IamSquid
Extreme Fanatic   Posts: 658 Registered: 27/5/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 18/3/2003 at 11:40 PM |
http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/many_faces_of_dubyuh.htm
yoo may have to click refresh a few times t get it to work properly ____________________
i wanted to die, and then it progressed into wanting everyone else to
die so i could watch, and then me die.
-ickgirl
|
| |
Merry_Widow
Fanatic   Posts: 598 Registered: 24/8/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 19/3/2003 at 08:42 PM |
...I'm sorry, MRD, did you just say that you wanted to go to Ireland in
order to get away from war because it is neutral? You do realize that there
is still tension between the Catholic and Protestants over there, correct?
And that northern Ireland is part of the UK?
As for the War and Bush...Bush is a human being, not infalliable. He has
one of the hardest jobs in the world. The only thing I can see him being
guilty of is making a decision based off of the best advice his cabinet can
give him, and then living with it. When I see him on the news now, I do not
see any sort of creature out of apocalyptic prophecies, I see a man who is
very tired, who knows that lives will be lost, either thorugh his direct or
indirect actions. I do not like the war. I wish it weren't happening, but
it is. ____________________
Okay, dazzle me.
|
| |
IamSquid
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 658 Registered: 27/5/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 12:56 AM |
Actually, Merry, the Republic of Ireland does not for the most part have
alot of problems with the perpetual state of unrest between Catholics,
Protestands, and the Brittish that is still going on in Northern Ireland.
The Republic or Ireland is officially nuetral in this struggle but since
literlaly 99% of the population is Catholic, well it's no suprise how most
of the Irish feel in the matter.
The Repulic of Ireland, unlike the UK, is a member of the EU and EEC and is
as nuetral as any of the other EU/EEC countries (with the exception of
Spain of course). Ireland will in all likelyhood send in troops or not
send in troops along with the other EU countries.
Despite the fact that the Republic of Ireland has not been in a war (with
the exception of course of it's own revolution) to any major extend in
nearly 500 years, I would hesitiate to call the city of Dublin
"peaceful."
On the other matter of Bush making the best descisions he can, I really
have never been given a single satisfactory reason forthis "war" (if
shooting missles until we get bored can properly be called that). Sure our
economy will be better afterwards and gas will be cheaper but as
individuals do we go and pick fights with people just because we didn't
pull in as much this month? If so, we're severly fucked-up individuals.
There isn't a shread of evidence the establishment in Iraq had anything to
do with the 9/11 attacks. Is the reason we're going to war because Saddam
Hussein is evil? Name mee a world leader who isn't evil!
Yes, we know he has weapons of mass destruction, how do we know this?
Cause WE GAVE THEM TO HIM! Is there any evidence Iraq has plans to use
them? Not any that I've ever heard. And if the mission is to disarm Iraq
then it's only fitting that we disarm ourselves.
In an international survey, guess what country had the most votes for the
question: "Which country is the greatest threat to world security?" Was
it Iraq? Was it Afghanistan? Was it Korea? Nope, it was the USA.
Don't get mee wrong, I love this country but I'm sick and fucking tired of
it's foregin policy. ____________________
i wanted to die, and then it progressed into wanting everyone else to
die so i could watch, and then me die.
-ickgirl
|
| |
callei
Extreme Fanatic  Posts: 759 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 02:47 AM |
I cant find anywhere that says officially that this is WAR, just and
extention of the "public awareness campaign" against violence, of which the
"war on terroism" is merely one branch.
I cant find a senate vote for WAR just a vote to let troops be deployed.
SR. threw a WAR, Jr. is throwing a police action.
|
| |
Lacrimosa
Coward   Posts: 4 Registered: 20/3/2003 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 02:55 AM |
Hi I just got registered here and the first thing I did was to "click" on
this topic. I have carefully read all the posts and only one question comes
in my hamble mind :
What could possibly sooth his war-lust?
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic  Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 04:01 AM |
I've been steering clear of this forum because
a.) I'm not a Christian and therefore always feel a little out-of-place
when people play the always popular "Spot the Anti-Christ" game over
cocktails, and
b.) I've noticed that people can be just a hair sensitive when they are
falling all over themselves trying to justify the unjustifiable.
So, in order to keep the fires down to a minimum, I'll be brief.
M-W: I am not saying that you are right or wrong, but I am cautioning you
to remember that you see on television only what those in control want you
to see. There has been no truly candid camera work since the Viet Nam
"police action", in which the only lessons we seemed to take away were how
to better influence public opinion. Every press conference is entirely
scripted (I saw Bush the Younger get cross two weeks ago and remind an
eager young reporter that his answer would be supplied in turn... the
direct quote he used was "This is scripted... er..." before moving on with
his customary smirk.) Peter Jennings reported that the speech he gave last
night was ragged because it was scripted to have been presented in four or
five days, but then they found those wonderful "targets of opportunity" and
screwed up their scheduled off-the-cuff and entirely sincere remarks that
they had been rehearsing. I've noticed that his most recent two
appearances (viz. where he announced that the we would go to war on Monday
evening and again last night when he announced that we would go to war) he
has not had his customary smirk. You might wish to interpret that as
fatigue and sincerity. I, however, think it more likely that Condi Rice
and Paul Wolfowitz mentioned that the "cat that ate the canary" look might
detract a bit from the "we really don't want your oil" story they've been
spinning.
Squid: You shouldn't have to make the caveat that you love your country
when you criticise it's policies. As near as I know, we all cherish
democratic free speech here and I haven't seen the "America: love it or
leave it" crap in this tiny domain as much as the present administration
would probably like. We only want to fix the things that are important to
us... that is to say, if you didn't love your country, you probably
wouldn't bother criticising it in the first place.
callei: The families of the victims of aggression might quibble over the
nuances of semantics, but those in the line of fire usually are in no place
to make so fine a distinction. According to my copy of the US
Constitution, Article 1 section 8 gives Congress alone the right to make a
declaration of war... but I believe they waived that right shortly after
Spetember 11th in their new capacity of "lapdogs for the executive branch".
I wouldn't fret so terribly much, the Romans did the same thing circa 40
bce when Gaius Caesar came marching back across the Rubicon but rectified
that oversight a scant four years later.
Lacrimosa: When he has glutted himself on the blood of innocents.
~M.
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 04:02 AM |
I've been steering clear of this forum because
a.) I'm not a Christian and therefore always feel a little out-of-place
when people play the always popular "Spot the Anti-Christ" game over
cocktails, and
b.) I've noticed that people can be just a hair sensitive when they are
falling all over themselves trying to justify the unjustifiable.
So, in order to keep the fires down to a minimum, I'll be brief.
M-W: I am not saying that you are right or wrong, but I am cautioning you
to remember that you see on television only what those in control want you
to see. There has been no truly candid camera work since the Viet Nam
"police action", in which the only lessons we seemed to take away were how
to better influence public opinion. Every press conference is entirely
scripted (I saw Bush the Younger get cross two weeks ago and remind an
eager young reporter that his answer would be supplied in turn... the
direct quote he used was "This is scripted... er..." before moving on with
his customary smirk.) Peter Jennings reported that the speech he gave last
night was ragged because it was scripted to have been presented in four or
five days, but then they found those wonderful "targets of opportunity" and
screwed up their scheduled off-the-cuff and entirely sincere remarks that
they had been rehearsing. I've noticed that his most recent two
appearances (viz. where he announced that the we would go to war on Monday
evening and again last night when he announced that we would go to war) he
has not had his customary smirk. You might wish to interpret that as
fatigue and sincerity. I, however, think it more likely that Condi Rice
and Paul Wolfowitz mentioned that the "cat that ate the canary" look might
detract a bit from the "we really don't want your oil" story they've been
spinning.
Squid: You shouldn't have to make the caveat that you love your country
when you criticise it's policies. As near as I know, we all cherish
democratic free speech here and I haven't seen the "America: love it or
leave it" crap in this tiny domain as much as the present administration
would probably like. We only want to fix the things that are important to
us... that is to say, if you didn't love your country, you probably
wouldn't bother criticising it in the first place.
callei: The families of the victims of aggression might quibble over the
nuances of semantics, but those in the line of fire usually are in no place
to make so fine a distinction. According to my copy of the US
Constitution, Article 1 section 8 gives Congress alone the right to make a
declaration of war... but I believe they waived that right shortly after
Spetember 11th in their new capacity of "lapdogs for the executive branch".
I wouldn't fret so terribly much, the Romans did the same thing circa 40
bce when Gaius Caesar came marching back across the Rubicon but rectified
that oversight a scant four years later.
Lacrimosa: When he has glutted himself on the blood of innocents.
~M.
|
| |
callei
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 759 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 05:00 AM |
Onr thinks that by now this country would have seen that they get both a
better reaction and a more fixable solution when they declare a war rather
than an "attack/police action etc"
And yes you analogy is very true and i think that may be the most auful
part. It shows where we are in the fall of the American empire,
comparatively speaking.
And (yes another one) i wonder if we hear less of the "love it or leave it"
rhetoric because so many people here would leave it if they had the money;
that they defend democracy and freedom rather than the american way. They
defend the country they would have it be rather than the country it is.
|
| |
Anya
Extreme Fanatic  Posts: 656 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 07:23 AM |
I can understand that Bush is probably tired and has a hard job on his
back, but I still feel he can do better on trying to press for more
peaceful solutions.
If you ask me, I'll agree on Hussein needing to be finished; we should not
have let him continue aspiring since years ago. But a war over it? I think
not. To me, the war further concludes that these political leaders are
just trying to play the game.
People will bring up that assassination is against the law, but I believe
that there's a time when legalism shouldn't ALWAYS be into play...for
instant, while someone does not want to injure or even kill someone who
assailed them, it may be the only way to survive.
So en conclucion, I think Hussein needs to be taken out, but not at the
price of many other people.
(PS: I'm above religion, but the title and question of "Bush the
Anti-Christ" was more of an if/then statement on the religion behalf. All
in all, was more of a subliminal thing that's asking, "How do you feel
about Bush's aggressions?")
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 08:34 AM |
Thank you, callei, although I hesitated to use that analogy on the grounds
that it paints him in too sympathetic a light ("Et tu, Cheney?") and
because if someone wanted to make a federal case out of it, they could say
that I was proposing an ides of March here (nota bene: while there are few
people I think would be more deserving of 23 stab wounds to the face and
groin, I have never actually come out and advocated it.) I think an
equally fitting analogy would be to see Bush the Younger as Nero...
fiddling (with his imperialist vigilantism) while Rome burns (unemployment
and economic depression driving millions on the home front to ruins). I
think events tend to move faster in the Information Age than they did two
thousand years ago, so it is always possible that a gradual decline is
already out of the question.
Anya: I've no sympathy for hearing about "tough job" he has. If he is not
up to the task, he should not have stolen the office to begin with and
should concede it to somebody who is capable of handling the strain. As for
the principle that legality should not always be adhered to, I've heard a
few other people saying that as well but I remain unconvinced that
assassination is ever an option (see above). The reductio ad absurdum is
that we would never need to hold an election because as soon as we became
displeased with anyone, we would arrange for them to meet with an
"accident". That's no way to run a railroad and chases away all the viable
contenders for the office.
It does bring up an interesting point though, and not one that I've seen
anyone else seize yet. Does anyone else find it interesting that someone
who so dubiously came to power in the first place is talking about forcing
democracies elsewhere in the world (Of course, the principle that you can
force people to be democratic is, itself, a logical paradox... think about
it for a second.)...?
~M.
|
| |
Anonymous
 Posts: 116 Registered: 14/4/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 09:05 AM |
(Doh...Anya post..bleh...forgot to relogin.)
I have little sympathy, as well. Though I see it's a tough job, it doesn't
necessarily mean I give much sympathy to him for doing it. Greater power
comes with greater responsibility. Someone in another forum, for some
reason, compared Bush to a Nazi. *chuckles* While he isn't another Hitler
(I don't think he is yet, anyway), I for some reason do not blame that
person for doing so. He does appear to act like a megalomaniac, after
all.
As for the not being elected...speaking of that, is it just my twisted mind
or are we slowly being deprived of our rights?
|
| |
GothicVampire
Coward  Posts: 9 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 09:44 AM |
If you ask me Bush is not the antichrist. He is just another war-maniac
like his father. America is gonna take a lot of wounds that will hurt its
citizens for many years to come after this war. I am sure that this will
not turn Bush into another man but surely dethrone him. This is the least
that can be done.
|
| |
GothicVampire
Coward Posts: 9 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 09:46 AM |
Lacrimosa: Maybe he needs his own Ms. Lewinski to releave him of sume
pressure 
|
| |
Lacrimosa
Coward Posts: 4 Registered: 20/3/2003 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 09:58 AM |
Well I would rather say that he's an "anti-human" rather than an
"antichrist"!
|
| |
Starlight
Extreme Fanatic  Posts: 618 Registered: 27/9/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 10:34 AM |
I agree Mono. It is an absurd concept to force people into democracy
(especially given all the controversy that surrounded the election of the
junior one), but it seems to be a major part of the agenda at this
point.
____________________
"When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never
tried before." ~Mae West
|
| |
Starlight
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 618 Registered: 27/9/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 10:38 AM |
| If anyone saw the video of Saddam "proving" he is still alive, do you
believe it was really him? I'm of the opinion it was a body double. I think
if it was filmed in advance, then it would have been put on the air much
quicker than it was. I don't know that it would necessarily prove we got
Saddam if it was indeed a body double on tv, but I do feel like that was a
body double talking and not the actual Saddam. ____________________
"When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've
never
tried before." ~Mae West
|
| |
Shade
Fanatic  Posts: 289 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 10:58 AM |
I am so full of vitrioloc bitching on this whole subject, but first and
formost the thing that cathes my imagination is the whole "assassination is
illegal" idea...how and why is it better to bomb a 'number of targets' and
damned be the bystanders in an admityed attempt to kill said target instead
of sending in a few gonzo gunmen? I mean is this really the message we are
supposed to be recieving? ie: It is internationally ok to attempt to kill
someone as long as we take out a large number of innocents as well. But not
ok if the only person to die, with a nearly guaranteed kill rate is the
intended target. Okaaaaay sure...this is the kind of logic that makes my
head spin.
Heh, need more caffeine. More later. ____________________
It is only through the lack of sex that humanity derives the need for an
all encompassing blind love. And in that moment of extreme horniness with
no relief in sight, in that moment can be found the birth of religion.
-Me
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 11:28 AM |
Starlight: Ostensible agenda, maybe. All rhetoric and game-playing aside,
the agenda has always been
1.) Boost our desperate economy with a war effort
2.) Seize control of Iraqi oil wells
3.) Send a message to the world about the price of defying us by making an
example of a country that is not be able to adequately defend itself.
You suggestion that the news clip was a body-double has merit, although
probably not for the reasons you might have been thinking. The Ba'ath
regime stands to gain nothing by pretending that Hussein is alive if he is
not since that will only prolong the death and destruction we rain down on
them, whereas Hussein has more power as a martyr to Islam... but...
Bush the Younger painted himself into a corner by giving Hussein a 48 hour
ultimatum in the first place. What if Hussein had given himself up in that
time? Not only would he push for an eventual tribunal about the legality
of our actions in a world court and gain even more world sympathy as a
dispossessed world leader, but...
We are banking on massive destruction here to help alleviate the unease on
Wall Street. Gathering our forces in the Gulf region has cost us a few
cool billion (the biohazard suits we are using have a limited shelf life
and come shrink wrapped. Getting those suits battle ready alone cost us 3
million dollars). Further, as part of Bush the Younger's economic stimulus
package, he has already guaranteed two American construction firms the
rights of rebuilding Baghdad to the tune of a 1.7 million dollar contract.
If Hussein went down before Baghdad did, we would be up the financial
creek. In plain terms, our president has made it too expensive for us NOT
to blow the hell out of Iraq and everyone and everything in it. If we
screwed up and nailed our objective in the first volley, we would HAVE to
provide evidence that Hussein was still alive to justify continuing what
needs to be done. If that was a body double you saw, then he got his
paycheque from us, not the Ba'ath regime.
Shade: To begin with, we have four documented instances in which our
super-elite CIA tried and failed to assassinate Hussein (way back when the
American public thought we did not do that sort of thing). If it was all
that easy to do, Bush the Elder would have seen to it. But apart from the
logistics of all of that, we are not, and never were, at war to kill one
man (see above). It is not economically expedient. War is big business...
if you don't believe me, watch the dow industrial average over the next
week.
Secondly, and this argument carries no weight, it is simply wrong. I
understand your position of weighing the cost in human lives, but that does
not enter into it because you are assuming a priori that Hussein's removal
is necessary. That remains to be seen, but if it were, that is why we have
a judicial system in the first place. There are legal procedures for the
removal of criminals... the USA alone decided that Hussein was a criminal
and never gathered enough evidence to prove that case to the rest of the
world. If we decide to break laws every time those laws seem to us to be
inconvenient, then having laws is a game in the first place. I do not
believe that for a second. This wild west mentality leads to lynchings and
anarchy... or, to put it in different terms, all those lives you propose to
save by assassinating one man would be in peril if we set the precedent
that we can simply kill people that we disagree with. We HAVE to lead by
example if we are to lead at all... that is why we have no moral authority
as it is, we adhere to a "do as we say, but not as we do, and we ignore
proper conduct when it suits us" foreign policy. It is a very, very
slippery slope you are proposing, even though I know your heart is in the
right place. Remember, an internally inconsistent ethos is necessarily
wrong.
(Incidentally, for the record, I am not biting anyone's head off here.
Sometimes it is hard to tell with the printed word.)
~M.
|
| |
Starlight
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 618 Registered: 27/9/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 12:37 PM |
| Mono> Deep down inside I know the spreading of democracy is only a
plausible agenda item, but I try to brainwash myself sometimes to just
believe it's what the real objective of the U.S. going to war with other
countries is. When I watched the president's speech the other evening, when
the 48 hr. time limit was officially given to Saddam to get out of Iraq, my
ears heard the president saying the oil fields of Iraq are a precious
commodity belonging to the Iraqi people. At the same time, I was hearing in
my head, "Hey leave our oil alone and you better not burn up our damned oil
fields, they will soon be ours to use." I sort of laughed, a bitter type
laugh though. I'm sort of torn over the whole oil issue. I can't decide
whether I'm relieved or disturbed that we are trying to get more oil for
our country. I think I'm a little of both right now. ____________________
"When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've
never
tried before." ~Mae West
|
| |
Shade
Fanatic Posts: 289 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 20/3/2003 at 03:58 PM |
Mono: I'm right there with you that the financial isues. And granted the
whole "It's morally wrong" argument does holddome weight in terms of
whether or not we should just send out the snipers, but all in all, I'm not
real worried about morality. Morality is a sickness that infects the US in
ways it has never infected other countries. It weakens the strong and
cripples the weak. It creates sins that are only valid in the halls of
rhetoric based on a purely mythological regime made of those who purport to
hold the ideals of the masses in their slowly clenching fists.
On the other hand, and just as disagreably, one: GWB gave Iraq 48 hours to
get rid of their leader, and then summarily began the bombing 47 hours
later. Two: what is a "decapitation strike aimed to destroy Hussein and his
sons and his high ranking officials" if not an assassination attempt by
thermite. I'm not arguing with your logic Mono, but I will never believe
that war is preferable over assassination. The death of one man is far
outweighed by the lives of a genomic group. In this case the Iraqi people.
To take the argument one step further, if I believed that through my
rhetoric and charisma i could convince the peolpe of this nation to stand
up for themselves, but it could be proven that by doing so I would end more
lives and create a worse situation than that which I would be attempting to
remedy, i would prefer to be taken out quietly in a non martyric manner. As
opposed to creating a long and draw out genocidal war that would create
nothing but misery and pain for all involved. ____________________
It is only through the lack of sex that humanity derives the need for an
all encompassing blind love. And in that moment of extreme horniness
with
no relief in sight, in that moment can be found the birth of
religion.
/>
-Me
|
| |
