Another war post. [Archive] - Unicyclist Community

johnfoss

2003-03-25, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by leo
the yank's complain about it's against article 13 and 14 of the convention of Geneva (http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm) (hmm, suddenly they care about UN dessisions?). Did they care about the same rules when they last week did do the same thing? Didn't the US go in there to enforce UN Resolution 1440? The odd thing about that, of course is that they're doing it without UN support. This makes me wonder if the UN Security Council is capable of making any hard and fast decisions.

But I believe the US intends to comply with the terms of the Geneva Convention when it comes to prisoners of war. I fully expect Iraq not to. This is predictable behavior, as they beat and tortured their prisoners in the 1991 war. I don't think warning them not to will have a large effect on whether or not they will this time.

The US and the UK media sencoring (http://www.internalmemos.com/memos/memodetails.php?memo_id=1424) will make these reports will not been shown on any channel there (yet). I can't speak for the UK, but I know the American media has a tough time with itself in times like these. They love to "scoop" each other by showing stuff first, but at the same time they want to be patriotic as well. The US government can ask that the pictures and videos not be shown, and they must have some legal right to enforce this. Beyond that however, the media companies in the US are privately owned, and they can say and show what they want. Censorship, if you want to call it that, is controlled by the media company owners, with strong influence by the sponsors and advertisers and, outside of times of war, not under the control of the US government. If the Geneva Convention says you can't show certain things, it's up to those media companies to follow those laws if the US government says they will be followed.

The reporters in the field have unprecedented access to the battles as they happen. A scary job I would not want! They must be under agreements to reveal onlly what they've been allowed to reveal. This makes perfect sense for anyone who doesn't want to get their soldiers killed. I'm still surprised by the amount of information and detail that gets espoused by "experts" on TV about what may or should happen next as the troops approach Bahgdad.

gluteous maximus

2003-03-25, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by johnfoss

The reporters in the field have unprecedented access to the battles as they happen. A scary job I would not want! They must be under agreements to reveal onlly what they've been allowed to reveal. This makes perfect sense for anyone who doesn't want to get their soldiers killed.

CNN.com EDITOR'S NOTE:
This report was written in accordance with Pentagon ground rules allowing so-called embedded reporting, in which journalists join deployed troops. Among the rules accepted by all participating news organizations is an agreement not to disclose sensitive operational details.

In other words; publish only what the Pentagon approves, or it's back to Kuwait with your correspondents.

You say "strategic censorship", I say "propandistic spin-doctoring".

Oh, well...

It's all just a big 24-hour action movie for Americans, anyhow. No risk to the general citizenry.

Ooh! It's like the 4th of July!

Oooooh! Was that a house?

leo

2003-03-25, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by gluteous maximus
the majority of us Americans who can't speak anything but English.
Which is correctly. Not to mention the part of Americans that cannot even write english because of poor education. But hey, blew up another spaceship for good reasons (http://www.stopstarwars.org/). After the war is won the economy is radically changed, and -since the US has the largest amount of christians- all poor poeple will bennefit.

Originally posted by johnfoss
Didn't the US go in there to enforce UN Resolution 1440?
(puke) Actually I think this is one example of not following the UN.

I'm talking about the US forcing pricing and export of steel in the UK and Holland (without UN dessionmaking (http://www.unctad.org/)).
When these countries ignore, they blackmail with cutting off all their export, starting with non-genetic manipulated dutch tomatos.

I'm talking about UN climate conferance, where ignoring behaviour of the states verses the pact of Australia + China + Japan + India + whole Africa and Europe is so amazing childish and especially egoistic. I wonder what their citizens itself thought about it. No media reports with truth details to find about it in the states.

I suddenly remember the TV recording about how the US treated supposed taliban fighters. Not very Genevalike.

Censorship, if you want to call it that, is controlled by the media company owners, with strong influence by the sponsors and advertisers and, outside of times of war, not under the control of the US government.
Media is also depending on those organisation that give them licence to broadcast...

If the Geneva Convention says you can't show certain things, it's up to those media companies to follow those laws if the US government says they will be followed.
So they are not allowed to broadcast anything... for childporn, okay, but for soldiers who did not went there for a holiday...
Being not allowed to broadcast anything is for me a definition of the word censor.
But basicly Belgium, Dutch en Japanese TV are not genevaconv. complient. Yes I think you right. How rude...

Back to the question. Did the US worry about those article's 13 & 14? Or do you think they waited till the Iraki families were informed?

johnfoss

2003-03-25, 10:06 PM

CNN.com EDITOR'S NOTE:
This report was written in accordance with Pentagon ground rules allowing so-called embedded reporting, in which journalists join deployed troops. Among the rules accepted by all participating news organizations is an agreement not to disclose sensitive operational details.Originally posted by gluteous maximus
In other words; publish only what the Pentagon approves, or it's back to Kuwait with your correspondents.

You say "strategic censorship", I say "propandistic spin-doctoring". Though I agree with much of what Gluteous is saying, that part is a little off. Based on the quote you provided, the Pentagon has established ground rules of what you can and cannot divulge. They are not, on the other hand, filtering everything produced by the reporters. So it's censorship by a set of predefined rules, rather than on an item-by-item basis. Still, depending on how you define it, it is a form of censorship.

You seem to disagree with this. Would you rather have the reporters in the field giving away the strategic information that is, in part, keeping them alive? What do you have in mind?

leo

2003-03-26, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by johnfoss
So it's censorshipso finaly we agree.
the Pentagon has established ground rules of what you can and cannot divulge.yep, we knew for long: they make their own rules, and else they use them randomly
(for example accepting the international court except for US citizens that commited war crimes).

fatguygoesuphill

2003-03-26, 12:34 AM

"rules of war" is oxymornic, if not plain old moronic.

Oh, and Damn those Iraqi devils for donning civilian garb and fighting dirty. How uncivilized!

Does anyone, anyone at all, remember the little thing called the American Revolution? Didn't those damn dirty colonists sneak around in the bushes with their squirrel guns? Who the Fuck have we become?

Violent protests.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity? ? True, but a very difficult path to follow. Historically (viet nam), peaceful protests have gone largely unnoticed by the administration. Now more than ever it may be time to shake things up a bit. Especially when bushthemoron thinks of people who dissent as merely the small voice of a focus group.

Too bad this "focus group's" old company didn't just win a large contract to rebuild oil fields

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0308-05.htm (http://)

Oh yeah, all of you ignorant bastards who think peace and patriotism are mutually exclusive can Kiss My ASS !!!!

leo

2003-03-26, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by fatguygoesuphill
and Damn those Iraqi devils for donning civilian garb and fighting dirty. How uncivilized!Can you tel me what you see here?

leo

2003-03-26, 01:28 AM

The correct answer is:
Dutch militairy police is fighting in civilian clothes.
We captured on militairy-frequencies: "we rather have fights in de beginning of this war"
and so go ahead, force violence...
I think this is sick to, to manipulate events like that!
http://81.17.56.91/10531.jpg (http://81.17.56.91/exxoncution.html) (on the right is the US ambassy).
don't ask how we got this, click it.
Then watch the videoclip(link at the very bottom) you wont see it on Mtv-europe...

grayson

2003-03-26, 12:59 PM

Fatguygoesuphill..."Oh yeah, all of you ignorant bastards who think peace and patriotism are mutually exclusive can Kiss My ASS !!!!"

Whoa, dude, you lick your grandma's butt with that mouth? Somebody learned some big bad words today in kindergarten!:eek:

zod

2003-03-26, 01:20 PM

All of you should really stick to talking about unicycles b/c you're all sounding like a bunch of jackasses right now.

leo

2003-03-26, 01:43 PM

There are other things as unicycles in live to.
But yes, bad words are telling more about who used them, than to who they were addressed.
Keep it nice here please. There are enough examples (http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/flash-02.php) that show what state the states are in.

U-Turn

2003-03-26, 02:31 PM

fatguy's link was messed-up for some reason: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0308-05.htm

gluteous maximus

2003-03-26, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by johnfoss
Based on the quote you provided, the Pentagon has established ground rules of what you can and cannot divulge. They are not, on the other hand, filtering everything produced by the reporters. So it's censorship by a set of predefined rules, rather than on an item-by-item basis. Still, depending on how you define it, it is a form of censorship.

You seem to disagree with this. Would you rather have the reporters in the field giving away the strategic information that is, in part, keeping them alive? What do you have in mind?

I was not suggesting that the media should broadcast strategic information. Are you questioning my patriotism?

What I am saying is that the disclaimer on CNN's site looks more like pre-fab excuse for manipulating ALL of the reports, in order to help avoid a bigger groundswell of protest to the invasion of Iraq. Remember, the TV networks have a big investment in this whole thing, too. They're raking-in the advertising on this coverage, you betcha! (Anyone who cares to, consider boycotting the sponsors of the news reports.) The squatting administration continues to advertise the high-tech precision with which the US military can strike its carefully selected targets. How much of that "precision" have you seen on American TV so far? Aside from the British jet downed by an American missile, that is...

If the US military is dependent on the media to keep the troops alive, then the troops are certainly doomed, because they will only be kept alive until the ratings fall, just like any given sit-com.

They keep calling this "the first war on TV". Strange, I can remember hearing the daily Viet Cong body counts and seeing coverage of the "war" (it wasn't declared, either) in Viet Nam on NBC Nightly News with David Brinkley and Chet Huntley when I was 8 years old. Oh, yeah, there were the Watts riots, too, but that's was an "internal" matter.

The only "strategic" reason for delaying information on American TV which has already been broadcast by other countries' media, is, as I said, propagandistic.

If anybody gave a hoot about the poor soldiers' families, they wouldn't have sent them over there in the first place. They're expendable, and exploitable. Count on both qualities being utilized as much as possible.

As for the "we should support our troops, now that this has started" movement...

This idea would appear to be fallout from the aftermath of Viet Nam. There's an important difference, however. The current US military is an all-volunteer force. During Viet Nam, we had the draft, so, many of the men who were sent to die, be maimed, captured, etc. went with only prison as an alternative.

Given that I oppose this invasion of Iraq, why oh why would I "support" those who are carrying it out? Why? They did not ask my support when they signed their enlistment papers, and they did not ask for my support when they received their orders to ship out, so I can only assume they would not ask my support now, either.

Neither do I believe they need it, ... now.

When, if, they return, they can have my support, as humans who have been through trauma, as refugees, because that is when they are truly going to need support. That is when they are going to be abandoned by the military machine that ground them up and spit them out. I am against this invasion for the sake of the lives of all the military personnel involved as well as the lives of the citizens of Iraq.

fatguygoesuphill

2003-03-26, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by grayson
Fatguygoesuphill..."Oh yeah, all of you ignorant bastards who think peace and patriotism are mutually exclusive can Kiss My ASS !!!!"

Whoa, dude, you lick your grandma's butt with that mouth? Somebody learned some big bad words today in kindergarten!:eek:

like i said, it's a difficult path to follow

fatguygoesuphill

2003-03-26, 09:52 PM

The word "support" has become as meaningless as the word "nice". Can't stand it anymore.

johnfoss

2003-03-27, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by fatguygoesuphill
"rules of war" is oxymornic, if not plain old moronic. Obviously you've never fought in a war. Though they may not always be followed, having such rules can make life a lot easier for the participants on both sides. The participants meaning the ones fighting, not us.

But Iraq hasn't been big on following the traditional rules, and I doubt anyone in the coalition armed forces is really expecting them to. Their job of protecting the civilian population is going to keep getting more difficult as the Iraquis get more desperate.

Violent protests.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity? True, but a very difficult path to follow. Don't know where that quote's from, but it's a good one. Historically (viet nam), peaceful protests have gone largely unnoticed by the administration. Now more than ever it may be time to shake things up a bit. Especially when bushthemoron thinks of people who dissent as merely the small voice of a focus group. This would seem to suggest that peaceful demonstrations or protests carry no political weight. Wrong. How about the civil rights movement? That's just an example. My main point here is to say "WRONG."

Definitely when protests become violent they generate more press. But this does not do the work of changing peoples' minds.

The second half of what you said suggests you think the protesters represent the majority of the American populace? Wrong again. I've been keeping my ears open for statistics, on various forms of media (not just liberal or conservative). The majority of the population, let us say, "accepts" this war.

I say accepts because if I get polled, I would not want to answer with a simple yes or no. I am more in the 50/50 area. Oh yeah, all of you ignorant bastards who think peace and patriotism are mutually exclusive can Kiss My ASS !!!! Told with an utter lack of eloquence that takes away from its meaningfulness, I actually fully agree with that one.

There are too many conservative persons out there who are presently equating a desire for peace with a lack of patriotism. Hello! I remember all of this from the Vietnam era. Do we have to go through the same stuff again? Maybe some of us have higher aspirations for our country, and wish we could accomplish things with less bombs! Nothing wrong with that.

U-Turn

2003-03-28, 01:14 AM

There are no such things as traditional rules these days. The USA has beat the country down before, held it in quarantine ever since, ignored the United Nations, hired the best PR experts in the world, borrowed huge sums of money to finance this "war", bombed the heck out of Iraq's capital city without any air resistance, completely ruled the US media, fabricated excuses to start a fight, and has the nerve to complain when the country fights back with small arms.

To me, that's dirty fighting.

The liberation of Kuwait was one thing, this is something different.

leo

2003-03-28, 02:11 AM

Yes, if the US is so keen on war-rules, can anyone explain why just resist in refusing to accept the UN international war tibunal in The Hague?
According to the US law it's now fully legal to invade Holland once the UN sues any US citizen.

Yeah right, policing the world.
You have the freedom to follow our rules, and only choose the option we provide.
And so after the war you have no choise in raising a CDMA and not a GSM one (http://www.issa.house.gov/newsroom_press_detail.asp?serial=101&page=newsroom)...
Big Brother will finance these little spies.

U-Turn

2003-03-28, 05:24 AM

I forgot the dirtiest trick of all.... conning the UN to inspect the country top-to-bottom for weapons before invading.

Good warfare; short-sighted world diplomacy.

My apologies to our international unicycling friends.

Grokthezeppelin

2003-03-28, 05:52 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh yeah, all of you ignorant bastards who think peace and patriotism are mutually exclusive can Kiss My ASS !!!!

You forgot to add "on a hot day after i've been riding my unicycle" :p

Checkernuts

2003-03-28, 06:45 AM

I wish everyone over on this side of the pond would stop to think. That is the big problem with this country as I see it. People dont stop to think about what they do they just do do do untill their are great immediate consequenses.

The real fact is Most Americans I dont even want to associate with, America as a whole is a stupid nation. More people know what happend on last weeks 'Friends' than stoped to actually READ a paper for anything but sports scores and horiscopes.

Than again who am I to say that every well informed american does not support the war. I have 2 roomates 1 thinks that the war is an absolutly nessacarry thing and that protests against it should be banned because they prevoke violent behavior. And the other who thinks that the war is bad because of the precident it sets for furture generations, but still supports the war because going against what el presidente say's is wrong. He also thinks protests are a waste of time because no one listens to people that liberal.

zod

2003-03-28, 02:22 PM

I for one am a well informed well educated ADULT American and I am for the war. I see a lot of ignorant people in our Country as well, but Checkernuts don't go thinking that the rest of the world is any different because they're not.
The large majority of extremist are uninformed idiots on both sides of the fence .

"finishing daddies work" -- ignorant comment
"war for oil" -- ignorant comment
"were doing this to stop terrorism" -- ignorant comment
The truth lies somewhere in between all of this, the extremist only see what they want to.....

I don't like getting into forums rants, but here's what I see.......and this is why I am for the war.

Fact: 1441 was not being followed and the UN was never going to do anything about it.
Fact: Saddam runs a dictator regime and does little for the good of his people and country.
Fact: Saddam practices genocide, he is currently doing so during this war by using civilians as human shields. He and his sons have shown to have no respect for human life and this will never change.
Fact: all that we destroy with bombs will be rebuilt 10 fold better than it was before.
Fact: In the end Iraq will be a much better country (for Iraqi's) after Saddam is ousted.
Fact: Iraq is a rich nation, however they are a nation of poverty b/c all oil money goes to one place. The people of Iraq deserve better to be starving and diseased when they are all living in a virtual goldmine.

Here are some facts that I see that go the other way.

Fact: We are killing civilians over there as are Iraqi soldiers.
Fact: We are killing Iraqi soldiers the large majority of whom I consider innocents as they are only fighting b/c they are afraid they would be killed for attempting to defect, or worse Saddam will have their families killed.
Fact: Americans and Brits are dying over there.
Fact: A large portion of world population disagrees with our actions.
Fact: We are going against the U.N. (they are worthless in conflict situations so this means little to me)

In the end I look at everything and I make my decision on that big picture of facts. I feel we are making a correct move over there. Yes we are killing innocents, yes it's ugly and people are going to die. War is not fun. But in the end I think that the people of Iraq will be more than better off. I personally could care less about how the rest of the world benfits from this, I just want the Iraqi people to be free and FACT: right now they are not.

That's it.....I'm off my soapbox now and I'm not getting back up on it. :)

gluteous maximus

2003-03-28, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by johnfoss
Obviously you've never fought in a war. Though they may not always be followed, having such rules can make life a lot easier for the participants on both sides. The participants meaning the ones fighting, not us.

Logically, it's still oxymoronic. "You're going to try to kill us, while we're going to try to kill you, but let's be fair about it and set down some ground rules, like in chess, or football."

If another country's army, navy and airforce began to invade the US, do you really believe anybody in the US armed forces would worry about the Geneva Convention? I'll answer for you, based on recent history: The invaders would be declared "terrorists", and so outside Geneva Convention rules, and handled in anyway that was convenient, like all those Afghani in Guantanamo Bay. The main point is; the US flaunts or invokes international law at its whim. Crying about "humane treatment of prisoners" is blatantly hypocritical now. The US government should lead by example, not by force of invasion.

Originally posted by johnfoss
How about the civil rights movement? That's just an example. My main point here is to say "WRONG."

I feel this is a very weak example, John. One of the enduringly shameful things about the civil rights movement and subsequent legislated changes is that it needed to happen at all! Think about it. People had to protest and suffer government-sanctioned beatings and oppression (via police and FBI), before the government "changed its mind", and made laws to enforce ideals that were already law! Americans couldn't even expect civil rights and humane treatment from their own fellow citizens until the government was forced to "grant" them. Do you really think that things would have changed in the 60's if Nixon had won the 1960 election? Popular opinion was actually against civil rights... that's why they had to write laws to enforce them for everybody. Listen to "popular" opinion? Dubya didn't do that in 2000, that's why he needed Jeb and the Supreme Court.

gluteous maximus

2003-03-28, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Checkernuts
Than again who am I to say that every well informed american does not support the war. I have 2 roomates 1 thinks that the war is an absolutly nessacarry thing and that protests against it should be banned because they prevoke violent behavior.

Chex,

I hope you've pointed-out to your roommate the inanity of the idea that peace demonstrations provoke violent behavior.

Is that what he thinks started the invasion, too?

Tell him that police in riot gear and government-hired agents provacateurs make peace demonstrations turn violent.

gluteous maximus

2003-03-28, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by zod

Fact: Saddam runs a dictator regime and does little for the good of his people and country.
Fact: Saddam practices genocide, he is currently doing so during this war by using civilians as human shields. He and his sons have shown to have no respect for human life and this will never change.
Fact: all that we destroy with bombs will be rebuilt 10 fold better than it was before.
Fact: In the end Iraq will be a much better country (for Iraqi's) after Saddam is ousted.
Fact: Iraq is a rich nation, however they are a nation of poverty b/c all oil money goes to one place. The people of Iraq deserve better to be starving and diseased when they are all living in a virtual goldmine.

Last time I looked, Iraq was not the 51st state. Our government did help Saddam Hussein get and maintain his power, however, and for quite a while, did not care one bit what he did to his own people (any more than your government cares about what happens to you, for that matter).

There are a few thousand self-declared and self-inserted human shields in Iraq right now from various countries, including the US, who are voluntarily, albeit uselessly attempting to thwart US bombing of civilian areas. Haven't heard about that in the US media? I'm not surprised.

Your next two facts carry so much obvious humanitarian feeling and empathy that I just can't contest them at all, except to say that repeating facts like that must have made your blue eyes brown.

Your last fact is also true of the US. You either are ignorant of this fact, or choose to ignore it. Regardless, I doubt that you'd accept it as an excuse for any country to invade, now would you?

gluteous maximus

2003-03-28, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by zod

Fact: all that we destroy with bombs will be rebuilt 10 fold better than it was before.

Oh, and P.S.

Try using the above logic to assuage whatever it was you felt when you watched the World Trade Center towers fall.

Does it work for you?

It's probably true that they will be rebuilt 10-fold better than before. Does that make it all OK?
How do you rebuild dead people?

motoxunimech

2003-03-28, 04:03 PM

Hey Gluteous, gotta question for ya. Just wondering what your opinion on this was, since you have an answer for everything else. So we did supply and support Saddam during his early years, and help him come to power. But he is now a murderer, and since we helped him become what he is today, doesn't that make it our responsibility to fix the problem? And about Iraq not being one of the 50 states, even though they aren't a part of us, can we not assist a poor and helpless country in ridding them of a dictator that we at first helped? I appreciate your comments on this, and I look forward to reading your well-informed reply.

zod

2003-03-28, 04:19 PM

gluteous maximus it is appearant to me that you are a bit of an extremist yourself, I would guess a young one at that. As a person who follows no political backing and is neutral in thought I know better than to attempt to get into a "conversation" with you because I can see through out this thread that you have a concrete outlook on the way things are. I personally know I don't have all the answers and don't attempt to pretend I do.

That being said some of your arguments are immature at best:

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

Logically, it's still oxymoronic. "You're going to try to kill us, while we're going to try to kill you, but let's be fair about it and set down some ground rules, like in chess, or football."

If another country's army, navy and airforce began to invade the US, do you really believe anybody in the US armed forces would worry about the Geneva Convention? I'll answer for you, based on recent history: The invaders would be declared "terrorists", and so outside Geneva Convention rules, and handled in anyway that was convenient, like all those Afghani in Guantanamo Bay. The main point is; the US flaunts or invokes international law at its whim. Crying about "humane treatment of prisoners" is blatantly hypocritical now. The US government should lead by example, not by force of invasion.

Agreed, I don't think there should be any rules in war either, if that was the case the coalition forces would have already won. However it shows that some nations are civilized even in war and I guess that is a good thing (maybe) :).

As for Guantanamo Bay, what you fail to realize is that those are not war prisoners and therefor are not protected by wartime laws. At no point did the terrorist make a declaration of war before attacking the United States so why should they be considered war criminals and be given the rights that war criminals are given?

Originally posted by gluteous maximus
Listen to "popular" opinion? Dubya didn't do that in 2000, that's why he needed Jeb and the Supreme Court.
Did Florida make their polling ballots confusing, quite possibly (looked pretty easy to read to me) but to say that was the plan of his brother and the Supreme Court is ludacris. If you are going to make ignorant statements then please back it up with facts...
BTW, we have NEVER voted by popular opinion in the United States. The Electoral College has always been in place and people coming out of the woodwork and crying about it in 2000 shows how ignorant the public is to it's own government policy. I am a Democrat btw so I didn't want Bush in office either, but dammit don't cry about it.

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

I hope you've pointed-out to your roommate the inanity of the idea that peace demonstrations provoke violent behavior.

Tell him that police in riot gear and government-hired agents provacateurs make peace demonstrations turn violent.

Glute please don't the bad cop good demonstrater thing. It goes both ways. Cops cause riots. Peace demonstrators cause riots. It goes both ways, open your eyes and stop being so one sided.

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

Last time I looked, Iraq was not the 51st state. Our government did help Saddam Hussein get and maintain his power, however, and for quite a while, did not care one bit what he did to his own people (any more than your government cares about what happens to you, for that matter).

You are correct about us helping arm them, however hind-sight is 20-20 and two wrongs don't make a right. For present leaders to sit on their hands because of mistakes made in the past is worst than the original mistakes that lead to the current situation.
As for your statemnt about the government not caring about us, this shows your age well or shows that you are a cynical ass, hopefully it's age. Government in the US ebbs and flows on public opinion. Is there dirt in politics, yep. Is there dirt in the 7-11, yep. Is there dirt in the Catholic Church, yep. Is there dirt in my office.......you see where I am going with this.
Grow up and climb out of your utopia bubble.

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

There are a few thousand self-declared and self-inserted human shields in Iraq right now from various countries, including the US, who are voluntarily, albeit uselessly attempting to thwart US bombing of civilian areas. Haven't heard about that in the US media? I'm not surprised.

Actually 90% of them left the minute bombs started dropping or even before. Most peace protesters when faced with the finality of death realize that peace is nothing they want to die for. We also are not purposly bombing civilian areas, that's not to say it doesn't happen. Just be glad carpet bombing is a thing of the past. I have heard plenty about it in the U.S. media, all you have to do is read a liberal paper, but then again they tell as many lies as the conservative one's do. Once again Glute...open your eyes.

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

Your next two facts carry so much obvious humanitarian feeling and empathy that I just can't contest them at all, except to say that repeating facts like that must have made your blue eyes brown.

An obvious age or maturity definer here. I make a statement that you can't punch a hole in and you still have to act tactless. Good job!

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

Try using the above logic to assuage whatever it was you felt when you watched the World Trade Center towers fall.

Does it work for you?

It's probably true that they will be rebuilt 10-fold better than before. Does that make it all OK?
How do you rebuild dead people?

Comparing an act of terrorism that killed thousands of people who had no warning to a war that was declared to happen 72 hours before it did are totally different. Also coalition forces are not directly targeting civilians, that was the direct target of 9/11. You argument is weak, the compairson is idiotic and sick.

I did not say that rebuilding would make it better, but the fact is that we will. Just as we rebuilt Japan. I also didn't deny that people were not going to die so don't try some pathtic cheap shot at rebuilding dead people.

OK, go ahead and rebuttal as I know you will but I am really through now, I have already wasted more time on this than I wanted to.

gluteous maximus

2003-03-28, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by motoxunimech
Hey Gluteous, gotta question for ya. Just wondering what your opinion on this was, since you have an answer for everything else. So we did supply and support Saddam during his early years, and help him come to power. But he is now a murderer, and since we helped him become what he is today, doesn't that make it our responsibility to fix the problem? And about Iraq not being one of the 50 states, even though they aren't a part of us, can we not assist a poor and helpless country in ridding them of a dictator that we at first helped? I appreciate your comments on this, and I look forward to reading your well-informed reply.

I don't have an answer for everything, and I don't pretend to, but I have an answer for your question... it's a question, too...

What's this "we" stuff?

I don't consider the US government "we" any more than I consider you and your family "we"... although for different reasons... well, maybe similar reasons... you didn't ask me what I wanted for dinner, did you? ;)

I don't believe the US government sent anybody over there to "fix" anything except the lack of control over the petroleum and the slump in military spending during the Clinton years.

Does it look to you like the cruise missiles and bombs are fixing things for the poor Iraqi people? Yeah? Just like those two passenger jets "fixed" the blocked view for the neighbors of the World Trade Center, eh?

Lots of people died in "Operation Desert Storm", but "somehow" wily ol' Saddam slipped through "our" fingers. Ooops!

It's been a week...

Why aren't the poor Iraqi people "free" yet?

It's been a year and a half...

Why haven't "we" captured Osama bin Laden yet?

We're the richest, most resource-hungry country in the world...

Why are some of our own people jobless, homeless, or starving?

Sometimes the questions are more important than the answers.

gluteous maximus

2003-03-28, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by zod
gluteous maximus it is appearant to me that you are a bit of an extremist yourself, I would guess a young one at that.
That being said some of your arguments are immature at best:

Oh, wise one! Just how "young" do you suppose me to be?

I'm 43. So, go wipe your nose, brat!

Ooops! That was immature of me, wasn't it?

Originally posted by zod
At no point did the terrorist make a declaration of war before attacking the United States so why should they be considered war criminals and be given the rights that war criminals are given?

At what point did the US Congress (the body which is constitutionally endowed with the power) declare war on Iraq... under either Bush administration? I missed it.

Originally posted by zod
Did Florida make their polling ballots confusing, quite possibly (looked pretty easy to read to me) but to say that was the plan of his brother and the Supreme Court is ludacris. If you are going to make ignorant statements then please back it up with facts...

The Supreme Court had no business ruling on the election. It was unconstitutional for the Court to do so. Elections are under the jurisdiction of the State governments, not the Federal government. Of course, Gore threw in the towel while the fight was still his. You go ahead and be happy with the Bush years, though. That's your privilege. It doesn't make me ignorant, though. I can be unhappy without crying, by the way. I've had more practice, and I'm older than you, maybe that's why.

Originally posted by zod
BTW, we have NEVER voted by popular opinion in the United States. The Electoral College has always been in place and people coming out of the woodwork and crying about it in 2000 shows how ignorant the public is to it's own government policy. I am a Democrat btw so I didn't want Bush in office either, but dammit don't cry about it.

I never liked the Electoral College system. Just because you heard about it first in 2000, don't assume that's the first time everyone else did. It's antiquated, and should be abolished. My opinion on that has nothing to do with who's sitting in the White House now.

Originally posted by zod
Glute please don't the bad cop good demonstrater thing. It goes both ways. Cops cause riots. Peace demonstrators cause riots. It goes both ways, open your eyes and stop being so one sided.

I have only two words for you on this: Kent State.

Too bad you're too young to remember.

Originally posted by zod
You are correct about us helping arm them, however hind-sight is 20-20 and two wrongs don't make a right. For present leaders to sit on their hands because of mistakes made in the past is worst than the original mistakes that lead to the current situation.
As for your statemnt about the government not caring about us, this shows your age well or shows that you are a cynical ass, hopefully it's age. Government in the US ebbs and flows on public opinion. Is there dirt in politics, yep. Is there dirt in the 7-11, yep. Is there dirt in the Catholic Church, yep. Is there dirt in my office.......you see where I am going with this.
Grow up and climb out of your utopia bubble.

I don't really care where you're going. I think you ought to re-read your cliches before you use them as arguments, though. In your previous post, two wrongs did make a right, and now they don't. If you think that covert policy changes that much from president to president, you are naive. (Sorry, that's the worst name-calling I'm going to retort with... I guess you win in that department.) Please wake yourself up and stop confusing cynicism with ideals. I'd say the utopian bubble is yours, since you seem to feel you have a nice, cuddly, warm and caring government. On a personal note, since you brought up the Catholic Church; the priests who were the choral director and principal at the Catholic high school I attended have both been suspended (28 years too late) from their priestly duties for sexually molesting a family of 3 brothers in whose home they were frequent guests. Prior to this, the priest who directed the choir in my home parish was found guilty of similar charges. Don't attempt to educate me. You're not ready yet. Hopefully it's age.

Originally posted by zod
Actually 90% of them left the minute bombs started dropping or even before. Most peace protesters when faced with the finality of death realize that peace is nothing they want to die for.

Do you speak from experience here? Ever hear of Ghandi? Ever hear about the Buddhist priests in Cambodia and Viet Nam who immolated themselves to protest the war? Maybe you're too young... sorry.

Originally posted by zod
An obvious age or maturity definer here. I make a statement that you can't punch a hole in and you still have to act tactless. Good job!

Oh, did you want me to try to punch a hole in your claim that bombing cities is a good thing? I didn't really think it was necessary to type something like "Oh, yes, please bomb our city that has poor, down-trodden people and a history of biblical antiquity so that we can have it rebuilt by the Halliburton Company!" "Look how over-developed Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos are now since we bombed them back in the 60's!" "Dresden's so beautiful! I hear it used to be quite tacky before the war." Actually, I thought I was being quite tactful! Compare:

You're full of crap!

Feel better, now?

But of course, you're right.... Bombing makes it better. You have my permission to use that on your sign for the next "War Support" march you join.

Originally posted by zod
Comparing an act of terrorism that killed thousands of people who had no warning to a war that was declared to happen 72 hours before it did are totally different. Also coalition forces are not directly targeting civilians, that was the direct target of 9/11. You argument is weak, the compairson is idiotic and sick.

Once again, I ask; When did Congress declare war on Iraq?

Originally posted by zod
I did not say that rebuilding would make it better, but the fact is that we will. Just as we rebuilt Japan. I also didn't deny that people were not going to die so don't try some pathtic cheap shot at rebuilding dead people.

You did so say rebuilding would make it better! You even quantified it! You said "10-fold" (hyphen mine). Also, you speak beyond your knowledge and experience, and are therefore mistaken: The people of Japan rebuilt Japan. Who's rebuilding Afghanistan? Have you checked on that lately?

Originally posted by zod
OK, go ahead and rebuttal as I know you will but I am really through now, I have already wasted more time on this than I wanted to.

Good.

zod

2003-03-28, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

Oh, wise one! Just how "young" do you suppose me to be?
I'm 43. So, go wipe your nose, brat!
Ooops! That was immature of me, wasn't it?

Well you are my daddy in the age department, I would have never thought it. I guess your immaturity completely caught me off guard. ;)

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

At what point did the US Congress (the body which is constitutionally endowed with the power) declare war on Iraq... under either Bush administration? I missed it.

You are not listening to me, did I argue that he went to war without Congresses consent, certainly not. Please don't confuse me with someone who wants to protect Bush, I am quite the opposite in nature.
President Bush in his cabinets mind already has all the legal authority he needs to war with Iraq because of defensive measures adopted from 9/11 that apply to developers of WMD's.
I am not saying he is right, but he found a legal loophole and that is all a politician needs to act legally.
There is also a loophole about Saddam never complying with surrender rules set out at the end of the Gulf War, but that would be moot by your argument b/c the Gulf War was not officially a war to you so I won't go there.

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

The Supreme Court had no business ruling on the election. It was unconstitutional for the Court to do so. Elections are under the jurisdiction of the State governments, not the Federal government.

Lots of things that start in State Court end up in Federal Jurisdiction, this is no different, it was not resolved on the state level and was pushed to the Supreme Court. Honestly if you believe in the Jeb Conspiracy then surely it would not have mattered either way?

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

I never liked the Electoral College system. Just because you heard about it first in 2000, don't assume that's the first time everyone else did. It's antiquated, and should be abolished. My opinion on that has nothing to do with who's sitting in the White House now.

I don't like the Electoral College system either, however that's the way it goes until they change (which they never will)
I also didn't say that was the first I had heard of it, I also didn't say it was the first you had heard of it.
What I did say is that a lot of the public that were making a stink about it were uniformed Democrat civilians that had never heard of it. The stink they made made us all look ignorant.

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

I have only two words for you on this: Kent State.

Too bad you're too young to remember.

Kent State, hmm never heard of it.....I was too busy watching Jerry Springer.
Actually yes, I know all about Kent State but my point still stands that not all peace protesters protest peacefully, you can't pull out the "Tin soldiers and Nixon coming" and say that applies to all instances. Not all police are "pigs" :rolleyes:

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

Do you speak from experience here? Ever hear of Ghandi? Ever hear about the Buddhist priests in Cambodia and Viet Nam who immolated themselves to protest the war? Maybe you're too young... sorry.

I did not say all.......
Sure, some protesters take it to the very end but most don't, they just like being part of a movement. Makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside kind of like being in a Fraternity.
In this instance most of the protesters and human shields have left Iraq. Saddam doesn't need them anyhow, he'll just use Iraqi women instead.

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

But of course, you're right.... Bombing makes it better. You have my permission to use that on your sign for the next "War Support" march you join.

Sorry I do not take part in protest or support groups, neither matter or have any influence in matters of war.

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

The people of Japan rebuilt Japan. Who's rebuilding Afghanistan? Have you checked on that lately?

You are misinformed, Japan was rebuilt by the lining of the United States pockets, over 500 million dollars.

As for Afghanistan I think it is a little bit too early for either of us to say what the US is going to do for them.

Oh you made a comment about Vietnam, we have given them a lot of financial aid, I cannot give specific numbers as I don't know them. The problem with Vietnam (IMO) is that they are a failing communist country. They have never evolved from being 3rd world, nothing we can be blamed for.

OK that's all....sorry I called you a kid you cynical old bastard (just kidding) :p

foolish

2003-03-29, 08:07 PM

Question: What the hell is friendly fire??

You go and stand over there and we'll fire in your direction

also can you explain why at the beginning of the war (and still now?) the americans killed more brits than the iraqis did?

Borges

2003-03-29, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by foolish
Question: What the hell is friendly fire??

It happens when someone accidently are identifies a friend as an enemy in the battlefield.
A cute little phrase that means that someone will be going through the guilt-hell for years and someone else goes to the cemetery for even more years.
I'm glad that when I screw up professionally I can just reboot and reach for the backup CD.

leo

2003-03-30, 07:49 AM

catched dialog "We know you pretend to be Canadian, but don't worry, you still dare to take a plane to Amsterdam, so probably have more common sense than an average terrorist-scared media-victom". And Zod, common sense has nothing to do with age. Even if you have life-experience, brains and itelligence; you still have to use it.

Also I think it does help when citizens do protest. When activists block (http://www.greenpeace.nl/multimedia/download/1/120729/2/w2701033_500.jpg) the road, railways and harbours to US troups moving from Germany over Rotterdam and Antwerp, it gives politicians space to represent their country and enough backup to expose the real opinion in public and equivalents of the white house.

So okay after the war, when all buildings are demolished and all windows are crashed Windows™ can finaly start export.
Iraq will have internet (very bound to echelon (http://www.echelonwatch.org/)/carnivor like programs), McDonalds, mobile telephones (http://www.issa.house.gov/newsroom_press_detail.asp?serial=101&page=newsroom), and "they" off course will get the gold of their virtual goldmine, and be able to enjoy the certain "freedom" that "we" want them to have.
If this war is not about oil but about dictatorship, weapons of mass destruction, human rights, and policing the world.. why did they never ever atack some Chzech, Romania (under Ceaucescu), in the past, or today African countries, China, or even at least put some presure on Spain (http://freejuanra.org/en/index.html)?

Also I think it's weird, 1st cutting off distribution to then start a program "oil for food" blackmail.
If they realy care about starvation, why did they never at least even pretent to listen to UN man Ruud Lubbers (http://www.unhcr.ch/un&ref/lubbers/lubbers.htm)?
I remember a couple of years ago a American girl being seriously ashamed for Clinton, but I think
"a president who likes to be sucked is more human and representing the country than one that does'nt mind to suck the whole world!"

I think it was 1986 when Michael Gorbatsjov and Ronald Reagon both agree in destruction of mass-destruction weapons in their countries.
in the 90's there have been multiple complaints from UN inspectors against the US about interfering with their work in the US!
What basicly happened is they never distroyed but only moved their weapons to countries like The Netherlands and Germany:
When a (publicly anounced!!) civilian inspection (http://www.wereldcrisis.nl/mod.php?mod=userpage&menu=27&page_id=39) (...) gave evidence for at least 11 US bombs 14x bigger than Hiroshima being hidden in Volkel...
The Dutch minister of defence could'nt longer deny nor confess that there was nothing to confess or deny and finaly stated clearly these US bomb were placed there.
So what are "we" doing in Iraq?
Telling them that they may not have such a mass destruction weapons like "we" pretent "we" do not have as much as "we" realy do?

gluteous maximus

2003-03-30, 02:50 PM

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2003/trall030327.gif

In my hometown, they're taking up a collection of toilet paper, toothpaste, soap, etc., to send to the US troops in Iraq. At first I thought it was truly ridiculous, but then I considered the average pay of an enlisted person, I and thought, well, maybe the grunts could use some donations. It can't be easy living in a foreign country on McDonald's wages.

U-Turn

2003-03-30, 02:52 PM

Make sure it's biodegradable soap or you may risk polluting the desert.

johnfoss

2003-04-01, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by gluteous maximus
Logically, it's still oxymoronic. "You're going to try to kill us, while we're going to try to kill you, but let's be fair about it and set down some ground rules, like in chess, or football." Yup, sounds crazy. But nobody dies in chess or football. The leaders who come up with such rules plan on being alive when the war is over, and these rules are intended for them, and everybody else who's alive when the war is over. It's a way of thinking of peace while the war is still on.

But if both sides don't play by the rules, then what? Should we ignore the Geneva rules because Iraq does? As you are so good at pointing out our country's faults, I wonder if you think we should? I think we should not.

If another country's army, navy and airforce began to invade the US, do you really believe anybody in the US armed forces would worry about the Geneva Convention? Yes, I do. Those decisions are made by politicians, not by "anybody" in the armed forces. I think we did a pretty decent job of this during WWII which, though it wasn't fought on our soil, was pretty dang huge. And I'm not talking about the national embarassment of Japanese internment camps we had here. That was bad, but is off-topic.

I feel this is a very weak example, John. One of the enduringly shameful things about the civil rights movement and subsequent legislated changes is that it needed to happen at all! ....(followed by long description of civil rights in the 60's) Sorry to send you off course. We were not talking about the civil rights movement or this nation's cultural faults in the 1950s and 60s. This was about the effectiveness of public protests. The civil rights movement was what came off the top of my head as a big one, and I think is a decent argument.

Our country is still rampant with racism. Most of it gets handed down from parents to children, but some is still government sanctioned, like affirmative action. But let's not sway off the subject.

johnfoss

2003-04-01, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by gluteous maximus
Tell him that police in riot gear and government-hired agents provacateurs make peace demonstrations turn violent. I have to disagree with that one, at least for the vast majority of protests in US history.

If the protest is legal, there is no conflict with police in riot gear. Protesting is legal. Blocking traffic, destroying property, or otherwise going outside what is supposed to be allowed as part of a "peaceful" protest is not. The cops are presumably there to enforce the law. "The law" in this case, being the general rules we use for safe living. Yes, protesting and the law often come into conflict. Just because you have a beef doesn't give you license to break other laws.

At the same time, there are people on both sides of any protest-that-turns-violent, who want it to do so. If it gets crazy, it will get more press. More press is supposedly good for the cause, or good for the anti-cause, depending how things turn out. So people on *both* sides of the argument are known to provoke and stir things up. Not just the government's side, as Gluteous wants you to think.

Sometimes the government is actually less evil than the citizens. I believe this. Sometimes it is not. But I only try to tear down the system in constructive ways. As for Gluteous, he seems to really hate the American government. I haven't noticed anything in his posts here to indicate otherwise. So I'm wondering if Gluteous has any suggestions for improving things? Or is there any government on this Earth that he approves of? Or is he more of an anarchist?

zod

2003-04-01, 06:26 PM

Thanks John for chiming in, I thought I was alone on my impressions for a while there.

gluteous maximus

2003-04-02, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by johnfoss
Yup, sounds crazy. But nobody dies in chess or football. The leaders who come up with such rules plan on being alive when the war is over, and these rules are intended for them, and everybody else who's alive when the war is over. It's a way of thinking of peace while the war is still on. You are so right! The leaders always plan on being alive when the war is over. Too bad for everyone else! That's the point! Who cares if you're dead "legally" or "illegally"? You're still dead. "Our" sense of rules seems to be a bit skewed, don't you think? "We" can have and use weapons of mass destruction, but it's unfair if anybody else wants to. Why oh why doesn't everybody agree to do it "our" way? The whole point is that our government likes to pick and choose when to follow the rules. I'm so relieved to hear you say that "our" leaders are thinking of peace in the future. That's a really comforting thought. Too bad they didn't consider peace in the present.

Originally posted by johnfoss
But if both sides don't play by the rules, then what? Should we ignore the Geneva rules because Iraq does? As you are so good at pointing out our country's faults, I wonder if you think we should? I think we should not. Oh, so it's all a game is it? Oh, that's all right, then. Bombs away! What's the high score on this "game" we're playing, by the way?

Originally posted by johnfoss
Yes, I do. Those decisions are made by politicians, not by "anybody" in the armed forces. I think we did a pretty decent job of this during WWII which, though it wasn't fought on our soil, was pretty dang huge. And I'm not talking about the national embarassment of Japanese internment camps we had here. That was bad, but is off-topic. Sorry, John, you can't have it both ways. You keep throwing up examples but then immediately deny them. We're talking about people's lives here, not some video or role-playing game. This isn't RISKTM, by Milton Bradley. The fact remains that a lot of people would feel a whole lot different if the tables were turned. How lucky for us Americans we're so insulated.

Originally posted by johnfoss
Sorry to send you off course. We were not talking about the civil rights movement or this nation's cultural faults in the 1950s and 60s. This was about the effectiveness of public protests. The civil rights movement was what came off the top of my head as a big one, and I think is a decent argument. Our country is still rampant with racism. Most of it gets handed down from parents to children, but some is still government sanctioned, like affirmative action. But let's not sway off the subject. Well, again, if you don't want your points debated, don't introduce them. It's a bit sloppy to introduce an example and then tell me not to sway OT when I remark on it.

U-Turn

2003-04-02, 04:07 PM

Just a few points to throw in...

We _are_ using WMD. We have them and cultivate them. The threat of us using them does a lot towards letting us ignore the UN and everybody else's opinions. If we didn't have them, things would be a lot different.

One of the ways that we (read, our government) developed these WMD was to test them on our own citizens. Of course, this was highly classified and the public didn't find out about it until much later. If I remember correctly, people are still dying from those tests.

A government "by and for" the people is composed of its citizens, and therefore cannot be less evil than they are. Or more, for that matter. Unless it's not "by and for"....

gluteous maximus

2003-04-02, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by johnfoss
I have to disagree with that one, at least for the vast majority of protests in US history.

If the protest is legal, there is no conflict with police in riot gear. Protesting is legal. Blocking traffic, destroying property, or otherwise going outside what is supposed to be allowed as part of a "peaceful" protest is not. The cops are presumably there to enforce the law. "The law" in this case, being the general rules we use for safe living. Yes, protesting and the law often come into conflict. Just because you have a beef doesn't give you license to break other laws.

Uh-huh...

The U.S. Constitution guarantees American citizens the right to public assembly. So how come they send out the police in riot gear when people gather for a peace demonstration, but not when people gather to listen to the president give a speech about how great the invasion is going? (Oh, I forgot! It's because the president makes those speeches on military bases.) Of course it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that people are protesting the government's actions. Nooooo... Riot gear is standard issue for the Bowl parades, too, right? It's just to protect everybody from themselves, right? Where are the riot police during the Democratic and Republican conventions? Where are they during the "World" Series baseball games and the Superbowl?

Originally posted by johnfoss
At the same time, there are people on both sides of any protest-that-turns-violent, who want it to do so. If it gets crazy, it will get more press. More press is supposedly good for the cause, or good for the anti-cause, depending how things turn out. So people on *both* sides of the argument are known to provoke and stir things up. Not just the government's side, as Gluteous wants you to think. So, how come they don't send the riot squad directly to the TV station or newpapers offices? Wouldn't that be a much more efficient way to control things, while simultaneously eliminating the mindless mobs' incentive to riot?

Originally posted by johnfoss
Sometimes the government is actually less evil than the citizens. I believe this. Sometimes it is not. But I only try to tear down the system in constructive ways. As for Gluteous, he seems to really hate the American government. I haven't noticed anything in his posts here to indicate otherwise. So I'm wondering if Gluteous has any suggestions for improving things? Or is there any government on this Earth that he approves of? Or is he more of an anarchist? Go ahead, John, trust the government all the way to your empty 401K and $2.98 Social Security check. I'm very interested in your method of "constructive destruction". That's a very interesting oxymoron, don't you think? I'm able to love America without waving the flag or singing the national anthem, and I'm glad that I was fortunate enough to have been born in this country. I am also able to discriminate between America and the people who are in power... are you?

I also agree with Woody Guthrie. The people are supposed to be the ones who own this country and decide its course, not the politicians. Those too lazy to think for themselves can find comfort in trusting the latest "plan" foisted upon them by the powers that be. Sorry, John, I'm not happy about being a tax-paying slave. Maybe you're in the income bracket that's going to get the big tax break, but I'm not. I reserve the right to expect the government to be as law-abiding as it expects me to be. Why don't you expect the same?

I also resentfully protest your already hackneyed insinuation that I'm somehow less American than you because I don't accept every piece of crap the government tries to shove down my throat. I am not an anarchist; simply because I don't think anarchy is all that much different than what we have now. Neither am I a utopian.

I am a disgruntled idealist. I am a malcontent against my own will. I am not satisfied with the inferior product which my country's government has distributed.

I want a refund or a replacement.

This is the 21st Century. We've got lots of whiz-bang technology, but precious little enlightened use of it. Some of you are getting ready to go abroad for the next big international unicycle convention. If you really think I am the only one who is questioning the past, present, or future policy of the American government, think again. Get ready to have a few Off Topic questions from unicyclers from other parts of the world.

leo

2003-04-02, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by zod "war for oil" -- ignorant comment Okay, let's not call it war, you better call it business-trip of Halliburton (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2901793.stm) the company once headed by: (tada!) US vice-president Dick Cheney.
Or call it investigation for a SLA of sprint? (http://www.issa.house.gov/newsroom_press_detail.asp?serial=101&page=newsroom)
On the other hand... for the time "we" are going to be there it make sense to build such a network.
Originally posted by johnfoss Gluteous, he seems to really hate the American government.just like some others (http://people.cornellcollege.edu/a-free/feb15content.htm[/url)Originally posted by johnfoss Or is he more of an anarchist?You mean those who start thinkin themselfs, when they hear "we live in a free country" on 4/7?
But true, being anarchist is as silly as hoping for a black president.
Meanwhile on TV the most ridicolus stuff.
Originally posted by johnfoss the media companies in the US are privately owned.Yes, let's focus some more on that (http://www.israelshamir.net/english/midasears.html).

And around this spot (http://www.brabantsdagblad.nl/regioportal/BD/0,2622,1363-Voorpagina__1525905_,00.html) where illigal US bomps are, there were 64 arrests last sunday, press got special treatment, they were hold in prison for over double the max. duration. How weird isn't?

gluteous maximus

2003-04-02, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by U-Turn
Just a few points to throw in...

We _are_ using WMD. We have them and cultivate them. The threat of us using them does a lot towards letting us ignore the UN and everybody else's opinions. If we didn't have them, things would be a lot different.

One of the ways that we (read, our government) developed these WMD was to test them on our own citizens. Of course, this was highly classified and the public didn't find out about it until much later. If I remember correctly, people are still dying from those tests.

A government "by and for" the people is composed of its citizens, and therefore cannot be less evil than they are. Or more, for that matter. Unless it's not "by and for"....

We have Weapons of Mass Destruction, we develop them and sell them abroad. Then we somehow pretend that everything will be all right. It's terribly convenient for us to use the existence of these weapons elsewhere as an excuse to use our own. We somehow find it shocking and criminal when anyone else uses the same logic "against" us. Does this sound remotely like hypocrisy to anyone else out there?

In the 1955 Pennsylvania Turnpike tunnels experiments, Bacillus globigii biological simulants were sprayed into the air so it would be breathed by citizens driving through the tunnels. The hospital records were checked to see how far away the infectious biologicals were carried.

Who's being un-American?

Yes, that was a long time ago. If it makes you feel comfortable to believe everyone is nicer now... OK.

What's so wrong with expecting good things from our government?

No, I don't think dropping bombs is a good thing. Sorry.

No, rebuilding what we bomb doesn't make it all good. Sorry.

If the belief that bombing civilians and denying basic human rights in our own country and abroad is acceptable makes you a better American than I, then I gladly concede, but I do not surrender.

leo

2003-04-02, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by gluteous maximus
hospital records were checked to see how far away the infectious biologicals were carried.

that was a long time ago.inside several secret services rumors say SARS stared in a US prison...

Originally posted by gluteous maximus
We have Weapons of Mass Destruction, we develop them and sell them abroad.better say: lease them with an offer-you-can't-refuse-contract.
Sometime you loose track (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg01656.html) of it, but hey, there is a Microsoft driven database (http://www.gidm.dlis.dla.mil/bincs/begin_search.asp) to track who's the next to come up with excuses.

gluteous maximus

2003-04-02, 05:43 PM

OK, one more thing for all you "invade Iraq, don't second-guess Bush, and support the troops" folks.

How come you're sitting there behind your computer terminals, and not over in the desert walking behind a tank to your next Meal, Ready-to-Eat dinner?

Pretty easy being an arm-chair cheerleader, eh?

Almost as comfortable as not actually being bombed while you watch it happen to somebody else on TV.

You all ought to be as ashamed of yourselves and your government like the rest of us who have a conscience are.

Maybe you're the type that would root for Custer, though.

Are you really worried that my little posts are going to hurt the Big Powerful Almighty and Righteous United States of America?

Everybody else:

I propose a once-a-month petroleum boycott.

One day a month (or more, if you're so inclined), neither purchase any product that is made from, or requires petroleum for its production or distribution, nor any service that uses or depends on petroleum. Besides being a good non-violent way to protest war for acquisition of oil, it can make you more aware of just how much it figures in our daily lives, and just how much we can actually do without it. It also will help reduce the pollution that results from the use of petroleum. If this is too idealistic (or utopian) for you, then, never mind.

harper

2003-04-02, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by gluteous maximus
OK, one more thing for all you "invade Iraq, don't second-guess Bush, and support the troops" folks.

How come you're sitting there behind your computer terminals, and not over in the desert walking behind a tank to your next Meal, Ready-to-Eat dinner?

Pretty easy being an arm-chair cheerleader, eh?

Why aren't you being a human shield in Baghdad? Pretty easy being an arm-chair cheerleader, eh?

U-Turn

2003-04-02, 05:57 PM

Although I am not offended by your approach, Mr. Glutes, I feel the need to point out that it is easy to be bold when one is anonymous.

It is far more difficult to state one's true opinion when one's social, business, and other relationships may be affected.

-- Dave Stockton

gluteous maximus

2003-04-02, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by harper

Why aren't you being a human shield in Baghdad? Pretty easy being an arm-chair cheerleader, eh?

That's not an answer, Greg, that's a question.

I'm not cheering for the invasion, so I don't need to be in it.

If everyone who opposed the invasion went to Iraq to be human shields, we'd pretty soon all be dead. Do you really think we're stupid? Who'd be left to protest you NRA card-holding hawks?

Yet, I'm "cynical" and "extremist" because I think 18-year olds and people who aren't from America should be allowed to live... until, say... tomorrow, next week, next year...

leo

2003-04-02, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by U-Turn
I feel the need to point out that it is easy to be bold when one is anonymous.what's the point?
Originally posted by U-Turn
It is far more difficult to state one's true opinion when one's social, business, and other relationships may be affected.And this certain freedom is what "we" are fighting for Iraq to have...

Pfff. And we're not even discussing with knowledge involved that can endanger your live.

gluteous maximus

2003-04-02, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by U-Turn
Although I am not offended by your approach, Mr. Glutes, I feel the need to point out that it is easy to be bold when one is anonymous.

It is far more difficult to state one's true opinion when one's social, business, and other relationships may be affected.

-- Dave Stockton

Oh, "Dave",

Surely you don't suggest that I depart from my long-held Internet security practices now, just so you can pretend that my opinions are more valid because they've got a name behind them.

If it's so difficult to state one's true opinion when one's social, business, and other relationships may be affected, then one may comfortably remain silent.

Conversely, if one's social, business, and other relationships may be strengthened by stating agreement with the status quo, or with the winner of the latest opinion polls, does that somehow make one braver, or one's opinions more credible or valid,... or merely opportunistic?

Some people earn their living by working directly or indirectly for various government agencies, that is true. [HEAVILY SARCASTIC TONE]In a supposedly democratic, Liberty-Shielded nation such as our own, why, oh why, should those people fear reprisal for publicly stating their opinion, if it somehow is contrary to the government's policy?[/HEAVILY SARCASTIC TONE]

As the nephew of a current or former (I'm not really sure which...) employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, I respectfully reserve my right to remain pseudonymous.

Of course, the Forum Administrators may hold some tyrannical sway and veto over my aforestated right, since this domain is not mine.

Gluteous "Respect My Privacy and I'll Respect Yours" Maximus

harper

2003-04-02, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

If everyone who opposed the invasion went to Iraq to be human shields, we'd pretty soon all be dead. Do you really think we're stupid?

Hmmm.....a big button saying, "PUSH ME!" What a dilemma.

Who'd be left to protest you NRA card-holding hawks?

Do you surmise that I am a member of the NRA? Also, are being a soldier, a member of the NRA, a stenographer, a programmer, a cook, or a teacher in and of themselves reasons to be protested? I don't think protesting NRA card holding hawks, lambs, puppies, sheep, or dolphins would benefit one's cause to cease this police action in Iraq. That is better done by posting to unicycle newsgroups.

Yet, I'm "cynical" and "extremist" because I think 18-year olds and people who aren't from America should be allowed to live... until, say... tomorrow, next week, next year...

No. This is not why you're cynical and extremist.

Checkernuts

2003-04-02, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

Everybody else:

I propose a once-a-month petroleum boycott.

One day a month (or more, if you're so inclined), neither purchase any product that is made from, or requires petroleum for its production or distribution, nor any service that uses or depends on petroleum. Besides being a good non-violent way to protest war for acquisition of oil, it can make you more aware of just how much it figures in our daily lives, and just how much we can actually do without it. It also will help reduce the pollution that results from the use of petroleum. If this is too idealistic (or utopian) for you, then, never mind.

Great idea ,

How about sign the petition too, but your actions will speak louder than a piece of paper with you name on it so if you do not support the war, take mass transit, Carpool to work, Ride your Bike or Unicycle instead of driving, make sure your using water based lubercant do whatever you can to show the people in charge that oil is the wrong reason for this war.

Even if you support the "Freedom of iraq" show that you dont support it being done for oil and not just saying that oil isnt what its about. You'll also find some extra padding in your wallet at the end of the month cutting oil out so its win win.

Say No to War for Oil!

http://www.petitiononline.com/oilwar/petition.html

Mike

leo

2003-04-02, 07:20 PM

adbusters.org (http://www.adbusters.org/), also a message and a petition.

U-Turn

2003-04-02, 07:26 PM

Hmmm.... well I guess it's a matter of personal preference, or something like that. I decided when I was a little guy that if I wasn't willing to sign my name then I wouldn't say it.

It really doesn't have anything to do with Internet Security. If the government wants to find out who Glutes is, they know how to do it quite easily.

If you encrypt your transmissions with a long key and physically secure your keys, etc. etc., then you might be able to communicate in a secure way on the Internet. Until somebody gets paid off, or is blackmailed, or someone infiltrates your physical domain.

gluteous maximus

2003-04-02, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by harper

Hmmm.....a big button saying, "PUSH ME!" What a dilemma.Yeah, "sticks and stones" (or bombs and missiles; whatever your preference )... I, however, don't presume to defame your intelligence, merely your judgement.

Originally posted by harper

Do you surmise that I am a member of the NRA? Also, are being a soldier, a member of the NRA, a stenographer, a programmer, a cook, or a teacher in and of themselves reasons to be protested? I don't think protesting NRA card holding hawks, lambs, puppies, sheep, or dolphins would benefit one's cause to cease this police action in Iraq. That is better done by posting to unicycle newsgroups.

Oh, do you deny that you are a member of the NRA? I recall posts from you that celebrated the joy of firearms. Forgive my presumption if it is incorrect. I made the mistake of assigning "guilt" by association.

Also, I misspoke. I don't protest you, or necessarily your hobby or occupation or affiliation. I protest what you seem to applaud. I have noticed personal attacks upon myself seem to be allowable, however. I can think of quite a few other cultures that would be horrified at anyone who thought that bombing cities was good. One example that springs to mind would be a culture that models itself on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Perhaps you're right, though... I guess I should stop posting to this forum. Most members here don't really seem interested, anyway.

Originally posted by harper

No. This is not why you're cynical and extremist.

Please don't hold us in suspense much longer... let us all know just why I am a cynical extremist...

Gee, and I thought I was just a bitterly sarcastic pacifist.

Gluteous "Can't Remember the Last Time I Fomented Revolution" Maximus

U-Turn

2003-04-02, 07:49 PM

Glutes, I value you (whoever you are) and your posts. So I personally am going to bow out of this thread. Please keep posting; you're a valuable member of this community, even if you keep wearing your mask to all the parties!

harper

2003-04-02, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

Oh, do you deny that you are a member of the NRA? I recall posts from you that celebrated the joy of firearms. Forgive my presumption if it is incorrect. I made the mistake of assigning "guilt" by association.

Perhaps you're right, though... I guess I should stop posting to this forum. Most members here don't really seem interested, anyway.

Please don't hold us in suspense much longer... let us all know just why I am a cynical extremist...

I am a lifetime member of the NRA. I can forgive your presumptuousness even though it is correct. I had never posted that I was a member of the NRA in the past so some anonymous snooping would have been required to determine that or some overt guesswork. Associated, guilty, and now convicted.

No, you should not stop posting to this forum. You make some excellent points and put forth some very interesting arguments that can be relatively easily filtered from the excessive whining and self-pity. Anyway, to constructively post in the other forum you would have to be a unicyclist.

It's good to be in suspense every so often.

zod

2003-04-03, 02:48 AM

Harper now remember that being a gun toating conservative is bad, but being a liberal pro-abortion baby killer is fine (as long as you don't do it with a gun) ;)

Borges

2003-04-03, 05:29 AM

As fun as it is reading about Glutes' virtues and flaws, I'll try to throw in something else to debate.

If Sadam is dead and the war stops today what have we* acomplished?
Iraq will be a safer place for the Iraqis (once stuff stops exploding all over the place), but I fail to see how it makes us safer.
We'll have made alot of new and exciting enemies.

Terrorism is easy, it doesn't take much for a few people to create a lot of instability. Two buildings where destroyed 1½ years ago and we've had two full scale wars as a result.
We can hope that relations with Iraq after the war will be as good as relations with e.g. Viet Nam, Japan and Germany, but the situation is not entirely the same in the middle east.

I'll take Israel as an example of what could be our future.
There's already suicide bombeings because of Israels invation of Palestine and the US support that makes the occupation possible. With the invation of Iraq on top of that there is all the more reason for desperate people to take up terrorism.
It takes more than military to stop terrorism. Israel is not holding back in Palestine and the suicide bombers still get through.
I hope there's a solution to this that will keep our cities safer than Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.

How do we prevent the war on terrorism from backfireing?

Morten

*) The *we* comes from the 118 men representing the war effort of danish navy, making it 6'th largest national force authorised for in combat against Iraq. If Sadam conjures up a navy it'll be in TROUBLE.
Well.. I guess symbolic support counts a little too.
If you don't like the use of *we* when talking about the troops fighting in Iraq, feel free to substitute *they*. I just thought *we* sounded better.

GILD

2003-04-03, 11:03 AM

can we stop the personal slanging and get back to the issues ova' here?
the war is continuing, the propoganda war is being won, people opposed to the war are being frozen off our tv sets and somehow the international community seem to have located the 'shut-up' button

all that is neccesary for evil to triumph...

gluteous maximus

2003-04-03, 04:26 PM

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2003/trall030331.gif

:rolleyes:

leo

2003-04-03, 04:44 PM

I found a good blog (http://www.nimmo.blogspot.com/), with good pictures.

johnfoss

2003-04-03, 10:05 PM

Foss wrote:
"But if both sides don't play by the rules, then what? Should we ignore the Geneva rules because Iraq does? As you are so good at pointing out our country's faults, I wonder if you think we should? I think we should not."

Originally posted by gluteous maximus

Oh, so it's all a game is it? Oh, that's all right, then. Bombs away! What's the high score on this "game" we're playing, by the way? That's not much of an answer to my question. I was just curious of your opinon on the Geneva Convention or other "rules of war."

Sorry, John, you can't have it both ways. You keep throwing up examples but then immediately deny them. We're talking about people's lives here, not some video or role-playing game. Thanks for the reminder. As I sit warm & cozy in front of my computer here I completely forgot. Again you ignored the core of my statement and commented on the parts I added to try to keep you from going after the wrong point.

Well, again, if you don't want your points debated, don't introduce them. It's a bit sloppy to introduce an example and then tell me not to sway OT when I remark on it. I was attempting to debate *your* point about protests. Without copying it here, I hope it's worth your time to go back and read the previous posts on this. We were (supposedly) talking about the effectiveness of public protest.

I'm interested in hearing your views on that, and the other things. When you don't agree with someone, it's important to try to understand their side of the argument, or where they're coming from.

I am a less cynical person than you. I find that, for me, it works better to "go with the flow" most of the time. This does not make me blindly ignorant, or many of the other labels that might be applied. Yes I know there is conspiracy and dishonesty everywhere. It's one of the reasons I moved away from New York (where it was too blatant). But at the same time I don't believe my elected officials are solely in business to fool me and take advantage of the people. Though they have their personal political objectives, I believe most of our leaders are honestly trying to do the job right. They are imperfect, just as I have been in the much less important elected jobs I've had.

johnfoss

2003-04-03, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by gluteous maximus
The U.S. Constitution guarantees American citizens the right to public assembly. So how come they send out the police in riot gear when people gather for a peace demonstration, but not when people gather to listen to the president give a speech about how great the invasion is going? (Oh, I forgot! It's because the president makes those speeches on military bases.) Of course it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that people are protesting the government's actions. Nooooo... Riot gear is standard issue for the Bowl parades, too, right? It's just to protect everybody from themselves, right? Where are the riot police during the Democratic and Republican conventions?Sometimes it's simpler than you think. Police in riot gear are sent to events where it is thought there will be group violence. This includes many concerts, football games, and the 1968 Presidential Convention (can't remember if D or R) in Chicago. Every once in a while we all need a paranoia check. Am I being logical, or paranoid? Potential riot = police in riot gear. Next question.
So, how come they don't send the riot squad directly to the TV station or newpapers offices? Wouldn't that be a much more efficient way to control things,...It sure would, if the purpose of riot squads were to control things. Their job is to enforce public safety. Though there are past instances of them being deployed questionably, I think that an objective person will find in the vast majority of cases they were used for their intended purpose.
I'm very interested in your method of "constructive destruction". That's a very interesting oxymoron, don't you think? Sorry, try "constructive criticism." The key word is "constructive." If you're too paranoid, or too extreme (to the left or right), it's hard to convince your opponents of anything. This is not to say you can't be extreme, but that extreme arguments seldom convince people on the extreme opposite. If you're *really* extreme, they don't even convince anyone in the middle.
I'm able to love America without waving the flag or singing the national anthem, and I'm glad that I was fortunate enough to have been born in this country. You could have fooled me. Everything I read led me to honestly believe the opposite. Caring about your country should be part of your argument.
I am also able to discriminate between America and the people who are in power... are you? That one will require some explaining. The people in power of what? The politicians? The people we elected but wish they were more interested in doing their jobs than being politicians? If I'm in the ballpark I think I know what you mean. A "public servant" serves the public, but a "politician" serves himself and/or his party. In that way, politicians are bad for the public.

I also resentfully protest your already hackneyed insinuation that I'm somehow less American than you because I don't accept every piece of crap the government tries to shove down my throat. I believe I questioned whether or not you liked the country, not your level of "Americanism."

It's a lot easier to tear things down than it is to build them. If you only tear down, you are not helping. Pointing out flaws can be a positive thing. Pointing out *nothing* but flaws is not.

This is the 21st Century. We've got lots of whiz-bang technology, but precious little enlightened use of it. Totally agree with you there. While science advances at ever-greater speeds, our general mentality still struggles to live up to the ideals in the US Constitution. On the one hand we have separation of church & state. On the other hand, we still have religious (or religious-backed) groups trying to foist the teaching of creationism *as science* in our classrooms. That's one small example. We still act in many ways like the scared animals we supposedly evolved from. We have laws to help us be better, but sometimes we're not great at following them.

Some of you are getting ready to go abroad for the next big international unicycle convention. If you really think I am the only one who is questioning the past, present, or future policy of the American government, think again. Get ready to have a few Off Topic questions from unicyclers from other parts of the world. Those can be good conversations. And going to those events is a great way for people from any given country to be reminded that the people in other countries are just that -- people. If everybody had friends in every other country on Earth, there might be more peace in the world.

gluteous maximus

2003-04-04, 10:28 AM

This "point" that protesting without offering "an alternative" is somehow bad or wrong is a false argument. It's not necessary to list everything that is good in order to point out what is bad.

It is completely valid to make a pure dissent, especially when any alternative is preferable. Sometimes things are black and white.

Hypocrisy is one example.

It was "bad" when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Now it's "good" when the US invades Iraq. Showing American POWs on Arab TV is bad, but showing Iraqi POWs on American TV is good. Abortion is bad, but bombing cities (and babies) is good. Air pollution is bad, but enjoying driving my SUV is good.

I see no reason why I should quietly accept injustice or oppression or violence. I always thought those things were universally accepted to be negative. So why is complaining about a negative thing now "cynical"? I'm not denying your right to accept them. I'm not even denying your right to complain about my complaining. Given that injustice and oppression and violence are always negative things, it would seem to follow that not liking them is positive.

America's foreign policy in recent months looks like it was designed by La Cosa Nostra. Do I really need to offer you alternatives? Aren't they obvious enough? Are you happy with our country being the gangster boss of the world?

Why do I need to outline a plan that will win Dubya the Nobel Peace Prize in order to be "entitled" to dissent? Isn't not starting a war an obvious enough alternative to starting one? Isn't any policy that would tend to influence in a positive way automatically better than "Stomp loudly while bludgeoning with your big stick."?

These are rhetorical questions, by the way. That means you don't have to answer them, but I won't think it's bad if you do.

The assumption that a Peace March is somehow inherently violent and likely to disturb the peace and disrupt public safety is really wierd. Sending in the riot squads when a public event turns violent is one thing. Greeting the peace demonstrators with clubs and tear gas cannisters when they show up is quite another.

It's obvious that the Bush administration doesn't care about the protests. They're ignoring them and avoiding them by staging televised speeches on military bases. Gee, howcome none of those folks on the military bases aren't protesting the invasion of Iraq?
I guess that means Bush is right. Roll on to Baghdad!

originally posted by gluteous maximus:
I'm able to love America without waving the flag or singing the national anthem, and I'm glad that I was fortunate enough to have been born in this country.

reply by johnfoss:
You could have fooled me. Everything I read led me to honestly believe the opposite. Caring about your country should be part of your argument.

I think somebody else has fooled you.
I don't have to prove myself to you, and given your reply, I couldn't if I tried. I don't accept your "good citizen" test.
I care enough about my country to want it to be better.
No, complaining and protesting probably won't make it better. Window dressing (flags and recording-artists' song rallies and ribbons of whatever color is in season) and increased military spending aren't going to make it better, either.

Pointing out a flaw is the first step toward improvement.

Sitting in your jacuzzi congratulating yourself on your personal comforts and going with the flow doesn't make you a better American.

Joe McCarthy would disagree with me, though.

Anyway, so long! This is my last post.