Wmd Reminder

[j2k4]

I don't post this in order to provoke all kinds of anti-Bush responses, although I'm sure those will appear anyway.

This is just a reminder of all the people who would now disavow their previous statements, and prefer people like me didn't have an archive.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to

develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That
is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass

destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest
security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times
since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction
programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his
weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition,
Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the
cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will
threaten
the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others,
December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in
power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are

confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and

biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I
believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is
a real
and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons
within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always
underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he
has
refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He
has
also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members
.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity
for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,

murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction
is real
..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

AND NOW THE DEMOCRATS CLAIM THAT PRESIDENT BUSH LIED TO US,THAT THERE
NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF
MASS DESTRUCTION AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR ALL FOR THE SAKE OF HIS OIL
BUDDIES...

[Rat Faced]

We know the Democrats were making the same claims to make the illegal bombing of Iraq for the last Decade "palletable" to the public...

Where do these people get their intelligence?

Is it via the same channels as that controlled by the Whitehouse?

The high ranking of both parties have always known the truth, im sure. The rest rely on what is told to them...just like the public.

[Evil Gemini]

Where do these people get their intelligence?

They probably use google :D

[Snee]

Originally posted by j2k4@12 December 2003 - 16:40
I don't post this in order to provoke all kinds of anti-Bush responses, although I'm sure those will appear anyway.

This is just a reminder of all the people who would now disavow their previous statements, and prefer people like me didn't have an archive.
I've got nothing against Bush (http://www.presidentmoron.com/), nothing against Bush (http://downloads.veryfunnydownloads.com/downloads/videos/BushBlair.mpg) at all :P

Fact remains though, that this is not something that seems unique to Democrat propaganda, or even American politics, it seems almost second nature to political entities all over the world to shift the blame to another administration, and sometimes even, shamelessly, to use this in order to critisize the new government.

Sometimes I think the parties in my country have allowed power to pass through their fingers in order to have someone else to blame for their own mistakes, come the next election. <_<

I meant to say all this from the start, pressing the reply button before I was finished was something of an accident, I understand what you want to say, J2k4 :)

EDit: horrible, horrible spelling :blink:
EDit yet again: Clarity

[Lamsey]

I would like to see some evidence. Even just one shred. That would be nice.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@12 December 2003 - 16:50
We know the Democrats were making the same claims to make the illegal bombing of Iraq for the last Decade "palletable" to the public...

I ask a genuine question, which illegal bombing was this and what law / jurisdiction was it contrary to ?

If there was illegal bombing, why has no action been taken or has it ? Is some action proposed ?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Lamsey@12 December 2003 - 12:46
I would like to see some evidence. Even just one shred. That would be nice.
Not my point, Liam, as I&#39;m sure you realize.

These people have just chosen to speak out of the other side of their mouths, and our press seems to have forgotten where these individuals "stood" originally.

Does your press do this, too?

I find this inexcusable, especially during our Democrat presidential debates.

Rat-

I must ask, as J&#39;Pol does:

What illegal bombing?

By whose standards illegal?

Do you speak of Israeli actions?

[Biggles]

With regards to illegal bombing I would hazard that only those who lose a conflict conduct such activities - winners merely have incidents they would prefer to forget.

With reference to J2K4&#39;s observation that opinion on Iraq&#39;s WMD (and whether they posed a threat or not) goes back a long way, is perfectly valid.

I think probably the big difference between Bush and those that went before is that he was prepared to go to war over the issue. History will determine whether this was wise or not. With regards the WMD issue, if they are not found then some intelligence officials will probably get the blame for mis-informing the politicians. Polticians rarely take the blame if they can possibly help it.

One can criticise Bush on a number of points but it is neither fair or honest to imply he has a monopoly on error and incorrect information.

We all participate fully.

[james_bond_rulez]

illegal nor not, American committed an invasion of iraq without UN sanction or approval.

the US congress "made it" legal, although I doubt the "legality" of US millitary actions in Iraq.

The Bush Govn. failed to demonstrate to the world that Iraq has, indeed, weapon of mass destruction, and still fails to find it to date. And what gives the US the right to invade Iraq in the first place?

looks to me the US govn is just looking for an excuse to remove a dictator by force, lead by a leader who has personal vendetta against the former leader of Iraq.

<_<

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+13 December 2003 - 01:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 13 December 2003 - 01:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@12 December 2003 - 16:50
We know the Democrats were making the same claims to make the illegal bombing of Iraq for the last Decade "palletable" to the public...

I ask a genuine question, which illegal bombing was this and what law / jurisdiction was it contrary to ?

If there was illegal bombing, why has no action been taken or has it ? Is some action proposed ? [/b][/quote]
Is it legal to invade another country just because a few leaders say it is?

The excuse for going in was that Iraq had WMD&#39;s, that they could be deployed in 45 minutes, and that he was prepared to use them. None of these has been proven.

So was it illegal? The same question can be asked the other way round; is there any proof it was legal?

As for the Republican &#092; Democrat thing, I think you&#39;ll find the rest of the world hardly distinguishes between the two.


:)

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by j2k4@12 December 2003 - 12:21
By whose standards illegal?

ok, first of all, i agree that many of the dems you quoted are hypocrites for their double standard. That said, the war is still wrong. One can churn up anything and shape it to look like something dangerous, or, in this case, just lie. There are no WMDs and Bush knows it. The sad part is the American public will simply forget about it. Where is Osama? Where is Saddam? Where are WMD? These are all reasons for going to war. They are all boogymen and scare tactics to drag us into war, then once we control the country, they just slip away. Chimpy has not come up with one shred of evidence supporting his reasoning for war.

on whose standards illegal? --

i could walk into my neighbors house and shoot them and say it isnt illegal because they were posing a threat to me. But of course it is illegal because the majority believes this is wrong. Just like the UN. The US cant go into their neighbors house and shoot them, it&#39;s against the law.

[james_bond_rulez]

yeah but the problem is it&#39;s not that simple

the bureaucracy of the gov and the general propaganda from Bush and Powell just made it all worse.

the intel from the major agencies is just crap and provide no real evidence of wmd. all they had were some sate. photos of "possible" sites where they "think" had wmd <_<

plus after 911 the general ignorance and hatred toward the middle eastern world just skyrocketed. A lot of americans dont understand why those islamic countries are weary and hostile of the west. The general american public feels alienated and confused about the situation, if that wasn&#39;t bad enough, and all these talks of going into war with Iraq. and a lot of them are really misguided and generally angry about something they dont understand. Some of them simply signed up national guard or joined the army with the intend to kill every iraqi they can find.

It&#39;s attitude like this that will get ppl killed.

all this fucking mess....

i think that&#39;s all i&#39;ll say. I dont want this to become another flame war. I&#39;ve had enough with wars

[Billy_Dean]

The main intelligence would have come from the CIA. Their agenda is not necessarily the same as the US government. Governments come and go, the CIA is always there, like the civil service. They have a long term objective, and they are expected to be one jump ahead of everyone, all the time. They would have wanted Iraq taken out, for whatever reason, and it wouldn&#39;t have been hard for them to convince any government that they posed a threat, especially after 9&#092;11. (Or 11&#092;9, as it is in OZ)


:)

[MediaSlayer]

j2k4 did you HAVE to use a quote from senator byrd to further your republican pool party? c&#39;mon, you don&#39;t wanna get ruffed up do ya? i heard ole&#39; clocker invested in some brass knuckles, :boxing: MODS i smell a fight&#33; hehe

but seriously, leave byrd alone, he ain&#39;t half bad. here is a speech from march of this year by him called "arrogance of power" (http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2003march/byrd_speeches_2003march_list/byrd_speeches_2003march_list_4.html) it&#39;s good stuff, and it&#39;s sad to see an old man care so much for his country, the country he grew up with, just crumble before his eyes.

[Busyman]

Those Dems said some profound statements but Bush made the ultimate decision to go to war and for that HE is the ultimate idiot. If he finds WMDs (or manufactures them <_< ) he comes off as the hero. Consequently, if WMDs are found at this point, it would look like a political stunt for the 2004 election. It sounds to me j2k4, that you are Republican (I could be wrong). I, for one, am Democrat, but not faithfully.

If a Democrat is elected as President next year, I will not blindly follow him if he&#39;s an obvious idiot.
Bush just happens to be a Republican idiot.

Have a look see (http://klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=87670)

[J'Pol]

One does not have to prove that an act is legal.

If it does not break Any law, then it is not illegal. By extension it is legal.

It is preposterous to ask someone to prove an act is legal. In any court I am aware of it is up to the prosecution to prove that the person is guilty of committing an offence.

Which bring me back to my original questions(s)


I ask a genuine question, which illegal bombing was this and what law / jurisdiction was it contrary to ?

If there was illegal bombing, why has no action been taken or has it ? Is some action proposed ?

Remember, because you think something is wrong, does not make it illegal.

[james_bond_rulez]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@13 December 2003 - 18:58
Remember, because you think something is wrong, does not make it illegal.
now that&#39;s not very logical is it? :lol:

it&#39;s all up to the jury....

if they have any shred of sense of justice they wouldn&#39;t say what you just said.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez+13 December 2003 - 20:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (james_bond_rulez @ 13 December 2003 - 20:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@13 December 2003 - 18:58
Remember, because you think something is wrong, does not make it illegal.
now that&#39;s not very logical is it? :lol:

it&#39;s all up to the jury....

if they have any shred of sense of justice they wouldn&#39;t say what you just said. [/b][/quote]
Which part is not very logical.

What makes you think justice has anything to do with law.

[james_bond_rulez]

and why not? a lot of trials have come out with the judgement of the jury and if all of them are biased then it&#39;s not a fair trial.

and why should it be "legal" if you think it&#39;s morally wrong? the difference between what&#39;s legal and what&#39;s right is really not a thin and straight line.

justice has everything to do with law.

Justice IS the law.

what makes U think justice has nothing to do with law?

i find that statement strange <_<

[hobbes]

The post was actually pretty simple. Both Republicans and Democrats were unified in the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the security of the United States.

This was not an invention of Bush and his cronies, but a common belief shared by both parties.

Now that the Iraq situation has not been glowingly successful and WMD have not been found, the Democrats are pointing fingers at the Republicans and using this situation as a political tool to gain leverage in the next election.

I am a Democrat, myself, and I appreciate the point he is making. J2 would this be a matter of "obfuscation" on the part of the Democrats?

I think J2&#39;s post is aimed at US citizens, attempting to point out the difference between a "political ploy" and a "political reality".




JBR:

Some of them simply signed up national guard or joined the army with the intend to kill every iraqi they can find

What sort of bitterness lies in your heart. Americans have no hatred toward Iraqis&#39;. From what data did you make this statement? To me this statement is a grossly offensive and unsupportable misrepresentation of American citizens. Yes, I saw the video-tape posted here, but I don&#39;t let outliers define the norm.

[J'Pol]

If a man steals a loaf to feed his starving family, then he has committed an illegal act, he has broken the law.

However is what he has done morally wrong ?

The legal system deals with matters of fact, not matters of morality. It is up to the people who make the laws in the first place to deal with the morality and justice issues.

[Busyman]

It comes down to the fact that BUSH made the decision so he responsible for the fumble ;)

[james_bond_rulez]

that statement in particular does not represent the feelings and opinions of the ENTIRE american population.


What sort of bitterness lies in your heart?

What bitterness? It pains me to see so much hatred in ppl, easily seen in this forum and in ur delivery of ur language and ur statements. How can I not be bitter?


Americans have no hatred toward Iraqis&#39;

and from what data did you make this statement? this is simply not true for some Americans but not all of them.


To me this statement is a grossly offensive and unsupportable misrepresentation of American citizens

like i said i am not commenting on all of the americans just reflecting those who feel angry about the islamic world.

Hobbes I guess we are back to squire one. Again u failed to see my point and ur tendency to protect ur american pride often clouds ur judgement and misintrepret the opinions of others.

I have nothing against americans I just dont approve the actions of ur government and the general hostilities and anger toward the Islamic world.

[james_bond_rulez]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@13 December 2003 - 19:30
If a man steals a loaf to feed his starving family, then he has committed an illegal act, he has broken the law.

However is what he has done morally wrong ?

The legal system deals with matters of fact, not matters of morality. It is up to the people who make the laws in the first place to deal with the morality and justice issues.
again u contradict ur previous statement

yes the man broke the law, but in order to survive he has to steal food, thus he broke the law. He may not have done anything morally wrong but he broke the law.

A judge may show lenience in his/her judgement.


It is up to the people who make the laws in the first place to deal with the morality and justice issues.

true, but are they right all the time? why do you think we have protests? sometimes a law may be favoriable to a group but at the expense of others.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@13 December 2003 - 19:38

I have nothing against americans I just dont approve the actions of ur government and the general hostilities and anger toward the Islamic world.
1. You must understand that the reason America is this way is due to our non-involvement in the beginnings of WWII. We entered when it hit our home. Now we try to put out fires before we even see a match and alot of times we start the fire.

2. Well there is a pervasive cancer in the Islamic world. And it is extremely hard for some Americans to differentiate peaceful Muslims from the terrorist. An atrocity such as the one committed on 9/11 had never happened on our soil. The only other was committed by AN AMERICAN in Oklahoma.

[hobbes]

You made the assertion, you need to back it up. You claimed that "people", who are individuals, not governmental agencies, wanted to enlist and kill all the Iraqi&#39;s they could.

Since I have lived in America my entire life, I would imagine that I would have a better feel for what Americans are "like", than an outside observer.

I responded to your post because I felt strongly that your comments could not be left to stand uncontested.

So many people on the forum live outside the US and have a negative view of my country because of the actions of my government. I had to stand up as a citizen and tell the world that to characterize US citizens as "iraqi haters" is grossly misleading. It is like defining us, by the actions of the Klu Klux Klan.



It pains me to see so much hatred in ppl, easily seen in this forum and in ur delivery of ur language and ur statements. How can I not be bitter?

Is that a general "ur" or a personal "ur". If I come across as one spreading hatred, I would like to know. It certainly is not my intention.

[james_bond_rulez]

hobbes i appreciate ur standing up for ur nation but what i stated is true for some americans and what their opinions and feelings are toward the middle eastern world.

i think it&#39;s great to have american point of view but it&#39;s even more important to see how others see US from the outside, and that&#39;s really what counts because what you may not aware of is strongly felt by others.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez+13 December 2003 - 20:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (james_bond_rulez @ 13 December 2003 - 20:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@13 December 2003 - 19:30
If a man steals a loaf to feed his starving family, then he has committed an illegal act, he has broken the law.

However is what he has done morally wrong ?

The legal system deals with matters of fact, not matters of morality. It is up to the people who make the laws in the first place to deal with the morality and justice issues.
again u contradict ur previous statement

yes the man broke the law, but in order to survive he has to steal food, thus he broke the law. He may not have done anything morally wrong but he broke the law.

A judge may show lenience in his/her judgement.


It is up to the people who make the laws in the first place to deal with the morality and justice issues.

true, but are they right all the time? why do you think we have protests? sometimes a law may be favoriable to a group but at the expense of others. [/b][/quote]
You make my point for me.

It doesn&#39;t matter whether the law is right or not, or just or not, or moral or not. It is simply the law. Whether it is "wrong" is a matter for subjective moral and ethical consideration. People will disagree with different issues, however the law, once made is there.

The original question I posed was, "what illegal bombing". I did not question whether it was just or morally defensible, simply what law had been broken and what illegal bombing had taken place.

So - once again, which law was broken.

[james_bond_rulez]

ok i see ur point :lol:

but i have to say any bombing on civilians is immoral and unethical ;)

[hobbes]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@13 December 2003 - 21:09
hobbes i appreciate ur standing up for ur nation but what i stated is true for some americans and what their opinions and feelings are toward the middle eastern world.

i think it&#39;s great to have american point of view but it&#39;s even more important to see how others see US from the outside, and that&#39;s really what counts because what you may not aware of is strongly felt by others.
I come to this forum to appreciate the views of people from around the globe and being American I attempt to intervene when I think misleading information about the citizens is being desseminated.

So people are free to have their beliefs about Americans, but I would like to think they are founded solidly in reality.

You are right though, we do have groups here that hate just about everything and everyone.

This topic is no different from many others. People post on a variety of subjects and when one comes up that I have some knowledge about, I attempt to add my 2 cents and also correct things I perceive to be in error.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@13 December 2003 - 21:23
ok i see ur point :lol:

but i have to say any bombing on civilians is immoral and unethical ;)
I agree 100%

[j2k4]

Originally posted by MediaSlayer@13 December 2003 - 08:25
j2k4 did you HAVE to use a quote from senator byrd to further your republican pool party? c&#39;mon, you don&#39;t wanna get ruffed up do ya? i heard ole&#39; clocker invested in some brass knuckles, :boxing: MODS i smell a fight&#33; hehe

but seriously, leave byrd alone, he ain&#39;t half bad. here is a speech from march of this year by him called "arrogance of power" (http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2003march/byrd_speeches_2003march_list/byrd_speeches_2003march_list_4.html) it&#39;s good stuff, and it&#39;s sad to see an old man care so much for his country, the country he grew up with, just crumble before his eyes.
I hope to have time soon to respond more comprehensively to the other posts (I&#39;ve got a project to finish), but I have to take a moment to respond to my southern colleague, MediaSlayer:

The Hon. Robert C. Byrd is a pompous, self-serving poseur of the first order.

He attempts to portray himself as a self-styled "House Historian", and then uses this "credential" in a vain effort to batter others.

He is vanity on parade; literally the only representative extant who can use the expletive "nigger" in the media and not be sent home for his sin.

He is the All-Time Champion of pork-barrel politics, as can be seen any time one enters the state of West Byr....I mean, West Virginia, a state where every speck of dirt is named in his honor.

The man is a joke.


Edit: I will refrain from mentioning his historical connection to the Ku Klux Klan, as to do so would be harping on his past unnecessarily.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+12 December 2003 - 16:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 12 December 2003 - 16:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@12 December 2003 - 16:50
We know the Democrats were making the same claims to make the illegal bombing of Iraq for the last Decade "palletable" to the public...

I ask a genuine question, which illegal bombing was this and what law / jurisdiction was it contrary to ?

If there was illegal bombing, why has no action been taken or has it ? Is some action proposed ? [/b][/quote]
Im talking of the systematic bombing of Iraq since Desert Storm.

The US/Uk had a clear mandate of what were legitamate targets..ie a Demilitarised Zone. I have no objection to any military target that was taken out in this zone, during that time.

Bombing such targets as Water Purification plants and Electricity/Communications infrastructure of a nation does not fall within the Mandate, especially when 1000&#39;s of civilians were being killed in the process, and the sanctions prevented the purchase of replacement parts.

This was murder, (we were not at war).... murder is illegal.

Or was the last time i looked at the statute books.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@13 December 2003 - 23:24


Or was the last time i looked at the statute books.
To which "statute books" do you refer ?

When was the last time you looked at those ?

Or was it just a glib, meaningless phrase, in an attempt to bolster your argument ?

[Rat Faced]

Murder is illegal in every country involved.

Murder is illegal in International Waters.

Are you claiming there is some part of this planet that Murder isnt illegal?



Im quite sure its a basic law in every country on the planet........even those where the Government systematically commits that very crime.

Please enlighten me of this never never land where the statute does not include murder as a crime....



BTW.. OT

Did you know that in the UK, if you fail in an attempted suicide; you could be charged with attempted murder? :blink:

Never done of course, as they obviously need medical help...but still, i&#39;ll make sure i do it properly if i ever get around to it ;)


International Law:




Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

A/&nbsp; Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
B/&nbsp; War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

C/&nbsp; Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@13 December 2003 - 23:24
Bombing such targets as Water Purification plants and Electricity/Communications infrastructure of a nation does not fall within the Mandate, especially when 1000&#39;s of civilians were being killed in the process, and the sanctions prevented the purchase of replacement parts.


Can you find a source on this? Even during the war, I was under the assumption that the destruction of said locations was committed by Saddam&#39;s regime in hopes of causing the disruption of daily life and turmoil we are now seeing in Iraq.

I fail to see a benefit for bombing such areas. Oh sure, to reconstruct them, but there is so much else that needs to be rebuilt, that hardly is even worth consideration.

Pre-war, it would have served a purpose, to help encourage revolution against Saddam, but be a totally criminal act. Did we really do this? I have never heard such a thing.




Edit: I found the following article, which describes an intentional plan by the US to prevent Iraq from being able to properly utilize it&#39;s water purification system. Nothing was said about bombing.

Although the policy is deplorable, the UN could have changed this, unless they truly are as worthless as they appear. You cannot blame 10 years of sanctions on the US, unless the US has complete control over the UN.

Water (http://www.progressive.org/0901/nagy0901.html)

[Rat Faced]

Operation Desert Fox is an example.

Both the one just after Desert Storm (1991) and again in 1998.


The time in 1991 was so bad that Russia withdrew its Embassador from the USA, i believe, (December 17th?) so im surprised you havent heard of it.

In 1998 Desert Fox targeted Baghdad........which is well outside the "No Fly Zone", and Basra..a major city.


In between there has was continual bombing of Iraq, aimed at keeping the North and South "demilitarized"...as I said, i have no problem with that, I just think that they should be careful targeting close to civilians as 20% of the missiles miss the target....colateral damage. :(

In addition, the intelligence is unfortunatly wrong quite often...such as the "successful" mission on an Intelligence HQ that turned out to be a civilian Bomb Shelter <_<

I shall try and dig up links tomorrow, as im on and off at the moment...kids :rolleyes:

[james_bond_rulez]

remember that time when US bombed the Chinese Embassy by mistake? forgot where but the poilot had an outdated map <_<

oy

The Chinese govn. dissed America for soo long since then :lol:

[J'Pol]

RF

You base your statement that the bombings were illegal on you describing them as murder. A singularly circular argument, I&#39;ll give you that.

They are illegal because it was murder. It was murder because they were illegal bombings.

I really cannot argue with that. The argument spins round on itself and become self contained.

However if the bombings were not illegal, then it was not murder. It may be unethical, it may be unjust, it may be very many things, however that is not the point I am taking issue with.

Which takes us back to where we started, what made the bombings illegal.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@14 December 2003 - 01:05
RF

You base your statement that the bombings were illegal on you describing them as murder. A singularly circular argument, I&#39;ll give you that.

They are illegal because it was murder. It was murder because they were illegal bombings.

I really cannot argue with that. The argument spins round on itself and become self contained.

However if the bombings were not illegal, then it was not murder. It may be unethical, it may be unjust, it may be very many things, however that is not the point I am taking issue with.

Which takes us back to where we started, what made the bombings illegal.
He stated "illegal" to mean, non-miltary targets such as water treatment and electricity plants targeted outside of war times.
The Geneva Convention is absolutely clear. In a 1979 protocol relating to the "protection of victims of international armed conflicts," Article 54, it states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."]Geneva Convention

These were done to try and force the hand of revolution.

Instead of working, they resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children from disease and malnutrition.

Can you imagine how cruel Saddam must have been. He must have killed any and everyone one who he thought was a threat to avoid even the possibilty of a revolution. His children dying everywhere, while he poops in gold toilets and erects statues in his honor. He could have saved them at any time by complying with the UN. He found that he would rather kill his own, starve his own, rather than let people see that he had nothing to hide.

For this illusion, he lost his country, his heirs and probably his own life.

[J'Pol]

hobbes

A sensible reply, thanks for that.

So do you feel that the USA / UK acted in breach of the Geneva convention ? Did they deliberately chose targets as outlined in article 54 (as quoted by your good self) ? Did they do it for the specific purposes as outlined in said article ?

I take it that we are accepting breach of something prohibited by said convention as being de facto illegal.

Love the sig BTW.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@14 December 2003 - 01:38
hobbes

A sensible reply, thanks for that.

So do you feel that the USA / UK acted in breach of the Geneva convention ? Did they deliberately chose targets as outlined in article 54 (as quoted by your good self) ? Did they do it for the specific purposes as outlined in said article ?

I take it that we are accepting breach of something prohibited by said convention as being de facto illegal.

Love the sig BTW.
Rat claims that we did and will give links tomorrow. He made some sort of comment about "kids" and being short on time today. I can only assume he meant that he is in the act of giving birth at the moment.


As to the sig., I find it strange that I understood the meaning of that phrase the first time I heard it, although I had no clue to it&#39;s literal translation.

[chalice]

As an appendix to Hobbes&#39;s definition of the phrase "Beyond The Pale"...

I always took the expression to deliniate the archaic geographical boundries separating British Rule from the rest of Ireland.

"The Pale" was generally within Dublin and her suburbs but expanded and contracted with varying brutality.

Pale, in Irish history, that district of indefinite and varying limits around Dublin, in which English law prevailed. The term was first used in the 14th cent. to designate what had previously been called English land. Outlying districts were styled the marches, or border lands. In the time of Henry VIII the Pale extended N from Dublin to Dundalk and c.20 mi (32 km) inland from the coast. It disappeared in the ensuing years as the English control of the whole of Ireland was made effective. There was another English Pale in France, comprising Calais and the surrounding area, until 1558. In Russia the Pale designated those regions in which Jews were allowed to live. The Jewish Pale was established in 1792, when it comprised the areas annexed from Poland in the first partition. The area was extended (partly as a result of further annexations), but even within the Pale the Jewish population was subjected to many restrictions. Most of these were in force until the Russian Revolution of 1917.

Source: Allrefer.com

[hobbes]

You are correct Chalice, but I was up against signature rules.

My sig contains the barest of essentials, as it is 480 characters out of a maximum of 500.

I could have linked the source, but I am keeping it myself so that I can post other things from it which make me appear learned.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes@13 December 2003 - 21:56
.....the source, but I am keeping it myself so that I can post other things from it which make me appear learned.
Uh-oh. :o

(I though I was the only one to do that.)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4+14 December 2003 - 02:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 14 December 2003 - 02:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@13 December 2003 - 21:56
.....the source, but I am keeping it myself so that I can post other things from it which make me appear learned.
Uh-oh. :o

(I though I was the only one to do that.) [/b][/quote]

I can still tell who&#39;s

-the little boy using their moms computer
-the college student who thinks he&#39;s smarter than everyone else
-the introverted geek that has this forum as his ONLY outlet
-the fat guy that masturbates whenever he gets the chance and typed his responses with sticky fingers&nbsp;
-the philosophical intellectual that doesn&#39;t necessarily think he&#39;s smarter than everyone but loves to use big or seldom used words (to SEEM smarter) and will be quick to point out grammatical and spelling errrors.

And some appearances can be deceiving :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hobbes]

With your unique ability to make such revelations do you practice catoptromancy, at all?

By the way, you misspelled "errror", old bean. Quite ironic and all that&#33; Is there perchance another reason that it is misspelled, perhaps the key is a bit, umm, sticky, no?

Why, at all, would you think I&#39;m a Greek?

Are you quoting yourself, somehow attempting to refer to yourself in the third person. How droll.


Let me leave you with a favorite quote of mine:

"A word to the thick soul sistas
I wanna get with ya
I won&#39;t cus or hit ya
But I gotta be straight when I say I wanna uh, uh
Til the break of dawn"

Relevant Link (http://klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=87585&view=findpost&p=734594)

Uh oh, Mom&#39;s coming, gotta hide the tissue and lotion. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[james_bond_rulez]

heh u meant ur wife? right?

:lol:

[hobbes]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@14 December 2003 - 05:31
heh u meant ur wife? right?

:lol:
Yeah, exactly, must have been a typo or something.

Thanks JimmyB&#33;

[james_bond_rulez]

a typo.... lolz

;)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman@14 December 2003 - 03:52


And some appearances can be deceiving :lol: :lol: :lol:
Deceptive, one would have thought.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes@14 December 2003 - 03:49
With your unique ability to make such revelations do you practice catoptromancy, at all?

By the way, you misspelled "errror", old bean.&nbsp; Quite ironic and all that&#33;&nbsp; Is there perchance another reason that it is misspelled, perhaps the key is a bit, umm, sticky, no?

Why, at all, would you think I&#39;m a Greek?

Are you quoting yourself, somehow attempting to refer to yourself in the third person.&nbsp; How droll.


Let me leave you with a favorite quote of mine:

"A word to the thick soul sistas
I wanna get with ya
I won&#39;t cus or hit ya
But I gotta be straight when I say I wanna uh, uh
Til the break of dawn"

Relevant Link (http://klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=87585&view=findpost&p=734594)

Uh oh, Mom&#39;s coming, gotta hide the tissue and lotion. :lol:&nbsp; :lol:&nbsp; :lol:
1. No I&#39;m scared of mirrors. I saw myself once and I look horrible.

2. The errror was there for someone to notice the errror. I see YOU noticed. And PERHAPS another reason that it is misspelled.......HEYYY&#33;&#33; HaHa very funny but I am not fat&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol:

3. You don&#39;t have to be Greek to investigate epistemology or basic assumptions. <_<

4. Busyman thinks Busyman refered to a quote from Busyman because it seemed droll and Busyman likes to be different and laugh sometimes in this staid universe of ours.

5. Yea but those big booties aren&#39;t enough to entertain an intellectual brain
or unlike a stain they won&#39;t remain.

6. Don&#39;t despond. Just put the tissue up to your nose like you normally do. She&#39;ll think you&#39;re blowing your nose :o . ..........Awwwww I&#39;m just kidding. Your mom knows what your doing but it&#39;s ok; your getting older and your hormones are raging......... :huh:

[j2k4]

Did I start something, hobbes?

Or did you? :lol:

Busyman:

I am none of those.

I&#39;m just an old eagle who doesn&#39;t get to fly much anymore.

The last person I ever impress is myself, and that hasn&#39;t happened since around, oh.....let&#39;s see..... :huh:

[hobbes]

Nobody started anything, just good ribbing all around.

[j2k4]

Excellent&#33; ;)

[MediaSlayer]

Originally posted by j2k4+13 December 2003 - 21:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 13 December 2003 - 21:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MediaSlayer@13 December 2003 - 08:25
j2k4 did you HAVE to use a quote from senator byrd to further your republican pool party? c&#39;mon, you don&#39;t wanna get ruffed up do ya? i heard ole&#39; clocker invested in some brass knuckles, :boxing: MODS i smell a fight&#33; hehe

but seriously, leave byrd alone, he ain&#39;t half bad. here is a speech from march of this year by him called "arrogance of power" (http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2003march/byrd_speeches_2003march_list/byrd_speeches_2003march_list_4.html) it&#39;s good stuff, and it&#39;s sad to see an old man care so much for his country, the country he grew up with, just crumble before his eyes.
I hope to have time soon to respond more comprehensively to the other posts (I&#39;ve got a project to finish), but I have to take a moment to respond to my southern colleague, MediaSlayer:

The Hon. Robert C. Byrd is a pompous, self-serving poseur of the first order.

He attempts to portray himself as a self-styled "House Historian", and then uses this "credential" in a vain effort to batter others.

He is vanity on parade; literally the only representative extant who can use the expletive "nigger" in the media and not be sent home for his sin.

He is the All-Time Champion of pork-barrel politics, as can be seen any time one enters the state of West Byr....I mean, West Virginia, a state where every speck of dirt is named in his honor.

The man is a joke.


Edit: I will refrain from mentioning his historical connection to the Ku Klux Klan, as to do so would be harping on his past unnecessarily. [/b][/quote]
omg, i think i&#39;m having a strom thurman moment right now, ooohhhh i&#39;m gonna be sick...... :x :x :x :x :x

back to topic, j2k, the only argument that you presented about byrd that peaked my interest enough to provoke a reply is the one about his racism. southern people hold different values, that perhaps you are unaware of. they are sentimental, they don&#39;t believe in selling out, they are loyal. loyalty to them sometimes means keeping those racist values from times long ago, because they saw the racism as a strength, not as a weakness. they saw it as a way to protect their culture, to keep those good southern values, to keep the tradition. i don&#39;t condone anyone&#39;s racist beliefs, but it is possible to respect someone and admire someone for their integrity, even if they are racist. i appreciate his opinions on the war, what does that have to do with racism? not too much, i think. because this topic was about weapons of mass destruction. so in closing, i disagree, with you on this. i like his views on the war, why it was wrong, so i don&#39;t discredit him in the same way as you do.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by MediaSlayer@15 December 2003 - 02:30
southern people hold different values, that perhaps you are unaware of.&nbsp; they are sentimental, they don&#39;t believe in selling out, they are loyal.&nbsp; loyalty to them sometimes means keeping those racist values from times long ago, because they saw the racism as a strength, not as a weakness.&nbsp; they saw it as a way to protect their culture, to keep those good southern values, to keep the tradition.&nbsp; i don&#39;t condone anyone&#39;s racist beliefs, but it is possible to respect someone and admire someone for their integrity, even if they are racist.&nbsp; i appreciate his opinions on the war, what does that have to do with racism?&nbsp; not too much, i think.&nbsp; because this topic was about weapons of mass destruction.&nbsp; so in closing, i disagree, with you on this.&nbsp; i like his views on the war, why it was wrong, so i don&#39;t discredit him in the same way as you do.
I&#39;m with you 100%, MediaSlayer.

I&#39;ve spent lots of time down your way; I have a middling familiarity with southern "issues", including the flag, etc., and I have complete and utter respect for all the southern-held qualities you cite.

I will not, however, give the Hon. Robert C. Byrd credit for possessing any of them.

He is, as I said before, a pompous ass, and the all-time champ at suckling the government tit.

The largest ego in government today.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by MediaSlayer+15 December 2003 - 06:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MediaSlayer @ 15 December 2003 - 06:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@13 December 2003 - 21:17
<!--QuoteBegin-MediaSlayer@13 December 2003 - 08:25
j2k4 did you HAVE to use a quote from senator byrd to further your republican pool party? c&#39;mon, you don&#39;t wanna get ruffed up do ya? i heard ole&#39; clocker invested in some brass knuckles, :boxing: MODS i smell a fight&#33; hehe

but seriously, leave byrd alone, he ain&#39;t half bad. here is a speech from march of this year by him called "arrogance of power" (http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2003march/byrd_speeches_2003march_list/byrd_speeches_2003march_list_4.html) it&#39;s good stuff, and it&#39;s sad to see an old man care so much for his country, the country he grew up with, just crumble before his eyes.
I hope to have time soon to respond more comprehensively to the other posts (I&#39;ve got a project to finish), but I have to take a moment to respond to my southern colleague, MediaSlayer:

The Hon. Robert C. Byrd is a pompous, self-serving poseur of the first order.

He attempts to portray himself as a self-styled "House Historian", and then uses this "credential" in a vain effort to batter others.

He is vanity on parade; literally the only representative extant who can use the expletive "nigger" in the media and not be sent home for his sin.

He is the All-Time Champion of pork-barrel politics, as can be seen any time one enters the state of West Byr....I mean, West Virginia, a state where every speck of dirt is named in his honor.

The man is a joke.


Edit: I will refrain from mentioning his historical connection to the Ku Klux Klan, as to do so would be harping on his past unnecessarily.
omg, i think i&#39;m having a strom thurman moment right now, ooohhhh i&#39;m gonna be sick...... :x :x :x :x :x

back to topic, j2k, the only argument that you presented about byrd that peaked my interest enough to provoke a reply is the one about his racism. southern people hold different values, that perhaps you are unaware of. they are sentimental, they don&#39;t believe in selling out, they are loyal. loyalty to them sometimes means keeping those racist values from times long ago, because they saw the racism as a strength, not as a weakness. they saw it as a way to protect their culture, to keep those good southern values, to keep the tradition. i don&#39;t condone anyone&#39;s racist beliefs, but it is possible to respect someone and admire someone for their integrity, even if they are racist. i appreciate his opinions on the war, what does that have to do with racism? not too much, i think. because this topic was about weapons of mass destruction. so in closing, i disagree, with you on this. i like his views on the war, why it was wrong, so i don&#39;t discredit him in the same way as you do. [/b][/quote]
If that be case Media, one could "admire" Hitler for his ability to rally people and forget the racism because he was only trying to protect this so called tradition and culture.
In most cases it easier to unite when uniting AGAINST something.

Race is one of the most widely used.

[MediaSlayer]

if you re-read what i wrote, i said "admire someone for their integrity, even if they are racist" NOT "admire someone for their integrity, and for their ability to rally people, BECAUSE the are racist" or "admire someone for their integrity, and for their ability to rally people, while forgetting or forgiving their racism"

[Busyman]

Originally posted by MediaSlayer@23 December 2003 - 05:06
if you re-read what i wrote, i said "admire someone for their integrity, even if they are racist" NOT "admire someone for their integrity, and for their ability to rally people, BECAUSE the are racist" or "admire someone for their integrity, and for their ability to rally people, while forgetting or forgiving their racism"
To try to separate a persons racist beliefs from their integrity is nonsensical.

Try this one:
I admire Hitler&#39;s integrity....but he was racist.

[Alex H]

Hmm, Hitler. Well he was very popular ("Seig Hail&#33;"), efficient (12,000,000 dead in concentration camps, better than anyone else to date), diplomatic ("I vill invade whoever I vant&#33;") improved infastructure ("More Autobahns, more dams, more electricty&#33;") funded many scientific breakthroughs, ("It is call a jet engine mein fuher. It is really fast."), and boosted industry ("Das Volkswagen is cute&#33;")

His achievements are very impressive, however the fact that he brought the entire world to war and murdered millions of people detract from those achievemnts and his integrity somewhat.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Alex H@23 December 2003 - 05:50
Hmm, Hitler. Well he was very popular ("Seig Hail&#33;"), efficient (12,000,000 dead in concentration camps, better than anyone else to date), diplomatic ("I vill invade whoever I vant&#33;") improved infastructure ("More Autobahns, more dams, more electricty&#33;") funded many scientific breakthroughs, ("It is call a jet engine mein fuher. It is really fast."), and boosted industry ("Das Volkswagen is cute&#33;")

His achievements are very impressive, however the fact that he brought the entire world to war and murdered millions of people detract from those achievemnts and his integrity somewhat.
But to say I actually admire him in ANY fashion is again absurd.

Furthermore, I am not "impressed" by 12 million people dead.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@23 December 2003 - 01:50

His achievements are very impressive, however the fact that he brought the entire world to war and murdered millions of people detract from those achievemnts and his integrity somewhat.
Many of what are known as Hitler&#39;s "achievements" came about as expedients to his desire to put Germany on a war-footing.

Whether even the idea for such as the Volkswagon originated with him is subject to much debate.

When the bully pulpit is occupied by a bully, these things happen; however, I think in the case of Mr. Hitler that it would be preferable, especially from a historical standpoint, to attribute the advances of his Reich to the individuals who were responsible for their development; for example, Von Braun and his rockets.

Alex-

Your use of the word "somewhat" would seem to indicate you don&#39;t feel it necessary to put too fine a point on this; your attribution of "integrity" to Hitler is, to put it mildly, a bit baffling/confusing/laughable, or some other word which momentarily escapes me.

Of course, President Bush is constantly compared (in certain quarters) to Hitler, so I guess I should forego any expressions of surprise.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4@23 December 2003 - 07:30
Alex-

Your use of the word "somewhat" would seem to indicate you don&#39;t feel it necessary to put too fine a point on this; your attribution of "integrity" to Hitler is, to put it mildly, a bit baffling/confusing/laughable, or some other word which momentarily escapes me.

Of course, President Bush is constantly compared (in certain quarters) to Hitler, so I guess I should forego any expressions of surprise.
"Somewhat" was an attempt to outline the seriousness of his actions by understating them to the point whereapon they become ridiculous.

I don&#39;t have any type of affection for the man, however it must be said that his "achievments" were many and great. If they were not great (in the monumental sense of the word) then they would therefor be insignificant. I&#39;m sure we all agree that Hitler had a very large and lasting effect on he world, so we must also recognize his legacy.

In summary: He did a lot of stuff.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@23 December 2003 - 05:02
In summary: He did a lot of stuff.
To be sure.

Pol Pot "did a lot of stuff", too

And, I guess, the same could be said of Bush, as long as you are not too picky.

Perhaps if he pushed for development of a small, fuel-efficient, utilitarian vehicle or something-

Nah. Never happen.

Hey, this "summarizing" is pretty handy; it makes history so much easier to ignore&#33;

;)

[MediaSlayer]

Originally posted by Busyman@23 December 2003 - 05:23
To try to separate a persons racist beliefs from their integrity is nonsensical.


oh really? says who?


Try this one:
I admire Hitler&#39;s integrity....but he was racist.

confuse yourself, but don&#39;t confuse others.

here it is, because you asked me to "try this one":

A person is made up of many facets. So when you speak of the integrity of a person, you are speaking of a complicated thing, because a person&#39;s makeup is not "he can play football very well" or "she cares for the needy" or "he is a racist". It is possible, although unusual, to be a murderer that also has lots of compassion for starving children. Is it not? Yes, it&#39;s an extreme example, but it&#39;s possible, especially when you consider people have the ability to change. That murder might have seen the error of his ways, and started donating money to needy children. Now as for Hitler, it&#39;s so simple, it evaded you. He did very few good things, but his overall character was not very good, so without the racism, he was mostly a shitty person. Not much integrity. Now when you add the racism, it makes his integrity even lower. So instead of what you said, I would say "I don&#39;t admire Hitler very much, and he was also racist". So a person has to be a damn good person overall, to be able to be considered as having alot of integrity, even though they are racist. I think byrd is like that, and that&#39;s why i was arguing with j2k about it.

but what does this have to do with wmd?

not a damn thing, but i&#39;ll keep this up, just for you if you need it that bad.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by MediaSlayer+23 December 2003 - 17:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MediaSlayer &#064; 23 December 2003 - 17:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@23 December 2003 - 05:23
To try to separate a persons racist beliefs from their integrity is nonsensical.


oh really? says who?


Try this one:
I admire Hitler&#39;s integrity....but he was racist.

confuse yourself, but don&#39;t confuse others.

here it is, because you asked me to "try this one":

A person is made up of many facets. So when you speak of the integrity of a person, you are speaking of a complicated thing, because a person&#39;s makeup is not "he can play football very well" or "she cares for the needy" or "he is a racist". It is possible, although unusual, to be a murderer that also has lots of compassion for starving children. Is it not? Yes, it&#39;s an extreme example, but it&#39;s possible, especially when you consider people have the ability to change. That murder might have seen the error of his ways, and started donating money to needy children. Now as for Hitler, it&#39;s so simple, it evaded you. He did very few good things, but his overall character was not very good, so without the racism, he was mostly a shitty person. Not much integrity. Now when you add the racism, it makes his integrity even lower. So instead of what you said, I would say "I don&#39;t admire Hitler very much, and he was also racist". So a person has to be a damn good person overall, to be able to be considered as having alot of integrity, even though they are racist. I think byrd is like that, and that&#39;s why i was arguing with j2k about it.

but what does this have to do with wmd?

not a damn thing, but i&#39;ll keep this up, just for you if you need it that bad. [/b][/quote]
OkOkOk

You admire Byrd....and he is racist. I understand now.

As for the WMD topic....
I&#39;m am mostly for Democrat, j2 is for Republican
j2 quoted Byrd, among others

And YOU admired Byrd sooo much that you were offended by the mere quoting of him. It&#39;s a quote. j2 was quoting Democrats. Byrd&#39;s a Democrat. OK?

That&#39;s where this started my man ;)

[MediaSlayer]

yep, that is where it started. i didn&#39;t like the idea of him using on of my "own"(democrats) as fuel for his republican fire, and the fact that it was that democrat made it all the worse.

[Busyman]

Yea well I&#39;m mostly Democrat and he quoted Democrats including the racist one you admire and uh well........TOUGH, GET OVER IT&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:


"They&#39;re all gonna laugh at you&#33;&#33;&#33;" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Carrie

[RAM%ROD]

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/images/porker.jpg

[chinook_apache]

Originally posted by RAM%ROD@24 December 2003 - 21:51
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/images/porker.jpg
another sign of how narrow minded and sad RAM%ROD is.
his posts make no sense with the thread in which he is posting in at all.
get a life you sad loser :angry: