Official: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq [Archive] - Unofficial World of Warcraft Forums

Elorion

07-10-2004, 01:57 AM

Yeh the two main reasons for war have been discredited, next they will find out Sadam is a nice guy ;) No but seriously, Bush is hated by the rest of the world now, and a hatred of the US has followed, be it right or wrong. It will only be restored if he gets ousted soon, over in Europe he is a joke, we laugh when people say his name and all over forums he is humiliated.
Just because people dont like him doesnt mean he isnt a good president or doing the right thing. The German people loved Hitler in his time, but do they think he did the right things. There is a close race here in America no matter what pole you look at(hehe some better then others). Meaning around 50% of the people think Bush is worth 4 more years.

Sorry about Europe not liking him, but most of them think the UN is all that and a bag of chips... They want to have a say in whatever happens in this world. Bush isnt going to make us take a world test, and being an American I think thats the way it should be. I see it like this. If many of the European countries were in the same situation, they wouldnt do what the UN said either.

Oberon

07-10-2004, 02:06 AM

Our allies also believed Iraq had WMDs, and I think we may still find them. Not too long ago Kerry himself said that we may still find them. Even if we dont, good riddence. Its not like Bush was just looking for an excuse to go to Iraq. Thoughs who say he was are just trying to cloud the issue. No one had the intellegence or the dissision to make. Bush did.

There are certain points which the Bush administration ignores which IMO make it unfit to govern. These facts are not limited to just the war in Iraq but since that is the discussion at hand I will only list those.

1. Any chemical or biological weapons Saddam had prior to the Gulf War would have degraded to the point of uselessness by now. Most of these weapons have a shelf life of a few months to a few years. Due to the sanctions and the UN inspections Saddam did not have the capacity to restart a WMD program. The reason some say we may still find them is due to the fact that not all of Iraq's chemical and biological warheads have been accounted for. The vast majority have but there are a few which went "missing". This should hardly be suprising since even the Pentagon "misses" billions annually in military hardware and Russia is "missing" a few nukes. Most of this is due to clerical error and the bureaucracy inherit in any large government system.

2. Iraq and the US are better off with Saddam behind bars? IMO no it is not. Iraq is on the verge of civil war. As bad as Saddam was he was no worse in treatment of his people than many other national leaders which who we consider allies. Iraq has lost well over 10,000 people since our invasion and they're losing many more every day. The US is certainly not better off since now Iraq is a hotbed of Islamic militantism and breading group for terrorism (which it wasn't prior to our invasion). Also we've lost over 1000 soldiers and spent over $120,000,000,000 (with an addition $80,000,000,000 earmarked for the rest of the fiscal year).

3. Even if Iraq had no WMD, Bush had to invade because the intelligence at the time indicated it did? Hardly. Intelligence is never a sure-fire bridge to the truth. Intelligence is often wrong. A responsible leader wouldn't have rushed to war based on the intelligence Bush had. As we now know, much of that intelligence was hyped by the administration and many of its sources were fraudulent (ex. Chalabi). You may say hindsight is 20/20 but knowing what he did at the time that (1) intelligence is seldom accurate and (2) UN inspectors in Iraq were still doing their job and saying Iraq had no WMD and (3) the fact that any WMD Iraq had leftover from before the Gulf War would be useless now and (4) knowing war in any form is dirty and involve the deaths of large numbers of people on both sides including civilians - knowing this would you still have ordered such an invasion?

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 02:07 AM

Sure, he is a traitor to the USA. He is pissed and Bush for firing him and is trying to hurt his credibility.

WHAT!
I'm assuming you're talking about the respected Republican Economist Paul O’Neill who served many Republican Presidents loyally (including Bush’s own father).

Before he was Treasury Secretary he was retired. He didn't need the job, he didn't need the money, and he didn't need to be Treasury Secretary. He didn't even want the job and it was Bush and Cheney who had to convince him to take it. Bush wanted him to give conservative credibility to his economics plan. O’Neill wouldn't go against everything he knew to be true and say Bush's endless tax cuts and bad economics were good things.

You assume that this man is against Bush because he was fired? He is against Bush because he saw nothing during the years that he worked with him, to show him that Bush is anything better than a horrible president.

You're saying this makes him a traitor? A traitor is one who betrays his country, all this guy did is try to help his country rather then support a man whose policies he believed were hurting it. Does this make Alan Greenspan a traitor too? (You realize Greenspan is also a Republican I assume, just like O’Neill) I mean after all Greenspan has said some pretty nasty things (nasty for Greenspan anyway) about Bush's economic plans.

If you won’t trust the top Republican economists and I assume you’re not going to trust the Democratic economists, then who do you trust? You believe Bush is suddenly a good economist because he’s President? What evidence could possibly convince you of this? Do you even look at facts to make your decisions or do you spew garbage statements like this out of your mouth on whim?

Booms

07-10-2004, 02:13 AM

Sure, he is a traitor to the USA. He is pissed and Bush for firing him and is trying to hurt his credibility.

LOL :lol:

Just because people dont like him doesnt mean he isnt a good president or doing the right thing. The German people loved Hitler in his time, but do they think he did the right things.

Hehehe, sorry dude, but that analogy doesn't work at all. Hilter led the German people, and I do hope you know that there was a significat war war that was fought largely because of him (as in people from other nations didn't like him). Now, if you were trying to compare Bush to Hitler (Because the rest of the world didn't like Hitler and they don't like Bush, and because the German people liked Hitler and the American people like Bush to an extent (Even though only half the American populace likes bush, compared to what the rest of the world thinks that is a high percent)), then it's a little better, but even I'll admit that Bush -> Hitler is going to far.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 02:18 AM

WHAT!
I'm assuming you're talking about the respected Republican Economist Paul O’Neill who served many Republican Presidents loyally (including Bush’s own father).

Before he was Treasury Secretary he was retired. He didn't need the job, he didn't need the money, and he didn't need to be Treasury Secretary. He didn't even want the job and it was Bush and Cheney who had to convince him to take it. Bush wanted him to give conservative credibility to his economics plan. O’Neill wouldn't go against everything he knew to be true and say Bush's endless tax cuts and bad economics were good things.

You assume that this man is against Bush because he was fired? He is against Bush because he saw nothing during the years that he worked with him, to show him that Bush is anything better than a horrible president.

You're saying this makes him a traitor? A traitor is one who betrays his country, all this guy did is try to help his country rather then support a man whose policies he believed were hurting it. Does this make Alan Greenspan a traitor too? (You realize Greenspan is also a Republican I assume, just like O’Neill) I mean after all Greenspan has said some pretty nasty things (nasty for Greenspan anyway) about Bush's economic plans.

If you won’t trust the top Republican economists and I assume you’re not going to trust the Democratic economists, then who do you trust? You believe Bush is suddenly a good economist because he’s President? What evidence could possibly convince you of this? Do you even look at facts to make your decisions or do you spew garbage statements like this out of your mouth on whim?

http://members.aol.com/jalan5000/right9.html
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3067.html
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/lchavez/2004/lc_0115.shtml

Yup we are talking about the same person...

Sage the Mage

07-10-2004, 02:22 AM

Heh, I respond with information showing the neo-cons have always wanted to go back into Iraq since at least 1997 and you give me a blatantly pro-Bush website saying Kerry flip-flopped on WMDs. Now why did you give me this information? Has Kerry been mentioned at all in this thread? Nope.

Well lets analyze the "report" anyway:

Kerry says this:
It's quite a turnaround for Kerry, who just a few weeks ago was complaining: "George Bush sold us on going to war with Iraq based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But we still haven't found them. ... We were misled about weapons of mass destruction."

Then this:
"It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue - and we may yet find them," he told host Chris Matthews. "Look, I want to make it clear. Who knows if a month from now, three months from now, you find some weapons? You may."

Now they are trying to make it look like a flip flop, of course. But it wasn't the entire quote.

Here it is from the MSNBC transcript: ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4853531/ )

It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue—and we may yet find them, Chris. Look, I want to make it clear. Who knows if a month from now, three months from now, you find some weapons? You may.

But you certainly didn‘t find them where they said they were. And you certainly didn‘t find them in the quantities that they said they were.

And they weren‘t found—I‘ve talked to some soldiers who‘ve come back, who trained against the potential of artillery delivery, because artillery was the way that they had previously delivered and it was the only way they knew they could deliver.

Now we found nothing that is evidence of that kind of delivery.

So the fact is that, as you peeled away, I think it comes down to this larger ideological, neo-con concept of fundamental change in the region and who knows whether there are other motives with respect to Saddam Hussein.

But they did it because they thought they could. Because they misjudged exactly what the reaction would be and what they could get away with.

And they did it, that misjudgment, against the warnings of countless numbers of people, including General Shinseki, who they then isolated and tarnished. They did it against the warnings of Brent Scowcroft, Jim Baker, others.

They did it against the warnings of his father in his book about why they didn‘t go in. And they did it against the warnings of many of us who said winning the war is not the complicated part. It‘s winning the peace that‘s complicated.

And I think presidents need to be held accountable for those kinds of decisions.

I know Kerry can have the problem of articulating his point of view, but both quotes are designed to imply the message of misleading by Bush, using the reasoning that we hadn't found weapons yet.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 02:23 AM

Hehehe, sorry dude, but that analogy doesn't work at all. Hilter led the German people, and I do hope you know that there was a significat war war that was fought largely because of him (as in people from other nations didn't like him). Now, if you were trying to compare Bush to Hitler (Because the rest of the world didn't like Hitler and they don't like Bush, and because the German people liked Hitler and the American people like Bush to an extent (Even though only half the American populace likes bush, compared to what the rest of the world thinks that is a high percent)), then it's a little better, but even I'll admit that Bush -> Hitler is going to far.

It seemed to work just fine. You got the point that the relationship between Hitler and Bush was the way they have been liked. My point was that it doesnt matter what the people think, to be a good or bad president.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 02:28 AM

Sage the Mage

07-10-2004, 02:30 AM

You complain about it being a Neo-conservative artical but then you answer with a liberal one...

What are you refering to?

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 02:32 AM

http://members.aol.com/jalan5000/right9.html
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3067.html
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/lchavez/2004/lc_0115.shtml

Yup we are talking about the same person...
Congratulations, you found others who agreed with you and have the ability to create web pages. This doesn't make what you said true though.

Anyway it's not actually a crime in many cases to release classified documents (this has been already settled in court) unless those relate to codes, wars, or undercover agents. (And maybe something else I'm forgetting.)

I still don't understand why you believe this. Is it just because he went against Bush? So Bush is good and anyone against Bush is bad? Do you want to back this up at all? Are there reasons that Paul O’Neill should be discredited?

Oberon

07-10-2004, 02:32 AM

Sure, he is a traitor to the USA.

If Paul O’Neill is indeed a traitor, and considering we're at war, and considering treason is a capital offense punishable by death, does that mean Bush should have Paul O'Neill executed? Seriously you folks on the right (http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions.php?id=277) have no idea of the dangers behind many of the words and phrases you use. This isn't limited to webnuts but even the Attorney General John Ashcroft who said to opponents of the USA Patriot Act "Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve." in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This was directed at Senators and Representatives mind you. Maybe they do know what they're saying....scary thought.....

Elorion

07-10-2004, 02:35 AM

If Paul O’Neill is indeed a traitor, and considering we're at war, and considering treason is a capital offense punishable by death, does that mean Bush should have Paul O'Neill executed? Seriously you folks on the right (http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions.php?id=277) have no idea of the dangers behind many of the words and phrases you use. This isn't limited to webnuts but even the Attorney General John Ashcroft who said to opponents of the USA Patriot Act "Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve." in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This was directed at Senators and Representatives mind you. Maybe they do know what they're saying....scary thought.....

What do you think Nixon or Regan would have done?

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 02:39 AM

What do you think Nixon or Regan would have done?
Sigh. During the vietnam war a man named Daniel Ellsberg published classified documents known as the Pentagon papers. Nixon took him to court and the judge pointed out that Ellsberg wasn't actually breaking any laws, as releasing classified documents isn't a crime unless they relate to the things I mentioned above (codes, undercover agents, war plans, and a few others.)

BlueMage

07-10-2004, 02:40 AM

Sage the Mage

07-10-2004, 02:44 AM

Nixon took him to court and the judge pointed out that Ellsberg wasn't actually breaking any laws, as releasing classified documents isn't a crime unless they relate to the things I mentioned above (codes, undercover agents, war plans, and a few others.)

Speaking of undercover agents, have they found the guy that leaked the name of the CIA agent yet (Wilson's wife)?

Oberon

07-10-2004, 02:48 AM

What do you think Nixon or Regan would have done?

Nixon and Reagan are dead (I'm assuming you meant Reagan - Regan was one of Reagan's secretaries (of Treasury I believe)). I fail to see the relevance of your question.

Andarcel

07-10-2004, 02:50 AM

Being a proud American, I prefer the good ol' Constitution when talking about treason:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Traitor? Because he got fed up with the worst fiscal practice our country has ever suffered? Because he had the courage to be a whistle-blower, villified though he was?

People like you Elorion who smear a respected man's good name for speaking the truthg are scum. There is no other word. Tell me: would any finding convince you that Iraq was wrong? Can you conceive of a fact that would persuade you?

Didn't think so. So there's no point in carrying on this charade.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 02:51 AM

Bush ventured into a war because America needed one. Face it, everybody was tearing themselves to pieces feeling helpless after 9/11. If Bushy hadn't started a war, he would've seemed unable to solve the problem with the terrorists. Have you ever shouted at somebody even though you weren't angry? It's the same thing. The war was a brilliant if not desperate political move. Yays to Bush. I mean, so what if he justified it by mentioning some imaginary nukes? It made America happy since it made them able to think about something but 9/11. Also, it made Europe happy since we didn't need to hear you guys whine about how you feared another attack.

If he didnt go to war he wouldnt be president. Everyone in the coutry that has a conservative view would of dragged him out of the white house. Then all of the liberals would of called him a panzy. It was just the right thing to do. If it didnt happen there would be other attacks with possibly more life lost then even 9/11. How can you say that Bush started it. I would say that the terrorist did. Iraq is one thing, but not going after Bin Lauden?

So, the war wasn't really morally justified, big deal. It saved America's ego. Instead of being "OMG!! There are these big scary terrorists and they hide and my bed at night and they eat babies, OMG WTF!!!11" America became "Listen, we're the police of the world and we're the greatest and nobody can stop us and everybody else is stupid and evil." All America really did to Iraq was to play Judge Dredd.
It wasnt morally justified if your a terrorist maybe. Do you eat babies? I have a feeling your from Europe.

Booms

07-10-2004, 03:03 AM

Elorion

07-10-2004, 03:04 AM

People like you Elorion who smear a respected man's good name for speaking the truthg are scum. There is no other word. Tell me: would any finding convince you that Iraq was wrong? Can you conceive of a fact that would persuade you?

I have a couple friends in Iraq. No you cant convince me. If you could prove that Iraq never had WMDs and never used them against thier own people. If you could prove that their werent 12 different times that Iraq lied to the world about WMDs. Then I might believe you.

Didn't think so. So there's no point in carrying on this charade.
Agreed. Nothing more about Paul O'Neill.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 03:05 AM

BlueMage was talking about the Iraq war, I believe. Afghanistan was a good thing, almost everyone agrees with that.
I hope your right but from reading what he said, it sounds like he meant the entire war on terrior.

Booms

07-10-2004, 03:07 AM

I have a couple friends in Iraq. No you cant convince me. If you could prove that Iraq never had WMDs and never used them against thier own people. If you could prove that their werent 12 different times that Iraq lied to the world about WMDs. Then I might believe you.

That isn't why we went to war though! We said they had WMD's, the didn't, we now know they didn't! WHY ARE YOU SO BLIND?

BlueMage

07-10-2004, 03:07 AM

If he didnt go to war he wouldnt be president. Everyone in the coutry that has a conservative view would of dragged him out of the white house. Then all of the liberals would of called him a panzy. It was just the right thing to do. If it didnt happen there would be other attacks with possibly more life lost then even 9/11. How can you say that Bush started it. I would say that the terrorist did. Iraq is one thing, but not going after Bin Lauden?

...soo... we agree then? :scratch: I'm talking about the war in Iraq, not the imaginary war on terrorism. The war was about taking America's attention away from terrorism. A war against another country is easy to win for America, but a fight against terrorism? Not a chance. A country is limited by borders, language and culture. Terrorism is not. It's impossible to stop it.

Since Bush knew that, he had to stop the 'war on terrorism' talk. How? By replacing it with a 'war on Iraq'. See? Perfect solution. :thumbsup:

It wasnt morally justified if your a terrorist maybe. Do you eat babies? I have a feeling your from Europe.

You really don't know how a forum works, do you? This statement allows for me to A) Say you're a damn ****. B) Say that you find America so superior that any and all Europeans' opinions don't matter. C) Start using arguments without refering to morals.

I won't, though. Because I'm nice. :uhhuh:

Elorion

07-10-2004, 03:08 AM

Nixon and Reagan are dead (I'm assuming you meant Reagan - Regan was one of Reagan's secretaries (of Treasury I believe)). I fail to see the relevance of your question.

You fail to see the relevance? Fine Ill spell it out for you. Nixon probubly would have made him disapear. Reagan(you assumed right) would have did it a little different I believe, but even the press at that time were much more conservative and would have called for something to happen to Paul.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 03:13 AM

A war against another country is easy to win for America, but a fight against terrorism? Not a chance. A country is limited by borders, language and culture. Terrorism is not. It's impossible to stop it.

I agree with you that we cant stop Terrorism. But we can limit it and stop people who try and spread it.

You really don't know how a forum works, do you? This statement allows for me to A) Say you're a damn ****. B) Say that you find America so superior that any and all Europeans' opinions don't matter. C) Start using arguments without refering to morals.

I won't, though. Because I'm nice. :uhhuh:

a) Lol I cant believe you took that seriously. When you said it it was a joke, and I used it in the same context. I think this proves your from Europe.

b) I didnt mention Europe because I think Im superiour, but you said it yourself, Europe doesnt like Bush. It was just a observation.

c) Liberals dont have morals, they have oppinions.

Sage the Mage

07-10-2004, 03:15 AM

Liberals dont have morals, they have oppinions.

I think Elorion is Anne Coulter's love child.

Booms

07-10-2004, 03:17 AM

Just in case someone still doesn't get it, now the CIA is saying Iraq didn't have WMD's. Of course, Bush responds to this by saying that Iraq was the #1 place for terrorists to get nuclear weapons, even though everyone knows that Iran is a far better place for your nuclear-purchasing needs.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html

Oberon

07-10-2004, 03:18 AM

You fail to see the relevance? Fine Ill spell it out for you. Nixon probubly would have made him disapear. Reagan(you assumed right) would have did it a little different I believe, but even the press at that time were much more conservative and would have called for something to happen to Paul.

And these are the kind of people you right-wingers idolize???

Liberals dont have morals, they have oppinions.

Both conservatives and liberals do have morals. Liberal morals are meant to help people while conservative morals are meant to control people.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 03:21 AM

I think Elorion is Anne Coulter's love child.
hehe Sorry Im getting tired and when I get tired I get Sarcastic! Got to have some fun here and there. I do think that Liberals morals evolve to feed thier selfish desires though. They still know whats right and wrong. But sophistry isnt right.

Booms

07-10-2004, 03:23 AM

hehe Sorry Im getting tired and when I get tired I get Sarcastic! Got to have some fun here and there. I do think that Liberals morals evolve to feed thier selfish desires though. They still know whats right and wrong. But sophistry isnt right.

Yes...that's why the Republicans create tax cuts to pad their own pockets, right?

Elorion

07-10-2004, 03:27 AM

And these are the kind of people you right-wingers idolize???

I dont idolize anyone. I believe there is a way things are done. Just because moraly you feel bad for the person doesnt change the fact that you have to do something about what he did. Morals and being a leader are two different things. One hand you worry about whats right and whats wrong. On the other you are worrying about whats right and whats wrong for millions of people. You must do whats best for everyone not just yourself. The greater good is more important.

Both conservatives and liberals do have morals. Liberal morals are meant to help people while conservative morals are meant to control people.
I agree we do. If liberals morals are to help people then why do they believe in bigger government that has more controll over our lives.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 03:28 AM

Yes...that's why the Republicans create tax cuts to pad their own pockets, right?
How does that work?

Sage the Mage

07-10-2004, 03:33 AM

If liberals morals are to help people then why do they believe in bigger government that has more controll over our lives.
Homeland Security, Patroit Act. Apparently the Bush admin likes a bigger government that has more control over people's lives.

Oberon

07-10-2004, 03:35 AM

I dont idolize anyone. I believe there is a way things are done. Just because moraly you feel bad for the person doesnt change the fact that you have to do something about what he did. Morals and being a leader are two different things. One hand you worry about whats right and whats wrong. On the other you are worrying about whats right and whats wrong for millions of people. You must do whats best for everyone not just yourself. The greater good is more important.

Morals are what separate Ghandi from Hitler. Morals have everything to do with leadership.

I agree we do. If liberals morals are to help people then why do they believe in bigger government that has more controll over our lives.

Because *if* the people do their job as citizens and patriots which means (1) being informed, (2) paying your taxes, (3) voting - then they will be in control of the government, not the other way around - and they will use the government as a tool to provide for the betterment of their fellow citizens as well as themself. When people do not do their job meaning they (1) remain ignorant (i.e. watch Fox News), (2) avoid paying their taxes, (3) don't bother voting - then they will be controlled by the government which itself will be controlled by the moneyed interests. *That* type of big government is the antithesis of what liberals want but the model of neoconservative dogma.

BlueMage

07-10-2004, 03:36 AM

everyone knows that Iran is a far better place for your nuclear-purchasing needs.

Veeeery suspicious knowledge for a guy who's not planning to blow up the white house, Booms. :grrr: Veeeeeery suspicious indeed...

Unreg!stered

07-10-2004, 03:48 AM

http://members.aol.com/jalan5000/right9.html
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3067.html
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/lchavez/2004/lc_0115.shtml

Yup we are talking about the same person...

Just a little suggestion for you, Elorion. If you're going to use websites to support your claims find some that aren't so blatantly biased to one side. While they may support your claim they do it by utilizing the "truth" and not the truth. Spin can be a powerful thing. :)

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 03:50 AM

You fail to see the relevance? Fine Ill spell it out for you. Nixon probubly would have made him disapear. Reagan(you assumed right) would have did it a little different I believe, but even the press at that time were much more conservative and would have called for something to happen to Paul.
You must have missed this so I'm posting it again. A similar situation happened with Nixon. Here's what when down:

During the vietnam war a man named Daniel Ellsberg published classified documents known as the Pentagon papers. Nixon took him to court and the judge pointed out that Ellsberg wasn't actually breaking any laws, as releasing classified documents isn't a crime unless they relate to the things I mentioned above (codes, undercover agents, war plans, and a few others.)

Elorion

07-10-2004, 04:33 AM

Homeland Security, Patroit Act. Apparently the Bush admin likes a bigger government that has more control over people's lives.

What do you think Kerry would do. He has already said defending our country is more important then fighting the terrorist where they come from.

Morals are what separate Ghandi from Hitler. Morals have everything to do with leadership.

This is what I said. To clear it up, I was stating the difference between your personal morals and how you must react as a person with much responsibility over others.

Because *if* the people do their job as citizens and patriots which means (1) being informed, (2) paying your taxes, (3) voting - then they will be in control of the government, not the other way around - and they will use the government as a tool to provide for the betterment of their fellow citizens as well as themself. When people do not do their job meaning they (1) remain ignorant (i.e. watch Fox News), (2) avoid paying their taxes, (3) don't bother voting - then they will be controlled by the government which itself will be controlled by the moneyed interests. *That* type of big government is the antithesis of what liberals want but the model of neoconservative dogma.

You are defining democracy. Great I agree. The majority of liberals would rather have a socialist government then a strait out democracy. True most dont believe in a strait out socialist government but they are for the government having alot of control.

Andarcel

07-10-2004, 04:34 AM

I dont idolize anyone. I believe there is a way things are done. Just because moraly you feel bad for the person doesnt change the fact that you have to do something about what he did. Morals and being a leader are two different things. One hand you worry about whats right and whats wrong. On the other you are worrying about whats right and whats wrong for millions of people. You must do whats best for everyone not just yourself. The greater good is more important.

I agree we do. If liberals morals are to help people then why do they believe in bigger government that has more controll over our lives.
You want to know why liebrals have come to like bigger government, look up the Industrial Revolution.

Liberals believe in enlarging government so that it can help people get health care, for eample. Conservatives generally like a government that controls things like drugs and sexual practices. You tell me which prefers control.

George W. Bush likes a government that spends like a liberal and taxes like a conservative. I.e., he likes bankruptcy.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 04:36 AM

Just a little suggestion for you, Elorion. If you're going to use websites to support your claims find some that aren't so blatantly biased to one side. While they may support your claim they do it by utilizing the "truth" and not the truth. Spin can be a powerful thing. :)

Ok you show me your and Ill show you mine. Everything you guys have shown me is very bias. Do you watch Bill ORielly?

Elorion

07-10-2004, 04:38 AM

You must have missed this so I'm posting it again. A similar situation happened with Nixon. Here's what when down:

During the vietnam war a man named Daniel Ellsberg published classified documents known as the Pentagon papers. Nixon took him to court and the judge pointed out that Ellsberg wasn't actually breaking any laws, as releasing classified documents isn't a crime unless they relate to the things I mentioned above (codes, undercover agents, war plans, and a few others.)

Thanks for proving my point.

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 04:42 AM

Thanks for proving my point.
What was your point? I pointed out that what Paul did wasn't actually a crime.

Do you watch Bill ORielly? I don't have cable. I read one of his books though.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 04:45 AM

You want to know why liebrals have come to like bigger government, look up the Industrial Revolution.

Liberals believe in enlarging government so that it can help people get health care, for eample. Conservatives generally like a government that controls things like drugs and sexual practices. You tell me which prefers control.

George W. Bush likes a government that spends like a liberal and taxes like a conservative. I.e., he likes bankruptcy.

The only reason healthcare is so screwy is because of the Sue factor. Doctors cant practic because insurance is too high. This causes higher prices etc.

You cant have socialist drugs. With out an industry to provide competition, there will be no future advances in drugs.

You just said that Liberals like large gov for health care then you come back and say Conservatives do for drugs?

Sexual practices must be controlled, otherwise the worlds morals will degrade. But hey, thats already happening.

Ecconomy is only getting better...

Elorion

07-10-2004, 04:49 AM

What was your point? I pointed out that what Paul did wasn't actually a crime.

I don't have cable. I read one of his books though.

That Nixon was a mean old sucka. hehe. What Nixon did was wrong, but Paul is doing everything for political gain and to smear the president.

ORielly, though I dont always agree with him. Is a good place to get info.

Oberon

07-10-2004, 04:53 AM

You are defining democracy. Great I agree. The majority of liberals would rather have a socialist government then a strait out democracy. True most dont believe in a strait out socialist government but they are for the government having alot of control.

The problem is most conservatives today want big government too. The only ones who don't are tradition conservatives and libertarians. Unfortunately the way the world is today with big corporations, if we did somehow shrink the government to a size libertarians would prefer ("small enough to drown in a bathtub" I believe) then corporations would fill in the vacuum. As bad as big government is, at least I have my vote. With big corporations you're just screwed.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 04:59 AM

The problem is most conservatives today want big government too. The only ones who don't are tradition conservatives and libertarians. Unfortunately the way the world is today with big corporations, if we did somehow shrink the government to a size libertarians would prefer ("small enough to drown in a bathtub" I believe) then corporations would fill in the vacuum. As bad as big government is, at least I have my vote. With big corporations you're just screwed.

Well it true that todays conservative isnt for tiny government. With things like tax relief, it helps keep the government from getting much bigger. I dont want to live in a place with socialized medician and 50-70% of your taxes go to the government. I want to make or break my future.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 05:02 AM

Guys Im off to bed, sorry the Neo-conservative is tired and needs to get some rest for tomarrows corporate take-overs. hehe

Night and God Bless.

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 05:11 AM

That Nixon was a mean old sucka. hehe. What Nixon did was wrong, but Paul is doing everything for political gain and to smear the president.

ORielly, though I dont always agree with him. Is a good place to get info.
What Political gain could Paul possibly need? He was a respected, retired, Republican economist. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose from opposing the president. Did you ever think he might be doing it because he believes it's the right thing to do?

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 05:13 AM

Well it true that todays conservative isnt for tiny government. With things like tax relief, it helps keep the government from getting much bigger. I dont want to live in a place with socialized medician and 50-70% of your taxes go to the government. I want to make or break my future.
Well actually the ever increasing deficit means that taxes will have to be raised on our generation significantly. Every dollar Bush spends in tax cuts is just one more dollar we're going to have to pay back. To support Bush is to support higher taxes in the future.

Andarcel

07-10-2004, 05:18 AM

The only reason healthcare is so screwy is because of the Sue factor. Doctors cant practic because insurance is too high. This causes higher prices etc.

You cant have socialist drugs. With out an industry to provide competition, there will be no future advances in drugs.

You just said that Liberals like large gov for health care then you come back and say Conservatives do for drugs?

Sexual practices must be controlled, otherwise the worlds morals will degrade. But hey, thats already happening.

Ecconomy is only getting better...
*Psst* I mean recreational drugs. Find me a conservative who's for legalizing marijuana, for example.

dont want to live in a place with socialized medician and 50-70% of your taxes go to the government.

I, too, do not wish 50-70% of my taxes to go to the government. God forbid. :rolleyes:

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 05:20 AM

Sexual practices must be controlled, otherwise the worlds morals will degrade. But hey, thats already happening.
So the "world's morals" will degrade because some guys are sleeping with other guys? You've seen many *** people on this forum and they're good people. How is your life hurt by who they have sex with?

Ecconomy is only getting better...
Well it would have to. It go so bad there was little room to go but up.

Sage the Mage

07-10-2004, 06:25 AM

I'd qualify banning *** marrage as being one of those "government having more control over our lives" sort of things too.

powermongor

07-10-2004, 06:28 AM

plz answer me why Saddam screwed with UN inspectors for over a decade?? Why not just let them in to see that youre not up to anything and leave it be?

Sage the Mage

07-10-2004, 06:30 AM

Do you show people your hand while playing poker?

Oberon

07-10-2004, 06:42 AM

plz answer me why Saddam screwed with UN inspectors for over a decade?? Why not just let them in to see that youre not up to anything and leave it be?

For the same reason the US refuses to join the International Court and the same reason right-wingers dispise the UN - it's seen as chiseling away at national sovereignty. Saddam accused some of the UN inspectors of spying for the CIA - a charge which actually turned out to be true.

Unreg!stered

07-10-2004, 01:20 PM

Ok you show me your and Ill show you mine. Everything you guys have shown me is very bias. Do you watch Bill ORielly?

Yes I do and he wouldn't be happy with the websites you cited. Here's a quick transcript (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108263,00.html) of when Paul O'Neil was discussed on Hannity and Colmes. While I usually don't get much of my information from either of those two it's interesting to note that neither Hannity nor former Governor Jim Gilmore go so far as to call O'Neil a traitor. Disgruntled employee, possibility, traitor? Nope, and I suggest you see BHS's posts as to why he will not be accused of treason. I would have posted articles from CNN but I do believe you'd accuse those of bias (and Fox News wouldn't help me past that H+C transcript, youd think they'd have more on him...). :D

Here's something that might surprise you: I am a conservative, and so is BHS Crew. It speaks volumes to the credibility of your arguement (specifically about Paul O'Neil and to a lesser extent Iraq) that BHS is very much against what you are saying and I haven't made a peep other than to advise you to provide more balanced sources.

Masamunae

07-10-2004, 04:26 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/29/100540.shtml

Read.

Kerry believed there were WMDs.
That's because they "used" to have them, back in the 80s, when the Regan administration supplied them with arms to fight Iran and knowingly turned a blind eye to certain american companies as they supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, which were used in the weapons the american government supplied to Iraq. So it was ok for the government to supply the guns as long as they didn't give the ammunition, but they wouldn't stop them from getting that ammunition even if it was from a domestic company.

Chemical weapons aren't hard to make. You could make some after a trip to your local pharmacy. So saying Iraq could make Chemical weapons is like saying they could boil water.

BlackWinterDay

07-10-2004, 05:02 PM

Chemical weapons aren't hard to make. You could make some after a trip to your local pharmacy. So saying Iraq could make Chemical weapons is like saying they could boil water.

They can boil water now, too? **** guys, fire missiles!

powermongor

07-10-2004, 06:04 PM

Do you show people your hand while playing poker?

Poker?? POKER!?!?!

The man was under several UN resolutions to allow unimpeded checks of suspected WMD facilities. Do you think he was brilliant to do as he did?? Do you think it was a good thing to "bluff" as one would in poker?

This isn't a game , Mage. He knew that the UN was incompetent and lacked the resolve to do anything.

It is convenient that most of the reporting going on about this guy's testimony leaves out the fact that while Iraq did not necessarily have stockpiles of WMD's, they had the capacity to get them cranked out in a year. This is in his report too, but you will not see it discussed much in the media, except prolly on Fox, and then you guys will whine that Fox has a right-wing bias because they show a story that no one else will and it goes to support the president.

Would you like Saddam in power right now? There are videos circulating on the internet right now of his "arena" days, where he would gather ppl up, put them in a public spectacle, and they would be shot / maimed. Maybe if you saw some of these things you would go easier on Bush.

It truly sucks how the left is using the Iraq war against Bush. We have done so much good, despite the negativity that is portrayed in the Media. This is just like in Vietnam, where despite what you heard in the media, we were actually dong an amazing job-- American forces had a kill ratio of 20 to 1. The problem was that there were millions more to take their place, but nobody in the press wants to admit that the job they did making the war seem as unjust as possible only added to the resolve of the Vietcong.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 06:05 PM

So the "world's morals" will degrade because some guys are sleeping with other guys? You've seen many *** people on this forum and they're good people. How is your life hurt by who they have sex with?
It has nothing to do with what kind of people they are. It effects the social climate and in time will even be seen as alright. Just last night on Oreilly Polygamy was being discused as being the next minority to have thier beliefs reconized as law. When *** marriage first came up as a topic, some people were saying that polygamy would be next, but so many people wouldnt even consider such a thing would happen. And it has. The more this stuff is excepted the worse it will get. History shows us this time and again. Babylon, Ancient Greece, Rome. It comes to show you that it leads to immorality. Its only a matter of time.

Sage the Mage

07-10-2004, 06:33 PM

Babylon, Ancient Greece, Rome. It comes to show you that it leads to immorality. Its only a matter of time.
Find me some valid links here :)

Poker?? POKER!?!?!

The man was under several UN resolutions to allow unimpeded checks of suspected WMD facilities. Do you think he was brilliant to do as he did?? Do you think it was a good thing to "bluff" as one would in poker?

This isn't a game , Mage. He knew that the UN was incompetent and lacked the resolve to do anything.
Well yeah, if I was in his situation, I wouldn't want to seem weak. Iran would be a little more threatening, and the population might revolt.

Besides that, another poster mentioned the sovereignty thing, too. Would you resist France if they came in here looking for stuff?

Would you like Saddam in power right now?
This issue is irrelavant. The war was fought on the basis of Iraq having WMDs, not on Saddam being a bad person.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 06:47 PM

Find me some valid links here :)

Um no. Ancient Greece was the only time in history that there were less people being born then dieing. Thats cuz they were all ***. You dont need a link to remember what everyone in the US was taught in highschool.

Besides that, another poster mentioned the sovereignty thing, too. Would you resist France if they came in here looking for stuff?

France wouldnt dare. We had to save thier arse in WWII because they wouldnt fight. Anyways, everyone knows the US has nukes, look what happened to Japan.

This issue is irrelavant. The war was fought on the basis of Iraq having WMDs, not on Saddam being a bad person.

This is the most relavant issue going on today. Cambodia is in the middle of a genocide and everyone is crying for something to be done. But you look at the genocide in Iraq and everyone is like, its the wrong war int he wrong place at the wrong time. Your full of it. The truth is that the only reason the democratic party doesnt want us in Iraq is for political gain. Zell Miller saw this and is now crying wolf.

Mastgrr

07-10-2004, 06:56 PM

George W. Bush likes a government that spends like a liberal and taxes like a conservative. I.e., he likes bankruptcy.That's the most insightful and satiric comment I've heard about this administrations fiscal policy.

Oberon

07-10-2004, 07:01 PM

Would you like Saddam in power right now?

If given a choice between having Saddam still in power verses having the US not in the current quagmire and the lives of over 1,000 Americans back and billions of dollars we've spent back in the treasury then yes given the choice I'd prefer we never invaded Iraq. The US doesn't have the right to invade any nation it sees fit just because it doesn't like the leader of that country. Iraq was no threat to the US.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 07:08 PM

If given a choice between having Saddam still in power verses having the US not in the current quagmire and the lives of over 1,000 Americans back and billions of dollars we've spent back in the treasury then yes given the choice I'd prefer we never invaded Iraq. The US doesn't have the right to invade any nation it sees fit just because it doesn't like the leader of that country. Iraq was no threat to the US.
Look at it fromt he perspective of an Iraqy citizen. The greater good is what is at stake here. Sorry your not willing to give anything so that another person can have a better life in the future.

Mastgrr

07-10-2004, 07:18 PM

This is the most relavant issue going on today. Cambodia is in the middle of a genocide and everyone is crying for something to be done. But you look at the genocide in Iraq and everyone is like, its the wrong war int he wrong place at the wrong time. Your full of it. The truth is that the only reason the democratic party doesnt want us in Iraq is for political gain. Zell Miller saw this and is now crying wolf.
No. I don't know who you're talking to, but Kerry isn't against it "just" for political gain. He was against the idea of going to war without a true coalition, without a true plan (looting, not enough troops) and without evidence. This administration used faulty, cherrypicked and outdated evidence and to decieve and scare the American people in to going in to war. Cheney said "No doubt that they have WMD's", Rumsfeld "We know where they are". This administration had no true plan to keep the peace and not enough troops. And we screwed the world by stepping over the UN, pissing off basically every country in the world.

I was for the war in the beginning. I was sceptical at first, but believed the Bush administration. When Colin Powell made this adress to the UN on mobile chemical labs I really believed him, because Colin was the guy in this administration I trusted the most. I thought that all the people who were against the war were going to be so chocked and full of it when the weapons of mass destruction would be found, thus proving the nay-sayers wrong.

But as the war was going on, piece by piece the facade of this administration have gotten been revealed. Faulty evidence. Cherrypicking. Outdated evidence... And sometimes outright lies. I never really hated this administration at the beginning, but now when looking back at it I think it's absolutely disgraceful how this administration have successfully tricked the american public into believing that Saddam had a connection to Al Qaida. Why does the public believe Saddam was connected to 9/11? It's not a coincidence. It's something planned since 9/12.

This was something that was planned from the very beginning Bush and his chronies entered the 'house. "How can we attack Iraq?". And when 9/11 came, their eyes lit up and thought it was a perfect tragedy to abuse for their own gain. Whether it is for oil, a personal feud or for a blind ideological reason -- it proved that if you play on peoples fear, you can do anything.

Mastgrr

07-10-2004, 07:24 PM

Sorry your not willing to give anything so that another person can have a better life in the future.
Yup. That something we should say to everybody who benifit from the Bush tax cuts. For every dollar that we cut taxes here now (mostly upper class), we have to borrow a dollar from Japanese or Chinese banks. Is that thinking and caring about the future... Rolling them around in debt and the world's largest deficit in recorded history?

Oberon

07-10-2004, 07:27 PM

Look at it fromt he perspective of an Iraqy citizen. The greater good is what is at stake here. Sorry your not willing to give anything so that another person can have a better life in the future.

Do you support the liberation of Iran, North Korea, Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan or any of the dozens of other despotic nations?

Elorion

07-10-2004, 07:32 PM

Do you support the liberation of Iran, North Korea, Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan or any of the dozens of other despotic nations?
Yes all of um. Although when looking at China WWIII comes to mind.

Oberon

07-10-2004, 07:41 PM

Yes all of um. Although when looking at China WWIII comes to mind.

Why is it right-wingers complain over every penny in taxes they pay towards public welfare or healthcare or unemployment yet they're willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and sacrifice thousands of our soldiers' lives without flinching? It boggles the mind.

BTW, what effect do you think incessant warfare has on a free nation? What effect did it have on democatic Athens or the Roman Republic?

powermongor

07-10-2004, 07:46 PM

Find me some valid links here :)
This issue is irrelavant. The war was fought on the basis of Iraq having WMDs, not on Saddam being a bad person.

I'm not a legal expert, but I think that this is a feasible scenario below.

Let's say that you have a police detective who gets a warrant to search a suspected coke dealer's apartment for drugs and weapons. It also happens that this person is suspected in several unsolved sexual assaults (lets say that all the victims identified a person in a particular and rare sports jacket with a tear in a particular spot), but there is no proof. Let's assume that this guy is a pretty bad guy, lots of prior drug and assault charges.

Now when the cops get there, they can only search for evidence pertaining to the drugs, not the assaults. Any assault evidence will get thrown out of court (lets say they find a jacket matching the description). If they even try to get this guy on the assaults, the various bleeding-heart legal groups will scream foul.

Now deep down, don't you wish that drug dealer would "have an accident" while trying to escape?

powermongor

07-10-2004, 07:49 PM

If given a choice between having Saddam still in power verses having the US not in the current quagmire and the lives of over 1,000 Americans back and billions of dollars we've spent back in the treasury then yes given the choice I'd prefer we never invaded Iraq. The US doesn't have the right to invade any nation it sees fit just because it doesn't like the leader of that country. Iraq was no threat to the US.

I think we should have just bombed them back to the stone age. We had to take Saddam out because he was a threat to us, but every now and then I wonder if 100 years from now the Iraqi people will truly remember that it was primarily the US that was responsible for their liberty.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 07:51 PM

Why is it right-wingers complain over every penny in taxes they pay towards public welfare or healthcare or unemployment yet they're willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and sacrifice thousands of our soldiers' lives without flinching? It boggles the mind.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040223-115221-2572r.htm
Is the Washington Times a reliable sorce?

BTW, what effect do you think incessant warfare has on a free nation? What effect did it have on democatic Athens or the Roman Republic?
Because liberals arent willing to spend one cent. Hell Kerry has the most liberal voting record in the senate and look what he has done for the millitary.

Greece and Rome didnt have a middle class.

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 07:57 PM

Um no. Ancient Greece was the only time in history that there were less people being born then dieing. Thats cuz they were all ***. You dont need a link to remember what everyone in the US was taught in highschool.
Actually in Russia and several other countries right now there are less people being born then dieing and it's not cause the population of Russia is ***.

Here's the links, you can't accuse them of two much bias as they're from the US census beauru.
Countries with more deaths that births:
Russia
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=RS
Bulgaria
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=BU
Czech Republic
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=EZ
Germany
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=GM

There are others but I think I've made my point. I don't know what you were taught in highschool but I assure you that the facts prove otherwise. Take a look for yourself.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 08:00 PM

Actually in Russia and several other countries right now there are less people being born then dieing and it's not cause the population of Russia is ***.

Here's the links, you can't accuse them of two much bias as they're from the US census beauru.
Countries with more deaths that births:
Russia
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=RS
Bulgaria
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=BU
Czech Republic
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=EZ
Germany
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=GM

There are others but I think I've made my point. I don't know what you were taught in highschool but I assure you that the facts prove otherwise. Take a look for yourself.

So whats your point? That because other times in history less people are being born then dieing, so its ok for everyone in a nation to be ***?

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 08:05 PM

Let's say that you have a police detective who gets a warrant to search a suspected coke dealer's apartment for drugs and weapons. It also happens that this person is suspected in several unsolved sexual assaults (lets say that all the victims identified a person in a particular and rare sports jacket with a tear in a particular spot), but there is no proof. Let's assume that this guy is a pretty bad guy, lots of prior drug and assault charges.

Now when the cops get there, they can only search for evidence pertaining to the drugs, not the assaults. Any assault evidence will get thrown out of court (lets say they find a jacket matching the description). If they even try to get this guy on the assaults, the various bleeding-heart legal groups will scream foul.

Now deep down, don't you wish that drug dealer would "have an accident" while trying to escape?

No. The whole point is that he gets his day in court. If he is suspected of the sexual assault then it is the job of the police to try to get the evidence to get a warrant for that as well, thus solving their problem. It is not my wish that police start killing people rather than getting evidence and warrants.

Sure they may often be right, but enough times they will be wrong as well. It would make the police judges and juries as well, thus taking away much of our freedom and ability to challenge accusations in court.

powermongor

07-10-2004, 08:07 PM

go to cnn.com

there is a poll on whether or not ppl believe that Saddam would have produced WMD's. It is about 60% yes and 40% no atm.

This has over 140,000 ppl voting on it too, atm.

CNN isn't what I would call a right-leaning network, nor are the ppl who typically vote on their site.

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 08:10 PM

So whats your point? That because other times in history less people are being born then dieing, so its ok for everyone in a nation to be ***?
I was pointing out that your statement about it being the only time in history was incorrect.

As to the population being ***, about the same percentage of the population is *** now as was fifty years ago. More people are coming out but it isn't increasing the number of *** people.

There is no way (a 0% chance) that the entire population of this country or the world would become ***, as the vast majority of people like the opposite sex. It is hardwired in. I don't have census statistics from Ancient Athens (and neither do you I suspect), but I highly doubt that the entire population was ***. If that was true there wouldn't be any Greeks left, and as you see the country and the people are still there thousands of years later.

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 08:17 PM

Yes all of um. Although when looking at China WWIII comes to mind.
How do you possibly plan to pay for all of this? Are you telling me the main difference between an old and neo-conservative is that we old conservatives actually have some common sense when it comes to money? You can't endlessly spend what you don't have, without having to pay it back later with interest.

The whole problem with Iraq is it now leaves us without the money or troops to deal with the threat of Iran which is, and has been for many years, more dangerous to us then Iraq. Iran supports terrorists; they even have their own state sponsored group, Hezbollah. They share the exact same dream as Al Qaeda.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 08:17 PM

I was pointing out that your statement about it being the only time in history was incorrect.

As to the population being ***, about the same percentage of the population is *** now as was fifty years ago. More people are coming out but it isn't increasing the number of *** people.

There is no way (a 0% chance) that the entire population of this country or the world would become ***, as the vast majority of people like the opposite sex. It is hardwired in. I don't have census statistics from Ancient Athens (and neither do you I suspect), but I highly doubt that the entire population was ***. If that was true there wouldn't be any Greeks left, and as you see the country and the people are still there thousands of years later.
You dont have a clue what your talking about. Have you been to a college campus in the last 5 years? People are starting to think its ok. 0% chance? Sure its impossible for 100% of the people in the US to all be ***, but its not impossible for the birth rate to be less then the death rate in the US in the future.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 08:22 PM

How do you possibly plan to pay for all of this? Are you telling me the main difference between an old and neo-conservative is that we old conservatives actually have some common sense when it comes to money? You can't endlessly spend what you don't have, without having to pay it back later with interest.

The whole problem with Iraq is it now leaves us without the money or troops to deal with the threat of Iran which is, and has been for many years, more dangerous to us then Iraq. Iran supports terrorists; they even have their own state sponsored group, Hezbollah. They share the exact same dream as Al Qaeda.
You ask me if I thought they should be helped, not if its viable.

The difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iran hasnt hidden thier weapons programs 12 different times when the world demanded to see them.

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 08:22 PM

You dont have a clue what your talking about. Have you been to a college campus in the last 5 years? People are starting to think its ok. 0% chance? Sure its impossible for 100% of the people in the US to all be ***, but its not impossible for the birth rate to be less then the death rate in the US in the future.
There are many things that will make the birth rate less than the death rate in the future, and they have to deal with more working woman, getting married later, kids being more expensive, etc.

More people are considering it ok to reveal that they are ***, that doesn’t actually make more people ***. It just puts it out in the open. You would prefer these people pretend to be straight, marry someone of the opposite sex they aren't attracted to and be miserable?

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 08:24 PM

You ask me what I thought they should be helped, not if its viable.

The difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iran hasnt hidden thier weapons programs 12 different times when the world demanded to see them.
No Iran is telling the world they're building nukes and we can't stop them. How is that better?

Oberon

07-10-2004, 08:25 PM

This debate is going nowhere. The right-wingers are stuck in their positions and we on the left are stuck in ours. I personally believe the right-wingers are ignorant of what is going on in the world today as well as history but that's just my opinion.

powermongor

07-10-2004, 08:28 PM

No. The whole point is that he gets his day in court. If he is suspected of the sexual assault then it is the job of the police to try to get the evidence to get a warrant for that as well, thus solving their problem. It is not my wish that police start killing people rather than getting evidence and warrants.

There's alot of countries where such a person would not even make it to court. Saddam's justice was very brutal, and very unfair. You tell me that you still wanted him in power, instead of us going to war to remove him?

powermongor

07-10-2004, 08:29 PM

I personally believe the right-wingers are ignorant of what is going on in the world today as well as history but that's just my opinion.

Same to you, buddy :wave:

Elorion

07-10-2004, 08:39 PM

There are many things that will make the birth rate less than the death rate in the future, and they have to deal with more working woman, getting married later, kids being more expensive, etc.

More people are considering it ok to reveal that they are ***, that doesn’t actually make more people ***. It just puts it out in the open. You would prefer these people pretend to be straight, marry someone of the opposite sex they aren't attracted to and be miserable?

You didnt answer the question. Kids are growing up and seeing more and more everyday that being *** isnt a bad thing. You are just in denial that its effecting us.

No Iran is telling the world they're building nukes and we can't stop them. How is that better?

Its not better that Iran is building nukes, but its common since that you go after an enemy nation that has continually lied to you then one that hasnt been given the chance to settle things diplomatically.

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 08:46 PM

There's alot of countries where such a person would not even make it to court. Saddam's justice was very brutal, and very unfair. You tell me that you still wanted him in power, instead of us going to war to remove him?
Ok this is getting ridiculous. Read what I type and then please, please don't ever again use the argument that I wanted Saddam to stay in power.

In the real world we only have so much time and resources to accomplish what we need to do. Invading Iraq takes time, money, and troops that when used cannot be used somewhere else.

Iran is a self-admitted ally of many fundamentalist terror groups. They believe in Al-Qaeda's dream of a fundamentalist Islamic caliphate spanning the whole Middle East. They are building nukes. They are also testing about ballistic missiles. We can't stop them because we don't have enough troops and money.

We don't have enough troops because we invaded Iraq. I believe that protecting this country from getting nuked was more important than invading Iraq. I'm assuming you do too.

The thing you need to get through your head is that resources are not endless. If we commit our entire army somewhere we can't also commit it other places. Iran realizes this and that's why they're doing what they're doing. Why don't you realize this?

If you could give me some indication that you've read and understood what I'm saying that would be great. This is about the 15th time I've written it so I'm assuming you're just ignoring me because if you accepted the truth you wouldn't be able to believe going into Iraq was good for this country.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 08:47 PM

There's alot of countries where such a person would not even make it to court. Saddam's justice was very brutal, and very unfair. You tell me that you still wanted him in power, instead of us going to war to remove him?

Its good to finally have someone that has agrees with me on these forums. Only reason I even bother is because I know there is some kid reading all this stuff and I dont want what they say to go unquestioned and seen as fact. Liberals are willing to use propaganda and sophastry as thier main tools in getting thier oppions across. Just look at Michael Moore's sick play to pursuade people.

Eiger

07-10-2004, 08:48 PM

There's alot of countries where such a person would not even make it to court. Saddam's justice was very brutal, and very unfair. You tell me that you still wanted him in power, instead of us going to war to remove him?
Hehe, come on.... No one would like to see him still in power. However, whether we should have practically unilaterally chosen to remove him and bore the huge $200 billion (committed and spent - not just the $120 billion spent) cost of such a war is very arguable.

If the question were re-posed as "Is it worth $200 billion of US taxpayer money and over 1,000 American lives to remover Saddam from power?" then I suspect people's answers would be far different. I know it's not worth that much to me. Especially to help a people that don't much appreciate our help.

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 08:52 PM

You didnt answer the question. Kids are growing up and seeing more and more everyday that being *** isnt a bad thing. You are just in denial that its effecting us.
You assume that being *** is a choice. I am not turned on by men and I am by woman. This wasn't a choice of mine it is just how I'm hard wired. This wouldn't change even if 95% of the country is *** (though it would make it harder to find a girlfriend). An increase in the number of gays who are open about it won't make straight people become ***.

Its not better that Iran is building nukes, but its common since that you go after an enemy nation that has continually lied to you then one that hasnt been given the chance to settle things diplomatically.
I would suggest we go after the nation that is the greatest threat to us. If Iran is allied with terrorists and close to building nukes, and Iraq is boxed in and far away from doing so it would make sense to put pressure on Iran rather then make us unable to do so by invading Iraq.

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 08:57 PM

Its good to finally have someone that has agrees with me on these forums. Only reason I even bother is because I know there is some kid reading all this stuff and I dont want what they say to go unquestioned and seen as fact. Liberals are willing to use propaganda and sophastry as thier main tools in getting thier oppions across. Just look at Michael Moore's sick play to pursuade people.
So what does that make me? I've been your most vocal opposition and as Unreg!stered pointed out I'm basically a conservative. I'm trying to use facts and you respond by ignoring most of what I say and backing up your own arguments with nothing.

I hope that any kid reading this stuff would learn to think for himself. There is a whole world of information available for people to form their opinions on.

Cripe

07-10-2004, 08:58 PM

Just because people dont like him doesnt mean he isnt a good president or doing the right thing. The German people loved Hitler in his time, but do they think he did the right things.

That's a pretty big generalization. It was far from a unanimous support back then. My own grandfather emmigrated from Germany when he saw the direction things were headed in the 1930's. There were many factors that allowed Hitler to come to power, and the love of the people certainly wasn't a main cause.

If you could check some history facts about post-WWI Germany before posting such inflammatory remarks, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

AgeOfAbnegation

07-10-2004, 09:00 PM

Liberals are willing to use propaganda and sophastry as thier main tools in getting thier oppions across. Just look at Michael Moore's sick play to pursuade people.

hehe, the word is "sophistry" lol :p. A sophist is a reference to the greek sophists, or "experts" according to plato, who had much knowledge but little understanding. I agree that those known as liberals encompass that quite well.

So far, I've never seen someone take so much abuse on the forums. The usual ruffians around here wont be beaten back with simply more rhetoric - it only feeds their hungy maws lol.. The only way to defeat the liberal so to speak (or even the dogmatic conservative, though thats less an issue here, but may be the issue with you), is to start "understanding" in addition to "knowing". See you in a few years lol :p A good place to start, ironically, is plato, who coined the term to begin with.

Mastgrr

07-10-2004, 09:05 PM

If Bush would've said that the reason for going to war was to free the Iraqi people, I am sure that the entire country would've marched to war just as quickly as if it was about WMD's...

I don't think so.

If Bush would've said that the war to free the Iraqi people would cost over a thousand soldiers lives and probably cost more than 200 billion dollars, I am sure that the entire country would've marched to war just as quickly as if it was about WMD's...

I don't think so.

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 09:05 PM

The first thing I thought when I saw Elorion use the word was "I wonder how long it will take for AoA to see and respond to that."
13 minutes from post to post. Not bad.

powermongor

07-10-2004, 09:06 PM

If you could give me some indication that you've read and understood what I'm saying that would be great. This is about the 15th time I've written it so I'm assuming you're just ignoring me because if you accepted the truth you wouldn't be able to believe going into Iraq was good for this country.

No, I just don't read 80% of your posts beyond our little exchanges.

Sides, "either your with us, or you're against us" :lol:

Elorion

07-10-2004, 09:08 PM

You assume that being *** is a choice. I am not turned on by men and I am by woman. This wasn't a choice of mine it is just how I'm hard wired. This wouldn't change even if 95% of the country is *** (though it would make it harder to find a girlfriend). An increase in the number of gays who are open about it won't make straight people become ***.

The hardest thing I have gone through in my life is my attraction to girls. To actully get through school being a virgin is a great accomplishment these days. To get around the porn, clothes that girls wear these days and just the social view of sex, is one of the hardest things a person can go through. I was talking to a girl that just started High School this year. She was telling me that already in our school of 400-600 students there where already around 15 girls pregnaunt that are freshman alone. Just 4 years ago when I was in Highschool as a senior I was at awe that there were just a handful of pregnaunt freshman girls. Its getting worse.

Being *** is wrong. Even most *** men and women wish that they werent *** just because of the way it affect the relationship they have with thier family. If it is true that they are born ***, then dont have sex at all. It may sound mean me saying this but going through something this hard only makes you stronger.

I would suggest we go after the nation that is the greatest threat to us. If Iran is allied with terrorists and close to building nukes, and Iraq is boxed in and far away from doing so it would make sense to put pressure on Iran rather then make us unable to do so by invading Iraq.

I agree. Today if we knew everything aobut Iraq we do today, we would have probubly gone to Iran. Of course back then that wasnt even that viable because then it wasnt for sure that Iran had Nukes. Iraq was, at the time, was the next step in the war on terrior.

Eiger

07-10-2004, 09:11 PM

Sides, "either your with us, or you're against us" :lol:
Well, I'm certainly against your way of "thinking".

Eiger

07-10-2004, 09:14 PM

The hardest thing I have gone through in my life is my attraction to girls. To actully get through school being a virgin is a great accomplishment these days.

Glad I didn't have your problem.

Anyway, how did this topic get on this and *** issues anyway. Let's put that in a different thread where it's easier to ignore.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 09:24 PM

hehe, the word is "sophistry" lol :p. A sophist is a reference to the greek sophists, or "experts" according to plato, who had much knowledge but little understanding. I agree that those known as liberals encompass that quite well.

So far, I've never seen someone take so much abuse on the forums. The usual ruffians around here wont be beaten back with simply more rhetoric - it only feeds their hungy maws lol.. The only way to defeat the liberal so to speak (or even the dogmatic conservative, though thats less an issue here, but may be the issue with you), is to start "understanding" in addition to "knowing". See you in a few years lol :p A good place to start, ironically, is plato, who coined the term to begin with.

The way I was explained sophist is one that believes that truth is affected by a point of view. Hence the way you see the world affects the way you see truth. Many lawyers today are big sophist. They change thier views to help thier cases and get the best argument. I wouldnt say the deffinition is much knowledge with little understanding, but much knowledge with little regard for the truth. With no regard for truth you are willing to do anything to spread your oppinion.

Thank you for the commits though. I am not truly a hardcore neo-conservative. I am more of a moderate con. when it comes to curtain issues. I believe that the people shouldnt be forced against thier beliefs or desires except when it has the possiblility to effect others in a negative way.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 09:29 PM

Glad I didn't have your problem.

Anyway, how did this topic get on this and *** issues anyway. Let's put that in a different thread where it's easier to ignore.

Sexuality is one of the hardest to controll things about being a human being. I had trouble controlling my hormones. I love girls and had trouble controlling myself as a young kid. Gays have the same problem. Its sexuality. I feel for them I really do. But, god has given each of us different problems to sort out while we are on this earth and has given us the strength to handle these problems. Its up to us to use it.

Cripe

07-10-2004, 09:30 PM

I agree with you that we cant stop Terrorism. But we can limit it and stop people who try and spread it.

What is the best way to stop terrorism? You actually need a four-pronged approach (at least).

1) You need to promote your country's image around the world. You need to make less of the world hate you, and give less reason for terrorism to be committed against you. Without this, the more you squash terrorists, the more others feel justified to become terrorists.

2) You need to have a working spy/intelligence agency. This is easier to accomplish when you aren't globally hated because people in foreign countries are more willing to work with you.

3) You need to close off the funding of terrorist groups. It's extremely hard to do, and requires an amazing intelligence network. Small operations will never be completely stopped with this, but large scale attacks can be considerably curtailed.

4) You need to use military action against imminent threats. That can be airstrikes/cruise missiles, or ground troops. But you can only justify it when the threat is imminent. To do otherwise risks increasing the hate against your country, and in turn actually increasing the levels of terrorism.

Yes, I'm all for using military force against targets that we know are preparing for an imminent attack. Also for retaliatory strikes against know terrorist locations.

Iraq was not an imminent threat (according to the recent report), nor was it a known terrorist location.

Afghanistan was both.

When Bush and his advisors decided to go to war against Iraq, he actually created an atmosphere that makes me feel less safe in this world, because of the increased levels of hatred and derision directed towards America. Membership in terrorist organizations have increased after the war in Iraq, making it more like a membership drive for al Qaeda.

If you want a case study where international pressure worked to stop someone from gaining WMD, look at Lybia. They tried for years to become a haven of terrorists and to destroy the western civilizations. After the Pan Am bombing, they were shut down through sanctions and had to abandon their efforts. The recent report indicates that the same was happening with Iraq, and if you look at the results of Lybia, you can predict that with time Iraq would have had to abandon all those designs as well. How long did it take for Sanctions to work against Lybia? 15 years. But it worked, and it didn't make America become hated worldwide. How long had sanctions been in place against Iraq? 13 years. So it is entirely possible that had we waited longer, we would have had the same desired effect (stopping him from acquiring WMD), but without spending $200+ billion, without 1000+ dead soldiers, and without causing a majority of the world to hate us.

A key line in that report was "...not an imminent threat..."

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 09:33 PM

No, I just don't read 80% of your posts beyond our little exchanges.

Sides, "either your with us, or you're against us" :lol:
So do you consider what is said in your opinions or is your mind unable to change?

Cause if you are unable to change your opinion, even if evidence is presented that you are wrong, then there's little point in you posting here.

The whole point of discussion is to find out you're wrong so you can refine your beliefs. I didn't start with what I believed now, I hashed it out with hundreds of people and person after person convinced me that parts of my beliefs were flawed. Every time they did this it allowed me to re-examine and change my beliefs and so make them stronger.

I was hoping that you were doing the same and so you would be able to find holes in my arguments so I could figure out how to improve them. If you're just ignoring them and repeating what you know with no intention of letting yourself be persuaded then there's no point in us having these discussions.

You'll never be able to find the flaws in my arguments if you won't look at the ones in your own.

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 09:34 PM

Eiger

07-10-2004, 09:42 PM

Sexuality is one of the hardest to controll things about being a human being. I had trouble controlling my hormones. I love girls and had trouble controlling myself as a young kid. Gays have the same problem. Its sexuality. I feel for them I really do. But, god has given each of us different problems to sort out while we are on this earth and has given us the strength to handle these problems. Its up to us to use it.
I'd argue that gays are and must be better than everyone else at "controlling their hormones." The ramifications are ever more severe for them.

However, I don't believe that gays have any more issues with controlling hormones than heteros. I suspect that's an unsupportable personal opinion.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 09:43 PM

What is the best way to stop terrorism? You actually need a four-pronged approach (at least).

1) You need to promote your country's image around the world. You need to make less of the world hate you, and give less reason for terrorism to be committed against you. Without this, the more you squash terrorists, the more others feel justified to become terrorists.

This wont effect what the terrorist think. They hate anything that isnt them, that includes freedom, democracy and even France.

2) You need to have a working spy/intelligence agency. This is easier to accomplish when you aren't globally hated because people in foreign countries are more willing to work with you.

That why our whole intellagence agency is being revised.

3) You need to close off the funding of terrorist groups. It's extremely hard to do, and requires an amazing intelligence network. Small operations will never be completely stopped with this, but large scale attacks can be considerably curtailed.

Your right. That why us being in Afganistan and Iraq is a good thing. We are now where the terrorist live, making them think twice about thier actions by taking out thousands of terrorist each month.

4) You need to use military action against imminent threats. That can be airstrikes/cruise missiles, or ground troops. But you can only justify it when the threat is imminent. To do otherwise risks increasing the hate against your country, and in turn actually increasing the levels of terrorism.

Yes, I'm all for using military force against targets that we know are preparing for an imminent attack. Also for retaliatory strikes against know terrorist locations.

Iraq was not an imminent threat (according to the recent report), nor was it a known terrorist location.

Afghanistan was both.

When Bush and his advisors decided to go to war against Iraq, he actually created an atmosphere that makes me feel less safe in this world, because of the increased levels of hatred and derision directed towards America. Membership in terrorist organizations have increased after the war in Iraq, making it more like a membership drive for al Qaeda.

If you want a case study where international pressure worked to stop someone from gaining WMD, look at Lybia. They tried for years to become a haven of terrorists and to destroy the western civilizations. After the Pan Am bombing, they were shut down through sanctions and had to abandon their efforts. The recent report indicates that the same was happening with Iraq, and if you look at the results of Lybia, you can predict that with time Iraq would have had to abandon all those designs as well. How long did it take for Sanctions to work against Lybia? 15 years. But it worked, and it didn't make America become hated worldwide. How long had sanctions been in place against Iraq? 13 years. So it is entirely possible that had we waited longer, we would have had the same desired effect (stopping him from acquiring WMD), but without spending $200+ billion, without 1000+ dead soldiers, and without causing a majority of the world to hate us.

A key line in that report was "...not an imminent threat..."

Lybia responded like a day after we caught Sadam Hussain.

AgeOfAbnegation

07-10-2004, 09:47 PM

The way I was explained sophist is one that believes that truth is affected by a point of view. Hence the way you see the world affects the way you see truth. Many lawyers today are big sophist. They change thier views to help thier cases and get the best argument. I wouldnt say the deffinition is much knowledge with little understanding, but much knowledge with little regard for the truth. With no regard for truth you are willing to do anything to spread your oppinion.

Thank you for the commits though. I am not truly a hardcore neo-conservative. I am more of a moderate con. when it comes to curtain issues. I believe that the people shouldnt be forced against thier beliefs or desires except when it has the possiblility to effect others in a negative way.

Hey, nothing wrong with being hardcore. In fact, everyone is hardcore about a certain position, be it even described in terms of passivity. I salute you for your bravery regardless. I cringe though when I see you post, knowing natives around here will likely tear you to shreds. God bless you nontheless.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 09:48 PM

Where did you get the idea that sex is bad and why do you believe it?
Ok here we go. Sex itself is not bad. Otherwise why would there be sex in the first place. But, thinking about nothing besides sex is definally wrong. Its like worshiping it. You loose controll over yourself and it becomes a habbit. How can that be right? Sleeping around causes all kinds of problems. Just watch Sex and the City. If something cause your life to be a pain in the butt, why do it? Its common since. Find a girl and love her.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 09:53 PM

I'd argue that gays are and must be better than everyone else at "controlling their hormones." The ramifications are ever more severe for them.

However, I don't believe that gays have any more issues with controlling hormones than heteros. I suspect that's an unsupportable personal opinion.

Of course they dont have anymore issues with controlling hormones, thats my point.

Hey, nothing wrong with being hardcore. In fact, everyone is hardcore about a certain position, be it even described in terms of passivity. I salute you for your bravery regardless. I cringe though when I see you post, knowing natives around here will likely tear you to shreds. God bless you nontheless.

Cant agree more, and thanks for the backing. :)

God be with us all. :thumbsup:

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 09:53 PM

Ok here we go. Sex itself is not bad. Otherwise why would there be sex in the first place. But, thinking about nothing besides sex is definally wrong. Its like worshiping it. You loose controll over yourself and it becomes a habbit. How can that be right? Sleeping around causes all kinds of problems. Just watch Sex and the City. If something cause your life to be a pain in the butt, why do it? Its common since. Find a girl and love her.
So if two *** people love each other, that is ok?

Mastgrr

07-10-2004, 10:01 PM

I was talking to a girl that just started High School this year. She was telling me that already in our school of 400-600 students there where already around 15 girls pregnaunt that are freshman alone. Just 4 years ago when I was in Highschool as a senior I was at awe that there were just a handful of pregnaunt freshman girls. Its getting worse.
In Sweden we have a very liberal (aka liberterian/free) view on sex, but we have zero to nada teen pregancies. It's legal to have sex from age 15 and up, the majority lose their virginity around 16-17. The trick? Easy access to condoms and proper sex education.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 10:03 PM

So if two *** people love each other, that is ok?
Love is ok but sex isnt. Love is not sexual, and Im tired of people confussing love with the physical relationships between man and wife.

Hears my political oppion on this matter. Same sex marriage is wrong and shouldnt be legal no matter what. But I do believe any two people, *** or not should be able to legally help eachother in any way they want. So if 2 men want to have the financial benifits marriage allows then sure they should get um, but so should a two friends with no sexual relationship. Marriage has a definition and it shouldnt be changed.

AgeOfAbnegation

07-10-2004, 10:06 PM

Elorion

07-10-2004, 10:06 PM

powermongor

07-10-2004, 10:09 PM

So do you consider what is said in your opinions or is your mind unable to change?

Cause if you are unable to change your opinion, even if evidence is presented that you are wrong, then there's little point in you posting here.

The whole point of discussion is to find out you're wrong so you can refine your beliefs. I didn't start with what I believed now, I hashed it out with hundreds of people and person after person convinced me that parts of my beliefs were flawed. Every time they did this it allowed me to re-examine and change my beliefs and so make them stronger.

I was hoping that you were doing the same and so you would be able to find holes in my arguments so I could figure out how to improve them. If you're just ignoring them and repeating what you know with no intention of letting yourself be persuaded then there's no point in us having these discussions.

You'll never be able to find the flaws in my arguments if you won't look at the ones in your own.

I have the benefit, and the burden, of being right 99% of the time -- give or take 1%.

powermongor

07-10-2004, 10:10 PM

In Sweden we have a very liberal (aka liberterian/free) view on sex, but we have zero to nada teen pregancies. It's legal to have sex from age 15 and up, the majority lose their virginity around 16-17. The trick? Easy access to condoms and proper sex education.

Yea, but does that measure impregnations, or only pregnancies brought to full-term. I imagine access to abortion for young girls is probly much higher in Sweden than in US.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 10:14 PM

Sex isn't "bad" people :lol: - its a means of union and procreation that's part of reality. Either Elorion has a fixation with this or he is not being read properly - w/e. Correct ordering of relationships is desirible however. Need further explanation? - search the millions of threads where I discussed it before.
AgeOfAbnegation is right. The I was obsessed with girls, and had trouble controlling myself. The only reason I didnt end up with these girls is because I noticed this right away. I knew that what I was feeling was wrong and even though my desires fought with me I overcame it. Its a life long problem. It hasnt gone away and it wont till my body stops working correctly.

powermongor

07-10-2004, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by Mastgrr
In Sweden we have a very liberal (aka liberterian/free) view on sex, but we have zero to nada teen pregancies. It's legal to have sex from age 15 and up, the majority lose their virginity around 16-17. The trick? Easy access to condoms and proper sex education.

I really have a hard time believing that 15 year olds are responsible enough for that.

Besides, there is something fundamentally wrong with a 30 yr old getting with a 15 yr old.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 10:16 PM

Yea, but does that measure impregnations, or only pregnancies brought to full-term. I imagine access to abortion for young girls is probly much higher in Sweden than in US.
Thats a good point.

Bhs Crew

07-10-2004, 10:25 PM

I have the benefit, and the burden, of being right 99% of the time -- give or take 1%.
Thanks that answered my question.

I will stop bothering you by answering your posts in the future.

Mastgrr

07-10-2004, 10:45 PM

Yea, but does that measure impregnations, or only pregnancies brought to full-term. I imagine access to abortion for young girls is probly much higher in Sweden than in US.
Nope. The US rate of abortions was 21 abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html) in 2000. Compare that to Sweden's abortion rate in 1999 was 18 abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44. (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3415402.html)

We even have a problem with child growth in this country. Not enough children are born. We have to "import" immigrants so to speak just to keep our welfare state working.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 10:47 PM

Mastgrr

07-10-2004, 10:58 PM

What about STDs?
Old statistic (1987); the US the annual incidence of gonorrhea was 233 per 100,000 population in 1991, and in Sweden, about 30 per 100,000 in 1987. (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0856/is_n1_v21/ai_14408976)

Sweden 1996, USA 1995: Syphilis rate in Sweden was 0.8 of 100 000, while 5.4 in the US. (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3202400.html)

Elorion

07-10-2004, 11:10 PM

Old statistic (1987); the US the annual incidence of gonorrhea was 233 per 100,000 population in 1991, and in Sweden, about 30 per 100,000 in 1987. (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0856/is_n1_v21/ai_14408976)

Sweden 1996, USA 1995: Syphilis rate in Sweden was 0.8 of 100 000, while 5.4 in the US. (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3202400.html)
I think the main thing is sleeping around. African cities is 3,000 to 10,000 per 100,000 population, or as many as one in every 10 people. Glad I didnt grow up there.

Cripe

07-10-2004, 11:29 PM

This wont effect what the terrorist think. They hate anything that isnt them, that includes freedom, democracy and even France.

The point isn't that you change the current terrorists. The point is that you slow/prevent/stop terrorism by stopping normally peaceful people from wanting/needing to become terrorists. It's a long term goal, but one that we can't ignore.

If we only focus on stamping out terrorism by brute force, then the relatives of those we kill/oppress will rise up against us in retaliation in far greater numbers. If we promote an atmosphere where people don't hate the US (this may be hard for some to image can be possible), then when we do use force, it will be recognized as a reasonable thing (like when we invaded Afghanistan).

Historically you could look at Israel. They've been using an iron hand to squash terrorists for 50 years now. Has it stopped terrorism? Has it lessened it? Or has it just created entire generations of Palestinians that hate Israel so much that many are now willing to die to do anything against Israel?

Are we now looking at the exact same type of situation where we will always need to be fighting? I believe an alternative solution lies in creating better global feelings towards America.

That why our whole intellagence agency is being revised.
But it's still being run by the same people who screwed it up the first time. And you're glossing over the fact that in order to get good intelligence, we need people overseas actually *want* to help us. That won't happen unless we promote better respect for America.

If you have heard of some better method that the intelligence community can get better information without sustaining a good relationship overseas, I'd be happy to hear it. We can't rely solely on satellite photos (the supposed WMD
fiasco showed that.)

Your right. That why us being in Afganistan and Iraq is a good thing. We are now where the terrorist live, making them think twice about thier actions by taking out thousands of terrorist each month.

Your response hear had nothing to do with how to shut down terrorist financial operations. And if you had actually read my post, you would see that I feel that rather than making them think twice about their actions, our presence in Iraq is only encouraging them more to fight against us. I'm getting the impression that you're either a) not reading my whole post, b) not understanding the entirety of it, or c) ignoring the parts that you can't explain away.

Lybia responded like a day after we caught Sadam Hussain.

Man that was a tiny response to a huge amount of analysis. Furthermore, there is no causal link between the two events you mention. It's like saying "I ate a Baby Ruth candy bar yesterday. Today I found out my wife is pregnant. It must have been the Baby Ruth!"

Lybia actually fully admitted that it was the sanctions that had crippled it so completely that it was no longer worth fighting the sanctions. *That* is a much stronger proof.

You don't deny the fact that due to Bush's choice to go to war, we are actually in a more dangerous world for Americans. More people are angry at us, less are willing to come to our assistance, less are willing to cooperate with us, more kidnappings are taking place, more car bombings. And it increases *every* month. I for one do not feel safer with George Bush in office. His war against Iraq has done little other than rile up a large part of the rest of the world against us. It has cost us money that could better have been spent in the real war against terrorism, cost the lives of many American soldiers and countless Iraqis, it has cost our country productivity as many of the reserves that have been called to active duty are no longer in their regular jobs, the list goes on and on.

Does any of this make sense?

powermongor

07-10-2004, 11:32 PM

Nope. The US rate of abortions was 21 abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html) in 2000. Compare that to Sweden's abortion rate in 1999 was 18 abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44. (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3415402.html)

We even have a problem with child growth in this country. Not enough children are born. We have to "import" immigrants so to speak just to keep our welfare state working.

But what % of pregnancies end in abortion? In the US it is about 1 in 3.

powermongor

07-10-2004, 11:33 PM

Thanks that answered my question.

I will stop bothering you by answering your posts in the future.

I'm sorry, but its true. You might want to stop arguing the wrong side of an issue.

Elorion

07-10-2004, 11:45 PM

The point isn't that you change the current terrorists. The point is that you slow/prevent/stop terrorism by stopping normally peaceful people from wanting/needing to become terrorists. It's a long term goal, but one that we can't ignore.

The people willing to do these things would find a way to do them anyways. If people did this just cuz they didnt like someone then no one would be alive today.

If we only focus on stamping out terrorism by brute force, then the relatives of those we kill/oppress will rise up against us in retaliation in far greater numbers. If we promote an atmosphere where people don't hate the US (this may be hard for some to image can be possible), then when we do use force, it will be recognized as a reasonable thing (like when we invaded Afghanistan).

You want a world test just like Kerry eh?

Historically you could look at Israel. They've been using an iron hand to squash terrorists for 50 years now. Has it stopped terrorism? Has it lessened it? Or has it just created entire generations of Palestinians that hate Israel so much that many are now willing to die to do anything against Israel?

If you let Israle go all out, then there wouldnt be any.

Are we now looking at the exact same type of situation where we will always need to be fighting? I believe an alternative solution lies in creating better global feelings towards America.

Global feelings? Theres always going to be people that hate America just because its the biggest country in the world.

But it's still being run by the same people who screwed it up the first time. And you're glossing over the fact that in order to get good intelligence, we need people overseas actually *want* to help us. That won't happen unless we promote better respect for America.

Your more interested in making people like us then actully having good intelligence.

If you have heard of some better method that the intelligence community can get better information without sustaining a good relationship overseas, I'd be happy to hear it. We can't rely solely on satellite photos (the supposed WMD
fiasco showed that.)

I already answered this question.

Your response hear had nothing to do with how to shut down terrorist financial operations. And if you had actually read my post, you would see that I feel that rather than making them think twice about their actions, our presence in Iraq is only encouraging them more to fight against us. I'm getting the impression that you're either a) not reading my whole post, b) not understanding the entirety of it, or c) ignoring the parts that you can't explain away.

a) Yup thats why Im answering after each paragraph.
b) You would like to think that wouldnt you.
c) Same answer as b).

Man that was a tiny response to a huge amount of analysis. Furthermore, there is no causal link between the two events you mention. It's like saying "I ate a Baby Ruth candy bar yesterday. Today I found out my wife is pregnant. It must have been the Baby Ruth!"

Lybia actually fully admitted that it was the sanctions that had crippled it so completely that it was no longer worth fighting the sanctions. *That* is a much stronger proof.

You don't deny the fact that due to Bush's choice to go to war, we are actually in a more dangerous world for Americans. More people are angry at us, less are willing to come to our assistance, less are willing to cooperate with us, more kidnappings are taking place, more car bombings. And it increases *every* month. I for one do not feel safer with George Bush in office. His war against Iraq has done little other than rile up a large part of the rest of the world against us. It has cost us money that could better have been spent in the real war against terrorism, cost the lives of many American soldiers and countless Iraqis, it has cost our country productivity as many of the reserves that have been called to active duty are no longer in their regular jobs, the list goes on and on.

Does any of this make sense?

That response was all that was needed. Sorry you cant see it.

Nope we arent in more danger now then we were before Iraq. 9/11 hasnt happened again. Im sorry but your just some conspirisy theorist.

Cripe

07-10-2004, 11:47 PM

plz answer me why Saddam screwed with UN inspectors for over a decade?? Why not just let them in to see that youre not up to anything and leave it be?

The prevailing belief is that he was trying to act like he had something to hide so that he appeared stronger to his enemies than he actually was. In recent interviews with Saddam (obviously not with me), he said that he had to act tough to strike fear in Iran. During his 1980-88 war with Iran (you do remember IraqContraGate??), the only real reason he won was the various chemical weapons he used against them. Yes, the WMD. When he lost those in 1991-93, he didn't want to appear weak to his neighboring enemy, so he bluffed everyone.

It worked, and maybe too well. Not that you're reading this anymore.

Cripe

07-10-2004, 11:48 PM

You clearly have no idea what motivates terrorism.

Andarcel

07-10-2004, 11:49 PM

Thanks that answered my question.

I will stop bothering you by answering your posts in the future.
Lol, I was wondering when you would give up. If neoconservatives were capable of dealing with facts and logic, they wouldn't be neoconservative.

As for this "Oh no! People are going to start accepting gays more and more" crap, I answer: you're right. You're going the way of the KKK, people. Cya.

powermongor

07-10-2004, 11:49 PM

the only real reason he won was the various chemical weapons he used against them. Yes, the WMD. When he lost those in 1991-93, he didn't want to appear weak to his neighboring enemy, so he bluffed everyone.

Oh, so it was ok to use globally banned weapons, as long as he only used them against Iranians.

good to know which people its ok to commit war attrocities against, who else is on the list?

Oberon

07-10-2004, 11:50 PM

Tevush Kasht

07-10-2004, 11:51 PM

The issue there is sexual education. The more open a society is towards sex, the less problems there will be with sexually transmitted diseases and teen (or unwanted) pregnancies.
I think sex is legally allowed here from ages 14 and up now (or 16, not sure, they changed it recently). I don't really see a problem with that at all. I don't really understand the problem very well either, sex is incredibly healthy.
Don't get me wrong though, if you do have a relationship, cheating on your partners is to me the most awful, wrong thing you can to him/her.
I also don't see a problem with people being homosexual, be it by choice or by nature. Couples producing 10 children each will much sooner be the doom of a country than 33% of the people having homosexual encounters and/or relationships (I found out that this is the estimated amount of people who experiment with homosexuality during their life).

Elorion

08-10-2004, 12:00 AM

Lol, I was wondering when you would give up. If neoconservatives were capable of dealing with facts and logic, they wouldn't be neoconservative.

As for this "Oh no! People are going to start accepting gays more and more" crap, I answer: you're right. You're going the way of the KKK, people. Cya.
If Liberals were capable of not lieing and exagerating truth, then there would be no need for facts. Everyone would know the truth through just using thier common since.

Booms

08-10-2004, 12:07 AM

Um no. Ancient Greece was the only time in history that there were less people being born then dieing. Thats cuz they were all ***. You dont need a link to remember what everyone in the US was taught in highschool.

The birth rate in Japan is rapidly declining at the moment, I wouldn't be surprised if they have a higher death rate then birth rate in the future (they may already have that...I'm not sure). Are saying the Japanese are immoral? Not to mention, why is it immoral to have a declining population?

This is the most relavant issue going on today. Cambodia is in the middle of a genocide and everyone is crying for something to be done. But you look at the genocide in Iraq and everyone is like, its the wrong war int he wrong place at the wrong time. Your full of it. The truth is that the only reason the democratic party doesnt want us in Iraq is for political gain. Zell Miller saw this and is now crying wolf.

You just don't get it, do you? We did not go to war because Saddam was bad, we went because we said he had WMD's. You can't change your reasoning for going to war after you've already invaded.

Look at it fromt he perspective of an Iraqy citizen. The greater good is what is at stake here. Sorry your not willing to give anything so that another person can have a better life in the future.

If you are the leader of the American people, the good of the American people should come before the people in Iraq. It isn’t America’s job to make everything better for everyone in the world.

We had to take Saddam out because he was a threat to us

No he wasn’t! That’s the whole point of this thread. And even if he was somewhat of a threat, there are and were much bigger fish in the sea.

go to cnn.com

there is a poll on whether or not ppl believe that Saddam would have produced WMD's. It is about 60% yes and 40% no atm.

This has over 140,000 ppl voting on it too, atm.

CNN isn't what I would call a right-leaning network, nor are the ppl who typically vote on their site.

What are you trying to get at? It doesn’t matter what the uninformed, average American thinks about what Saddam would have done. The Bush administration went into Iraq based on faulty evidence, END OF STORY.

How do you possibly plan to pay for all of this? Are you telling me the main difference between an old and neo-conservative is that we old conservatives actually have some common sense when it comes to money? You can't endlessly spend what you don't have, without having to pay it back later with interest.

The whole problem with Iraq is it now leaves us without the money or troops to deal with the threat of Iran which is, and has been for many years, more dangerous to us then Iraq. Iran supports terrorists; they even have their own state sponsored group, Hezbollah. They share the exact same dream as Al Qaeda.

It seems that most of you don’t understand this (and I don’t know why…it’s not like Bhs writes like AoA :p), so I’m reposting it for your benefit.

You dont have a clue what your talking about. Have you been to a college campus in the last 5 years? People are starting to think its ok. 0% chance? Sure its impossible for 100% of the people in the US to all be ***, but its not impossible for the birth rate to be less then the death rate in the US in the future.
You didnt answer the question. Kids are growing up and seeing more and more everyday that being *** isnt a bad thing. You are just in denial that its effecting us.[/quote

So what you’re saying is that it isn’t okay to be ***. Meaning you’d be willing to go up to Essex or Oberon and say “you are a bad, immoral person because of your sexual preference.”?

[quote=Elorion] The difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iran hasnt hidden thier weapons programs 12 different times when the world demanded to see them.

Oooohhh, now I get it. So it’s okay to support terrorists and have a nuclear weapons program if you tell everyone about it.

You tell me that you still wanted him [saddam] in power, instead of us going to war to remove him?

THAT ISN’T THE POINT. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.

Liberals are willing to use propaganda and sophastry as thier main tools in getting thier oppions across. Just look at Michael Moore's sick play to pursuade people.

Just because Michael Moore is liberal doesn’t mean that all liberals are like him. Lol at the liberals using progaganda…Bush has done so much more than the people on the left it’s not even funny.

Being *** is wrong. Even most *** men and women wish that they werent *** just because of the way it affect the relationship they have with thier family. If it is true that they are born ***, then dont have sex at all. It may sound mean me saying this but going through something this hard only makes you stronger.

You fail at life. Seriously. What you just said is like saying, “it’s wrong to be black!”

I have the benefit, and the burden, of being right 99% of the time -- give or take 1%.

Despite the fact that you and Elorion are both wrong most of the time, at least he isn’t smug in his idiocy.

I really have a hard time believing that 15 year olds are responsible enough for that.

You don’t give teenagers enough credit.

You want a world test just like Kerry eh?

OMG. If anyone brings up “global test” out of context, I will kill them.

Oh, so it was ok to use globally banned weapons, as long as he only used them against Iranians.

We gave him the damn weapons…guess we didn’t care too much about it back then, now did we?

Tevush Kasht

08-10-2004, 12:16 AM

Iraq was an easy target, it was completely crippled, had an oppressive dictator and a lot of people who opposed him. Iraq is also rich in oil and geographically a good location for a pro western government (in theory).
The cost of invading and freeing Iraq is nothing compared to the problems you would face in Iran. Iran for one, has a population that is much higher, and much more loyal. It has the direct support of many terrorist organizations and actually HAS weapons of mass destruction. I do not doubt that the American army can defeat the Iranians, but the death toll and cost would be much, much higher than in Iraq, and the situation afterwards would be at least ten times worse. I think it is was out of the question for the Bush administration to go into Iran, and it still is. The same goes for North Korea. Wars against these nations will be catastrophic for both sides.

Bhs Crew

08-10-2004, 12:18 AM

I'm sorry, but its true. You might want to stop arguing the wrong side of an issue.
........
I hope to god you are joking.
How do you even decide which is the right side if you don't change your opinions when you get new information?

Elorion

08-10-2004, 01:07 AM

The birth rate in Japan is rapidly declining at the moment, I wouldn't be surprised if they have a higher death rate then birth rate in the future (they may already have that...I'm not sure). Are saying the Japanese are immoral? Not to mention, why is it immoral to have a declining population?

It is not a good thing to have more people dieing then being born. If homosexuality is the reason for this, then something has to change.

You just don't get it, do you? We did not go to war because Saddam was bad, we went because we said he had WMD's. You can't change your reasoning for going to war after you've already invaded.

No we didnt go to war because he had WMD's. We went to war because of 9/11. We went to war because there were people that hated the people we are and the way we live. You do realize that in the twin towers both liberals and conservatives died right? They dont care who we are but what we stand for. Iraq was the next logical step in the war on terrior. Hell its in the middle.

If you are the leader of the American people, the good of the American people should come before the people in Iraq. It isn’t America’s job to make everything better for everyone in the world.

No it isnt our job to make everything better for everyone in the world. But if something is happening that is effecting us in a bad way, then is our right to stop it.

No he wasn’t! That’s the whole point of this thread. And even if he was somewhat of a threat, there are and were much bigger fish in the sea.

The congress desided Iraq was the next place to go, even Kerry agreed at the time.

What are you trying to get at? It doesn’t matter what the uninformed, average American thinks about what Saddam would have done. The Bush administration went into Iraq based on faulty evidence, END OF STORY.

Faulty evidence that even European intelligence pointed to.

It seems that most of you don’t understand this (and I don’t know why…it’s not like Bhs writes like AoA :p), so I’m reposting it for your benefit.

You would like us to believe this wouldnt you.

So what you’re saying is that it isn’t okay to be ***. Meaning you’d be willing to go up to Essex or Oberon and say “you are a bad, immoral person because of your sexual preference.”?

I am willing to discuss the immorality of their actions. Feeling arent always right. Often they lead to some of the worst mistakes in our lives.

Oooohhh, now I get it. So it’s okay to support terrorists and have a nuclear weapons program if you tell everyone about it.

You have to let it try and be settled diplomatically before you can just walk into a country and take something.

THAT ISN’T THE POINT. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.

Then what is?

Just because Michael Moore is liberal doesn’t mean that all liberals are like him. Lol at the liberals using progaganda…Bush has done so much more than the people on the left it’s not even funny.

More lies dont make the first one true.

You fail at life. Seriously. What you just said is like saying, “it’s wrong to be black!”

The act of being *** is wrong. Love the people hate the act.

Despite the fact that you and Elorion are both wrong most of the time, at least he isn’t smug in his idiocy.

He just doesnt want to read the same lies over and over again.

You don’t give teenagers enough credit.

Some 15 year olds are more capable then others. But it all comes down to, that when a 15 year old see someone they look up to doing something wrong, they follow.

OMG. If anyone brings up “global test” out of context, I will kill them.

It comes to show that when you get mad youjust yell and scream, how liberal of you

We gave him the damn weapons…guess we didn’t care too much about it back then, now did we?

Ya Clinton gave alot of things away he shouldnt have.

Elorion

08-10-2004, 01:11 AM

........
I hope to god you are joking.
How do you even decide which is the right side if you don't change your opinions when you get new information?

What new information. Just because you say something or hear someone else say something, doesnt mean it has anything to do with the truth. Your repeating other people oppinions.

Bhs Crew

08-10-2004, 01:30 AM

What new information. Just because you say something or hear someone else say something, doesnt mean it has anything to do with the truth. Your repeating other people oppinions.
Well some of the things are true in that they have been varified by major news organizations or govermental organizations.Things like:
We have found no WMD in Iraq.
Iran is devoloping nuclear technology.
We don't have enough troops to invade Iran and maintain Iraq.
Iran has their own state sponsered terrorist network, Hezbollah.
Iran has the same goal as Al Qaeda.

If you have a problem with any of these facts I will be happy to detail where I found them.

My problem was that powermonger admitted that he didn't bother to read arguments, and he doesn't allow new information or arguments to change his opinion.

Essex

08-10-2004, 01:38 AM

Elorion

08-10-2004, 01:39 AM

Well some of the things are true in that they have been varified by major news organizations or govermental organizations.Things like:
We have found no WMD in Iraq.
Iran is devoloping nuclear technology.
We don't have enough troops to invade Iran and maintain Iraq.
Iran has their own state sponsered terrorist network, Hezbollah.
Iran has the same goal as Al Qaeda.

If you have a problem with any of these facts I will be happy to detail where I found them.

My problem was that powermonger admitted that he didn't bother to read arguments, and he doesn't allow new information or arguments to change his opinion.

Sure these are facts. That doesnt mean that alone they can effect whats was done, should be done, or will be done.

Bhs Crew

08-10-2004, 01:45 AM

Sure these are facts. That doesnt mean that alone they can effect whats was done, should be done, or will be done.
Good so if we're agreed on all those does that mean we're agreed that invading Iraq has made us unable to put any leverage on Iran to stop it's nuclear program or missile testing?

Elorion

08-10-2004, 01:58 AM

well I'm gald I didn't get into this arguing. I'm only posting one thing and that is this.

Elorion I'm a *** person. I post on this forum all the time. I love my boyfriend and guess what I have sex with him. In fact if things work out well I will tonight (for my friends here he's visiting for a few days yippie!!)

Now.. all I want to say to you after reading all this is, **** you.

That's right... **** you. **** you too AoA (thought I still love you like a brother) I'm tired of ***'s having to come begging at the back porch of the christian's kitchen. "Please sirs... can we have legally recognized relationships, you already think we're going to hell what worse can happen"

I truly am sorry, but Im tired of any minority thinking that because their life sucks they should have everything thier way. I am for you guys getting all the good stuff that you cant have without being married. But, I am not for you being able to call yourself married. It has the ability to effect the whole picture in the future and if it effects my children in a bad way, then Im not for it.

Anyway... My boyfriend would be with me everyday if it wasn't for the fact we can't get married, as it is he has to go back to Taiwan in five days cause he can't get citizenship over here.

Your right when you say more *** people wish they were straight, but it's only so that we wouldn't have to deal with people like yourself. It's only because I wish I could go through one day without hearing the word ***, or withouth earing someone say "oh that's so ***" when talking about something they don't like. I'd still hear all this of cousre but I wouldn't care as much.

Its not because of people like me. I have had *** friends and I care enough to ignore sexuality all together. Doesnt mean that if they didnt ask me what I though, that I wouldnt tell them. Im sorry you had to see this debate between us. It was not my intension to hurt anyone or make their day any worse.

Everyone who is against *** marriage likes to think that if it passes or becomes law that god will be pissed off and make us the next Sodom. However when you look at the countries that either have legal *** marraiges or civil unions you see that they are are all healthy and not in the process of being caught in God's wraith.

In the future it will effect the world. It not just *** marriage. Its minority life styles in general. The defence for polyigamy is that, since *** marriage is a legal minority, you also have to let us have our way. It will continue this way well into the future. The effects are only negitive.

Here's a list of all the countries that have *** marraige or civil unions.

Denmark, Canada, The Netherlands, Portugal, in Buenos Aires, *** couples can register for civil unions, France, Germany, and Britian is pretty damn close.

Now last I checked all those countries are still standing correct? Or is it only America that god actually cares about and who he'll smite?

Anyway I'm not replying to anything being said after this just wanted to get this off my chest. Now time to go fix dinner for my boyfriend :)

God bless ya and Ill pray for both of you.

Elorion

08-10-2004, 02:00 AM

Good so if we're agreed on all those does that mean we're agreed that invading Iraq has made us unable to put any leverage on Iran to stop it's nuclear program or missile testing?
Sure, Sadam Hussains mistake. I would have still gone into Iraq knowing this. After 13 years he had it coming. We should of done it after 1 year.

Bhs Crew

08-10-2004, 02:05 AM

Sure, Sadam Hussains mistake. I would have still gone into Iraq knowing this. After 13 years he had it coming. We should of done it after 1 year.
So we should've done it even though it will alow Iran to get nukes?

Elorion

08-10-2004, 02:10 AM

So we should've done it even though it will alow Iran to get nukes?
3 years after we find out for sure that Iran is getting nukes. At the time it was the right choice.

Bhs Crew

08-10-2004, 02:21 AM

3 years after we find out for sure that Iran is getting nukes. At the time it was the right choice.
But you said it was still a good idea even knowing what we know now. How does that work?

Coltaine

08-10-2004, 02:25 AM

Um no. Ancient Greece was the only time in history that there were less people being born then dieing. Thats cuz they were all ***. You dont need a link to remember what everyone in the US was taught in highschool.

Sorry but thats not entirely correct.
Beeing homophil was widely accepted in the higher class. It was more of a thing like dressing good, liking art. Also only for the higher class. Boys were sent to older men for tutoring. Teach them they way of life and love. That also involved sexual praktise but not in 100% of these relationships. Most of them wasn't ***, they had a wife and so forth. It was considered chic.

In Germany we had *** marriage for about 2-3 years now. I don't think i see a change in the percentage of *** ppl. Come to think about it, the only reason why i'm not *** is because in school schwul was a cussword. Men am i releaved that the wrong upbringing of tolerance of my parents was at least a little countered by my classmates :evil:

To the sweden issue:
"Reducing the cost of a contraceptive helps usage. A town in Sweden halved its adolescent abortion rate by granting a 70% subsidy on the price of the pill for young girls. Today, most local councils in Sweden have adopted this practice." here (http://www.cbctrust.com/ECONOMIC.html)
and the numbers you are looking for (25,8%) (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp333pd.html)

Booms

08-10-2004, 02:26 AM

It is not a good thing to have more people dieing then being born. If homosexuality is the reason for this, then something has to change.

If homosexuality isn't the reason for it, can we leave it how it is?

No we didnt go to war because he had WMD's. We went to war because of 9/11. We went to war because there were people that hated the people we are and the way we live. You do realize that in the twin towers both liberals and conservatives died right? They dont care who we are but what we stand for. Iraq was the next logical step in the war on terrior. Hell its in the middle.

Iraq was not the next logical step. It was Iran. Just about everyone has said this by now. We went to war with Iraq because we said they had WMD's, they didn't. Iraq doesn't agree with Al Qaeda. Iran does. Iran has its own state-funded terrorist group. What part of these short, easy-to-read sentences do you not understand?

No it isnt our job to make everything better for everyone in the world. But if something is happening that is effecting us in a bad way, then is our right to stop it.

How was Iraq affecting us in a bad way? Don't say because they were harboring terrorists, because if that's the reason then we should have gone into Iran. Don't say because they had WMD's, because they didn't, and we knew Iran was working to get nuclear capability at the time we went to war with Iraq.

The congress desided Iraq was the next place to go, even Kerry agreed at the time.

How does that make it right?

Faulty evidence that even European intelligence pointed to.

My comment was in response to a poll about what the American public thought of Saddam. I was saying that it didn't really matter if they thought he wanted to get WMD's, because the average American is uninformed and had no power when it came to the war anyways.

You would like us to believe this wouldnt you.

I'd like to believe that you didn't absorb everything Bhs had posted? After reading your posts, I know you didn't soak up everything he had posted.

I am willing to discuss the immorality of their actions. Feeling arent always right. Often they lead to some of the worst mistakes in our lives.

So it's okay to have feelings for people of the opposite sex, but not people of the same sex?

You have to let it try and be settled diplomatically before you can just walk into a country and take something.

We didn't do that with Iraq. Weapons inspectors were finally being let in, yet we invaded before their final reports came back.

Then what is?

powermongor was trying to justify the war by saying that its a good thing we got Saddam out of power. That isn't why we went to war. So, even though we did take an evil guy out of power, in the end we still went to war on false claims and wound up spending a ****load of money and caused the deaths of over 1,000 US soldiers. All over a lie.

More lies dont make the first one true.

So what you're saying here is that all liberals are like Michael Moore? Nobody else in this forum makes dumb, blanket statements like that, why must you?

The act of being *** is wrong. Love the people hate the act.

Oooh, okay. So to continue my analogy, instead of saying "it's wrong to be balck!" I should say "I love you, but your skin color (which you had no control over) is immoral."

He just doesnt want to read the same lies over and over again.

Bhs is dealing with this issue, I'll leave it at that.

Some 15 year olds are more capable then others. But it all comes down to, that when a 15 year old see someone they look up to doing something wrong, they follow.

You just described yourself. :thumbsup:

It comes to show that when you get mad youjust yell and scream, how liberal of you

I was frustrated at the fact that the Bush administration continues to take things completely out of context, spin them around, and then feed them back to people like you.

Ya Clinton gave alot of things away he shouldnt have.

The Iran-Iraq war was from 1980-1988. You do realize how stupid you just made yourself look, right?

Elorion

08-10-2004, 02:27 AM

But you said it was still a good idea even knowing what we know now. How does that work?
Yes knowing what I know now, knowing that 3 years ago I wouldnt have known about Iran, I still would have gone to Iraq.

If we knew about Iran, probubly not. But lets look at it this way. With the genocide in Iraq. There would still be many reason to pick Iraq.

This is just circumstanctual. So who cares. I would have gone to Iraq 3 years ago.

Elorion

08-10-2004, 02:56 AM

If homosexuality isn't the reason for it, can we leave it how it is?

No thats my point. Its bad all around. So if we know homosexuality atleast we know why its that way.

Iraq was not the next logical step. It was Iran. Just about everyone has said this by now. We went to war with Iraq because we said they had WMD's, they didn't. Iraq doesn't agree with Al Qaeda. Iran does. Iran has its own state-funded terrorist group. What part of these short, easy-to-read sentences do you not understand?

Ya if you look at everything we know now it is Iran. If you look at everything we knew 3 years ago Iraq was. I dont see how this is a logical point.

How was Iraq affecting us in a bad way? Don't say because they were harboring terrorists, because if that's the reason then we should have gone into Iran. Don't say because they had WMD's, because they didn't, and we knew Iran was working to get nuclear capability at the time we went to war with Iraq.

Because they were harboring terrorist. Sadam was giving famililies of terrorist 25k after they commitied suicide and blew people up.

How does that make it right?

It makes it the best disission of the time

My comment was in response to a poll about what the American public thought of Saddam. I was saying that it didn't really matter if they thought he wanted to get WMD's, because the average American is uninformed and had no power when it came to the war anyways.

They trust the man in the white house. That why we vote.

I'd like to believe that you didn't absorb everything Bhs had posted? After reading your posts, I know you didn't soak up everything he had posted.

I have read everything, trying not to soak it up. Very bad for my health lol.
This is a joke of course.

So it's okay to have feelings for people of the opposite sex, but not people of the same sex?

Its ok to feel like you want to kill someone, but its not ok to do it.

We didn't do that with Iraq. Weapons inspectors were finally being let in, yet we invaded before their final reports came back.

Ok stop it.

powermongor was trying to justify the war by saying that its a good thing we got Saddam out of power. That isn't why we went to war. So, even though we did take an evil guy out of power, in the end we still went to war on false claims and wound up spending a ****load of money and caused the deaths of over 1,000 US soldiers. All over a lie.

Sure, we all believed it when we went into Iraq, and So did Bush. Im tired of you people trying to say he wanted to go into Iraq regardless and went in on the first excuse he found.

So what you're saying here is that all liberals are like Michael Moore? Nobody else in this forum makes dumb, blanket statements like that, why must you?

Everyone makes mistakes, but those that are willing to make a movie like Moore, are evil. He went to conservative towns and brough liberals with him so he could make it look like the people of this small town didnt like Bush. Hes an out right peice of shiet.

Oooh, okay. So to continue my analogy, instead of saying "it's wrong to be balck!" I should say "I love you, but your skin color (which you had no control over) is immoral."

You are supost to be the color you are. That is the way you were made. Males were made to be with females.

Bhs is dealing with this issue, I'll leave it at that.

It might be a bad idea to leave it at that.

You just described yourself. :thumbsup:

Your right, I just chose the unpopular and moral way, instead of the easy and immoral.

I was frustrated at the fact that the Bush administration continues to take things completely out of context, spin them around, and then feed them back to people like you.

Im sorry that you believe that. Cuz you are the one taking thing out of context using and spinning things to suport you views.

The Iran-Iraq war was from 1980-1988. You do realize how stupid you just made yourself look, right?

Doesnt change the fact that Clinton gave away weapons and secrets. Sorry for getting this wrong, but he would have given those away too.

Sage the Mage

08-10-2004, 03:52 AM

Its ok to feel like you want to kill someone, but its not ok to do it.
How about if that person is Saddam? :)

Ya if you look at everything we know now it is Iran. If you look at everything we knew 3 years ago Iraq was. I dont see how this is a logical point.

CIA: Iran aggressively seeks weapons of mass destruction (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/02/03/iran.weapons/index.html)
Does 4 years ago work?

Bhs Crew

08-10-2004, 03:58 AM

It is not a good thing to have more people dieing then being born. If homosexuality is the reason for this, then something has to change.
But homosexuality is not and has never been any kind of major factor in the declining of population. The countries that have allowed *** marriage didn't notice a sudden explosion of gays.

Even the population of San Francisco manages to rise.

No we didnt go to war because he had WMD's. We went to war because of 9/11. We went to war because there were people that hated the people we are and the way we live. You do realize that in the twin towers both liberals and conservatives died right? They dont care who we are but what we stand for. Iraq was the next logical step in the war on terrior. Hell its in the middle.

But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The next logical step in the war on terror is, and has been for many years, Iran.

The act of being *** is wrong. Love the people hate the act.
Why is it wrong?
If God didn't want gays to exist then why are some people born attracted to men?
Ya if you look at everything we know now it is Iran. If you look at everything we knew 3 years ago Iraq was. I dont see how this is a logical point.
Three years ago Iran was still more dangerous to us. Many people in the Bush administration even said Iraq didn't post any threat to us before Bush decided that he was going to invade.

Because they were harboring terrorist. Sadam was giving famililies of terrorist 25k after they commitied suicide and blew people up.
Harboring terrorists attacking America and giving money to the families of Palistinian suicide bombers attacking Israel are two very different things. It doesn't make him a good person but it hardly makes him a threat to us.
Doesnt change the fact that Clinton gave away weapons and secrets. Sorry for getting this wrong, but he would have given those away too.
Well actually if you read the former terrorism Czar for Bush and Clinton, Richard Clarke's book he points out that Clinton did far more to stop terrorism then Bush did. In fact one of the main reasons that the Saudi's supported Bush's campaign so much was because Clinton was trying to pry into their lax handling of terrorist groups in their country, and they knew Bush would leave them alone. He has done just that.

Elorion

08-10-2004, 03:59 AM

How about if that person is Saddam? :)

lol, No commit.

CIA: Iran aggressively seeks weapons of mass destruction (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/02/03/iran.weapons/index.html)
Does 4 years ago work?

"CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress on Wednesday that "most analysts believe that Iran, following the North Korean pattern, could test an ICBM capable of delivering a light payload to the United States in the next few years.""

There were lots of things like this for Iraq at the time also. The mistake was thinking Iraq was more dangerous then Iran. Just the other day was when we found out for sure that Iran was for sure developing WMD.

powermongor

08-10-2004, 05:11 AM

Apparently it's OK to drop a-bombs on Japan.

That action saved millions of lives on both sides, and brought the war to a quick end.

Also, at that point we really had no idea what it meant to use a WMD against an enemy.

BTW, what country do you live in, Oberon?

Bhs Crew

08-10-2004, 05:26 AM

That action saved millions of lives on both sides, and brought the war to a quick end.

Also, at that point we really had no idea what it meant to use a WMD against an enemy.

BTW, what country do you live in, Oberon?
It would've saved many less lives if our plan was just to quarentine Japan and starve them out. They were an island with no resources that couldn't even grow enough food to support themselves, and we had just crushed their navy.

We had a habit of some pretty dumb tactics in that war.

Oberons from South Carolina by the way.

Elorion

08-10-2004, 05:33 AM

It would've saved many less lives if our plan was just to quarentine Japan and starve them out. They were an island with no resources that couldn't even grow enough food to support themselves, and we had just crushed their navy.

We had a habit of some pretty dumb tactics in that war.

Oberons from South Carolina by the way.
Sorry Bhs cant agree with ya here. I think quarentining Japan would cause us to loose alot of live just like Iraq has. They still had an army when we bombed um. We would have been fighting for some time.

Bhs Crew

08-10-2004, 05:38 AM

If they have an army on an island, but they have no navy there is no fighting that could take place. We have a navy, we blockade the island and we wait. I fail to see that costing more lives then two nuclear bombs.

Andarcel

08-10-2004, 05:52 AM

Sorry Bhs cant agree with ya here. I think quarentining Japan would cause us to loose alot of live just like Iraq has. They still had an army when we bombed um. We would have been fighting for some time.
THE SIMPLE FACT ABOUT HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI, ONE MORE TIME:

THE JAPANESE HAD ALREADY OFFERED SURRENDER ON TERMS IDENTICAL TO THOSE AGAIN, NOTHING BY DROPPING THOSE BOMBS. NO LIVES SAVED, NO TIME SAVED, NO MONEY SAVED, NO PRESTIGE SAVED, ZERO, ZIP, NADA. WE FINALLY ACCPETED. ONCE MORE: JAPAN HAD ALREADY OFFERED SURRENDER ON TERMS IDENTICAL TO THOSE WE FINALLY ACCEPTED. WE GAINED NOTHING, I SAY

Hopefully this topic will never again reemerge.

Sage the Mage

08-10-2004, 06:15 AM

Correction: We gained a slightly scared soviet.

Elorion

08-10-2004, 07:29 AM

THE SIMPLE FACT ABOUT HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI, ONE MORE TIME:

THE JAPANESE HAD ALREADY OFFERED SURRENDER ON TERMS IDENTICAL TO THOSE AGAIN, NOTHING BY DROPPING THOSE BOMBS. NO LIVES SAVED, NO TIME SAVED, NO MONEY SAVED, NO PRESTIGE SAVED, ZERO, ZIP, NADA. WE FINALLY ACCPETED. ONCE MORE: JAPAN HAD ALREADY OFFERED SURRENDER ON TERMS IDENTICAL TO THOSE WE FINALLY ACCEPTED. WE GAINED NOTHING, I SAY

Hopefully this topic will never again reemerge.

"If only Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender — that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place — the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war. "
Identical my ***. They pretty much just agreed that they would stop attacking us for a while.

Booms

08-10-2004, 07:36 AM

"If only Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender — that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place — the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war. "
Identical my ***. They pretty much just agreed that they would stop attacking us for a while.

What that quote means is that the Japanese would accept all the conditions of the US when they surrendered except they wanted to keep the Emperor in place. And, after we bombed them and got an unconditional surrender, we kept the Emperor in place anyways.

Elorion

08-10-2004, 07:50 AM

What that quote means is that the Japanese would accept all the conditions of the US when they surrendered except they wanted to keep the Emperor in place. And, after we bombed them and got an unconditional surrender, we kept the Emperor in place anyways.
"ONCE MORE: JAPAN HAD ALREADY OFFERED SURRENDER ON TERMS IDENTICAL TO THOSE WE FINALLY ACCEPTED."
Identical... sure...

This is all being taken out of context.

Sorry not going to look it up tonight, Im hitting the bed.
Night guys God bless.

TheDagdaMor145

08-10-2004, 12:24 PM

here, i'll look it up for you.

http://www.marynet.com/hirosh.html

note the part that says:
"In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."

and

"President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification."

Cripe

08-10-2004, 04:37 PM

Oh, so it was ok to use globally banned weapons, as long as he only used them against Iranians.

good to know which people its ok to commit war attrocities against, who else is on the list?

I have no idea how you got that out of my response. I was simply stating why Saddam felt that he needed to maintain the image of having chemical/nuclear weapons.

Pongle

08-10-2004, 04:43 PM

Why is this unsurprisingly turning into a huge flamewar?

Andarcel

08-10-2004, 11:15 PM

Why is this unsurprisingly turning into a huge flamewar?
One word: Elorion.

"If only Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender — that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place — the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war. "

You really have trouble with this reading thing, don't you? A surrender with one condition means that the Allies could do whatever they wanted to Japan so long as they did not violate that condition (or international law). That's what surrender means. And that's exactly what we finally accepted. Surrender with one condition: that the Emperor remain in place.

If you are confused on this point, I suggest you look up the words "surrender" and "truce" and try and grasp the distinction. Here's a hint: when someone agrees to stop attacking you for a while, that's called a truce. When someone agrees to let you do whatever the hell you want to their country, that's called unconditional surrender. When someone agrees to let you do whatever you want to their country provided you observe certain predetermined restraints, that's called a conditional surrender.

Elorion

08-10-2004, 11:48 PM

One word: Elorion.

You really have trouble with this reading thing, don't you? A surrender with one condition means that the Allies could do whatever they wanted to Japan so long as they did not violate that condition (or international law). That's what surrender means. And that's exactly what we finally accepted. Surrender with one condition: that the Emperor remain in place.

If you are confused on this point, I suggest you look up the words "surrender" and "truce" and try and grasp the distinction. Here's a hint: when someone agrees to stop attacking you for a while, that's called a truce. When someone agrees to let you do whatever the hell you want to their country, that's called unconditional surrender. When someone agrees to let you do whatever you want to their country provided you observe certain predetermined restraints, that's called a conditional surrender.

Whatever... I have started to discuss this with my father and grandfather. They have asked thier friends about it and I have come to the conclusion that this is bull shiet. I spent 8 hours last night, trying to find a reliable sorce and have found nothing to suport that these documents really exsist. The ones that do are either forged or still top secret. So here it is. Prove it. I dont mean show me a link to some unknown historians website that has copies of a manuscript without any name. I mean you get me the name of the manuscript and a full copy. Get me an artical from a believable sorce. How come I have never heard of this before. I love history and this is definately something that would be in a history book. If it was that solid of evidence how come you guys are the only people I have ever heard this from. I cant believe this. This is one of those internet only rummors that should either be strait out abolished or if its true, should be in every history book.

So heres your chance. Prove it. You prove it and Ill make sure everyone I know, knows about it.

Elorion

09-10-2004, 12:00 AM

http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html
"Japan had received what would seem to have been overwhelming shocks. Yet, after two atomic bombings and the Soviet invasion, the Japanese government still refused to surrender."

"On the following day, August 14, Anami, Umezu, and Toyoda were still arguing that there was a chance for victory (John Toland, The Rising Sun, pg. 936). But then that same day, the Cabinet unanimously agreed to surrender (RS, pg. 939)."

It seems thier government was battling itself. As I said before, its all out of context. The whole thing about Japan surrendering was never excepted in the main stream.

(Both quotes reffer to the URL)

Bhs Crew

09-10-2004, 12:19 AM

Elorion

09-10-2004, 12:37 AM

I don't care if Japan was going to surrender or not. If we have their navy destroyed and their Island blockaded they no longer pose a threat to us. Japan can't grow enough food to support itself nor does the island have many raw materials.

We could afford to wait for their food to run out. It was only a matter of time.

But this really doesn't matter. What's done is done. The question is what do we do now. Which reminds me, the presidental debate is in couple of hours.
The Japaneese being who they are and expecially were, might not of responded the way you think they might. This could of backfired and killed more people then the a-bombs. Im not saying this is the most likely of thing to happen but they were definally as dedicated to what they believed as these terrorist. Kamakazi after all. BONZI!!!

Bhs Crew

09-10-2004, 12:41 AM

The Japaneese being who they are and expecially were, might not of responded the way you think they might. This could of backfired and killed more people then the a-bombs. Im not saying this is the most likely of thing to happen but they were definally as dedicated to what they believed as these terrorist. Kamakazi after all. BONZI!!!
They weren't that dedicated. They surrendered. Everyone has a breaking point. The trick is how to get them to cross it.

I fail to see any way starving them out would’ve been worse than nuking two cities.

Elorion

09-10-2004, 01:02 AM

They weren't that dedicated. They surrendered. Everyone has a breaking point. The trick is how to get them to cross it.

I fail to see any way starving them out would’ve been worse than nuking two cities.
Ok Im sorry I dont remember the details but this is where my thinking is coming from. The romans attacked a city on a hill. Over ten years they built up a ramp so they could make it into the city. When the day finally came the people in the city had been starving and many had died. The people who were left commited suicide because they believe they didnt have a chance, and that if caught they would be torchered.

The Japanesse were made to believe that the US were savages that would to horrible things to them. They were disiplined and may have not comitted suicide... perhaps, but they would have starved to death.

Bhs Crew

09-10-2004, 01:14 AM

But when we nuked them they surrendered. If they surrendered because of this I don't see why they wouldn't surrender because they ran out of food.

Andarcel

09-10-2004, 01:55 AM

I swear, this is the last time I will do this on these forums.

Why Japan Surrendered
Robert A. Pape
International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2. (Autumn, 1993), pp. 154-201.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-2889%28199323%2918%3A2%3C154%3AWJS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

The U. S. Army, Unconditional Surrender, and the Potsdam Proclamation
Brian L. Villa
The Journal of American History, Vol. 63, No. 1. (Jun., 1976), pp. 66-92.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8723%28197606%2963%3A1%3C66%3ATUSAUS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9

Shaping the Past Battlefield, "For the Future": The United States Strategic Bombing Survey's Evaluation of the American Air War against Japan
Gian P. Gentile
The Journal of Military History, Vol. 64, No. 4. (Oct., 2000), pp. 1085-1112.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0899-3718%28200010%2964%3A4%3C1085%3ASTPB%22T%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

Roosevelt, Truman, and the Atomic Bomb, 1941-1945: A Reinterpretation
Barton J. Bernstein
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 90, No. 1. (Spring, 1975), pp. 23-69.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-3195%28197521%2990%3A1%3C23%3ARTATAB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved
Rufus E. Miles, Jr.
International Security, Vol. 10, No. 2. (Autumn, 1985), pp. 121-140.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-2889%28198523%2910%3A2%3C121%3AHTSMOH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q

Marshall, Truman, and the Decision to Drop the Bomb (in Correspondence)
Gar Alperovitz; Robert L. Messer; Barton J. Bernstein
International Security, Vol. 16, No. 3. (Winter, 1991-1992), pp. 204-221.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-2889%28199124%2F199224%2916%3A3%3C204%3AMTATDT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

The Outbreak and Termination of the Pacific War: A Juxtaposition of American Preconceptions
Abraham Ben-Zvi
Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 15, No. 1. (1978), pp. 33-49.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3433%281978%2915%3A1%3C33%3ATOATOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

Hiroshima: Historians Reassess
Gar Alperovitz
Foreign Policy, No. 99. (Summer, 1995), pp. 15-34.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-7228%28199522%290%3A99%3C15%3AHHR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7

This last is the best general overview of recent findings, and is only 20 pages long.

Some of the highlights of these articles:

The Emperor had already personally instructed its ambassadors to seek peace on any terms that would preserve the Emperor.

A US research group concluded in 1945 that all that was necessary for Japanese surrender was to make them an offer that they would not view as "national suicide" or submission to "national annihilation;" i.e., guarantee the Emperor's safety.

J Samual Walker, Chief Historian of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commssion, tell us: "Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short period of time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it."

A War Department study conducted in 1946 concluded that the Japanese had already decided to surrender and were merely looking for an excuse to convince the last die-hard conservatives that the war was lost. The study says that the shock of Russia's entry would have easily sufficed for that purpose.

The US Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946 goes still further, claiming that Japan would have certainly surrendered without using atomic bombs, invading forces or Soviets, by the end of 1945, and probably by Nov. 1st 1945.

The Joint Staff Planners had already informed that Joint Chiefs that a change in the surrender formula would be necessary, particularly a safe-guard for the dynasty; otherwise Japan would view capitulation as an invitation to complete annihilation. Almost the entire upper level of the US government agreed.

The Joint Intelligence Committee concluded that growing numbers of Japanese military personnel and civilians recognized the inevitability of defeat in april, 1945, and practically all of them would when Germany fell and the Soviets entered the war.

Japan's military situation was totally untenable. They couldn't do crap, and they knew it.

As for why the information is missing from history books, and why your daddy and granddaddy and their buddies don't know about it... the documents that devastated the case for the bombs have largely only been declassified relatively recently. America has so long persisted in a consensus trance on the issue that most non-historians persist in delusions decades outdated. It's like the notion that terrorists hate us for our freedoms: it has no basis in fact, it's absurd if you think about it for a bit, it's contradicted by all evidence on the subject, yet it persists. Like many lies, it's been repeated so often it's taken for granted.

Bhs Crew

09-10-2004, 02:17 AM

I swear, this is the last time I will do this on these forums.
Well that would be a damn shame. The forums are richer because of it.

Besides I bet you'll do it again to prove a point. Either that or you just have to sit there and read the other person's argument with no response. No way you'll put up with that.

Andarcel

09-10-2004, 03:17 AM

Well that would be a damn shame. The forums are richer because of it.

Besides I bet you'll do it again to prove a point. Either that or you just have to sit there and read the other person's argument with no response. No way you'll put up with that.
I meant re-researching this particular question, not research in general. I guess I'll just copy the post and save it for when the issue inevitably reemerges.

On a side note, any one else miss Cale? He was at least intelligent and capable of admitting error, in a sideways sort of fashion. Didn't realize what we had while we had it, I guess.

Andarcel

09-10-2004, 11:41 PM

And, as I would have predicted. Elorion has disappeared. He has no counterargument, but neither is he willing to accept the facts.

The essence of the neocon, right there.

Bhs Crew

09-10-2004, 11:50 PM

One of these days I'll get my birthday wish and all the neocons will go back to whatever cesspool spawned them. Hopefully they can take the psycho hippy leftists with them, and they will start a great war beneath the earth.

It will be a mighty battle between two great evils.

Won't be a long battle though, most of the leftists aren't armed.

Mad_Mat

10-10-2004, 12:50 AM

They'll probably be to stoned to put up a fight anyways. The neocons would surely rejoice for the kill to death ratio of such a war.

Bhs Crew

10-10-2004, 12:54 AM

They'll probably be to stoned to put up a fight anyways. The neocons would surely rejoice for the kill to death ratio of such a war.
This is most likely how hell was formed in the first place. It would explain the absence of both neo-cons and leftist hippies for so many thousands of years.

Oberon

10-10-2004, 01:11 AM

One of these days I'll get my birthday wish and all the neocons will go back to whatever cesspool spawned them.

What do you have against cesspools?

Sage the Mage

10-10-2004, 01:17 AM

I'm starting to think we're in one of those political shift phases.

Bhs Crew

10-10-2004, 01:25 AM

I'm starting to think we're in one of those political shift phases.
Please explain

Sage the Mage

10-10-2004, 01:38 AM

Restructuring of parties. I'm not talking like this year, but maybe 4-16 years from now.

AgeOfAbnegation

10-10-2004, 01:52 AM

Bhs Crew

10-10-2004, 01:54 AM

Restructuring of parties. I'm not talking like this year, but maybe 4-16 years from now.
Yup. I don't know if the neocons realize how many they are chasing away. The democrats managed to keep the leftists from seizing power (by making sure Howard Dean wasn't elected) but the Neocons have far more power in the Republican Party.

If Bush is re-elected the slow exodus from the Republican Party that he has caused will continue. The republicans could see their numbers fall which would counteract the slow democrat to republican stream that's been changing percentages for decades.

If Bush looses then the changes will be much smaller and hinge more on what Kerry and Edwards do. As long as they can keep the people happy and the fringes quiet, the Democrats will make some gains.

We're still seeing the slow trickle of Blue Dog democrats leaving the Democratic Party but that's been happening since LBJ passed the civil rights bill (That started with Strom Thurmond). Why I bring it up is because many of those southern democrats are retiring soon and will most likely be replaced by Republicans.

I’m happy as long as the independent group keeps growing and party loyalty remains weak.

Sage the Mage

10-10-2004, 02:23 AM

What is "neo-conservative", as opposed to "conservative"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

Spensdawg

10-10-2004, 02:24 AM

What is "neo-conservative", as opposed to "conservative"?
Quite literally it means a new conservatice. What THAT means I'll leave to Bhs and other to explain :D.

Bhs Crew

10-10-2004, 02:26 AM

Conservatives are what you would normally think of. Small government, balanced budget, low taxes, etc.

Neo-conservatives are the new ones. Bush is really the first neo-conservative president though you could say that Reagan is the father of the movement.

They want low taxes but are happy running into debt in order to achieve them.
They are quite happy being the police of the world, in an endless fight to spread democracy around the globe, but they have no idea how to create one. They seem to think if you elect your ruler that suddenly makes a free country. Free countries are built from the ground up, not imposed from the top down. I could go on but there's no point.

Mostly I see a pattern of ideals with no plans to back them up. They seem to live in a black and white world where if you have an idea the details will solve themselves.

I'm not the best person to explain their positions as they don't make any sense to me.

Obviously these are just large categories that most people don’t fit into perfectly. When I say neo-conservative I mean Bush and his followers as they’re the best example.

Spensdawg

10-10-2004, 02:47 AM

Back on topic: I have weapons of mass destruction in my pants!

*Ba Dum Bum Ching!* (<-----drum sounds)

Verry sorry, please carry on folks :D

Bhs Crew

10-10-2004, 07:18 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
Yeah that isn't a bad description. Certainly less biased than mine.

The terms are all so broad that they have little use anyway. I just use Neocon to describe Bush, cause it fits better than most of the others. He certainly isn't a normal conservative.

Andarcel

10-10-2004, 07:46 AM

I would just like to observe that Elorion has had more than 48 hours to respond, during which time he has posted on these forums, and he's clearly failed to do so. You know, I don't normally hold grudges, but after the amount of time I spent on that, I'm really going to hold this against him. Any time he posts on a political thread if I can find some way to bring this up, no matter how preposterous, I will. For example:

Elorion: Kerry's obviously a superliberal.

Me: Yeah? Kind of like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obviously necessary to save lives? :clap:

AgeOfAbnegation

10-10-2004, 07:46 AM

Neoconservatives won a landmark victory with the Bush Doctrine after September 11th. Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an influential conservative thinktank in Washington that has been under neoconservative influence since the election of Reagan, argued in his AEI piece "The Underpinnings of the Bush doctrine" that "the fundamental premise of the Bush Doctrine is true: The United States possesses the means—economic, military, diplomatic—to realize its expansive geopolitical purposes. Further, and especially in light of the domestic political reaction to the attacks of September 11, the victory in Afghanistan and the remarkable skill demonstrated by President Bush in focusing national attention, it is equally true that Americans possess the requisite political willpower to pursue an expansive strategy."

Nifty ^^ :).

Bhs Crew

10-10-2004, 07:59 AM

Nifty ^^ :).
Yup, too bad we're out of troops and we're 7.42 trillion dollars in debt (while not all of that is Bush's fault he's added more than his share.) I hope we pay off of some of that before we do any more of the "Bush doctrine."

I think Edwards hit it on the nose when he said America can't afford four more years of Bush.

Two Presidents have gone from deficit to surplus in their terms since WW2. Bill Clinton and Lyndon Johnson. If Johnson can balance the budget during Vietnam, then Bush should be able to balance it now. The man hasn't vetoed a single spending bill. Bah.

Cripe

11-10-2004, 12:04 AM

Back on topic: I have weapons of mass destruction in my pants!

*Ba Dum Bum Ching!* (<-----drum sounds)

Verry sorry, please carry on folks :D

Perhaps you should change your underwear.

Oberon

11-10-2004, 01:08 AM

Nifty ^^ :).

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (http://actagainstwar.org/dc/about/) is many things but "nifty" isn't one of them.

AgeOfAbnegation

11-10-2004, 06:42 AM

Lies! The world is ripe for takeover!! Pledge your alliegance...

Oberon

11-10-2004, 07:40 AM

Here's an article (http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V14/8/lakoff-g.html) I found interesting regarding the differences between liberals and conservatives.

Booms

11-10-2004, 07:57 AM

Here's an article about why conservatives shouldn't vote for Bush this year.

http://www.nypress.com/17/31/news&columns/WilliamBryk.cfm

Galron Kincaid

11-10-2004, 02:37 PM

No WMDs (and let's face it. We knew it all along)

= No real reason for war.

= 1000+ americans (and 19 Italians) dead for nothing.

And guess what's going to happen now?

Bush and Berlusconi hung by their gonads and devoured alive by red ants, maybe?

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

Coltaine

11-10-2004, 03:26 PM

When saying no reason why you went to war, why do you always left out the civilian casulties of the irak?
Sorry but that makes me kind of sick. Every day there are about 2 bomb explosions. Bombing with planes excluded. every time i see the new there are another 30 casulties to add to the figure.

Aye, there were also ppl. that died through the sanctions. But what was the exact reason to sanction food? When everybody says they were only designed for short term, why not sanction weapons and NOT the food?

Mad_Mat

11-10-2004, 04:17 PM

Elorion

11-10-2004, 04:20 PM

The answer to this is quite simple. American lives are important (and to a lesser extant, America's allies' lives), while Iraqi lives are not, because Americans have morals.
Thats like saying all eviromentalist are evil and immoral because a group of them blew up some hummers.

Andarcel

11-10-2004, 04:26 PM

Thats like saying all eviromentalist are evil and immoral because a group of them blew up some hummers.
I do believe he was being ironical.

Mad_Mat

11-10-2004, 04:30 PM

I do believe he was being ironical.
Wow someone actually picked up on that? :scratch:

Bhs Crew

11-10-2004, 07:04 PM

Here's an article about why conservatives shouldn't vote for Bush this year.

http://www.nypress.com/17/31/news&columns/WilliamBryk.cfm
That's a very good article. All conservatives should read that.

Oberon

11-10-2004, 07:28 PM

Here's an article about why conservatives shouldn't vote for Bush this year.

http://www.nypress.com/17/31/news&columns/WilliamBryk.cfm

This is my favorite part of the article. I've argued this very point in this very forum regarding whether the invasion of Iraq was legal or not as well as the dangers of constant warfare on our republic.

To be sure, there's more than enough blame to go around with the Congress' cowardly surrender to the Executive of its power to declare war. The Founding Fathers, who knew war from personal experience, explicitly placed the war power in the hands of the Congress. As James Madison wrote over 200 years ago:

"The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war… The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted."

But since the Korean War (which the Congress defined as a "police action" to avoid using its war powers), war has been waged without its formal declaration. Thus Congressional power atrophies in the face of flag-waving presidents. Perhaps Congress is too preoccupied with swilling from the gravy trough that our politics has become to recall its Constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government, guarding its powers and privileges against executive usurpation. The Congress has forgotten that the men who exacted Magna Carta from King John at sword point instituted Parliament to restrain the executive from its natural tendency to tax, spend and war.

Moreover, there is nothing conservative about war. As Madison wrote:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. [There is an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and…degeneracy of manners and of morals…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."