~The people who dropped them are just following orders.
And who gave the orders then, robots? no people, it's easy logic to follow.
~ The people who gave the orders were just acting under information ithat indicated threat.
But no bombs of mass destruction, and an attack by America after it was targeted by someone else. Hmmm, real?, paranoia?, or other agenda?
~(If Saddam limps, you assume his leg hurts; and if he won't let inspectors in, you assume he's hiding WMD's. (You must assume the worst, or else, if the worst happens, the blood of citizens will be on your hands and you'll be tried and conviced of gross negligence.))
B.S!!!. Sounds like a political spin to me.
A quote from sting, "history will teach us nothing"
~Therefore it is substantially Saddam's fault that Ali Ismail Abbas was hit.
So Bush's governments hands were tied and there were no other roads to pursue? A quote that could justify Bush from any perspective, taking your line of logic would be "the devil made me do it" I guess it makes sense since Bush has been over heard to talking with voices that weren't there. What was done and is still done is really blameless in your eyes jonathan? It's all the other guys fault? How irresponsible. And what about the real mass of information they had prior to the 911 incident and they didn't act? Was Bush condemed and sent to the slaughter because of that? No.
Jonathan, America has some of the largest numbers across the board when is comes to murder, plunder and etc. If an alien race came down and TOOK OVER america without her consent, bombed the fuck out of you, and you lay with your arms and legs torn off would you feel the same way?
~>This really has me confused and you can say I don't see the logic. Can you explain? Are you for war? Are you against another persons distaste for it? Are you just annoyed at the constant critizising of America?<
Yes to all.
Sad. Why quote the bible if your are for war?, Are you an ancient tribal isrialite?
~It seems to me that Krieger is gleefully taking advangtage of a tragedy to further his agenda. Can you imagine what went through his mind when he heard about Ali? The first thing of course is something along the lines of "That's aweful.". But obviously, a little later, something like "Wait a second, yes, that's heartstring tuggin' fodder!".
Can you quantify this?
~Don't put words in my mouth, I was just wondering, I'd never heard of him and maybe there was a story I should know.
I don't think he needs to you've said enough by saying you are for war.
Don't let this thread make you think I am against you jonathan, I am against your apparent line of reasoning. I like your other posts.
"To an Iraqi Child"
Moderator: scott
-
Silver Eyes
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:42 pm
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
Coylo you should consider weighing what is more distatseful, the poem or what happened to little Ali. I guess what has happened to him is so distasteful that we should turn our eyes aways from it.
"And history will teach us nothing."
Now just what level of hell did Dante say that in times of need those who do not give a charitable hand occupy?
"And history will teach us nothing."
Now just what level of hell did Dante say that in times of need those who do not give a charitable hand occupy?
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
>And who gave the orders then, robots? no people, it's easy logic to follow.
~ The people who gave the orders were just acting under information ithat indicated threat.<
It is a waste of time and space to post rhetorical questions and then the quotes of my preemptive answers to those questions. (I tried to save time and space by answering preemptively because I knew you'd ask them).
>B.S!!!. Sounds like a political spin to me.<
It's a matter of record, the last five years of which I guess I'll have to repeat for you.
If you're the leader of a country that's been attacked, then you look bad that you've not done your job. So, you of course go to work hunting down those responsible and paying extra close attention to all threats, since you look really really bad if it happens twice. You continue hunting the guys responsible, but it'll take a long time since they are literally hinding in caves in the middle of nowhere. In the mean time, you have twenty years of suspicious behavior by Saddam, that indicates that he has WMD's, to mull over. You ask British what they think, and they agree that he probably does. Repeat with the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and a host of littler countries and individual spies. Since everyone agrees that he acts like he has them, you freak out a bit and go to the UN and make a motion that you be allowed to go to war with him, as set out in the treaties that Saddam signed that said the world could invade if he had WMD's. But it turns out the French, Germans, and Russians have economic insentive for Saddam to stay in power, so they vote not for you to go to war. You go to war anyway in order to follow the spirit of the law, despite the corruption that has not allowed you to follow the letter. Then you find out that Saddam was just nuts and never had anything, and the corrupt guys are laughing all the way to the bank. All this while you've still been chasing those guys responisble for the original attacks, and in the process you've liberated Afghanistan and chased those guys into the mountains, where they are periodically apprehended (recent example). Also during all this you are doing diplomacy with dictators in Libya and Saudi Arabia, regarding WMD and oil prices respectively, and it's paid off a little. Also you've put pressure on the Syrians to stop supporting terror and to get out of Lebanon. The dumb Syrians then assassinate a leader in Lebanon, leading to political dominoes, and eventually the complete pull-out of Syrian occupation forces as you'd hoped, though ultimately that really wasn't from anything you did. And through all of these things you're working with the world's most childish peoples along the Israeli-Jordanian border to keep them from breaking out into war for the umpteenth time, and so far that's going so-so.
On the domestic front you've been fighting a recession caused by terrorism and internet bubble bursting, along with continued migration of manufacting jobs to China, and the looming threat of being not only dwarfed but controlled by the booming Indochinese economic power, and having to deal with the rising gas prices caused by their increasing demand for oil.
Obviously, much more happened in the last five years, but this is getting too long.
>I guess it makes sense since Bush has been over heard to talking with voices that weren't there.<
Can you quantify that or are you refering to his belief in God?
>And what about the real mass of information they had prior to the 911 incident and they didn't act? Was Bush condemed and sent to the slaughter because of that?<
The 911 commission said there was a massive systemic failure, so it really wouldn't make sense just to put Bush in jail, and we hardly have room in the already crowded jails to put the whole government in one. And then that leaves one to ponder the Zen-like conundrum of who would run the jail if the government is one of the inmates.
>What was done and is still done is really blameless in your eyes jonathan? It's all the other guys fault? How irresponsible.<
In this case, yes, yes, no.
>Jonathan, America has some of the largest numbers across the board when is comes to murder, plunder and etc.<
Please quantify this too, and keep in mind that it's not really fair to point to stuff that happened 200 years ago, you can say you're sorry to the indians and blacks for only so long before you loose sincerity.
>If an alien race came down and TOOK OVER america without her consent, bombed the fuck out of you, and you lay with your arms and legs torn off would you feel the same way?<
That would depend on whether or not my country was run by a dictator who at least believed he was breaking treaties, even if he was too stupid to know that his scientists were apparently doing nothing. If such were the case, then that scenario would be crappy but I would be happy to be rid of the dictator and I'd be thankful to the aliens for bringing democracy.
>Sad. Why quote the bible if your are for war?<
I quoted the parts of the Bible that are for war because many people think that war is completely counter to the Abrahamic faiths.
>Are you an ancient tribal isrialite?<
Are you using emotion because you have no logical arguements to appeal to?
>Can you quantify this?<
The poem is my quantification, its existence implies that my statements are true, since the poem has only one clear perspective and purpose.
>I don't think he needs to you've said enough by saying you are for war.<
War is a wonderful tool for the destruction of evil. Pro 8:13, Psa 97:10, Exd 15:3, Ecc 3:8
~ The people who gave the orders were just acting under information ithat indicated threat.<
It is a waste of time and space to post rhetorical questions and then the quotes of my preemptive answers to those questions. (I tried to save time and space by answering preemptively because I knew you'd ask them).
>B.S!!!. Sounds like a political spin to me.<
It's a matter of record, the last five years of which I guess I'll have to repeat for you.
If you're the leader of a country that's been attacked, then you look bad that you've not done your job. So, you of course go to work hunting down those responsible and paying extra close attention to all threats, since you look really really bad if it happens twice. You continue hunting the guys responsible, but it'll take a long time since they are literally hinding in caves in the middle of nowhere. In the mean time, you have twenty years of suspicious behavior by Saddam, that indicates that he has WMD's, to mull over. You ask British what they think, and they agree that he probably does. Repeat with the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and a host of littler countries and individual spies. Since everyone agrees that he acts like he has them, you freak out a bit and go to the UN and make a motion that you be allowed to go to war with him, as set out in the treaties that Saddam signed that said the world could invade if he had WMD's. But it turns out the French, Germans, and Russians have economic insentive for Saddam to stay in power, so they vote not for you to go to war. You go to war anyway in order to follow the spirit of the law, despite the corruption that has not allowed you to follow the letter. Then you find out that Saddam was just nuts and never had anything, and the corrupt guys are laughing all the way to the bank. All this while you've still been chasing those guys responisble for the original attacks, and in the process you've liberated Afghanistan and chased those guys into the mountains, where they are periodically apprehended (recent example). Also during all this you are doing diplomacy with dictators in Libya and Saudi Arabia, regarding WMD and oil prices respectively, and it's paid off a little. Also you've put pressure on the Syrians to stop supporting terror and to get out of Lebanon. The dumb Syrians then assassinate a leader in Lebanon, leading to political dominoes, and eventually the complete pull-out of Syrian occupation forces as you'd hoped, though ultimately that really wasn't from anything you did. And through all of these things you're working with the world's most childish peoples along the Israeli-Jordanian border to keep them from breaking out into war for the umpteenth time, and so far that's going so-so.
On the domestic front you've been fighting a recession caused by terrorism and internet bubble bursting, along with continued migration of manufacting jobs to China, and the looming threat of being not only dwarfed but controlled by the booming Indochinese economic power, and having to deal with the rising gas prices caused by their increasing demand for oil.
Obviously, much more happened in the last five years, but this is getting too long.
>I guess it makes sense since Bush has been over heard to talking with voices that weren't there.<
Can you quantify that or are you refering to his belief in God?
>And what about the real mass of information they had prior to the 911 incident and they didn't act? Was Bush condemed and sent to the slaughter because of that?<
The 911 commission said there was a massive systemic failure, so it really wouldn't make sense just to put Bush in jail, and we hardly have room in the already crowded jails to put the whole government in one. And then that leaves one to ponder the Zen-like conundrum of who would run the jail if the government is one of the inmates.
>What was done and is still done is really blameless in your eyes jonathan? It's all the other guys fault? How irresponsible.<
In this case, yes, yes, no.
>Jonathan, America has some of the largest numbers across the board when is comes to murder, plunder and etc.<
Please quantify this too, and keep in mind that it's not really fair to point to stuff that happened 200 years ago, you can say you're sorry to the indians and blacks for only so long before you loose sincerity.
>If an alien race came down and TOOK OVER america without her consent, bombed the fuck out of you, and you lay with your arms and legs torn off would you feel the same way?<
That would depend on whether or not my country was run by a dictator who at least believed he was breaking treaties, even if he was too stupid to know that his scientists were apparently doing nothing. If such were the case, then that scenario would be crappy but I would be happy to be rid of the dictator and I'd be thankful to the aliens for bringing democracy.
>Sad. Why quote the bible if your are for war?<
I quoted the parts of the Bible that are for war because many people think that war is completely counter to the Abrahamic faiths.
>Are you an ancient tribal isrialite?<
Are you using emotion because you have no logical arguements to appeal to?
>Can you quantify this?<
The poem is my quantification, its existence implies that my statements are true, since the poem has only one clear perspective and purpose.
>I don't think he needs to you've said enough by saying you are for war.<
War is a wonderful tool for the destruction of evil. Pro 8:13, Psa 97:10, Exd 15:3, Ecc 3:8
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
coylo
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
I do not see how this could help and the answer to that is obvious.Coylo you should consider weighing what is more distatseful, the poem or what happened to little Ali.
When I said that the poem was done in bad taste, I meant the poem tries to deal with a very sensitive subject matter and handles it badly. I don't like the way it uses Ali as a pawn to try and make some point. It was very degrading on him.
-
Silver Eyes
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:42 pm
Re: re: "To an Iraqi Child"
(And who gave the orders then, robots? no people, it's easy logic to follow.
~ The people who gave the orders were just acting under information ithat indicated threat.<
It is a waste of time and space to post rhetorical questions and then the quotes of my preemptive answers to those questions. (I tried to save time and space by answering preemptively because I knew you'd ask them)
You seem unwilling to focus on what's being said in the obvious way it is meant. It is obvious on what the people who drop bombs really means and you took it and spun it in the worst way, hence the reason I posted my reply, which is also obvious.
>B.S!!!. Sounds like a political spin to me.<
It's a matter of record, the last five years of which I guess I'll have to repeat for you.
If you're the leader of a country that's been attacked,
AHEM!! Not by Saddam!
then you look bad that you've not done your job. So, you of course go to work hunting down those responsible and paying extra close attention to all threats, since you look really really bad if it happens twice. You continue hunting the guys responsible, but it'll take a long time since they are literally hinding in caves in the middle of nowhere. In the mean time, you have twenty years of suspicious behavior by Saddam, that indicates that he has WMD's, to mull over.
And I suppose the history of George Bush and his prior war has nothing to do with anything? Regardless there were other paths.
You ask British what they think, and they agree that he probably does. Repeat with the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and a host of littler countries and individual spies. Since everyone agrees that he acts like he has them, you freak out a bit and go to the UN and make a motion that you be allowed to go to war with him, as set out in the treaties that Saddam signed that said the world could invade if he had WMD's. But it turns out the French, Germans, and Russians have economic insentive for Saddam to stay in power,
I'll give you this last sentence.
so they vote not for you to go to war. You go to war anyway in order to follow the spirit of the law, despite the corruption that has not allowed you to follow the letter. Then you find out that Saddam was just nuts and never had anything, and the corrupt guys are laughing all the way to the bank. All this while you've still been chasing those guys responisble for the original attacks, and in the process you've liberated Afghanistan and chased those guys into the mountains, where they are periodically apprehended (recent example). Also during all this you are doing diplomacy with dictators in Libya and Saudi Arabia, regarding WMD and oil prices respectively, and it's paid off a little. Also you've put pressure on the Syrians to stop supporting terror and to get out of Lebanon. The dumb Syrians then assassinate a leader in Lebanon, leading to political dominoes, and eventually the complete pull-out of Syrian occupation forces as you'd hoped, though ultimately that really wasn't from anything you did. And through all of these things you're working with the world's most childish peoples along the Israeli-Jordanian border to keep them from breaking out into war for the umpteenth time, and so far that's going so-so.
On the domestic front you've been fighting a recession caused by terrorism and internet bubble bursting, along with continued migration of manufacting jobs to China, and the looming threat of being not only dwarfed but controlled by the booming Indochinese economic power, and having to deal with the rising gas prices caused by their increasing demand for oil.
Obviously, much more happened in the last five years, but this is getting too long.
#1 Okay now, can you think of other paths that could have been taken without going to war Jonanthan? If not, if you can't weigh other options you are not worthy to comment and certainly not fit to lead a country. I see a one sided opinion based on some facts, but certainly not the whole scope of possibilities and definately no justification for killing.
>I guess it makes sense since Bush has been over heard to talking with voices that weren't there.<
Can you quantify that or are you refering to his belief in God?
It's been stated several times in the media so yes, look it up.
>And what about the real mass of information they had prior to the 911 incident and they didn't act? Was Bush condemed and sent to the slaughter because of that?<
The 911 commission said there was a massive systemic failure, so it really wouldn't make sense just to put Bush in jail, and we hardly have room in the already crowded jails to put the whole government in one. And then that leaves one to ponder the Zen-like conundrum of who would run the jail if the government is one of the inmates.
Nice excuse. Dante where are you? Besides I am only making a point and am not passing judement on whether bush is evil or not. The acts of killing and war is though.
>What was done and is still done is really blameless in your eyes jonathan? It's all the other guys fault? How irresponsible.<
In this case, yes, yes, no.
See point #1.
>Jonathan, America has some of the largest numbers across the board when is comes to murder, plunder and etc.<
Please quantify this too, and keep in mind that it's not really fair to point to stuff that happened 200 years ago, you can say you're sorry to the indians and blacks for only so long before you loose sincerity.
Where have you been?
>If an alien race came down and TOOK OVER america without her consent, bombed the fuck out of you, and you lay with your arms and legs torn off would you feel the same way?<
That would depend on whether or not my country was run by a dictator who at least believed he was breaking treaties, even if he was too stupid to know that his scientists were apparently doing nothing.
HELLO? Taking by force is a sign of dictatorship.!!
If such were the case, then that scenario would be crappy but I would be happy to be rid of the dictator and I'd be thankful to the aliens for bringing democracy.
And you'd be happy with your arms torn off as well? Seems you've convieniently left that part out. Jonathan you should consider becoming a political spin doctor.
>Sad. Why quote the bible if your are for war?<
I quoted the parts of the Bible that are for war because many people think that war is completely counter to the Abrahamic faiths.
>Are you an ancient tribal isrialite?<
Are you using emotion because you have no logical arguements to appeal to?
Seems your whole argument is based on emotion to me. You like war to do away with evil doers. Emotion. You hate American slammers. Emotion. You quote a religious reference. Emotion. You can't weigh out other paths and only see the one way. Emotion void of logic. You;ll show me logic when you start commenting on other better paths that could/should have been taken. Some real thought here, not the retoric that is here.
>Can you quantify this?<
The poem is my quantification, its existence implies that my statements are true, since the poem has only one clear perspective and purpose.
That's not a quantification. Emotionally based? Probably. Do I really need to say it? Go ask the author what his agenda was, that's the only way you'll really know. Your statement fits your belief, that's all.
>I don't think he needs to you've said enough by saying you are for war.<
War is a wonderful tool for the destruction of evil.
I think maybe a simple outlook like this says it all. I think war no matter what level is the only real evil there is.
~ The people who gave the orders were just acting under information ithat indicated threat.<
It is a waste of time and space to post rhetorical questions and then the quotes of my preemptive answers to those questions. (I tried to save time and space by answering preemptively because I knew you'd ask them)
You seem unwilling to focus on what's being said in the obvious way it is meant. It is obvious on what the people who drop bombs really means and you took it and spun it in the worst way, hence the reason I posted my reply, which is also obvious.
>B.S!!!. Sounds like a political spin to me.<
It's a matter of record, the last five years of which I guess I'll have to repeat for you.
If you're the leader of a country that's been attacked,
AHEM!! Not by Saddam!
then you look bad that you've not done your job. So, you of course go to work hunting down those responsible and paying extra close attention to all threats, since you look really really bad if it happens twice. You continue hunting the guys responsible, but it'll take a long time since they are literally hinding in caves in the middle of nowhere. In the mean time, you have twenty years of suspicious behavior by Saddam, that indicates that he has WMD's, to mull over.
And I suppose the history of George Bush and his prior war has nothing to do with anything? Regardless there were other paths.
You ask British what they think, and they agree that he probably does. Repeat with the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and a host of littler countries and individual spies. Since everyone agrees that he acts like he has them, you freak out a bit and go to the UN and make a motion that you be allowed to go to war with him, as set out in the treaties that Saddam signed that said the world could invade if he had WMD's. But it turns out the French, Germans, and Russians have economic insentive for Saddam to stay in power,
I'll give you this last sentence.
so they vote not for you to go to war. You go to war anyway in order to follow the spirit of the law, despite the corruption that has not allowed you to follow the letter. Then you find out that Saddam was just nuts and never had anything, and the corrupt guys are laughing all the way to the bank. All this while you've still been chasing those guys responisble for the original attacks, and in the process you've liberated Afghanistan and chased those guys into the mountains, where they are periodically apprehended (recent example). Also during all this you are doing diplomacy with dictators in Libya and Saudi Arabia, regarding WMD and oil prices respectively, and it's paid off a little. Also you've put pressure on the Syrians to stop supporting terror and to get out of Lebanon. The dumb Syrians then assassinate a leader in Lebanon, leading to political dominoes, and eventually the complete pull-out of Syrian occupation forces as you'd hoped, though ultimately that really wasn't from anything you did. And through all of these things you're working with the world's most childish peoples along the Israeli-Jordanian border to keep them from breaking out into war for the umpteenth time, and so far that's going so-so.
On the domestic front you've been fighting a recession caused by terrorism and internet bubble bursting, along with continued migration of manufacting jobs to China, and the looming threat of being not only dwarfed but controlled by the booming Indochinese economic power, and having to deal with the rising gas prices caused by their increasing demand for oil.
Obviously, much more happened in the last five years, but this is getting too long.
#1 Okay now, can you think of other paths that could have been taken without going to war Jonanthan? If not, if you can't weigh other options you are not worthy to comment and certainly not fit to lead a country. I see a one sided opinion based on some facts, but certainly not the whole scope of possibilities and definately no justification for killing.
>I guess it makes sense since Bush has been over heard to talking with voices that weren't there.<
Can you quantify that or are you refering to his belief in God?
It's been stated several times in the media so yes, look it up.
>And what about the real mass of information they had prior to the 911 incident and they didn't act? Was Bush condemed and sent to the slaughter because of that?<
The 911 commission said there was a massive systemic failure, so it really wouldn't make sense just to put Bush in jail, and we hardly have room in the already crowded jails to put the whole government in one. And then that leaves one to ponder the Zen-like conundrum of who would run the jail if the government is one of the inmates.
Nice excuse. Dante where are you? Besides I am only making a point and am not passing judement on whether bush is evil or not. The acts of killing and war is though.
>What was done and is still done is really blameless in your eyes jonathan? It's all the other guys fault? How irresponsible.<
In this case, yes, yes, no.
See point #1.
>Jonathan, America has some of the largest numbers across the board when is comes to murder, plunder and etc.<
Please quantify this too, and keep in mind that it's not really fair to point to stuff that happened 200 years ago, you can say you're sorry to the indians and blacks for only so long before you loose sincerity.
Where have you been?
>If an alien race came down and TOOK OVER america without her consent, bombed the fuck out of you, and you lay with your arms and legs torn off would you feel the same way?<
That would depend on whether or not my country was run by a dictator who at least believed he was breaking treaties, even if he was too stupid to know that his scientists were apparently doing nothing.
HELLO? Taking by force is a sign of dictatorship.!!
If such were the case, then that scenario would be crappy but I would be happy to be rid of the dictator and I'd be thankful to the aliens for bringing democracy.
And you'd be happy with your arms torn off as well? Seems you've convieniently left that part out. Jonathan you should consider becoming a political spin doctor.
>Sad. Why quote the bible if your are for war?<
I quoted the parts of the Bible that are for war because many people think that war is completely counter to the Abrahamic faiths.
>Are you an ancient tribal isrialite?<
Are you using emotion because you have no logical arguements to appeal to?
Seems your whole argument is based on emotion to me. You like war to do away with evil doers. Emotion. You hate American slammers. Emotion. You quote a religious reference. Emotion. You can't weigh out other paths and only see the one way. Emotion void of logic. You;ll show me logic when you start commenting on other better paths that could/should have been taken. Some real thought here, not the retoric that is here.
>Can you quantify this?<
The poem is my quantification, its existence implies that my statements are true, since the poem has only one clear perspective and purpose.
That's not a quantification. Emotionally based? Probably. Do I really need to say it? Go ask the author what his agenda was, that's the only way you'll really know. Your statement fits your belief, that's all.
>I don't think he needs to you've said enough by saying you are for war.<
War is a wonderful tool for the destruction of evil.
I think maybe a simple outlook like this says it all. I think war no matter what level is the only real evil there is.
Last edited by Silver Eyes on Sat May 07, 2005 1:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
Silver Eyes
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:42 pm
Re: re: "To an Iraqi Child"
Okay Coylo I bow to your last point, but lets just hope the best comes from it, and maybe the best of it should be promoted and not have it demolished for it's negavite possiblilities. Not throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the idea here.coylo wrote:I do not see how this could help and the answer to that is obvious.Coylo you should consider weighing what is more distatseful, the poem or what happened to little Ali.
When I said that the poem was done in bad taste, I meant the poem tries to deal with a very sensitive subject matter and handles it badly. I don't like the way it uses Ali as a pawn to try and make some point. It was very degrading on him.
This is all I am going to say, I've said my piece.
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
Wow! I never expected the thread to get twenty replies...
Seems the peom shocked you too...
The point of posting, was as "Scott" (And others) understood it...
It's a attempt to show how detached the "Plan" can be from the "Goal"...
Means and Ends...
How easy it is for US to push a button from a distant remote location and kill thousands of people without ever seeing the whites of their eyes...
Not that that stops US, the more stories I hear leaked out about the devastation and real life stories of human actions/evils...
Makes me sick...
It should make you sick too...
that's the point...
If you don't face your evils they'll never go away...
Seems the peom shocked you too...
The point of posting, was as "Scott" (And others) understood it...
It's a attempt to show how detached the "Plan" can be from the "Goal"...
Means and Ends...
How easy it is for US to push a button from a distant remote location and kill thousands of people without ever seeing the whites of their eyes...
Not that that stops US, the more stories I hear leaked out about the devastation and real life stories of human actions/evils...
Makes me sick...
It should make you sick too...
that's the point...
If you don't face your evils they'll never go away...
"A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds."~ M. Twain.
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
For Silver Eyes:
I'm going to assume the enboldened writing was for clarity, as we have quotes within quotes.
>You seem unwilling to focus on what's being said in the obvious way it is meant. It is obvious on what the people who drop bombs really means and you took it and spun it in the worst way, hence the reason I posted my reply, which is also obvious.<
I didn't quite follow this, what was the way I was supposed to take it, and how was the way I took it the worst? I thought I was clarifing that the droppers of bombs were not to be demonized, it was Saddam not they that started the war.
>AHEM!! Not by Saddam!<
Yes, now read the next two sentences after the point where you inserted that...
>And I suppose the history of George Bush and his prior war has nothing to do with anything? Regardless there were other paths.<
You confused me a bit, here, I assume you mean Bush Sr. I don't see how it is relevant at all because he's not president.
>I'll give you this last sentence.<
I'm glad you do, because that last sentence is the point where some corrupt people undermined the 'other paths' you refer to next.
>Okay now, can you think of other paths that could have been taken without going to war Jonanthan?<
When there is a despute amoung nations, there are only two paths: diplomacy and war. Diplomacy was a path that had been followed for a while, but broke down into war when Saddam invaded Kuwait. When that was over, diplomacy was tried again, which was obviously doomed to fail eventually. After 911, the gov't was eager to cover all the bases, and one of them was doing something about the fact that Saddam had been behaving, and apparently believed, he was breaking treaties (and therefore inviting war). So rather than risking nuclear war in the Middle East, we invaded Iraq. The first path had failed, we had no choice.
>It's been stated several times in the media so yes, look it up.<
I'll try that and get back to you, but since you've heard it I was hoping you could give me a little more help than that.
>The acts of killing and war is [evil] though.<
Oo, I've talked about this before. Some wars are bad, some are good. Killing is good (because the word by definition assumes justification), murder is bad.
>Where have you been?<
LOL, for the Cash fans: Reno, Chicago, Fargo, Minnesota, Buffalo, Toronto, Winslow, Sarasota, Whichta, Tulsa, Ottowa, Oklahoma, Tampa, Panama, Mattua, LaPaloma, Bangor, Baltimore, Salvador, Amarillo, Tocapillo, Pocotello, Amperdllo;
Boston, Charleston, Dayton, Lousiana, Washington, Houston, Kingston, Texas (County), Monterey, Fairaday, Santa Fe, Tollaperson, Glen Rock, Black Rock, Little Rock, Oskaloussa, Tennessee, Tinnesay, Chickapee, Spirit Lake, Grand Lake, Devil's Lake, Crater Lake;
Pittsburgh, Parkersburg, Gravelburg, Colorado, Ellisburg, Rexburg, Vicksburg, Eldorado, Larimore, Adimore, Habastock, Chadanocka, Shasta, Nebraska, Alaska, Opalacka, Baraboo, Waterloo, Kalamazoo, Kansas City, Souix City, Cedar City, Dodge City;
But most of the time I was unborn.
>HELLO? Taking by force is a sign of dictatorship.!!<
Unless of course you have a treaty that says you can invade if the other party breaks the treaty. Now we've got an odd murky ground here in that Saddam technically didn't break the treaty, but he thought he did and that's reason enough for me.
>And you'd be happy with your arms torn off as well? Seems you've convieniently left that part out. Jonathan you should consider becoming a political spin doctor.<
I didn't leave that out, I said it'd be crappy. I won't be a spin doctor, they're unethical.
>You like war to do away with evil doers. Emotion.<
No, you should read Plato's dialogs if you haven't yet. There are very good and logical reason to want to do away with evil doers. War is the only known effective way to do that.
>You hate American slammers. Emotion.<
No, I hate the unjustified slamming of Americans, but not usually the slammers themselves. I don't hate you, I gave you a + rep.
>You quote a religious reference. Emotion.<
I quote the Bible becaues there are good logical reasons to believe what it says is true. Of course if anyone doesn't then they can just ignore those parts.
>Go ask the author what his agenda was, that's the only way you'll really know.<
That's not really practical at the moment, but I did find this:
http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resourc ... ticles.htm
Just skimming the titles I think I get a pretty good feel for his opinions. This one popped out at me. He writes as if these victims were hurt on purpose, he includes quotes that erroneously and purposefully refer to Saddam as a president, and ends with a quote of Cheney that makes it seem as if he were lying. On the contrary Cheney is right, in terms of collateral damage, achievement of objectives, and time taken to do so, this literally has been one of the most successful wars of all human history. It's too bad that it's not been perfect, but there have been fewer casualities as a result of the war than there would have been had Saddam been left in power long enough to invade a neighbor again.
>I think maybe a simple outlook like this says it all. I think war no matter what level is the only real evil there is.<
Now I don't believe you really mean that. Certaintly you'd agree that WWII was worth fighting? And the Civil War? And the Revolutionary War?
For Oxygon:
>How easy it is for US to push a button from a distant remote location and kill thousands of people without ever seeing the whites of their eyes...<
Oh don't make it sound like we dropped an atomic bomb. All strikes have been tactical to the best of our technological ability.
>If you don't face your evils they'll never go away...<
That's the whole point of the war!
I'm going to assume the enboldened writing was for clarity, as we have quotes within quotes.
>You seem unwilling to focus on what's being said in the obvious way it is meant. It is obvious on what the people who drop bombs really means and you took it and spun it in the worst way, hence the reason I posted my reply, which is also obvious.<
I didn't quite follow this, what was the way I was supposed to take it, and how was the way I took it the worst? I thought I was clarifing that the droppers of bombs were not to be demonized, it was Saddam not they that started the war.
>AHEM!! Not by Saddam!<
Yes, now read the next two sentences after the point where you inserted that...
>And I suppose the history of George Bush and his prior war has nothing to do with anything? Regardless there were other paths.<
You confused me a bit, here, I assume you mean Bush Sr. I don't see how it is relevant at all because he's not president.
>I'll give you this last sentence.<
I'm glad you do, because that last sentence is the point where some corrupt people undermined the 'other paths' you refer to next.
>Okay now, can you think of other paths that could have been taken without going to war Jonanthan?<
When there is a despute amoung nations, there are only two paths: diplomacy and war. Diplomacy was a path that had been followed for a while, but broke down into war when Saddam invaded Kuwait. When that was over, diplomacy was tried again, which was obviously doomed to fail eventually. After 911, the gov't was eager to cover all the bases, and one of them was doing something about the fact that Saddam had been behaving, and apparently believed, he was breaking treaties (and therefore inviting war). So rather than risking nuclear war in the Middle East, we invaded Iraq. The first path had failed, we had no choice.
>It's been stated several times in the media so yes, look it up.<
I'll try that and get back to you, but since you've heard it I was hoping you could give me a little more help than that.
>The acts of killing and war is [evil] though.<
Oo, I've talked about this before. Some wars are bad, some are good. Killing is good (because the word by definition assumes justification), murder is bad.
>Where have you been?<
LOL, for the Cash fans: Reno, Chicago, Fargo, Minnesota, Buffalo, Toronto, Winslow, Sarasota, Whichta, Tulsa, Ottowa, Oklahoma, Tampa, Panama, Mattua, LaPaloma, Bangor, Baltimore, Salvador, Amarillo, Tocapillo, Pocotello, Amperdllo;
Boston, Charleston, Dayton, Lousiana, Washington, Houston, Kingston, Texas (County), Monterey, Fairaday, Santa Fe, Tollaperson, Glen Rock, Black Rock, Little Rock, Oskaloussa, Tennessee, Tinnesay, Chickapee, Spirit Lake, Grand Lake, Devil's Lake, Crater Lake;
Pittsburgh, Parkersburg, Gravelburg, Colorado, Ellisburg, Rexburg, Vicksburg, Eldorado, Larimore, Adimore, Habastock, Chadanocka, Shasta, Nebraska, Alaska, Opalacka, Baraboo, Waterloo, Kalamazoo, Kansas City, Souix City, Cedar City, Dodge City;
But most of the time I was unborn.
>HELLO? Taking by force is a sign of dictatorship.!!<
Unless of course you have a treaty that says you can invade if the other party breaks the treaty. Now we've got an odd murky ground here in that Saddam technically didn't break the treaty, but he thought he did and that's reason enough for me.
>And you'd be happy with your arms torn off as well? Seems you've convieniently left that part out. Jonathan you should consider becoming a political spin doctor.<
I didn't leave that out, I said it'd be crappy. I won't be a spin doctor, they're unethical.
>You like war to do away with evil doers. Emotion.<
No, you should read Plato's dialogs if you haven't yet. There are very good and logical reason to want to do away with evil doers. War is the only known effective way to do that.
>You hate American slammers. Emotion.<
No, I hate the unjustified slamming of Americans, but not usually the slammers themselves. I don't hate you, I gave you a + rep.
>You quote a religious reference. Emotion.<
I quote the Bible becaues there are good logical reasons to believe what it says is true. Of course if anyone doesn't then they can just ignore those parts.
>Go ask the author what his agenda was, that's the only way you'll really know.<
That's not really practical at the moment, but I did find this:
http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resourc ... ticles.htm
Just skimming the titles I think I get a pretty good feel for his opinions. This one popped out at me. He writes as if these victims were hurt on purpose, he includes quotes that erroneously and purposefully refer to Saddam as a president, and ends with a quote of Cheney that makes it seem as if he were lying. On the contrary Cheney is right, in terms of collateral damage, achievement of objectives, and time taken to do so, this literally has been one of the most successful wars of all human history. It's too bad that it's not been perfect, but there have been fewer casualities as a result of the war than there would have been had Saddam been left in power long enough to invade a neighbor again.
>I think maybe a simple outlook like this says it all. I think war no matter what level is the only real evil there is.<
Now I don't believe you really mean that. Certaintly you'd agree that WWII was worth fighting? And the Civil War? And the Revolutionary War?
For Oxygon:
>How easy it is for US to push a button from a distant remote location and kill thousands of people without ever seeing the whites of their eyes...<
Oh don't make it sound like we dropped an atomic bomb. All strikes have been tactical to the best of our technological ability.
>If you don't face your evils they'll never go away...<
That's the whole point of the war!
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
No good people have been targeted by US forces in this conflict.
On the other hand ONLY good people are targeted by the terrorists(news sanitized -insurgents).
Accidents happen.
Get over it.
On the other hand ONLY good people are targeted by the terrorists(news sanitized -insurgents).
Accidents happen.
Get over it.
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
I looked for references to voices by googling "president Bush speaking voices", and found nothing for a few pages, so then I googled "president Bush speaking voices crazy" and a few pages in found this:
http://www.bushisantichrist.com/
This is the only reference so far, and even then it claims he is hearing only one voice, god, just like I thought you might be refering to.
http://www.bushisantichrist.com/
This is the only reference so far, and even then it claims he is hearing only one voice, god, just like I thought you might be refering to.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
schizophrenia is treatable...he is hearing only one voice, god...
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
In the off chance you're serious, I have followed the links there, and have found these articles:
http://www.mennoweekly.org/AUGUST/08-02 ... 08-02.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShAr ... &listSrc=Y
It seems to me that both are examples pandering.
http://www.mennoweekly.org/AUGUST/08-02 ... 08-02.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShAr ... &listSrc=Y
It seems to me that both are examples pandering.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
I've seen heated discussions like this during the Vietnam Conflict. It's a very unfortunate part of war that a LOT of innocent noncombatants get killed in the process. This is one of the reasons that I've been a "dove" since Vietnam.
I've seen some estimates that, so far, about 100,000 Iraqi's have died in the aftermath of our invasion in search of Saddam's hidden nukes. I think one commentator said most of those killed were, in fact, women and children. Whether or not it was "worth it" for us to enter Iraq is a question that will, most likely, be debated for decades to come.
Personally, I think that Saddam could have been controlled by other means than a direct military intervention...like continuing to let the IAEA inspectors continue their work there and having the United Nations keep pressure on Saddam. Now we have a very unstable situation over there that will probably require our presence for years to come...not to mention further cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. So far, I think our side's body count is around 1600 young Americans with another 10,000 or so that will be disabled for the rest of their lives.
We made a LOT of mistakes to get where we are now. There were no nukes, Saddam's nuclear weapons "program" existed solely on paper, and the existence and strength of the "insurgency" was grossy underestimated. With most of our military forces occupied over there, I wonder what we will do as other "hot spots" flare up around the globe in the years to come?
ken
P.S. Yes, terrorists are evil when they kill innocent people...we've got try to make sure we don't sink to their level even in the name of self-defense.
I've seen some estimates that, so far, about 100,000 Iraqi's have died in the aftermath of our invasion in search of Saddam's hidden nukes. I think one commentator said most of those killed were, in fact, women and children. Whether or not it was "worth it" for us to enter Iraq is a question that will, most likely, be debated for decades to come.
Personally, I think that Saddam could have been controlled by other means than a direct military intervention...like continuing to let the IAEA inspectors continue their work there and having the United Nations keep pressure on Saddam. Now we have a very unstable situation over there that will probably require our presence for years to come...not to mention further cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. So far, I think our side's body count is around 1600 young Americans with another 10,000 or so that will be disabled for the rest of their lives.
We made a LOT of mistakes to get where we are now. There were no nukes, Saddam's nuclear weapons "program" existed solely on paper, and the existence and strength of the "insurgency" was grossy underestimated. With most of our military forces occupied over there, I wonder what we will do as other "hot spots" flare up around the globe in the years to come?
ken
P.S. Yes, terrorists are evil when they kill innocent people...we've got try to make sure we don't sink to their level even in the name of self-defense.
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
>like continuing to let the IAEA inspectors continue their work there and having the United Nations keep pressure on Saddam.<
IINM, we went to war specifically because that option failed, Saddam was suspiciously not letting the IAEA in and he was in bed with the UN.
IINM, we went to war specifically because that option failed, Saddam was suspiciously not letting the IAEA in and he was in bed with the UN.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
It amazes me to hear that people still think that Iraq was invaded for anything other than energy resources. Bush was/is doing exactly what he's paid and elected to do. In that respect he is a good and responsible president - one who reflects and enacts the will of the American people.
Consumption is addictive and amoral.
Consumption is addictive and amoral.