Anniversary

[Walsingham]

Just out of interest do you ever get the urge to see things in colour?

[Sand]

I do see a lot of different colors, but when it boils down to it there is only right and wrong. I live my life on what I think is right and what I think is wrong. Sometimes that meshes with the world, and sometimes it doesn't but I deal with what comes at me as it comes at me. If you are sure of your convictions, steadfast in your beliefs, then you have the power to shape the world around you than be shaped by the world.

[kirottu]

You do realise you just defined yourself as a fundamentalist?

[Sand]

The difference is that I don't go off bother other people. If people ask I tell, but beyond that I leave people alone.

 

EDIT: With the exception of posting on this forum...

Edited April 11, 2007 by Sand

[Volourn]

"Or that he is so gulliable that he bought Bush's lies hook, line, and sinker."

 

Except for a few things:

 

1. I believe that a bloodthirsty dictator should never be left alone to mass murder innocent people, and make their lives miserbale. The fact these people ar ein a different country are irrelevant to me. Jack the Ripper only murder people in the US; but I still think he's a scumbag who should have been stopped. It should matter if the scumbag is down the street from you or half way a cross the world.

 

2. I diodn't even want Bush to win the election in the first palce. I wanted Al Gore.

 

3. Bush didn't enter office looking for war/. 9/11 changed that.

 

4. I'm the first point out the TONS of errors that have made during the whole Iraqi debacle. There is no doubt that Bush, and co have made many errors of judgement.

 

5. If you can't tell; I'm not one to 'tow the line'. I don't believe something just because one goofball tells me its' true. Or a hundred people. Or a thousand peoplke. Or a million people. I take the info I do have, and go from there.

 

 

MYTH: Iraq had no WMDs.

 

FACT: Iraq had WMDs.

 

FACT: Iraq had used WMDs.

 

FACT: Iraq was order to mkae a list of the WMD they did have, and destroy them.

 

FACT: Iraq has NEVER been satisfactory shown how, when, and where all these WMDs they CLAIMED to have vanished to or were destroyed.

 

RESULT: Iraq had WMDs, and we have no way of knowing if they actually did destroy them as they were supposed to.

 

 

MYTH: Saddam and AQ had no ties, and in fact hated each other as much as AQ hated Amerika.

 

FACT: They both share the same hatred Amerika, and the West.

 

FACT: It's been proven that he two sides have met on occasion.

 

FACt: Saddam is a known supporter of terrorism.

 

RESULT: They had at least some ties. The extent of those ties ar eunknownj, hwoever. It is not beyond the realm of possibilkity that these two supposed 'enemies' (even thoguh they really weren't; they just had different views on various things) may have hooked up eventually to target their mutual enemies like the US.

[Sand]

It doesn't matter that Iraq had WMDs in the past. The point is that Iraq nad no WMDs when we invaded and none were found.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Just asking, and I'm not pointing to anyone in particular....

 

So if we know that Iraq didn't have WMDs when US invaded, and that the war wasn't for protection, are you saying that you would have let saddam (no need to point out the horrible things he did) keep ruling and pretty much kill innocents and other horrible acts?

 

Oh, and saddam might have eventually decided to attack America, and its better to prevent than to cure.

[Volourn]

Sand has made it clear. He doesn't care if Iraqis or other non Amerikans die. Only when Amerikans die does it matter to him, and even then... if they are religious folks - espicially Christians - he wouldn't shed a tear.

 

To each their own.

[metadigital]

Sure, he had links. Sure, they disagreed on certain things. But, to say Saddam had NO links whatsoever with AQ is just plain false.

MYTH: Saddam and AQ had no ties, and in fact hated each other as much as AQ hated Amerika.

 

FACT: They both share the same hatred Amerika, and the West.

 

FACT: It's been proven that he two sides have met on occasion.

 

FACt: Saddam is a known supporter of terrorism.

 

RESULT: They had at least some ties. The extent of those ties ar eunknownj, hwoever. It is not beyond the realm of possibilkity that these two supposed 'enemies' (even thoguh they really weren't; they just had different views on various things) may have hooked up eventually to target their mutual enemies like the US.

Someone from al-Qa'ida and someone from Iraq (maybe Saddam) met once. And decided that they couldn't do business with each other.

 

To suppose that they had more to do with each other is disingenuous.

[Volourn]

"Someone from al-Qa'ida and someone from Iraq (maybe Saddam) met once. And decided that they couldn't do business with each other.

 

To suppose that they had more to do with each other is disingenuous."

 

What's disingenous is Sand's 9and others') claim that Iraq and AQ had absolutely no ties whatsoever.

[Sand]

Sand has made it clear. He doesn't care if Iraqis or other non Amerikans die. Only when Amerikans die does it matter to him, and even then... if they are religious folks - espicially Christians - he wouldn't shed a tear.

 

To each their own.

 

Hardly, Volourn. My view is this. The United States government is responsible to US citizens, as Canadian government is responsible to Canadian citizens, as the Iraqi government is responsible to the Iraqis.

[Volourn]

And, I say as human beings we are responsible for other human beings. Digging your ehad in the sand doesn't make you immune to what occurs elsewhere nor does it make what Saddam did acceptable to me just because he didn't commit his crimes on Lakeshore Dr.

[Sand]

So, that means you have the right to interfere what goes on in another country? I don't think so.

[Volourn]

Not right. Obligation.

 

Question: You are in your house. You here someone being attacked in your neighbouring house, what do you do? It's not your house. It's not really your business 'cause it doens't involve you. Do you sit there, and do nothing? Or do you go and help (or call the police) if you can?

 

I know what I'd do.

 

Outside of arrogance or self worth; what makes borders different than houses?

Edited April 11, 2007 by Volourn

[alanschu]

The difference is that I don't go off bother other people. If people ask I tell, but beyond that I leave people alone.

 

EDIT: With the exception of posting on this forum...

 

O.o

[Guard Dog]

Do you ever get the feeling we have all had this conversation before? Deja Vu?

 

 

 

Nice to see you Alanschu, you haven't been around much lately.

[Azarkon]

Not right. Obligation.

 

Question: You are in your house. You here someone being attacked in your neighbouring house, what do you do? It's not your house. It's not really your business 'cause it doens't involve you. Do you sit there, and do nothing? Or do you go and help (or call the police) if you can?

 

I know what I'd do.

 

Outside of arrogance or self worth; what makes borders different than houses?

 

This analogy really sucks. If your neighbor was being attacked by a burglar, and he asks for help - sure, you'd be morally obligated to do so and he'd thank you for it. But if your neighbor was fighting with his wife, and you bust in with charges of domestic abuse that leads to his arrest, you could easily earn both their ire and worsen the situation. It's true that Saddam was a bad man and deserved to be removed from power, but if the result of doing that is a civil war that would consume millions of lives, destabilize the region, and erode the US's image and influence on the world stage... Well, you get the picture.

 

It's not so much that morality is totally relative. It's more that the real world doesn't work as it does in the movies or games. Sometimes the worst of things could be done with the best of intentions. Just because you know what's right, does not mean you know how to attain it. Therein lies the difference between a moral man, of which there are billions, and a wise one, of which there are only few.

Edited April 12, 2007 by Azarkon

[Sand]

Azarkon gets it. If you are to interfere it requires thought, precision, and a delicate hand, not with guns blazing. If you cannot make the situation better then it is currently it is best not to act and interfere. Of course Volourn would say that the invasion did make things better, but I wholly disagree. We have billions of US dollars lost in that sinkhole, thousands of Americans dead for nothing, let alone hundreds of thousands Iraqis dead, injured, and/or missing due to sectarian violence which the US military has been completely inept to stop. Also this sectarian violence between the Sunnis and Shiites threaten to spread over in other Middle Eastern countries, totally destabilizing the region.

 

How is that better, Volourn? Bottomline, it isn't. The invasion didn't make the Middle East more peaceful and stabile. It made it worse.

Edited April 12, 2007 by Sand

[J.E. Sawyer]

You know, if the issue was really that Saddam Hussein was a bad leader who did bad things to his people, we had plenty of opportunities to take him our prior to the second Gulf War. E.g. the first Gulf War and the many years leading up to it. There were also really bad, really oppressive leaders in other countries before him. Many of them are still around and they (or their replacements) will be around after our involvement in Iraq ends.

 

Phil Ochs wrote "Cops of the World" in 1966. The U.S. has been in love with selectively knocking over leaders and invading countries for a long time. Our selection of whom we knock over and when is motivated by our national interests and capabilities. Our inaction with regards to Darfur is good evidence of that. Hell, our involvement in Vietnam and subsequent inaction with regards to people like Idi Amin in Uganda are good examples of that.

 

No one is going to argue that the world is better off without leaders like Saddam and his sons. But please, let's not act like the invasion of Iraq was the noblest of causes done at our earliest and most selfless opportunity.

[Sand]

Indeed, J.E.. Hell, the US have done its share of putting dictators into power. The US government would rather have a ruthless dictator aligned with them than a democratically elected government against them.

[theslug]

We obviously went to war for one reason and one reason only and that's money. There is no morality within the government, you all should know this by now.

[metadigital]

I don't have any qualms in the notion that the US secured its essential energy requirements by invading an unstable country to remove a despotic leader who was evil to the people of his country.

[Azarkon]

If only that was what happened.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Personnaly, I think its time US left Iraq... they helped them once and it didn't turn out too well so why stay there?

 

 

But again, the answer is obvious... oil... I think, been a while since I've looked at a "who's got the most oil" chart...

[Walsingham]

I don't have any qualms in the notion that the US secured its essential energy requirements by invading an unstable country to remove a despotic leader who was evil to the people of his country.

 

Ditto. You want we should only help countries with feth all? Does this mean that my doctor only helps me because he gets paid? You don't think he could maybe be working under more than one motivation? We've been through this before (Gorgon and I discussed it), and I'll say again that if you look at historical records of how the US executive makes decisions on the scale of an invasion you are talking about having to satisfy many separate 'players': Treasury, Pentagon, White House, fund raisers etc etc. The idea that you could go to war only for cash is as bizarre as the notion that you could go to war only for good will.

 

Incidentally, I've been doing some background reading.

 

1) Saddam may have had trouble with Al Qaeda in the past, but his connections with Palestinian and Hamas terrorism was well established. There are public records of his officials having videotaped ceremonies congratulating the families of suicide bombers, and giving them cash. There are also suggestions that he tolerated the existence of training camps, although there were far more convenient locations for these in Lebanon and Syria.

 

I do not think the US Chimp-in-Chief would have had much success grasping any distinction between the two types of Arab terrorist. Hence his rather baffling insistence that Saddam was backing Al Qaeda at the time.

 

Saddam's priority at all times was power, glory, and his own survival. He could and did shift positions quite fluidly. It is therefore not inconceivable that he could have - if still in power - come to support Al Qaeda as a means of retaining his status as strong man, and 'leader of all Arabs' (his fondest ambition). While Al Qaeda was certainly a threat to him, insofaras it threatened the United States it woudl always be regarded with a hopeful eye.

 

2) The notion that Iraqi WMDs coud have gone to Syria is entirely plausible. Syria has always had a byzantine intelligence appartus, as befits any first class authoritarian regime. It also has a demonstrably porous border with Iraq, as evidenced by the history of smuggling in both directions, but particularly the trade in counter-embargo oil. Hundreds of thousands of barrels were being passed across this border every day under Saddam. This provide ample cover for any movement.

 

Concealing Iraqi WMDs in the country would be acheived by the simple expedient of putting them amongst existing Syrian WMDs. The Syrians already being in possession of both materiel and delivery mechanisms.

 

 

~

 

I am therefore more convinced than ever that it is far easier to account for the way WMD did exist and were then moved than that they unaccountably vanished.

 

 

Finally, it's nice to see some new faces. I guess it wasn't so completely daft to raise the issue.