War on ____

[razoredge]

Qasim overthrew his proceeding government as well... but then he made friends with Russia... not a popular idea in 63... of course we'll just ignore the locating of missles in Cuba, cause its seperate... maybe... then Sadam was alledged to be supported by CIA Kennedy... but then CIA was alledged to be behind the killing of Kennedy as well... sounds like alot of cold war bullshit to me... of course the US was the ONLY player.......

 

[razoredge]

I like the way we get along here better, though I believe it is over due for an "uprising" but we all know how that would go, they'd be happy to kill all us malcontents. The Bible is the worst of our fears in this country, its the eat em and smile corporate types, this is what I think so many dont realize, the bible didnt back us into this corner, quite the opposite.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

I would have put missiles in Cuba as well if I was out-nuked 8 to 1. As for Qasim, he overthrew Fasil II who was a lapdog of the British, naturally he would turn to the Soviets.

Malcontents...every time there is a reigme change, they have always gotten the shaft. Thus it is important to wind up on the side of the new reigme. Jefferson favoured a revolt every at least every 20 years, as do I as politicians are like shit: they always rise to the top and need a good flushing lest they stink up the place.

 

[razoredge]

I would have put missiles in Cuba as well if I was out-nuked 8 to 1. As for Qasim, he overthrew Fasil II who was a lapdog of the British, naturally he would turn to the Soviets.

I dont care the excuses, they are irrelevant, the point is that this was going on at that time. You had two players and the little countries bidding for military favors. Outnuked ... like it made a difference or that either side had any idea what each other had at that time.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

personally, i support the iraq war. i supported it from the start and i plan on supporting it til the end. people are sheep. a good example, over 90% of americans supported the iraq war from the start and most of them werent even sure why we were going there. Bush clearly stated why we were going there and the americans along with the sheep followed. then we get there, the sheep saw that people died in war and heard the liberals crying their bleeding hearts out and soon followed them. people say "there were no WMDs" of course there weren't, we announced we were going to iraq to look for them and didn't go til 3 weeks later. saddam would've been a fool to not get rid of anything he had. and gettin rid of saddam and giving the iraqies democracy was kinda implied. anyone who wasn't stupid knew that. and as for the surge not working, thats defanetly not true. ask the soldiers who are there. instead of having daily suicide bombings, its become weekly, hopefully less soon. when you enter war, theres always a risk that it wont go as planned and people don't always realize that. and if we pull out of iraq now, theres no question about what will happen. there are people waiting in line to take over and some people just dont get this

 

[derek]

Just as you don't get paragraphing.

Ad Homs aside, you've made some ridiculous statements. It's well documented that the case for going to War with Iraq based on it having a WMD arsenal was, to use a British press term, "sexed up", you only need to look up the David Kelly suicide scandal to realise that the entire thing was concocted in such a way as to justify waging a war. Furthermore on the point you make regarding him "gettin rid" of the WMD's he did have before the invasion began - have you thought this through? Weapons inspectors were in the countries weeks before the invasion and found nothing near what the U.S and U.K governments jointly claimed.

You also oversimplify the current processes that Iraq is experiencing. It's not a simple road to peace, as bombing and civil unrest gradually subside. The country is in huge social, political and religious upheaval. Coalition troop presence and whether it is effective, never mind morally righteous, is questionable at this stage.

As for Bush stating the reasons for invading Iraq, I suppose you're right. He flouted this, that and the next reason as to why invading Iraq was the right thing to do, yet the past 5 years have brought up some interesting, much more tangible, scenarios for the invasion.

As for your statements regarding "bleeding heart liberals" - read conservative press much? Who is the sheep now? Why churn out empty phrases like that?

Also, it's ironic that you plan on supporting the War until the end, for such a time may never come. It's not that sort of War.

Now, I'm not anti-war, and I'm certainly not of the "TROOPS OUT NO MATTER WHAT" persuasion, but surely you realise how complicated the situation in Iraq is? The reasons for going there, the reasons for staying, what exactly they are or are not doing and when (or if?) and under what circumstances will coalition troops ever leave are all wide open to debate.

 

[razoredge]

Screw those people, it was time to pull out years ago if there even was a reason in the first place to be there. Thats not only our money they are spending over there its getting to the point where its the tax money of our childrens lifetime. The people of Iraq are no doubt laughing behind closed doors as our country goes further and further in debt. Its like no one knows how wars are won today. We were defeated on Sept 11 by our economic reaction alone, its been all downhill since.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Just as you don't get paragraphing.

Ad Homs aside, you've made some ridiculous statements. It's well documented that the case for going to War with Iraq based on it having a WMD arsenal was, to use a British press term, "sexed up", you only need to look up the David Kelly suicide scandal to realise that the entire thing was concocted in such a way as to justify waging a war. Furthermore on the point you make regarding him "gettin rid" of the WMD's he did have before the invasion began - have you thought this through? Weapons inspectors were in the countries weeks before the invasion and found nothing near what the U.S and U.K governments jointly claimed.

You also oversimplify the current processes that Iraq is experiencing. It's not a simple road to peace, as bombing and civil unrest gradually subside. The country is in huge social, political and religious upheaval. Coalition troop presence and whether it is effective, never mind morally righteous, is questionable at this stage.

As for Bush stating the reasons for invading Iraq, I suppose you're right. He flouted this, that and the next reason as to why invading Iraq was the right thing to do, yet the past 5 years have brought up some interesting, much more tangible, scenarios for the invasion.

As for your statements regarding "bleeding heart liberals" - read conservative press much? Who is the sheep now? Why churn out empty phrases like that?

Also, it's ironic that you plan on supporting the War until the end, for such a time may never come. It's not that sort of War.

Now, I'm not anti-war, and I'm certainly not of the "TROOPS OUT NO MATTER WHAT" persuasion, but surely you realise how complicated the situation in Iraq is? The reasons for going there, the reasons for staying, what exactly they are or are not doing and when (or if?) and under what circumstances will coalition troops ever leave are all wide open to debate.

yes i am conservative in most beliefs other than abortion. and the sheep are the followers of anything that seems appealing to them given the time period and the people who support a popular belief. and you obviously understand your argument as well as you understand paragraphing which does set you apart from the "sheep" as i call them.

(a separate paragraph just for you haha)

also i will admit i do wish that we could leave iraq as soon as possible but i do not believe that now is the time to do so.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

I dont care the excuses, they are irrelevant, the point is that this was going on at that time. You had two players and the little countries bidding for military favors. Outnuked ... like it made a difference or that either side had any idea what each other had at that time.

Perhaps we have both missed the forest for the trees. The cold war illustrates that the state, if unchecked by its people, is insidious by nature, as shown by the actions of both the US and USSR. It is doubtful that the people of either country consented to have dim-wits in fancy uniforms confiscate such a large part of their earnings through taxation for such frivolous build-up, and it was only through scaremongering and oppression that it was tolerated.

The US taxpayer would not have been liable for a dime in WW1 and WW2 had the same foreign policy as advocated by our Founding Fathers been implemented.

The answer is simple: if the US was not in the business of 'playing the game' and did not enter into costly and entangling alliances, the USSR would not have seen any benefit in positioning missiles in Cuba for purposes of provocation. If the US were attacked on its own soil, it would be one thing, but it has not since 1812! Furthermore, the fact that an opposition would seek assistance from another 'client state' does not legitimize meddling in their affairs, be it Iran, Iraq, or even Europe. A defensive war is one thing, one driven by alliance or alleged weapons of mass destruction is another and financed by the people's stolen money is another.

As a side note, perhaps with the advent of tax havens, cooler heads may prevail by default

 

[razoredge]

So your saying it was the US that did the whole thing... on their own ?

1812 ? Ey ? Ok

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

I am saying that the tendency of the state to supersede or otherwise suppress their governed drove this process to where it is today.


"Can I have half your pay-check to pay for the ammo for my AK47 so that I can protect this house I took over? There's this guy on the other side of our block with an AR15, even though he wants nothing to do with us, and I need to keep you safe. If you do not pay, I will lock you in my basement."

And sure enough, that other guy is saying:

"Can I have half your pay-check to pay for the ammo for my AR15 so that I can take over this house that was taken over from me? There's this guy on the other side of our block with an AK47, even though he wants nothing to do with us, and I need to keep you safe. If you do not pay, I will lock you in my basement."

This is analogous of what was happening; if they had no ammo, there would be no trouble and the 'rent collecting' would cease.

 

[razoredge]

So your saying it wasnt the US that did this then ?

So is it still 1812 ?

I'm wondering if the communist push into S Korea was the beginning...? "great nukers" that we were I also wonder why we didnt fix it them ? Must have been that fucking Christian moral thing..... lol

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Yes, though I also said the USSR did it as well. I do not hold the people of the USSR to account as they had their guns snatched in 1929.

As for 1812, we have not been attacked on our own soil since then, save for an uninhabited Aleutian island by the Japanese (mea culpa). Granted the nation may have become more powerful since then, the definition of 'meddling' has not, nor have its perilous consequences.

As for Korea, what business is it of ours? If so, what else is our business, and shall we bankrupt the citizenry to finance these expeditions in the course of seeing to such business?

Oh wait, we already have. That $53 trillion is going to be a bitch:

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/hancock/blog/2007/10/a_washington_official_dares_to.html

The present value of future unfunded liabilities for Medicare, Social Security and other plans is $53 trillion.

So yeah...do the moral thing, just don't expect me to start paying for it; tax shelter ftw.

 

[razoredge]

you have much to learn or less to ignore

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

You have much to learn about capitalization and punctuation...

...among other things. Are you in the States, and if so how much tax did you have to shell out last year?

 

[derek]

The tax really bothers you doesn't it?

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

It is one of my primary quarrels with the state, as it is one thing to charge a uniform tariff on imports not to exceed a certain percent as provided in the Constitution, but it is quite another to say 'we can take all the fruit of your labour, be grateful we let you keep a cent!' even if they in practice take half (after state, local, sales taxes &c)...and don't get me started on the draft.

 

[Einherjar86]

And taxes are only going to go up if we elect Hillary or Obama.

The US taxpayer would not have been liable for a dime in WW1 and WW2 had the same foreign policy as advocated by our Founding Fathers been implemented.

How would the original foreign policy have saved Americans from having to pay taxes to support a war?

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

On account that the original foreign policy would not have gotten the country into the war to begin with.

 

[derek]

Cipher, what do you think about the idea taxes going up under Obama/Clinton that EinHerJar just claimed?

Given what you've said so far, do you reckon McCain will cause more taxes thanks to his ridiculous stance on the Iraq war?