Obama to sign landmark health care reform bill at White House ceremony

  • Thread starter Beeronymous
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
S

SoB

27
0
Didn't Bush 1 leave Iraq with Saddam still in power? One must also ask why Americans feel it is their duty to interfere in other nations sovereignty? There are many leaders in the world who openly violate human rights, shit look at China, it does not justify America going to war with them though. If you remember, when Saddam bombed the kurds (those who you claim are his own people, thats another discussion altogether though) he was and remained for a number of years our ally. Another more important point, Bush 2 went after the wrong person with Saddam under false pretenses sold to the American people. Bush 2 let Osama run around the world while he went after personal ambitions.

"Didn't Bush 1 leave Iraq with Saddam still in power"? The Gulf War was not about Iraq or Saddam it was fought to free Kuwait from invaders and we succeded.

"One must also ask why Americans feel it is their duty to interfere in other nations sovereignty"? Maybe you have heard this before. All it takes for evil to flourish is good men to stand by and do nothing

"There are many leaders in the world who openly violate human rights, shit look at China" I agree and when the day comes that they are a direct threat to the US you can belive something will be done.

"those who you claim are his own people, thats another discussion altogether though" No discussion he was their leader at the time and that makes them his people.

"Bush 2 went after the wrong person with Saddam under false pretenses sold to the American people. Bush 2 let Osama run around the world while he went after personal ambitions" This hole statement sounds like an opinion not a fact when you have facts please share them. If I remember correctly it was Bilery Clinton that had Osama in his sites and would not give the order that would of saved us from 9-11 and prevented the invation of Afganistan.

SoB
 
sedate

sedate

948
63
SoB said:
HA "rather poor human rights record" Those are rather friendly words to describe one of the worlds greatest mass murderers dont you think? Look it up.

Greatest mass murder in history?

Look it up?

Okay - everything I'm about to say can be verified with Pulitzer Prize winner Samantha Power:

http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Hell-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269444344&sr=8-1

Read it before you argue with me.

Saddamn Hussien's regime murdered roughly 100,000 - 150,000 Kurds during the Anfal campaigns during the fog-of-war produced by the Iran-Iraq War using air-dropped chemical weapons.

This is childs play by genocidal standards - and - while I wouldn't make this argument with a straight face - much of the region today believes that the Kurds were engaged in armed uprising at the time in an attempt to carve their own region out of the Turkey-Iraq border.

Quick comparison: The Khmer Rouge, whose scant few years in power reduced a population of 8 million to 6 million - two million people beaten to death with farm implements - then Vietnam invaded (this is just post-Vietnam war) to stop border violation and the Khmer Rouge disappated and the Vietnamese established an interim government.

What did the US do? Support the killers.

Because Vietnam was an ally of the USSR, the US couldn't be seen to back the Vietnamese invasion, and at a UN security council meeting REINSTALLED IENG SARY TO POWER, the Joseph Goebbels of the Khmer Rouge, because it was more geopolitically convienent in the power games between the US and USSR.

Anyway - the number of mass-murders with body counts far higher are almost endless.

From Vlad the Impaler to Alexander the Great to Pol Pot to Slobodan Milosevic - any number of Catholic popes - Emperor Chin, Genghis Khan - to Hitler and Stalin - Saddamn was a two-bit dictator with regional power ambitions AT BEST.

Dangerous to the West - he was not.

SoB said:
"Certainly kept a lid on all that terrorist shit" Sounds like an admission that he was harboring terrorists. Guess he wont be doing that anymore.

Cute.

He "kept a lid on that shit" because he wouldn't countenance some fanatical religious bullshit formenting in his own backyard. It would, if allowed to logically run its course, threaten his own power.

Look what Saddamn did to the father of the de-facto leader of the Shittes today, Muqtada al-Sadr.


http://www.fpif.org/articles/misunderstanding_muqtada_al-sadr

SoB said:
"He did drop some chemical weapons on his own citizens in the early 1990's" Fairly nonchalant statement about someone mass murdering his own people dont you think? Dont forget about the beheadings at your local soccer field or the rape rooms him and his sons visited nightly.

Savanalona said:
when Saddam bombed the kurds (those who you claim are his own people, thats another discussion altogether though)

The Kurds lived northern regions of Iraq which was under nominal control of the Iraqi military. From a geopolitical standpoint, the Kurds were "his own people" - although quibbling here is somewhat understandable.

SoB, your confusing Iraq and Afghanistan - Iraq had a rather fully fleshed out judicial system before the 2003 invasion and I can assure you, random beheadings were not practiced in Iraq save political interference with the Hussien regime. That was the Taliban.

Saddamn was a rather reserved dictator by these sorts of standards - it was Uday who had the raperooms - but he had been removed from the line of succession in favor of his more sensible younger brother, Qusay.

Not defending rape rooms per se - but I'm not really concerned about every rape room the world over when it costs the lives of at least 100,000 civilians (some estimates are well above 1 million), 5000 American troops, and 3 trillion dollars.

Atrocities will continue to be visited upon mankind by other men - this is the way of this world - and all the American military might the country can muster isn't going to fix this.

The problem here seems to be the intractable way of mankind - not any particular dictator or military leader.

SoB said:
"Make no mistake, had Saddam been a little friendlier to American business, he'd be in power today". Only if a Dem was in office because you can see what a Republican did to him.

Wow. What a dreadfully WRONG reading of history.

After the US had spent months formenting Kurdish revolution during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, airdropped leaflets, radio broadcasts, diplomatic messages - but Turkey had other ideas.

Not wanting an independant Kurdish state sitting on the border, Turkey convinced Washington to abandon the Kurds and allow Saddamn's revolutionary guards to crush the Kurdish rebellion - AFTER the Americans had kicked out Iraqi from Kuwait. After all, Kuwait had gushers of oil, billions in US currency, and those Kurds only had rocks, mountains, and goats. They were expendable.

Who were they expendable to? The geopolitical calculations of one Republican - George Bush.

So, with the 3rd Armored Division sitting in west Iraq, the Iraqi military deployed technicals and infantry, crushed the armed Kurdish uprising, and returned Saddamn safely to power with President Bush signing off on the entire deal.

Kuwaits' oil fields and US/European trade deals were important.

Genocide, raperooms, and chemical weapons were not.

Under a Republican president.
 
sedate

sedate

948
63
SoB said:
"Didn't Bush 1 leave Iraq with Saddam still in power"? The Gulf War was not about Iraq or Saddam it was fought to free Kuwait from invaders and we succeded.

No, it was to save Kuwaiti oil wells, currency reserves, and trade deals. Because the Kurds were sent to shit city during the same war since they had nothing to offer except - you know - a burning desire for freedom and a land of their own.

But that isn't oil or geopolitically advantageous - so they were sacrificed to appease Turkey. See my post above.

SoB said:
"One must also ask why Americans feel it is their duty to interfere in other nations sovereignty"? Maybe you have heard this before. All it takes for evil to flourish is good men to stand by and do nothing

Your quoting a British politician from 250 years ago to justify modern American military policy in a world that couldn't be more different.

Regardless, this isn't the case, and America always does nothing unless the genocide threatens to destabilize some important trade deal or shipping lane or oil field.

Really. Read more.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-ubA_B3dAsMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false

SoB said:
"There are many leaders in the world who openly violate human rights, shit look at China" I agree and when the day comes that they are a direct threat to the US you can belive something will be done.

This is dreadfully scary paranoia - and the last time the Chinese and American militaries met - the results weren't so good for the Americans.

The Chinese, under Mao Zedong, ran MacArthur all the way from Inchon to Pusan before the Americans could stabilize the line. The end result of that war - dreadful stalemate and the North Korean "hermit kingdom" we all laugh at today.

http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/kw-chinter/chinter.htm

SoB said:
This hole statement sounds like an opinion not a fact when you have facts please share them. If I remember correctly it was Bilery Clinton that had Osama in his sites and would not give the order that would of saved us from 9-11 and prevented the invation of Afganistan.

The only time binLaden was in the "sights" of the US during the Clinton presidency was when the Sudan offered him to the DOJ in 1996 - he was still a regional nusiance at that point - and hardly the terrorist mastermind he's seen as today. I'm not sure what taking him into US custody at that point would have done - since he hadn't really done much at that point.

It was in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, during the Bush presidency, when capturing him was outsourced to Pakistani army militias and he escaped for good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/world/asia/29torabora.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/socom/2007history.pdf

The only thing that would have prevented 9/11 would have been competence on the part of the CIA and FBI, since we had a highjacker in custody and a laptop with the entire operation sketched out. On September 10.

While Condi Rice was getting memos titled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US" - I can never understand why Republicans cannot remember who was President when 9/11 happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
 
sanvanalona

sanvanalona

1,878
263
Sedate:
Great job here! I just wanted to point fact to the differences in relations between Saddam and the kurds, I don't think either would want to claim each other......but regardless the relationship between the Kurds and Saddam are not like they would be between Washington/government and say North Dakota. I do enjoy the assessment of reasoning for the war: "Kuwaits' oil fields and US?European trade deals". This along with the strategic geographical positioning all played the most important part of the Iraqi invasion.
I think it is important to make light of our nuanced reasoning for war post WWII. Prior, war had primarily been sold to the American people for the purposes of geographic and economic expansion. However, since WWII, war has been sold under the guise of ideology and morality, yet the real reasons have never faltered. This new reasoning creates a lot of the confusion and misunderstanding of current events from people who claim to be on both sides of the political spectrum.
 
S

SoB

27
0
Originally Posted by SoB
HA "rather poor human rights record" Those are rather friendly words to describe one of the worlds greatest mass murderers dont you think? Look it up.

Greatest mass murder in history?

Look it up?

If your going to quote me quote me dont cherry pick my words trying to make your point it just looks bad. I embolded the quote you should of used to help you out. I can see you like info so heres alittle you mite like of course its not left leaning like Mrs. Powers but none the less good info.
In 1959, before Hussein was the leader of Iraq (before he had
completed high school, even), he participated in the assignation of
the then-current Iraqi leader. (?Crimes Against Iraq,?
)

In 1968, Hussein, actively engaged in ?purifying the government and
society of potential dissidents.? (?Biography of Saddam Hussein of
Tikrit,? Iraq Foundation:
)
In 1974, Hussein participated in the killing of five religious
leaders. (?Saddam?s Crimes,?

) Hundreds of other religious people were arrested and tortured.
In 1977, Hussein was responsible for the arrest of thousand of
religious people, and the killing of hundreds of them.
In 1978, Hussein participated in the assignation of former
Prime-Minister Abdul Razzaq Al naef in London. Between 1978-79,
Hussein helped ?eliminate? 7,000 communists in Iraq.
In 1979, Hussein ordered another purge to eliminate political
opponents. Hundreds of top ranking Ba'thists and army officers were
executed.
During the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), 730,000 Iranians died. You will
recall that Hussein was the aggressor in this war, because he wanted
full control of the Arvand/Shatt al-Arab waterway at the head of the
Persian Gulf. (For more information on the war, see ?Iran-Iraq War,?
at Encyclopedia.com:
) Approximately 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals were killed in the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait. It?s estimated there were 1,500,000 refugees from
this war, displaced by Iraq?s occupation of Kuwait. 750,000 ?endured
brutalities, oppression, and torture.? Although the date for the end
of the war is usually given as 1988, the struggle continued, and
500,000 Iranians were late killed (the Iranians say it was closer to 1
million), 100,000 by Hussein?s chemical weapons. In one day, 5,000
men, women, and children were gassed. (?Sadaam?s Other Crime,? In The
National Interest:
and ?Charges Facing Saddam Hussein,? BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3320293.stm )

Between 1987-1988, 180,000 Kurds ?disappeared,? and 4,000 villages
were razed, in an effort at ?ethnic cleansing.?
In 1983, Hussein killed of 8,000 members of the Barzani clan. Also in
1983, Hussein arrested 90 members of Al Hakim family and executed 16
of them.
Between 1988 and 1999, Hussein killed 7,000 prisoners in what was
called ?prison cleansing.? (?NoBody Count,?
http://www.blogoram.com/000184.php )
We also know that Hussein killed and tortured many other ?enemies?
before the Gulf War. For example: Ayatollah Mohamad baqir Al Sadr and
his sister Amina Al Sadr (Bint Al Huda) were arrested, tortured, and
killed in 1980. In 1981, Haj Sahal Al Salman in UAE in 1981, Sami
Mahdi was killed. In 1987, Ni'ma Mohamad in Pakistan was killed. In
1988, Sayed Mahdi Al Hakim in Sudan was killed.
In addition, we know from Iraqi officials that Hussein put to death
?officers who did not agree to execute people in the street,?
religious leaders who didn?t lavish praise of Hussein, and Shiite
Muslims (for their religious views). (See, as an example, ?Officer's
tale: Iraq's web of assassination, ? Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0424/p01s04-woiq.html ) Remember, too,
that mass graves were found during the FIRST Gulf War. (?Charges
Against Saddam,? TalkLeft:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004668.html )

In the 1990s, Hussein killed 40,000 Shia?s (or Shiite Muslims) for
their religious uprisings; among those who became prisoners,
approximately 2,000 were executed on November 1993 alone. (?Death
Tolls,? http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat5.htm#Iraq For more on
Shia?s, see ?Shiites,? http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/shiites.htm ) As
further evidence that the Gulf War did not play a role in Shia deaths,
in 1980, before war with Iran, Hussein hanged two leading Shia
figures. (?Radical Shias Worry Bush as well as Sadaam,? Daily Times:
)


I leave you to draw your own conclusions. Would fewer people have been killed if the U.S. had not participated in the Gulf War? Or would Hussein have continued to kill, even without U.S. intervension?
Originally Posted by SoB
"Certainly kept a lid on all that terrorist shit" Sounds like an admission that he was harboring terrorists. Guess he wont be doing that anymore.

Cute.

He "kept a lid on that shit" because he wouldn't countenance some fanatical religious bullshit formenting in his own backyard. It would, if allowed to logically run its course, threaten his own power.

I dont know what you find cute about this and how exactaly does "Certainly kept a lid on all that terrorist shit" not sounds like an admission that he was harboring terrorists?
You speek like you are in the know. The fact is training camps where found but the left think Bush 1 and 2 flew airforce one over there in the middle of the night and stagged them HA.

Originally Posted by SoB
"He did drop some chemical weapons on his own citizens in the early 1990's" Fairly nonchalant statement about someone mass murdering his own people dont you think? Dont forget about the beheadings at your local soccer field or the rape rooms him and his sons visited nightly.
Originally Posted by Savanalona
when Saddam bombed the kurds (those who you claim are his own people, thats another discussion altogether though)

The Kurds lived northern regions of Iraq which was under nominal control of the Iraqi military. From a geopolitical standpoint, the Kurds were "his own people" - although quibbling here is somewhat understandable.

Call it nominal if you like but the Kurds we are talking about where under Saddams power.

SoB, your confusing Iraq and Afghanistan - Iraq had a rather fully fleshed out judicial system before the 2003 invasion and I can assure you, random beheadings were not practiced in Iraq save political interference with the Hussien regime. That was the Taliban.


Saddamn was a rather reserved dictator by these sorts of standards - it was Uday who had the raperooms - but he had been removed from the line of succession in favor of his more sensible younger brother, Qusay.

All three were involved but at the very least you have admitted Saddam allowed this to happen

Not defending rape rooms per se - but I'm not really concerned about every rape room the world over when it costs the lives of at least 100,000 civilians (some estimates are well above 1 million), 5000 American troops, and 3 trillion dollars.

You and I are very different I dont care how much money or how many lives are lost to stop evil.

Atrocities will continue to be visited upon mankind by other men - this is the way of this world - and all the American military might the country can muster isn't going to fix this.

But we sure can try.

The problem here seems to be the intractable way of mankind - not any particular dictator or military leader.

Originally Posted by SoB
"Make no mistake, had Saddam been a little friendlier to American business, he'd be in power today". Only if a Dem was in office because you can see what a Republican did to him.
Wow. What a dreadfully WRONG reading of history.

How is this a Wrong reading of history did a Republican pres not rid the world of Saddam? You are trying to redirect what I said but it wont work.
 
sanvanalona

sanvanalona

1,878
263
It is unfortunate SOB that you are sold to the idea that we are morally cleansing the wrong in the world when we go to war. I would like more evidence of that.
"You and I are very different I dont care how much money or how many lives are lost to stop evil."
This again shows the lack of logic in believing that one can stop violence with violence. There are many other ways to stop somebody, killing at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians should never be one of them. For the evil you try to stop, you inevitably become it, this type of thinking!

Also the majority of the time that Saddam committed these atrocities he was our ally? So does that make us evil too?
 
S

SoB

27
0
Originally Posted by SoB
"Didn't Bush 1 leave Iraq with Saddam still in power"?
The Gulf War was not about Iraq or Saddam it was fought to free Kuwait from invaders and we succeded.

No, it was to save Kuwaiti oil wells, currency reserves, and trade deals. Because the Kurds were sent to shit city during the same war since they had nothing to offer except - you know - a burning desire for freedom and a land of their own.

Again you are injecting your opinion. The fact is The mission of Operation Desert Storm (Jan-Feb 1991) was to remove Iraq from the country Kuwait; which was done. Now if we protected some of our interests in the process whats wrong with that?

But that isn't oil or geopolitically advantageous - so they were sacrificed to appease Turkey. See my post above.


Originally Posted by SoB
"One must also ask why Americans feel it is their duty to interfere in other nations sovereignty"? Maybe you have heard this before. All it takes for evil to flourish is good men to stand by and do nothing

Your quoting a British politician from 250 years ago to justify modern American military policy in a world that couldn't be more different.

Who cares if it was said 250 years ago if it still holds the truth in it.

Regardless, this isn't the case, and America always does nothing unless the genocide threatens to destabilize some important trade deal or shipping lane or oil field.

It is sad that you think so lowly of your own country

Really. Read more.




Originally Posted by SoB
"There are many leaders in the world who openly violate human rights, shit look at China" I agree and when the day comes that they are a direct threat to the US you can belive something will be done.

This is dreadfully scary paranoia - and the last time the Chinese and American militaries met - the results weren't so good for the Americans.

None the less did the battle need to be fought? yes I think so.

The Chinese, under Mao Zedong, ran MacArthur all the way from Inchon to Pusan before the Americans could stabilize the line. The end result of that war - dreadful stalemate and the North Korean "hermit kingdom" we all laugh at today.




Originally Posted by SoB
This hole statement sounds like an opinion not a fact when you have facts please share them. If I remember correctly it was Bilery Clinton that had Osama in his sites and would not give the order that would of saved us from 9-11 and prevented the invation of Afganistan.

The only time binLaden was in the "sights" of the US during the Clinton presidency was when the Sudan offered him to the DOJ in 1996 - he was still a regional nusiance at that point - and hardly the terrorist mastermind he's seen as today. I'm not sure what taking him into US custody at that point would have done - since he hadn't really done much at that point.

None the less he could of been delt with but Bilery let him go.

It was in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, during the Bush presidency, when capturing him was outsourced to Pakistani army militias and he escaped for good.


http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/socom/2007history.pdf

The only thing that would have prevented 9/11 would have been competence on the part of the CIA and FBI, since we had a highjacker in custody and a laptop with the entire operation sketched out. On September 10.

Lets see if Bilery would of killed the 9-11 mastermind in 1996 he could not of planed the attacks. This would of most definitely prevented 9-11.

While Condi Rice was getting memos titled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US" - I can never understand why Republicans cannot remember who was President when 9/11 happened.

SoB
 
sedate

sedate

948
63
savanalona said:
It is unfortunate SOB that you are sold to the idea that we are morally cleansing the wrong in the world when we go to war.

savanalona said:
I think it is important to make light of our nuanced reasoning for war post WWII. Prior, war had primarily been sold to the American people for the purposes of geographic and economic expansion. However, since WWII, war has been sold under the guise of ideology and morality, yet the real reasons have never faltered. This new reasoning creates a lot of the confusion and misunderstanding of current events from people who claim to be on both sides of the political spectrum.

As I sort of prepare my standard "quote-and-reply" method to this for SoB, it occurs to me that this is a much better distillation than I could provide by a complicated rebuttal steeped in geopolitics.

savana, this analysis is very astute, and I absolutely agree.

I rarely encounter anyone who knows real American military history - and even fewer who know the economics, politics, and demographics driving the conflicts.

The mythos that WWII has created in the American mind - that the US military is some sort of avenging angel for all those poor huddled terrified oppressed people in the world - is extrodinarily intractable, no matter what the evidence presented.

Every enemy is not Nazi Germany (not that the US did any heavy lifting there anyway - Americans always somehow think that the Nazi's were defeated on D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge as opposed to significant battles like Stalingrad and Kursk - thanks Tom Hanks), and every civilian population is not a concentration camp population destined for the crematoria and mass graves.

Even though every war is packaged and sold exactly that way.

So this is exactly the case . . .

SoB said:
You and I are very different I dont care how much money or how many lives are lost to stop evil

No. The difference is that you believe in American mythology and I believe in American history.

America goes to war to protect American national interest and economic influence. Even "first strike" events, like Pearl Harbor, come after years of economic turmoil and struggle. The Japanese, after all, were pissed about the American oil embargo - nominally enforceable by the US fleet at Hawaii.

The 9/11 hijackers hit the Twin Towers because it symbolized Americas economic power - the real power by which al-Qaeda percieves that the US controlled the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.

I hate to harp on the rape rooms, but do you know how armies - not each solider of course but this is the underbelly of all deployed armies throughout history - behave when they are deployed?

Did you know that four in ten women in the US military have been sexually assualted?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/31/military.sexabuse/index.html

What about Blackwater/Xe's behavior? Those poor $250,000/year merc's that the DOD hires so they can keep official troop levels down?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1

But - that doesn't matter either - since we got rid of Uday's rape room.
 
S

SoB

27
0
Originally Posted by savanalona
It is unfortunate SOB that you are sold to the idea that we are morally cleansing the wrong in the world when we go to war.
Originally Posted by savanalona
I think it is important to make light of our nuanced reasoning for war post WWII. Prior, war had primarily been sold to the American people for the purposes of geographic and economic expansion. However, since WWII, war has been sold under the guise of ideology and morality, yet the real reasons have never faltered. This new reasoning creates a lot of the confusion and misunderstanding of current events from people who claim to be on both sides of the political spectrum.
As I sort of prepare my standard "quote-and-reply" method to this for SoB, it occurs to me that this is a much better distillation than I could provide by a complicated rebuttal steeped in geopolitics.

savana, this analysis is very astute, and I absolutely agree.

I rarely encounter anyone who knows real American military history - and even fewer who know the economics, politics, and demographics driving the conflicts.

The mythos that WWII has created in the American mind - that the US military is some sort of avenging angel for all those poor huddled terrified oppressed people in the world - is extrodinarily intractable, no matter what the evidence presented.

Every enemy is not Nazi Germany (not that the US did any heavy lifting there anyway - Americans always somehow think that the Nazi's were defeated on D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge as opposed to significant battles like Stalingrad and Kursk - thanks Tom Hanks), and every civilian population is not a concentration camp population destined for the crematoria and mass graves.

Even though every war is packaged and sold exactly that way.

So this is exactly the case . . .


Originally Posted by SoB
You and I are very different I dont care how much money or how many lives are lost to stop evil

No. The difference is that you believe in American mythology and I believe in American history.
America goes to war to protect American national interest and economic influence. Even "first strike" events, like Pearl Harbor, come after years of economic turmoil and struggle. The Japanese, after all, were pissed about the American oil embargo - nominally enforceable by the US fleet at Hawaii.

Woodrow Wilson rejected Japan's claim to German concessions in Shantung, which Japan had captured at a price in blood 20 some years before Pearl this got the ball rolling dont forget. FDR did not want to cut off oil. As he told his Cabinet an embargo meant war, But a State Department lawyer named Dean Acheson (a Dem) drew up the sanctions in such a way as to block any Japanese purchases of U.S. oil. By the time FDR found out he could not back down. The oil embargo was only the straw that broke the camels back brother.
And you think because the Japanese were pissed about the oil embargo that we deserved what happend at Pearl. I dont think so.


The 9/11 hijackers hit the Twin Towers because it symbolized Americas economic power - the real power by which al-Qaeda percieves that the US controlled the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.

I dont care what they percieced it doesnt make it right or even our fault. Dems want to be so diplamatic when it come to US dealings yet make excuses for assholes that fly planes into building killing innocent people get real their perception of us makes it ok? WTF

I hate to harp on the rape rooms, but do you know how armies - not each solider of course but this is the underbelly of all deployed armies throughout history - behave when they are deployed?

Did you know that four in ten women in the US military have been sexually assualted?

And all of offenders should be hung by their nuts and shot for their crimes.



What about Blackwater/Xe's behavior? Those poor $250,000/year merc's that the DOD hires so they can keep official troop levels down?


http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1

If this is true the above statement applies

But - that doesn't matter either - since we got rid of Uday's rape room.

SoB
 
S

SoB

27
0
It is unfortunate SOB that you are sold to the idea that we are morally cleansing the wrong in the world when we go to war. I would like more evidence of that.
"You and I are very different I dont care how much money or how many lives are lost to stop evil."
This again shows the lack of logic in believing that one can stop violence with violence. There are many other ways to stop somebody, killing at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians should never be one of them. For the evil you try to stop, you inevitably become it, this type of thinking!

Also the majority of the time that Saddam committed these atrocities he was our ally? So does that make us evil too?

You seam to have a calm and thoughtful demeanor about you sanvanalona so I will take my time with respect. I am not sold on the idea of moral cleansing by the act of war and I can provide no evidence that it works. I belive in deplomacy but when it fails more extream measures must be taken. When other world powers threaten our people, resorces, ally's, way of life or our country we must act.
You can stop violence with violence in the right scenario but war is not one of them. In war you must devistate and concor your opponent. The problem with the wars in todays politicaly correct word is we walk away when its over insted of staying and occupying their country forever. We walk away because we are good people and we hope the people that we have just concord will change. So what you get is a devistated country that wants to kill you more now then ever and they have been left alone to rise up again and start the cycle of violence all over.
My hypothetical question for you is what should we do when all other options have faild and war is imminent should we build a 100 foot tall wall around our country, throw out all illegals and foreigners from questionable countries and become sepratists as we peak over our wall waiting for some one to bomb us or should we let them devistate and concor us so we dont have to be violent people or should we start occupying the countries we devistate with war so they cant rise up and start the cycle over again? Remimber this is hypothetical and war is imminent


SoB
 
M

mal

Premium Member
Supporter
2,069
113
you guys are longwinded

if i could type better i could put a long post up too. not that it would be interesting.no matter what your politics we should all be friends first.



mal
 
S

SoB

27
0
if i could type better i could put a long post up too. not that it would be interesting.no matter what your politics we should all be friends first.



mal

Brother if you are talking to me by no means am I trying to be disrespectful just enjoying a good debate.
 
L

Lost

2,969
38
Guys, this is a good civil debate. Were all still friends here, just exploring other peoples' perspectives. Its all good :)
 
M

mal

Premium Member
Supporter
2,069
113
good discussion

very cool. sorry if i was out of place. just made some bho and i am rather high.



mal
 
sanvanalona

sanvanalona

1,878
263
SOB:
Thanks for the respectful discourse, it helps add to the conversation extremely. War is a form of mass murder, I think it should be the ABSOLUTE last resort in defense, which is what I think your hypothetical question is asking. That aside, I am not unrealistic, I know that people fight over greed and not morality. Never has morality been reasoning for killing anyone. Almost every religious war has had to abandon major aspects of their doctrine in order to proceed and engage in war. Therefore, morality is at the wayside in war. That is my core argument: We, the U.S. or any other super power for that matter, do not engage in war for anything other than geographical or economical advantages.
You seem to me to be very smart, so I will ask you, do you think that war is boiled down to good and evil? If so who is evil? Why? I also must ask if we are evil for supporting the numerous dictators that engage in atrocious abuses of human rights? I guess I don't see America as infallible, nor do I think that we are the only super power by luck or God, but because we do many things to hold other nations below us, strategically and militaristically.
 
B

Beeronymous

278
0
Violent threats hit Obama allies over health vote

Thu Mar 25, 6:28 AM


WASHINGTON (AFP) - Top Democratic lawmakers called in police and the FBI after House members who voted for historic health care reform received violent threats and obscene, abusive messages.


Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said more than 10 lawmakers had reported incidents since Sunday's vote, some of which he described as "very serious" without giving details.


Lawmakers stepped up their security, as one senior Democrat reported bricks had been thrown through the windows of her home district office.


Democratic Representative Bart Stupak, who brokered a deal clearing the way for some fellow anti-abortion lawmakers to vote for the legislation, received a fax with a noose and the caption "all Baby Killers come to unseemly ends Either by the hand of man or by the Hand of God."


The abusive tone of some of the threats as well as incidents of violence have clearly shaken lawmakers as they prepare to head home this weekend for a spring recess.


Stupak's office received a voicemail in which an irate man declares: "You baby-killing mother(expletive). You turncoat son of a (expletive) piece of (expletive). I hope you bleed out your (expletive), get cancer and die."


The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was investigating a reported incident of a gas line being cut at the home of one lawmaker's brother, and the US Capitol Police was briefing worried representatives on how to keep themselves and their families safe.


"We received information that the congressman may have been threatened and that was the reason for us going to his brother's house, because it was related to us that he may have been targeted," the FBI said.


"Any member who feels themself at risk is getting attention from the proper authorities," said Hoyer. "That activity ought to be unacceptable in our democracy."


House Rules Committee chairman Louise Slaughter said in a statement that someone threw a brick through the window of her district office and "a voicemail referencing snipers" was left on her campaign office phone system.


"'Assassinate' is the word they used... toward the children of lawmakers who voted yes," reported a Rochester television news outlet of the message left for the New York lawmaker.


"The US Capitol Police, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and local police departments are all aware of these incidents and are still investigating," she said in a statement.


The incidents occurred after demonstrators demanding lawmakers "kill the bill" reportedly spat on one black representative and called others racial slurs just outside the Capitol over the weekend.


Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said many Americans were "angry" about the health law, but underlined that "violence and threats are unacceptable. That's not the American way."


"We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change. Call your congressman, go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, make your voice heard -- but let's do it the right way," he said.


Democratic Representative James Clyburn said it was up to lawmakers from all political stripes to send a unified message that such threats from constituents were unacceptable.


"We in this Congress have got to come together in a bipartisan way and tamp this foolishness down. It doesn't make sense. That's not what a democracy is all about," Clyburn told CNN.


Ahead of the health care vote, conservative blogger "Solly" Forell was already reportedly being investigated by the US Secret Service for threatening posts toward Obama that he made on the website Twitter.

"ASSASSINATION America, we survived the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy. We'll surely get over a bullet 2 #BarackObama's head," he wrote in a posting.

Forell later deleted the post and backtracked, writing: "Let us all renounce the harsh rhetoric about the (president). Several, including myself, (have) used inappropriate language. Let's remain civil!"
 
S

SoB

27
0
SOB:
Thanks for the respectful discourse, it helps add to the conversation extremely. War is a form of mass murder, I think it should be the ABSOLUTE last resort in defense, which is what I think your hypothetical question is asking. That aside, I am not unrealistic, I know that people fight over greed and not morality. Never has morality been reasoning for killing anyone. Almost every religious war has had to abandon major aspects of their doctrine in order to proceed and engage in war. Therefore, morality is at the wayside in war. That is my core argument: We, the U.S. or any other super power for that matter, do not engage in war for anything other than geographical or economical advantages.
You seem to me to be very smart, so I will ask you, do you think that war is boiled down to good and evil? If so who is evil? Why? I also must ask if we are evil for supporting the numerous dictators that engage in atrocious abuses of human rights? I guess I don't see America as infallible, nor do I think that we are the only super power by luck or God, but because we do many things to hold other nations below us, strategically and militaristically.

I would submit to you the American Civil War. Using your stance that people fight over greed instead of morality we can only assume that Abe Lincoln fought the war because he was to greedy to allow 11 slave states to secede from the United States. Surely the 11 slave states had a geopolitical value to the United States and to Abe Lincoln, is this why they deemed the secession a rebellion?. The real facts are Abe had a moral issue with slavery because he was a good man. He only injected the Union army into war after the attack at Fort Sumter. Under your premise that all war is a form of mass murder are we to assume that Abe Lincoln and the men that fought that war are mass murderers solely because the definition fits the action. I think not. With that said lets think about good vs. evil. Was the Union army not doing a good thing in trying to free the slaves? Was the Confederate Army not fighting for a truly evil cause in rights to slavery? In school we learn of the great moral victory that was accomplished by the American Civil War should we change that and teach our children that it was a geopolitical war fought for land and money rather than freedom and human rights? My point is if you look hard enough you can find something bad in every war but in doing so you may overlook the good that has been achieved.
As fare as your question of are we evil because we support evil dictators my answer is most defiantly no we are not evil by association.
Example: should you be called a murderer because your business partners kills someone? No. Lets take this further and say your business partner controls the gas line to your home and with out the gas your family/country may parish and your world could come crashing down because there is no other source of gas that can meat your demand. Do you walk away from your partner because he is a killer and seal the fate of your own family/country? Or do you try to protect the source of gas that provides life to your family/country? The second choice is obviously the correct one now does that make you a killer or savior? I would submit that you are a savior for protecting your family/country and you have procured some time to find another source of gas.

SoB
 
sanvanalona

sanvanalona

1,878
263
Sob:
Again I ask you who is evil? Is the U.S. not evil? How about Nicaragua in the 80's? Or the many other peoples movements that have been thwarted by the U.S. I would also submit that killing for ANY material item is evil, be it oil or anything else, automobiles, etc. Life is worth so much more than that, in my opinion. Also, I don't think that the U.S. or any other country for that matter is somehow acting in on behalf of god or the most high or whatever you call it. You mention the civil war. I think that your first assessment is more in line with the truth. I am not saying that Lincoln wasn't against slavery, just that was not ever the reason for the war. It was fought to stop the south from leaving the union, which would have ultimately destroyed the nation, remember the strong euro/english desire to have the U.S. become a territory again. Still, I don't see how war is fought over morality. It would be nice if everything was as easy as good and evil, black and white, but it seems to me that it is much more complicated than that.
 
S

SoB

27
0
Sob:
Again I ask you who is evil? Is the U.S. not evil? How about Nicaragua in the 80's? Or the many other peoples movements that have been thwarted by the U.S. I would also submit that killing for ANY material item is evil, be it oil or anything else, automobiles, etc. Life is worth so much more than that, in my opinion. Also, I don't think that the U.S. or any other country for that matter is somehow acting in on behalf of god or the most high or whatever you call it. You mention the civil war. I think that your first assessment is more in line with the truth. I am not saying that Lincoln wasn't against slavery, just that was not ever the reason for the war. It was fought to stop the south from leaving the union, which would have ultimately destroyed the nation, remember the strong euro/english desire to have the U.S. become a territory again. Still, I don't see how war is fought over morality. It would be nice if everything was as easy as good and evil, black and white, but it seems to me that it is much more complicated than that.

No the US is not evil! When you say Nicaragua I assume you mean the Contra Affair is this correct? If so how do you conclude that the US as a hole is evil from the suspected actions of a covert group? Are you evil? am I evil? was the sitting congress evil? NO none of us knew a thing about what was supposedly going on.
You are quite correct in saying that my first assessment of the Civil War is more inline with the truth. With that said do you think it was the most important reason? ask any person you see today why we fought the American Civil War I would bet my next harvest not one person will say it was done to stop states from seceding from the Union or it was fought because of the tarriff tax. The Fact is we remember and teach that we freed the slaves because the moral victory over slavery was far more important than the geopolitical BS.
I like you my friend but I fear you only see the bad in every conflict.

 
Top Bottom