+2
It's nice to see that our congress can think for themselves without having to jump on the hate bush bandwagon
/end sarcasm
Anti War Protests
- Thread starter Overpaid Union Thug
- Start date
+2
It's nice to see that our congress can think for themselves without having to jump on the hate bush bandwagon
/end sarcasm
They've never called me either, if it makes you feel any better 
.
I think Gallup/USA Today tend to be pretty objective, I'm not aware that either organisation has a particualr political bias.
A poll conducted by FOX News yielded essentially the same results, and I doubt those guys were a bunch of Democrats calling college dorm rooms.....
.I think Gallup/USA Today tend to be pretty objective, I'm not aware that either organisation has a particualr political bias.
A poll conducted by FOX News yielded essentially the same results, and I doubt those guys were a bunch of Democrats calling college dorm rooms.....
canon
Well-Known Member
Sorry took so long to respond... after my pizza last night I got sleepy.
A false choice in logic is the assertion that there are only two options... like when Bush said "you are either with us or against us" when talking about the fight against terrorism. In that false choice, it ignored the options like some might not agree with our plan of action, but still might want to fight terrorism. It serves to eliminate middle ground, establishing only two extremes for the opponent in a debate to chose.
The difference is, I get to make a decision based on my experience. Your assumption that I haven't included the middle ground is a category error of composition. In this context, the discussion was about state sponsored terrorism vs actions of freedom fighters. I never said *all* palestinians were guilty nor all Israeli actions innocent. It's not a logical fallacy to recognize one group targets civilians intentionally, and the other does not. For me to follow your reasoning, I would have to excuse suicide bombings of civilians and condemn Israeli defensive measures.
I condemn the actions of suicide bombers, the countries that support and harbor them, and the people who turn a blind eye to the practice. It's not a declaration of Israeli innocence in all matters to side with them against state sponsored terrorism. For that, I can find no middle ground for which to weigh against the actions of intentionally targeting women and children. I still side with Israel on this issue and it's still not a false choice.
That clarifies your position quite a bit, I think all reasonable people are against suicide bombers. It wasn't readily apparent to me when you initially stated that you "side with Israel" that you were talking specifically about the issue of suicide bombing. If you narrow your definition of terrorism down to the point where it only includes suicide bombing, then I can agree with you that Israel does not engage in state sponsored terrorism, at least by that definition. But I think we can both agree that most people define terrorism a bit more broadly.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
None of the above.
Jeff Gordon caught cheating in the 2nd Duel 150 and Anna Nicole's body finally on the way to the undertaker!
Common on folks, let's keep our priorities straight here. Right?
Michael waltrip, jeff gordon, brittney, anna, does any one really care?
There is a sports channel, thats where the first 2 should be, there is an entertainment channel for the last 2.
He cheated, got fined, he cheated, but he is honest? Shes dead, sad, she wakked her hair, drug induced, following in footsteps of Anna. End of story.
I agree, the media isnt giving us what we need to know about.
Im ready to cancel my dish, I find out more on here, than on there!
And I know more about Anna than I ever wanted to.
There is a sports channel, thats where the first 2 should be, there is an entertainment channel for the last 2.
He cheated, got fined, he cheated, but he is honest? Shes dead, sad, she wakked her hair, drug induced, following in footsteps of Anna. End of story.
I agree, the media isnt giving us what we need to know about.
Im ready to cancel my dish, I find out more on here, than on there!
And I know more about Anna than I ever wanted to.
canon
Well-Known Member
For some reason I couldn't get your link to open. I'm sure there are very broad definitions for the term, but most of which probably exist to include any actions carried out by the opposing political party. For the people who see suicide bombings as a form of freedom fighting, all they need is for someone to do it to them... THEN it would become terrorism. So no... again have to disagree with the idea that most people have a broad definition of the term terrorism. I think people with a political agenda have a broad definintion... but the majority have a core idea of what it means. And it probably fits pretty closely to the definition as outlined by the CIA... at least that's how it is with me.
Source: https://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html
I will concede tho, you have one of the more humorous signatures on the board. Laugh every time I see it.
The CIA definition is fine as far it goes, but you will notice that it has been carefully written to exclude the US government (or any government for that matter) from being capable of committing a terrorist act. From the link I posted earlier:
The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies directly associated to a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition.
You are probably quite correct in stating that the majority of people in the U.S. (and most western countries) would agree with the CIA's definition, but I suspect that is more due to the fact that it fits in with our ideas of who the bad guys are anyway rather than because it fits an objective standard.
I also think we are debating semantics at this point
.Suicide bombing is an abomination, but it's roots lie in the dire situation of the Palestinian people. There will be no peace in the Middle East without a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that both sides can accept.
Last edited:
canon
Well-Known Member
Agree with post. It's a matter of perspective.. and I'm American. I can't think in terms of finding an objective standard which allows for the targeting of innocent people, it's just not in me. It would have to redefine the terms innocent and non-combatant to exclude children and the elderly.The CIA definition is fine as far it goes, but you will notice that it has been carefully written to exclude the US government (or any government for that matter) from being capable of committing a terrorist act. From the link I posted earlier:
The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies directly associated to a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition.
You are probably quite correct in stating that the majority of people in the U.S. (and most western countries) would agree with the CIA's definition, but I suspect that is more due to the fact that it fits in with our ideas of who the bad guys are anyway rather than because it fits an objective standard.
I also think we are debating semantics at this point
Suicide bombing is an abomination, but it's roots lie in the dire situation of the Palestinian people. There will be no peace in the Middle East without a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that both sides can accept.
I think the term Middle East peace is relative... we might one day see a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas, but that's a seriously different culture. The roots of the actions we see as terroristic may be rooted in the dire situation... but I'm not ready to forgive such actions nor think for a moment the problems will end with the Israeli/Palestinian conflicts.
When I was in Egypt, the one thing I noticed was the apparent lack of any middle class. I'm sure they exist, but everywhere I went it was either poor people piled in small cars/trucks or driving a mercedes. Egypt is far from any similarities in palestine, but it stands as a model for the overall problem: Islamic rule or oppressive governments prevent improvements to the general populace. It's was like walking backward in time.
Photo taken late 1980's, Cairo Egypt.
Meat would be on display without refrigeration. Disco was just getting popular. Panhandling was pandemic. The beer would have a rust ring around the top, and "stuff" floating in it (and it doesn't taste any better as you drink more). I ate at one local restaurant... that was a mistake that put me on the toilet for 3 days. After that, I didn't venture from Pizza Hut when in Cairo.
Crossing into Israel was like stepping into the 20th century. It's amazing to see a culture try to go on with life despite the constant threat of being attacked by the next person walking down the street. Everywhere you look, armed soldiers. Maybe I'm biased when I say I side with Israel. I saw a culture fighting for normalcy against an entire race of people bent on their destruction. And if the palestinians stopped a moment to think who the real villians are, they'd be fighting for freedom rather than land and not see all non-muslims as legitimate military targets. The kicker is they don't seem to want it any other way. I have a hard time supporting that.
Tomorrow night on CBS, 60 Minutes is doing a special on Iraq:
I hold out hope things will change, and am really looking forward to see a positive report from Iraq. Until then, siding with Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-anybody. Just anti-actions.
Canon,
How would you describe air strikes on residential neighborhoods? Is that state sponsored terrorism? Or how about thousands of cluster bombs dropped on civilian areas in the final hours before a cease fire?
I find it amusing that you are such a strong supporter of the United Nations. I would have tought just the opposite.
Do you believe the United States should engage in pre-emptive war? Is that not a crime in and of itself?
How would you describe air strikes on residential neighborhoods? Is that state sponsored terrorism? Or how about thousands of cluster bombs dropped on civilian areas in the final hours before a cease fire?
I find it amusing that you are such a strong supporter of the United Nations. I would have tought just the opposite.
Do you believe the United States should engage in pre-emptive war? Is that not a crime in and of itself?
canon
Well-Known Member
I'm not a strong supporter of the UN. Those that slam the US use the false idea that we had no reason to go in and did so without UN approval. I use their own beliefs against them, in most instances because they really haven't take the time to do their own research. In the case of Afghanistan, that was a reaction to 9/11. After that, we took a pre-emptive position which placed Iraq squarely at the top of the list. And, since you saw my posts about the UN, I'm surprised you still see it as a crime. Everything we have done is in accordance with the UN Resolutions established to deal with the rogue leader Saddam Hussein.
The use of weapons in civilian areas aren't what anybody wants. I know you don't think so, but think about it: The US wanted support for the war, and knows civilian causalites diminishes that support. If ANYTHING, if you think they "just wanted war", and want it to continue... the idea would then be to minimize civilian deaths. The problem arises when the militaries use those civilians as human shields. I respect your position but have to take a slightly different approach to your question... I find it appaling that a country at war would stage their military in such locations as to maximize collateral damage.
Do I believe in pre-emptive war? I think the stakes are too high to wait for retalitory responses anymore. Do we have to lose a city like New York before we recognize something should have been done sooner? When you look at places like North Korea or Iran... do you really think we should wait until we're counting our own dead before stopping a known threat?
You had better believe I support pre-emptive war.
I understand the whole "we aren't the world's policeman" argument... and it is a valid argument. At the same time, I also recognize the world as a whole is subject to certain restraints and laws for the sake of world peace. When rogue nations become a threat to that peace, I'm all for eliminating the threat before they have a chance to maximize whatever damage they're out to do. It's like pre-tripping your package car. Why wait until a known deficience sends you careening into the back of a vehicle at a stoplight before giving it the attention it deserves?
Why is pre-emptive war a crime in your eyes, and failure to adhere to international law not? Punches will be thrown... pre-emptive strikes only changes who throws the first punch. Unfortunately, the punches we're talking about have the potential to bring down skyscrapers.
So no, I don't see it as "state sponsored terrorism" when we we're forced to fight on the battlefield of the enemy's choosing. Even then, we do our best to minimize collateral damage and step in to rebuild what we've damaged. We've brought democracy to an oppressed people. Admittedly, I'm not sure they really want it or understand the whole concept of freedom.
We use every measure to keep casualties restricted to military targets. I'm profoundly saddened when I hear a "smart bomb" went off course and hit an unintended target. At the same time I think "why can't they make these more reliable", I also think "why can't the leaders of these countries take the steps necessary to avoid war?" Waiting to see if you think North Korea or Iran are really peaceful nations being unfairly targeted for international concern.
I'm just a truck driver with the same impact on the world as you: the ability to vote. And I'll vote everytime for the person committed to keeping Amercia safe.
Thanks for keeping it insult free... it's just opinions on the internet.
Sorry Canon, only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of armed force. Any country that unilaterally use military means to enforce a resolution without itself being in violation of the UN Charter.Canon said:
So why are we conducting airstrikes in Baghdad? We are not at war with Iraq's government, we control their military. Why are we calling in airstrikes in what is clear to most everyone is a civil war?
Preemptive war is only justified under international law when an attack is imminent, such as enemy troops massed at a border. The United States had NEVER had the policy of preemptive war. The fact that phony intelligence was used to justify the war only worsens the situation. Iraq had neither attacked nor threatened to attack the United States.
This sounds like Condi Rice in her 'mushroom clouds' statement. Iraq did not have the means or the desire to attack America. Iraq had essentially complied with 1441. How can it declare weapons it didn't have? Every knowledgeable person knows that there were no WMDs found in Iraq that were manufactured post 1991.
We were not 'forced to fight', it was a war of choice. We haven't brought democracy to an oppressed people.
I don't think we will make the world safer by attacking Iran or North Korea. Of course, under the Bush Doctrine, we will not negotiate with them, so I don't hold much hope for a peaceful solution. Follow the money if you want to see who benefits from our reckless policies.
If you closely read the archives I believe you will find that I am civil until someone begins name calling, then all bets are of.
canon
Well-Known Member
So who drafted the Resolutions outlining the consequences Iraq faced if they didn't follow the resolutions? UN Security Council. The resolutions drafted by the security council provided the means for enforcement, thru "any means necessary". And you can't say we entered this unilaterally when we had a coalition of UN countries. Some say the attack violated law, others say it doesn't. The whithouse position on the matter:
Ari Fleischer said:
Because according to international law, we are responsible for the security until such a time as the new govt can defend itself. If they want to civil war after we leave, so be it. Until then, those trying to "undo" the current govt will be faced with the current security force, USAF included.
I already acknowledged the post 9/11 positions switched from a reactionary posture to a pre-emptive. We saw the results of our old system in New York.
As stated before, the violations of resolutions justified the actions as per the Security Council resolutions. Obviously this will be a point to be hashed out in courts and we'll have to agree to disagree. "Phony" intelligence is an attempt at argument, as you can't prove all the nations involved with their own intelligence also faked it. Inaccurate? I can accept that to some degree.
And immenent is a term relative to wars including militaries which would mass at a border. We're dealing with state sponsored terrorists which use our own freedoms as a means to bring down buildings. In the case of those terrorists and the governments that fund them, the enemy has already massed, and crossed the border. A handful of cowards did what an army would suffer dearly to achieve. Again, the enemy knows the way in, tactics have to change to accomodate those weaknesses.
Well, since I'm not a knowledgeable person, I went to my secret source for über knowledge: wikipedia.
wikipedia said:
wikipedia said:
Hindsight is 20/20.
You say it's a war of choice, and I agree. You say it shouldn't have happened at all and blame Bush for a bad choice. I think we (as in united nations) should have done more during the time between the wars at the first sign of violations. So for me I'd have to say Clinton made a bad choice in not pressuring adherence when he was in charge.
We've definately brought the first rounds of democracy, as we've seen in the voting (I've already said I don't think they know what freedom is). So that leaves your position to argue that the people weren't actually oppressed? I guess that depends on who you ask:
Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/w...e190b2fe&ex=1325134800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rssThe New York Times said:
When we're dealing with nuclear weapons, "thinking" we'll be better off not attacking is a monumental mistake if you're wrong. I still say it is best if countries will not play by the rules, they don't get to play at all. Out of curiosity, what would it take to change your opinion? Couple million deaths on the west coast? I'm not willing to bet others lives to accomodate "fairness" for some rogue leaders who already show contempt for human life and racial/religious tolerance. Maybe it's easier for someone who lives in Nowhere, Idaho to shrug off the possibility of being the first targeted. I wouldn't know.
I'll take your word for it.
I'm still going to vote for the one who I think will best defend America.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Canon and Slothrop,
With all due respect gentlemen, the issue of weapons is a mute point. Bush has settled that issue by admitting to the nation that there were no weapons found and that the intel was wrong. See the 12/18/05' speech. Iraq is not about WMD.
This is one of the major reasons that now we hear the defense of our presence over there was about freeing the people from a murderer and despot and bringing them freedom. I also wonder how much effort on the part of the Saudi's and Kuwaitees was used on Washington to overthrow their Sunni brother to the north. Believe me, these guys feared Saddam way more than we ever did. Even Osama went to the Saudi royals himself in 91' and begged their permission for him to lead Al Queda into Kuwait to expell Saddam. Did you ever, ever wonder why it was after the Gulf War and our continued presence in the holy land of Saudi Arabia that Al Queda and Osama turned it's attentions toward the US? Remember, prior to this our only problems so to speak in the region had been with the ****es of Iraq and not the Sunni's. Also what are the odds that Osama a hard core religionist would ally with Saddam, a very secular but power hungry man into an alliance with each other. I know the "you enemy is my enemy" saying but with all the things going on here, this really doesn't wash at the end of the day.
To learn the game, you've got to learn the players and their history. Why did Saddam go into Kuwait in the first place? The real answer is prior to the end of WW1 and the British and French recarving up the mideast, Kuwait was apart of what is now known as Iraq just as Lebanon was apart of Syria and just may explain a little why Syria keeps hanging around those quarters.
Why are they so fearful of Israel? It all hinge's on a covenant God made with Abraham in the book of Genesis.
What land mass does this description apply to?
Image:Greater Israels.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This map to anyone should speak volumes especially when you understand the significance the folks of these parts place on their religious documents and teachings. Outside of biblical scriptural interpretation, what other authority exists to mandate the existence of any state to be called by the name of Israel? Not suggesting they don't have the right to life, liberty and property (absolutely they do) but has theology become the mandate for geo-politics?
As for terrorists, IMO the earlier comparsion of the of the folks involved in the Boston Tea Party with human sucide bombers is at best a wild stretch. The Boston Tea Party was an act against a gov't via it's most profitable revenue stream and the only victim to suffer demise was the tea itself. Yes, some suffered economic damage but of that day they would best be described as gov't sanctioned corporation via special prviledge of the King. King George's Halliburton if you will.
Terrorist come in all stripes including Christian ones. I personally don't like abortion but bombing a clinic, you are a terrorist plain and simple and should face the full extent of the law. There are jewish terrorist and the Irgun is one good example. Many claim and with some facts to back it up that the State of Israel came into being as an independent state as a result of the acts of jewish terrorist.
Irgun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The late Meir Kahane, leader of the Jewish Defense League was considered by some to be a terrorist. Meir Kahane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The KKK is a terrorist organization and the many white supremacy groups of so many stripes you can't count them all could also be lumped into that mix but most have the common bond of Christianity. Muslims are not alone by any stretch in this area.
Terrorist come in all shapes, sizes, religions and politics but IMO most are driven more by religion than they are politics. Politics is the prize to be seized as it's the only mechanism that the people see as the legit user of force to drive a society into the practice and beliefs of a specific religion and rarely the other way around.
JMO
With all due respect gentlemen, the issue of weapons is a mute point. Bush has settled that issue by admitting to the nation that there were no weapons found and that the intel was wrong. See the 12/18/05' speech. Iraq is not about WMD.
This is one of the major reasons that now we hear the defense of our presence over there was about freeing the people from a murderer and despot and bringing them freedom. I also wonder how much effort on the part of the Saudi's and Kuwaitees was used on Washington to overthrow their Sunni brother to the north. Believe me, these guys feared Saddam way more than we ever did. Even Osama went to the Saudi royals himself in 91' and begged their permission for him to lead Al Queda into Kuwait to expell Saddam. Did you ever, ever wonder why it was after the Gulf War and our continued presence in the holy land of Saudi Arabia that Al Queda and Osama turned it's attentions toward the US? Remember, prior to this our only problems so to speak in the region had been with the ****es of Iraq and not the Sunni's. Also what are the odds that Osama a hard core religionist would ally with Saddam, a very secular but power hungry man into an alliance with each other. I know the "you enemy is my enemy" saying but with all the things going on here, this really doesn't wash at the end of the day.
To learn the game, you've got to learn the players and their history. Why did Saddam go into Kuwait in the first place? The real answer is prior to the end of WW1 and the British and French recarving up the mideast, Kuwait was apart of what is now known as Iraq just as Lebanon was apart of Syria and just may explain a little why Syria keeps hanging around those quarters.
Why are they so fearful of Israel? It all hinge's on a covenant God made with Abraham in the book of Genesis.
What land mass does this description apply to?
Image:Greater Israels.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This map to anyone should speak volumes especially when you understand the significance the folks of these parts place on their religious documents and teachings. Outside of biblical scriptural interpretation, what other authority exists to mandate the existence of any state to be called by the name of Israel? Not suggesting they don't have the right to life, liberty and property (absolutely they do) but has theology become the mandate for geo-politics?
As for terrorists, IMO the earlier comparsion of the of the folks involved in the Boston Tea Party with human sucide bombers is at best a wild stretch. The Boston Tea Party was an act against a gov't via it's most profitable revenue stream and the only victim to suffer demise was the tea itself. Yes, some suffered economic damage but of that day they would best be described as gov't sanctioned corporation via special prviledge of the King. King George's Halliburton if you will.
Terrorist come in all stripes including Christian ones. I personally don't like abortion but bombing a clinic, you are a terrorist plain and simple and should face the full extent of the law. There are jewish terrorist and the Irgun is one good example. Many claim and with some facts to back it up that the State of Israel came into being as an independent state as a result of the acts of jewish terrorist.
Irgun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The late Meir Kahane, leader of the Jewish Defense League was considered by some to be a terrorist. Meir Kahane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The KKK is a terrorist organization and the many white supremacy groups of so many stripes you can't count them all could also be lumped into that mix but most have the common bond of Christianity. Muslims are not alone by any stretch in this area.
Terrorist come in all shapes, sizes, religions and politics but IMO most are driven more by religion than they are politics. Politics is the prize to be seized as it's the only mechanism that the people see as the legit user of force to drive a society into the practice and beliefs of a specific religion and rarely the other way around.
JMO
wkmac,
I'm going to assume you mean a 'moot' point, rather than a 'mute' point.
The reasons for overthrowing Saddam have changed as the fog that the Bushi'ites used to obfuscate the real reasons has been lifted. It was never about freeing a people, it has always been about a grand vision by people who have choosen to ignore history.
My greater concern is the position that their folly has left us in.
Our standing in the world community has been tarnished badly. Those who were once our friends no longer trust us. The big winners in this fiasco will likely be the Russians and the Chinese. Their influence is rising rapidly.
Since I'm on probation (again) this post won't show up for hours, if at all, so I'll leave my response at that for now.
I'm going to assume you mean a 'moot' point, rather than a 'mute' point.
The reasons for overthrowing Saddam have changed as the fog that the Bushi'ites used to obfuscate the real reasons has been lifted. It was never about freeing a people, it has always been about a grand vision by people who have choosen to ignore history.
My greater concern is the position that their folly has left us in.
Our standing in the world community has been tarnished badly. Those who were once our friends no longer trust us. The big winners in this fiasco will likely be the Russians and the Chinese. Their influence is rising rapidly.
Since I'm on probation (again) this post won't show up for hours, if at all, so I'll leave my response at that for now.
Slothrop, Cyberstalking our members will not be tolerated. Your posts are being queued because you repeatedly violate that simple rule.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
My computer has been down for a few weeks and I hop on a friend's computer the first chance I get to pay bills and browse around and when I come to see what has become of this thread I'm knocked out of my socks by what I see. What the hell happened here? lol
Back to the original topic...Isn't anyone else concerned that "Americans" are protesting their own military?
Back to the original topic...Isn't anyone else concerned that "Americans" are protesting their own military?
Similar threads
