| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
Im so very confused. |
I agree with you on this one. |
|
they could be doctored but considering the article cites several sources, including an Amnesty International press release the story probably has merit. |
|
That being said, I'm sure that walking naked through a playground is small potatoes compared to what would have happened to these guys if they had been in Saudi Arabia. |
of course this kind of shit will happen. Its irrelavent what would have happened they been in Saudi Arabia. if thay had been on the moon they would have gotten moon dust up their ass. So what. just like we tortured, scorched, maimed, raped and pilaged the Vietnamese civilian populus, we're sure to give it to the Iraqi's as well. Each protestor shot or a family member of each protestor shot is a budding terrorist willing to strap on some TNT and take on an American target. Quoting a wounded Iraqi teen who was shot by US troops in a protest the other day vowed revenge "this blood spilled will not be in vain." This is fun stuff people. Liberation. Where are the imbeds now? Where are the cameras now? Angry. Angry. Angry. Angry. |
why are you suggesting that the iraqi people are some sort of brown animals who will respond with terrorism against civilians at the drop of a hat? just like we turned japan and germany in to prosperous free democracies. see? i can give you bullshit hyperbole too. |
the situations are apples and oranges and you know that. for one, japans leaders actually signed a surrender. we didnt invade japan. they attacked. there's a different civilian frame of mind at play. the iraqi civilian does not feel like the japanese civilian...or german. being mowed down by american soldiers at a protest is "drop of a hat?" |
that the iraqi leadership failed to sign a surrender (they were given plenty of opportunity) means nothing. we did invade japan. iraqi arguably attacked us. different civilian frame of mind, sure. we killed about 300,000 more nipponese civilians. you betcha a different frame of mind. |
Try arguing that one, Nate. Give it your best shot. |
There's no way in hell i would ever agree that Iraq "arguably attacked us". Thats just hogwash. Though neither of us have experienced WW2 Japan, Germany or contemporary Iraq...Id have to give great consideration that the Iraqi civilian bears more resentment towards the US for an unprovoked war that didnt have to happen, for the chaos and greater instability we've have since brought to their country. I would have to give strong consideration that the mentality of the Japanese citizen at the time of surrender was not just anger, but weariness and resentment that their dictator brought them into a war they didnt and arguably couldnt win. The sense of defeat was much more pronounced in Germans and the Japanese than the Iraqis...or so Id have to speculate. I don't think the Iraqis feel defeat as much as they do resentment and maybe thats the crux of my position. |
you can't discount the possibility. |
|
those are your examples? south korea is poised to be the financial capital of asia. we never made it into north korea, and look at their economy. we lost viet nam. talk about apples and oranges, man. try again! the state of the iraqi people today is meaningless. their government isn't even in place yet. see where they are in five years. besides, where are you getting this idea that the iraqi people aren't happy that saddam is gone? because they are protesting us now, but they never protested saddam? you really think iraqi's resent us taking saddam away from them? |
n.korea's existance nullifies any limited success in S.Korea. the problem is still there and more of a menace than ever. im fairly confident that Iraqi's don't want a christian occupying force in their country, no. As the protests grow each week, as we continue to kill civilians...yes...im grow more and more confident that Iraqi resentment also grows. Removing Saddam? Sure. We could have done that without actually occupying the land...but ah no.....the oil MAN, the OIL! Your right though. it is early. Lets see where we are at in 6 months. One or both of us could be quite surprised. |
You can if it's used as a reason to go to war. |
the media will report heavily on the downside of our occupation as we run towards the presidential election. |
|
|
Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden or some shit like that. |
If someone said you were a possible terrorist and used that as a reason to put a gun to your head, would you agree with them? I can't believe that you don't get this point, Nate. Stop playing dumb. |
that's all i'm saying. |
|
|
Has anyone seen how some of the dems are trying to jump on Howard Dean for saying we should be prepared for the time when the US does not have the dominant military force on the planet? Actually, i think it's some of the dems' media flacks, like Kerry's guy. pfeh. |
No, and I didn't say that. Do you want to discuss issues or use bullshit rhetorical tactics? |
When you have people as polarized as they are (as the people on these boards are) you'll never have sufficient evidence to sway the other side. The other side will always disbelieve the damning evidence so as to make their own stance credible. so where are we? we have a government of elected representatives who need to take all the evidence they have and make the best judgements they can for the safety of the american people. these elected representatives realize that the american people don't have the whole story, and even if they did have the whole story do not have the educational or intellectual background to make informed descisions. do i sound ignorant when i say i feel that bush has the country's best interest at heart? when you realize that his paradigm is the conservative agenda, has he given any evidence of not persuing what he feels is in the country's best interest? |
no, tiggles, you asked me to provide examples of why the government should keep proof from us. i asked you if you honestly couldn't think of a reason why they should. do you want to discuss issues or use bullshit rhetorical tactics? |
Asking me if I "honestly believe" some obtuse viewpoint is a rhetorical tactic. "The other side will always disbelieve the damning evidence so as to make their own stance credible." All the more reason why the evidence should not be open to interpretation or susceptible to belief. That's why we have international agreements and verification regimes. That's why we shouldn't act unilaterally. Acting in the way the US has only makes that situation WORSE, not BETTER. Acting unilaterally and not being open is polarizing the world and creating/exascerbating the very situation you described. Do you agree with that? "do i sound ignorant when i say i feel that bush has the country's best interest at heart?" No. Naive, maybe. But I've never known you to be naive. It's moot, though. Bush's intensions have no impact on the debate. His actions do. |
To me, it was clearly proven fake. If he had real evidence, he wouldnt have used a 28 year old grad's thesis... to quote the UN inspectors who went to the alleged sites, the information was "Garbage garbage and more garbage" |
|
|
i never could get into the damned. i went in the direction of the fall instead. |
|
|