if they could not put aside the disagreements, grievances, and rivalry that once separated them:
Quote:
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/ne...8clinton.shtml
Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Clinton wows the crowds

By JOSIE HUANG, Portland Press Herald Writer

............... Beaming and trim in a bright orange Polo shirt and slacks, Clinton next headed down to Kennebunkport to visit Bush at his summer home and enjoy some golf and boating.

Clinton said this would be his second visit to Walker's Point. In 1983, when Bush was vice president, Bush hosted Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, and other governors at the seaside estate. Clinton would go on to defeat Bush in the presidential election nine years later.

The two became friends when they led U.S. fund-raising efforts for victims of the Asian tsunami. Talking to reporters at Borders, Clinton said he hoped their friendship would "put politics back where it belongs - an argument over ideas and policies and issues, and not attacks on people."

His newly cozy relationship with the Bush family was evident as he joked about how Bush's wife, Barbara, called him "son" recently at a Houston event.

"It seems to me that I ought to try to get her to adopt Hillary - our odds would improve," Clinton said of his wife, a U.S. senator from New York who is expected to be a presidential candidate......................
host is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 10:04 PM   #71 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
The UN seems to have a track record that is overwhelmingly positive. What is more, the military monitoring and peace keeping missions that the world body chooses to fund and participate in seem to have less to do with geo-political and resource driven, self interest, than the places that the U.S.focuses on.
If the U.N. did not do it, it probably would not get done. It seems that as the integrity of the reputation of the U.S. deteriorates in the eyes of much of the rest of the world, the UN, in comparison, seems more welcome and influential.
I think that would depend on if you talked to one of the few surviving Bosnian Muslim men from around Srebrenica, or one of the survivors of Rwanda, or survivors of the other various FUBARed UN "peacekeeping" missions or UN-allowed genocides or other UN related atrocities (remember the UN troops raping children a while back?), or talked to the "other side" in those conflicts.

BTW, has the UN issued a resolution telling member states to invade Zimbabwe to stop what is happening there yet?

Oh, and BTW....those UN figures you cite, with fatalities listed? Those are UN fatalities, NOT ALL fatalities, which often were several orders of magnitude higher. "yeah, we only lost X people" sounds a lot better than "yeah, we only lost X people, but 800,000 of the people we were there to protect got massacred, but hey, did we mention we only lost X people???"

Last edited by moosenose; 07-02-2005 at 10:23 PM..
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 11:35 PM   #72 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Again ask Napolean, Hitler, Rome they all had the biggest and best battallions and they all lost. Ask the USSR in Afghanistan, ask the us in Korea and Vietnam.
Neither Napoleon nor Hilter had the biggest or best battallions at the end of the conflicts they were defeated in. The forces allied against each were far more numerous than either had. And both made several severe strategic miscalculations that allowed for their higher quality units to be wasted in inefficent ways.

Rome was destroyed because the military and gov't weren't up to the task of controlling the vast area it claimed at the end of the empire. In essence, it collapsed under it's own weight.

In Afghanistan, Korea, and Vietnam the "hungrier" side had support from outside, giving more weight behind their hunger. Also, the US kept N. Korean dictators from taking over S. Korea. And the same could have been done in Vietnam, had the military been allowed to use its full force.

So, no your examples don't support your claim.

Last edited by alansmithee; 07-02-2005 at 11:57 PM..
alansmithee is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 11:51 PM   #73 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Let's step back a second and look at Moosenose's arguments, because they are a classic example of how the Republicans are whipping the hell out of the Democrats.

He says (paraphrasing all of these) "Other countries don't have the right to interfere with our domestic policy"

So we say "But we're interfereing with the domestic policy of all these countries"

And then he says "You can't have it both ways. Either we can be the world police or we can't."


Now if you look at that example Moosenose is neatly shifting the topic of the argument while appearing to keep arguing the same thing. At first the argument was about whether or not OTHER countries have the right to be annoyed with the US for crapping out the environment. He didn't think so which is fine.

But when we pointed out that we seem to think we have the right to tell those other countries how to run THEIR governments, he rebutted with something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic. Complete shift in argument.


Now you might be asking why this is important, and it's here that I want to make it clear I'm not singling out Moosenose. See, this is a tactic used by just about every member of Bush's cabinet during press conferences, and it's one widely used by republicans in general, and frankly it's a brilliant one. You can continue to make it sound like you're arguing one point when in fact you're arguing something completely different. This makes it easy to dupe the public into thinking you think one way when in fact you think the opposite. If you came right out and said it (in this example, "I don't think anyone can tell us what to do, but we can certainly tell everyone else what to do because we're big and strong") people would object. But if you couch it in the right terms, people won't get it, and they'll support you.

It's this kind of debate that is why the Republican political machine is so successful: They're willing to do and say anything necessary to get elected, whether it's deceitful or not.

And it's this kind of debate that the public, and especially the democrats, need to be aware of if they want to have a prayer of ending the current dangerous political situaiton.
1. Democrats do the same thing, just less effectively. They are just as willing to say whatever it takes to win. It's just that at this time people are less receptive to the line Dems are taking. Its also this kind of willful ignorance to their own side's flaws that makes many people not buy what Dems say. Also, it would be interesting to see why this political situation is "dangerous".

2. And I don't see why many people wouldn't buy "I don't think anyone can tell us what to do, but we can certainly tell everyone else what to do because we're big and strong". It's true. It's how things work. You just have to hope that the people who are "big and strong" aren't also totally looking out for their own self interest. And that's another thing that separates liberals/dems from conservatives/republicans: liberals are all to ready to condemn America as a source of evil in the world, whereas the others think that America is generally a good place. And this is another reason most people don't buy the liberal line-they don't believe that the place that allowed them the freedoms they have, and the relative prosperity they have is this great evil empire bent on destroying the world. For instance, look at many of the threads on this board, or posts in this thread even. If America were actually so anti-freedom, would these exist? Many places in the world currently have limited internet access in their countries, so it's entirely possible to do. Yet many liberals here would have you believe that we are living in a world line 1984, with Big Brother replaced with Karl Rove (at least now. Before people recognised that name, Cheney was the "puppetmaster". I wonder who the next "puppetmaster" will be in '08). The very fact that the OP feels comfortable with sending letters to politicians complaining about so-called lack of freedoms should be a clue that things aren't half as bad as what liberals want people to think.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 07-03-2005, 04:01 AM   #74 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Fourtyrulz's Avatar
 
Location: io-where?
Quote:
Their weak points are the Madrassas or however you spell it. They are virtually suicide bomber incubators. Shut them down by whatever means are necessary, and a lot of the problem goes away.
That would make the problem even worse, and would give a solid foundation to the claim that Christian America is trying to destroy Islam. A madrasa is the Muslim equivalent of a Christian Academy, where you go for religious education. Forcefully shutting down what are fundamentally religious academies would be like a shotgun blast to the head of US relations with the Muslim world.

Quote:
We have a right to become highly pissed when they commit an act of war against us.
60,800 Iraqi civilians (number fresh from today's paper), did not commit an act of war against us. Come to think of it, NO Iraqi committed an act of war against us.

Moose, you aren't going to get very far disagreeing with everybody while at the same time jumping to radical conclusions of how the world should be run. This ain't the United States of Moosenoose.
__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

Last edited by Fourtyrulz; 07-03-2005 at 04:10 AM..
Fourtyrulz is offline  
Old 07-03-2005, 02:53 PM   #75 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourtyrulz

60,800 Iraqi civilians (number fresh from today's paper), did not commit an act of war against us. Come to think of it, NO Iraqi committed an act of war against us.
So the Iraqi military shooting AAA at US planes after the ceasefire was NOT an act of war?
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-03-2005, 03:30 PM   #76 (permalink)
lascivious
 
Mantus's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
So the Iraqi military shooting AAA at US planes after the ceasefire was NOT an act of war?
The fact is, bombs never stopped dropping on Iraq after Desert Fox. Both Britain and the US continued to bomb suspecious targets in Iraq.

Leading up to the current conflict both the RAF and the US Airforce stepped up it's bombing campaign in an attempt to tease Saddam into war.
Mantus is offline  
Old 07-03-2005, 03:38 PM   #77 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mantus
The fact is, bombs never stopped dropping on Iraq after Desert Fox. Both Britain and the US continued to bomb suspecious targets in Iraq.

Leading up to the current conflict both the RAF and the US Airforce stepped up it's bombing campaign in an attempt to tease Saddam into war.

By "suspecious targets", you're referring to AAA guns and missile launchers that shot at them first, right? How DARE we bomb people who shot at us first!
moosenose is offline  
Old 07-03-2005, 04:24 PM   #78 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
By "suspecious targets", you're referring to AAA guns and missile launchers that shot at them first, right? How DARE we bomb people who shot at us first!
The evidence indicates that the U.S. and UK were the instigators and aggressors
Quote:
http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/0904/0622.shtml
Bombing raids were illegal, UK documents say

LONDON – A spike in British and U.S. 2002 bombing raids on Iraq, reportedly designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating, was illegal under international law, according to British Foreign Office legal advice leaked to the UK’s Sunday Times. The advice indicated that the goal of the bombing was to provoke Hussein, thus providing a pretext for war.

British Ministry of Defense records show that the spike began in May 2002.

The leaked legal advice, appended to a cabinet briefing paper for a July 23 meeting with Blair, indicated an awareness that allied aircraft were legally entitled to patrol no-fly zones only to deter attacks by Saddam’s forces on the Kurdish and Shia populations. It noted that the allies had no authority to use military force to put pressure on the regime.

The increased attacks, which senior U.S. officials admit were designed to degrade Iraqi air defenses, began six months before the UN passed Resolution 1441, which the allies claimed as their authorization for military action.

UK Liberal Democrat Lord Goodhart, vice-president of the International Commission of Jurists and an authority on international law, said the intensified raids were illegal if they were meant to “pressurize” the regime.

Intensified bombing, known in the Pentagon as the Blue Plan, began in August 2002, following a meeting of the U.S. National Security Council. In his autobiography, allied commander Gen. Tommy Franks said he wanted to use the bombing to make Iraq’s defenses as weak as possible. However, if the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion, or even to intimidate the regime, coalition forces were acting without lawful authority, Goodhart claims.

The revelations suggest that Bush may have acted illegally, since Congress didn’t authorize military action until Oct. 11. 2002. At that point, the air war had been going on for six weeks. The spikes were underway five months earlier.
Quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...0300_2,00.html
The Sunday Times - Britain
Page 1 || Page 2
Elizabeth Wilmshurst, one of the Foreign Office lawyers who wrote the report, resigned in March 2003 in protest at the decision to go to war without a UN resolution specifically authorising military force.

Further intensification of the bombing, known in the Pentagon as the Blue Plan, began at the end of August, 2002, following a meeting of the US National Security Council at the White House that month.

General Tommy Franks, the allied commander, recalled in his autobiography, American Soldier, that during this meeting he rejected a call from Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to cut the bombing patrols because he wanted to use them to make Iraq’s defences “as weak as possible”.

The allied commander specifically used the term “spikes of activity” in his book. The upgrade to a full air war was also illegal, said Goodhart. “If, as Franks seems to suggest, the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion or even to intimidate Iraq, the coalition forces were acting without lawful authority,” he said.

Although the legality of the war has been more of an issue in Britain than in America, the revelations indicate Bush may also have acted illegally, since Congress did not authorise military action until October 11 2002.

The air war had already begun six weeks earlier and the spikes of activity had been underway for five months.
host is offline  
Old 07-03-2005, 05:01 PM   #79 (permalink)
lascivious
 
Mantus's Avatar
 
Quote:
Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 “carefully selected targets” before the war officially started.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...669640,00.html

And indeed we were destroying AAA sites all this time. AAA sites that were reportedly targeting our planes. However we were in Iraqi air space.
Mantus is offline  
Old 07-03-2005, 05:11 PM   #80 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mantus
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...669640,00.html

And indeed we were destroying AAA sites all this time. AAA sites that were reportedly targeting our planes. However we were in Iraqi air space.
Under UN mandate.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
 

Tags
brave, free, home, land


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:47 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76