Printable View
Well, you know it was inevitable that he'd show up here anyway.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@2 May 2003 - 21:15
Clocker,
Get the f*ck out of my head, I PM'ed J2K4 the same message!
I'm pretty sure that the word "prestidigitator" was a lure he couldn't resist.
Anyway, j2 is a articulate, thoughtful, occasionally lyrical apologist for the Dark Side.
Without some fresh blood this thread is going to sink like a stone to the bottom of the page.
Well, you know it was inevitable that he'd show up here anyway.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+2 May 2003 - 23:28--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 2 May 2003 - 23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--hobbes@2 May 2003 - 21:15
Clocker,
Get the f*ck out of my head, I PM'ed J2K4 the same message!
I'm pretty sure that the word "prestidigitator" was a lure he couldn't resist.
Anyway, j2 is a articulate, thoughtful, occasionally lyrical apologist for the Dark Side.
Without some fresh blood this thread is going to sink like a stone to the bottom of the page. [/b][/quote]
I've been up all night stewing, and still don't have time until after work.
I'm giving up precious sleep to tell you this:
I wish you to use the intervening period here to entertain, imagine, and revel in the 'glory' that we all missed out on when Al Gore lost the last Presidential Election.*
*Speaking of puppetry and presti-whatever, I believe Mr Lieberman would have been required to insert his LEFT hand in Al's nether regions to activate our armed forces on the occasion of 9/11. From there it would have been all downhill. I mean FURTHER downhill...
Oh plueeeze...
I assume that was just a diversionary post, meant to incite until you could do better.
Speculating how poorly ( or well ) Al Gore might have responded to world events since the election is irrelevant. Interesting science fiction perhaps, but hardly germane to this thread.
I know you can do better than "Well, Bush might suck, but Gore would've been worse".
Take your time, j2, we all have time here. ;)
If you wish to decide whether US / UK liberation of Iraq was justified ask the Kurds, or the thousands tortured by the old regime, or the families of those in the mass graves.
All your fancy-dan liberal debates, clever as they are, did not stop one rape or murder, or child living in constant terror.
In fact they along with the marches caused the situation where war became inevitable. They made the tyrant think that he had popular world support. Making the position impossible.
Remember before the war started the American people said that if the regime stood down then their would be no need for war. The Saudi's said they would take them in and the U.S. agreed to this.
Jmif,Quote:
Originally posted by JmiF@3 May 2003 - 13:43
If you wish to decide whether US / UK liberation of Iraq was justified ask the Kurds, or the thousands tortured by the old regime, or the families of those in the mass graves.
All your fancy-dan liberal debates, clever as they are, did not stop one rape or murder, or child living in constant terror.
In fact they along with the marches caused the situation where war became inevitable. They made the tyrant think that he had popular world support. Making the position impossible.
Remember before the war started the American people said that if the regime stood down then their would be no need for war. The Saudi's said they would take them in and the U.S. agreed to this.
You're coming in late here. Your point was covered in another thread, as I cited above.
We are all happy for the free people of Iraq, but if you think Dubya did this for them you are mistaken. They are just a great PR distraction to justify the invasion of a country.
Dubya declared that he was "liberating " Iraq because the UN was worthless and that he knew that Iraq had WMD and links to Al-Queda and he did not have the luxury of waiting until the next terrorist attack before doing something about it.
How do you think other Middle Eastern countries feel about this. Are we next? Will Dubya point his finger at use next, call us evil then invade? Lots of dictators out their suppressing alot of people. Should we just embark on a worldwide "Freedom" tour? Iraq is a drop in the bucket on a global scale.
We invaded Iraq on shaky grounds and as I have said, only the discovery of WMD will retrospectively justify the war. I am no fancy pants liberal. I supported Dubya and took him at his word. I just want him to make good on it and not try to distract me with side issues (freeing Iraq).
The parallel universe fantasy. What would be happening today if Gore were President? I would be interested to see, just out of curiousity.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@3 May 2003 - 13:34
Oh plueeeze...
I assume that was just a diversionary post, meant to incite until you could do better.
Speculating how poorly ( or well ) Al Gore might have responded to world events since the election is irrelevant. Interesting science fiction perhaps, but hardly germane to this thread.
I know you can do better than "Well, Bush might suck, but Gore would've been worse".
Take your time, j2, we all have time here. ;)
Just like in the 80's, we all had those post-apocalyptic fantasies. Sure, we really didn't want global nuclear war, but it was kind of fun to think about what it would be like to be among a handful of survivors in a world left mostly intact, but bereft of humans. I think someone even wrote a book about, but using viruses, not war. I think his name was Teven Sing or something like that?
I love the who's next question. The - what are we going to do next, overthrow another evil dictator.
Sorry if you think me naive but why not. I think it was Rumsfeld (sorry about the spelling) who when asked "who next" replied something like, I don't know we'll have to spin a bottle.
My point is a simple one. I don't care about justifying this. The fact is that millions of people's lives are enhanced and will keep getting better. That is enough for me.
Incidentally I don't see how I can have come in half way through. I thought I had read the thread from the start. I have also posted similarly to this elsewhere, so I would appreciate it if you were a little less patronising. However that's a matter for you. It's a free world, at least for some of us.
By late, I meant the forum, in general. Notice, I said this was discussed in another THREAD, not post. I was not attempting to patronize, but I just hadn't seen your name in this forum before. I had two prior threads on this subject: http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?act...ST&f=41&t=25999 and http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?act...ST&f=41&t=26819Quote:
Originally posted by JmiF@3 May 2003 - 16:32
I love the who's next question. The - what are we going to do next, overthrow another evil dictator.
Sorry if you think me naive but why not. I think it was Rumsfeld (sorry about the spelling) who when asked "who next" replied something like, I don't know we'll have to spin a bottle.
My point is a simple one. I don't care about justifying this. The fact is that millions of people's lives are enhanced and will keep getting better. That is enough for me.
Incidentally I don't see how I can have come in half way through. I thought I had read the thread from the start. I have also posted similarly to this elsewhere, so I would appreciate it if you were a little less patronising. However that's a matter for you. It's a free world, at least for some of us.
In these threads, I stressed that we keep focused on the justification, and not be lead astray by emotional distractions. I wanted the US to come out of this loking like "the good guys" and that could only come from full accountability.
The people of Iraq are free and that is nice, but if we cannot justify our invasion of a Muslim country, how do you think that will fare longterm with countries in the Middle East and elsewhere who don't trust us to begin with. Very destabilizing.
I posted this thread to acknowledge that my fears had come to fruition. People no longer care about WMD and have been lead by emotion. Pawns, simple minded sheep. So easily distracted.
If you don't care about justification, then you are saying that the means justify the end. I discussed this before:
"So, at this point, the US is justifying its means to the end, which is the same logic given to many historic atrocities. Heck, we could just round up all near sighted people and kill them, and justify it by saying that all future generations will have children with perfect vision. Small price to pay for such a long term benefit."
Hope you don't wear glasses ;) . But if you do, you will die gladly knowing that someday nobody will need them, and that's enough for you.
Anyway, that is why I feel that justification is so important and why I am so disappointed in the labile emotions of the American people.
I think I said I don't care about justifying this.
If you chose to quote me please also read what I have written, within it's context.
I was merely expressing my opinion, which is obviously very different to yours.
I genuinely am more interested in the people who are liberated and how their lives have improved. I understand that you may feel your sense of discomfort is more important than that, however I tend to take very simplistic views.
Atrocities and terror, subjected on an entire nation, by it's own rulers has been ended. This is a good thing.
I see your point.Quote:
Originally posted by JmiF@3 May 2003 - 17:46
I think I said I don't care about justifying this.
If you chose to quote me please also read what I have written, within it's context.
I was merely expressing my opinion, which is obviously very different to yours.
I genuinely am more interested in the people who are liberated and how their lives have improved. I understand that you may feel your sense of discomfort is more important than that, however I tend to take very simplistic views.
Atrocities and terror, subjected on an entire nation, by it's own rulers has been ended. This is a good thing.
You favor the removal of an oppressive government to liberate the people. You don't care about "political justifications" to assuage the UN and neighboring countries.
That's fine, but I think somewhat shortsighted.
It's just that I live in America. I go to the ballpark, the mall, to work without a thought in my head of terrorist acts. I don't worry about car bombs or suicide missions and I'd like to keep it that way.
I fear that irresposibile acts by my government, may cause short term gains in Iraq, but effect long term consequences where I live.
Any nation with a dictator can now see the US a potential threat. We will make up some excuse for the media(WMD), invade to achieve a hidden agenda (oil, uranium, whatever), and then woo our populace into approval by showing the liberated people of the country. Nice little racket.
This type of perception by the world would really cause a serious increase in the risk of another 9/11. Not only that, but consider China. They have WMD, an oppressive government, maybe they will see us as a threat. You don't want to piss off the Chinese because these gangsta's don't play.
I don't want to get Russia against us again, we have come so far.
Well before this turns into a total ramble, my point is that short term gains can become long term disasters because of the ripple effect. I want us quell that wake, by delivering to the world what we promised.
A luxury I enjoy is pretending that soccer/baseball/add your sport matches are important. That's the kind of secure world I want to live in. No bombs in the bus station and blimps of death at the Super Bowl.