OT: Funny Thing About the People Who Support War

[Nawledge]

This Is An Excercise In Logical Thinking after reading through a zillion post just like you on this board about our impending war. I noticed somthing, and if you go back through the miriad post you'll be able to discern the pattern yourself. all of the people supporting this premptive distruction always do one of 3 things. 1. tell you to leave america for disagreeing with them which is an un-american ideal as any. 2. make fun of the situation, trying to distract and detract from what is happening. 3. or when some one makes a comment about not supporting Bushes war, they always and I mean always retort with a comment that suggest directly that those who don't support WAR support Saddam Hussein. heres and example. I'll say something like " I don't like Bush, I don't think he is right about his reasons behind this war." then people will say something like " so you support saddam, so you think saddam is a great guy and doesn't deserve to be stopped, so you think bush is the bad guy but you're saying saddam is the good guy" these responses amaze me, not one person against the war on this forum has ever said saddam was a good person, or the greatest thing since sliced bread. I havn't read one post by supporters of peace that said that they support saddam husseins way of thinking, way of ruling or his aspirations. I don't think you are acting like americans at all if you think that I or people like me should not ask for peace instead of war, should not say that we believe that George Bush is not the Right man to guide our actions, and you think we should actualy leave america because of our views, then why do you want to go to war?, "what american ways and freedoms" are you protecting? not the so-called american standards of freedom that you brag about so much, because we the people who you don't want to even be able to talk are excercising those rights, and obviously you dont agree with us being able to have a voice and use it. go through the post you'll see. this is true. let me make this clear. I like most of you and love all of you, but there are alot of contradictions going on regarding this issue. When I say Bush Is Wrong, that doesn't mean that I think Saddam is Right, and when you insinuate things like that about people who don't support war you are showing your ass because you are responding with lies, and when you respond with lies you show that you know what you are doing is wrong. For the Record I think Saddam and Bush should both shoot each other in the head as penalty for both their aspirations of world dominance, but what about the innocent people? Just because I think George Bush is an Asshole doesn't mean that I think we should bomb all the american people, so why would I think that Bombing the Iraquis is the Right thing to do...

[patrick_dont_fret]

Hmmm, good point Nawledge. I agree with you. We neither support Saddam, nor condone his supposed "evil ways". I don't like Bush, either. But I'm not anti-American, really...as much as I dislike our goverment. I'm not anarchist either. Kind of like Rage Against the Machine...they are neither anti-American nor anarchist...they just don't like our government.

[Philip OKeefe]

[quote]Originally posted by Nawledge: [b] all of the people supporting this premptive distruction always do one of 3 things. 1. tell you to leave america for disagreeing with them which is an un-american ideal as any.[/b] I support the war on terror as well as regieme change in Iraq, and yet I am adament regarding the rights of others to express opposing views. [b]2. make fun of the situation, trying to distract and detract from what is happening.[/b] War is never a laughing matter. [b]3. or when some one makes a comment about not supporting Bushes war, they always and I mean always retort with a comment that suggest directly that those who don't support WAR support Saddam Hussein. heres and example. I'll say something like " I don't like Bush, I don't think he is right about his reasons behind this war." then people will say something like " so you support saddam, so you think saddam is a great guy and doesn't deserve to be stopped, so you think bush is the bad guy but you're saying saddam is the good guy" [/b] You can disagree with both. I see no contradiction there - it's possible to disagree with President Bush while not being a supporter of Saddam. I think making that comment is a weak argument. It's not logical, although I suppose there are SOME people to whom that comment applies, although I have never read anything from anyone here that would suggest any support for the current Iraqi government. I usually try to stay out of these threads because they all too often degrade into name calling, misunderstandings and so forth. I'd probably participate in a few more if things could remain more thoughtful and civil, but far too often, they do not. So please forgive me if I now excuse myself from this "room". :wave: [/quote]

[Raymar]

Alot of people are lazy thinkers and go along with what their party dictates to them.

[michael saulnier]

I for one, have tried hard to keep my part of the discussions seperate from personal attacks... And I've COMPLEMENTED the anti-war protesters as being 100% all American... even if I don't agree with their views... I believe in their right to have and express them. "America, love it or leave" it is stupid and offensive. I think most Americans on both sides of this issue believe firmly in their position, and should be considering this all very carefully. I HAVE wondered why more protesters aren't demanding that Saddam give up his WMD and fully comply with UN 1441... Shouldn't EVERYONE want that? Maybe I'm just missing the coverage of this in the media. For example, CNN just did a "blurb" on the protesters... they only had "one voice in the crowd" talking. A woman was drinking some sort of liquid from a gas can. She said: "This isn't about weapons of mass destruction, liberating Iraq or anything like that... it's about oil." I've heard that message elsewhere. I'm sure she believes that firmly. I support her right to believe it and to say it and to go protest about it... But I resectfully disagree. She said NOTHING about Saddam. Oh, well. guitplayer

[Steve LeBlanc]

[quote]I HAVE wondered why more protesters aren't demanding that Saddam give up his WMD and fully comply with UN 1441...[/quote]Well I've supported that notion all along. I don't believe carpet bombing Iraqi people and soldiers is going to bring it about. I sincerely hope our leaders and military do the right thing but the past has taught me not to trust them without question.

[joegerardi]

Wrong, Nawledge. Dead wrong. I have never told anyone to leave the country; I don't make fun of an imminent deadly situation; and I never said anyone supports Saddam Hussein You wrote: [quote][b][i]all[/i] of the people supporting this premptive distruction always do one of 3 things.[/b] (italics mine)[/quote]I am part of that "all," and I have done none of those: Search through my posts and see if I have. I'll be the first to apologize if I did. Don't tar us "all" with the same brush... And if you don't believe me, you Saddam-supporting unAmerican, you can just leave the country. :D :eek: (Just to show there's no hard feelings.) ..Joe

[Nawledge]

thank you for your responses. I think that the reason you don't see the media coverage of people against the war calling for saddam hussein to comply is because the desire for a violent man to dis-arm is a given. I think its universal except for saddam himself and terrorist. But if you were going to save someone that was kidnapped you would not threaten the victom with death because the man holding them hostage would not give up his gun.

[fantasticsound]

Maybe I'm the exception to your rule, but none of the 3 responses outlined by nawledge apply to any of my posts. I, too, have kept most of my involvement in political threads to a minimum lately. I don't even read most of them. I have responded to factual inaccuracies and some of the more outlandish, un-verified claims made by some posters here. [quote]Originally posted by Stephen LeBlanc: [b] [quote]I HAVE wondered why more protesters aren't demanding that Saddam give up his WMD and fully comply with UN 1441...[/quote]Well I've supported that notion all along. I don't believe carpet bombing Iraqi people and soldiers is going to bring it about. I sincerely hope our leaders and military do the right thing but the past has taught me not to trust them without question.[/b][/quote]I keep hearing comments like this that we're going to "carpet bomb" Iraq. Do you have no knowledge of the previous Gulf War? Carpet bombing goes back to Vietnam. I don't believe we've indiscriminantly bombed anyone since the mid 1970's. I have no doubt there will be innocent victims in Iraq. Yet I'm incensed every time an anti-war advocate claims we're going to kill Iraqi civilians left and right. Based on what facts, I ask?

[Nawledge]

I'm glad I was wrong about you joegerardi, I wish I could raise that number from one to millions.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: [b]I keep hearing comments like this that we're going to "carpet bomb" Iraq. Do you have no knowledge of the previous Gulf War? [/b][/quote]120,000 to 150,000 unguided bombs were dropped in GW I. General McPeak in _Defense Week_ on GW I: "The targets we are going after are widespread. They are brigades, and divisions and battalions on the battlefield. It's a rather low density target. So to spread the bombs - carpet bombing is not my favorite expression - is proportionate to the target. Now is it a terrible thing? Yes. Does it kill people? Yes." "U.S. Bombing: The Myth of Surgical Bombing in the Gulf War" http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-myth.htm

[Salyphus]

[quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b] I HAVE wondered why more protesters aren't demanding that Saddam give up his WMD and fully comply with UN 1441... [/b][/quote]Speaking for myself, I like to think that I have some voice, however marginal, in my government as well as an obligation to voice my dissent when I see my country being led down a dark path to destruction. On the other hand, I have not even the faintest hope that protesting Saddam will make any difference to him at all. I may ultimately agree with you though, that both Saddam and Bush are equally likely to be moved by the protests. IMO they have far more similarities than differences.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Nawledge: [b]all of the people supporting this premptive distruction always do one of 3 things. 1. tell you to leave america for disagreeing with them which is an un-american ideal as any. 2. make fun of the situation, trying to distract and detract from what is happening. 3. or when some one makes a comment about not supporting Bushes war, they always and I mean always retort with a comment that suggest directly that those who don't support WAR support Saddam Hussein. [/b][/quote]Don't forget they can't go two sentences without refering to either a "lib-rul" or somehow tying Bill Clinton into whatever it is you're talking about. EXAMPLE: "LIB-RUL": "I don't know if attacking Iraq is really going to change terrorism in the U.S." "PATRIOTIC 'MAIRKIN": "well, if we hadn't had Bill Clinton in the Whitehouse we wouldn't have no terrorism" "LIB-RUL": "but this won't do anything about stopping Bin Laden, wasn't that the big deal not too long ago....?" "PATRIOTIC 'MAIRKIN": "huh huh if Monica Lewinsky hadn't been in the Whitehouse there wouldn't be no Bin Laden" "LIB-RUL": "but a lot of innocent people will get killed" "PATRIOTIC 'MAIRKIN": "what's the difference between bill Clinton and the Titanic? Only 200 wimen went down on the Titanic. Huh huh huh huh huh!" "LIB-RUL": "? Okkkk... well, what about U.S. relations with the rest of the world falling apart at a drastic rate?" "PATRIOTIC 'MAIRKIN":"Q: Why does Hillary have more body guards than Bill? Because if Hillary was killed, who would run the country? Huh huh huh huh huh" "LIB-RUL": " but Bill Clinton isn't president anymore....." "PATRIOTIC 'MAIRKIN": "Clinton's mother prayed fervently that Bill would grow up and be president. So far, half of her prayer has been answered. Huh huh huh huh huh huh huh!" "LIB-RUL": "........." "PATIROTIC 'MAIRKING": "hey.... you ain't one of them there lib-ruls, are you 'bo? Never mind. Did I tell you the difference between Bill Clinton and the Titanic?"

[Zweite Version]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] "U.S. Bombing: The Myth of Surgical Bombing in the Gulf War" http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-myth.htm [/b][/quote]This would be the first time I heard about that. All I can say is that I really, really, really hope that this is not true. Especially the link to the "Highway of Death" thing. That would be outragious. :(

[Chris Johnson]

[quote]Originally posted by Nawledge: This Is An Excercise In Logical Thinking For the Record I think Saddam and Bush should both shoot each other in the head as penalty for both their aspirations of world dominance, but what about the innocent people? Just because I think George Bush is an Asshole doesn't mean that I think we should bomb all the american people, so why would I think that Bombing the Iraquis is the Right thing to do...[/quote]It could be worse. I like posting to the usenet newsgroup rec.audio.pro. There's a guy there playing the supporter-of-the-war role in opposition to quite a few sound engineers arguing with him, and recently he first said, then confirmed, that he thought I was guilty for vast numbers of murders which [b]haven't actually happened[/b] because I won't support the war on Iraq. To him, blood is on my hands (his words, repeated and confirmed) and I'm a [b]murderer[/b] for refusing to support the bombing of Iraq, because to him, not obliterating Saddam means continued abuses of Iraqis by Saddam (very possibly true) and he holds me PERSONALLY responsible for any such death that might happen, and any US casualties that might occur through future terrorism to boot. That's actually the point where I start to get genuinely scared. I am more or less OK with war hawks believing that antiwar types (of whatever sort) are traitors, provided that they keep that belief to themselves. The fact that some of them (at least one, and is this sentiment echoed in Bush's Cabinet?) believe antiwar types are MURDERERS responsible for future deaths that have not happened yet- that's starting to get really scary. Someone who genuinely believes that and defends that position in argument is capable of any act... Chris Johnson

[Salyphus]

Interesting that so many folks suddenly have such strong compassion for the 'plight of the iraqi people' that they are willing to 'do whatever it takes' to liberate them. Ironic how those same individuals don't seem to extend that compassion to other oppressed people throughout the world and even in their own country. I wonder why that is?

[jlahib.no]

how about rwanda?

[Charlie-brm]

[quote]Originally posted by Eurotrash sunsetman: [b]This would be the first time I heard about that. All I can say is that I really, really, really hope that this is not true. Especially the link to the "Highway of Death" thing. That would be outragious. :( [/b][/quote]That's troubling to think this would be the first anyone with internet or TV would have heard of it. Is U.S. news really that controlled? I don't think so. The article opinions are biased, but yes, it's true. Prisoners are such a nuisance.

[Rog]

Nawledge is making a huge generalisation but there is more than a grain of truth in what he's saying. Another tactic is to quote great swathes of text by some arsehole far-right columist and try to pass the seriously flawed rhetoric off as fact. The myriad war threads have been a real eye-opener for me, I can't be bothered to post on them anymore; some of the views expressed in them are sickening - usually posted by those that can't understand just WHY the U.S. is a terrorist target. Maybe there's a correlation there somewhere? I'll fight for everyone to have the right to say what they want. I also reserve the right to compile a mental shit list of members and ignore their hateful little posts. So far, it's working out fine :thu:

[CarmenC]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rog: Nawledge is making a huge generalisation but there is more than a grain of truth in what he's saying. Another tactic is to quote great swathes of text by some arsehole far-right columist and try to pass the seriously flawed rhetoric off as fact. The myriad war threads have been a real eye-opener for me, I can't be bothered to post on them anymore; some of the views expressed in them are sickening - usually posted by those that can't understand just WHY the U.S. is a terrorist target. Maybe there's a correlation there somewhere? I'll fight for everyone to have the right to say what they want. I also reserve the right to compile a mental shit list of members and ignore their hateful little posts. So far, it's working out fine :wave:

[patrick_dont_fret]

[quote] Holiday From History By Charles Krauthammer Friday, February 14, 2003; Page A31 The domestic terror alert jumps to 9/11 levels. Heathrow Airport is ringed by tanks. Duct tape and plastic sheeting disappear from Washington store shelves. Osama bin Laden resurfaces. North Korea reopens its plutonium processing plant and threatens preemptive attack. The Second Gulf War is about to begin. This is not the Apocalypse. But it is excellent preparation for it. You don't get to a place like this overnight. It takes at least, oh, a decade. We are now paying the wages of the 1990s, our holiday from history. During that decade, every major challenge to America was deferred. The chief aim of the Clinton administration was to make sure that nothing terrible happened on its watch. Accordingly, every can was kicked down the road: • Iraq: Saddam Hussein continued defying the world and building his arsenal, even as the United States acquiesced to the progressive weakening of U.N. sanctions and then to the expulsion of all weapons inspectors. • North Korea: When it threatened to go nuclear in 1993, Clinton managed to put off the reckoning with an agreement to freeze Pyongyang's program. The agreement -- surprise! -- was a fraud. All the time, the North Koreans were clandestinely enriching uranium. They are now in full nuclear breakout. • Terrorism: The first World Trade Center attack occurred in 1993, followed by the blowing up of two embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Treating terrorism as a problem of law enforcement, Clinton dispatched the FBI -- and the odd cruise missile to ostentatiously kick up some desert sand. Bin Laden was offered up by Sudan in 1996. We turned him away for lack of legal justification. That is how one acts on holiday: Mortal enemies are dealt with not as combatants but as defendants. Clinton flattered himself as looking beyond such mundane problems to a grander transnational vision (global warming, migration and the like), while dispatching American military might to quell "teacup wars" in places such as Bosnia. On June 19, 2000, the Clinton administration solved the rogue-state problem by abolishing the term and replacing it with "states of concern." Unconcerned, the rogues prospered, arming and girding themselves for big wars. Which are now upon us. On Sept. 11, 2001, the cozy illusions and stupid pretensions died. We now recognize the central problem of the 21st century: the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction. True, weapons of mass destruction are not new. What is new is that the knowledge required to make them is no longer esoteric. Anyone with a reasonable education in modern physics, chemistry or biology can brew them. Doomsday has been democratized. There is no avoiding the danger any longer. Last year President Bush's axis-of-evil speech was met with eye-rolling disdain by the sophisticates. One year later the warning has been vindicated in all its parts. Even the United Nations says Iraq must be disarmed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has just (politely) declared North Korea a nuclear outlaw. Iran has announced plans to mine uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel; we have recently discovered two secret Iranian nuclear complexes. We are in a race against time. Once such hostile states establish arsenals, we become self-deterred and they become invulnerable. North Korea may already have crossed that threshold. There is a real question whether we can win the race. Year One of the new era, 2002, passed rather peaceably. Year Two will not: 2003 could be as cataclysmic as 1914 or 1939. Carl Sagan invented a famous formula for calculating the probability of intelligent life in the universe. Estimate the number of planets in the universe and calculate the tiny fraction that might support life and that have had enough evolution to produce intelligence. He prudently added one other factor, however: the odds of extinction. The existence of intelligent life depends not just on creation but on continuity. What is the probability that a civilization will not destroy itself once its very intelligence grants it the means of self-destruction? This planet has been around for 4 billion years, intelligent life for perhaps 200,000, weapons of mass destruction for less than 100. A hundred -- in the eye of the universe, less than a blink. And yet we already find ourselves on the brink. What are the odds that our species will manage to contain this awful knowledge without self-destruction -- not for a billion years or a million or even a thousand, but just through the lifetime of our children? Those are the stakes today. Before our eyes, in a flash, politics has gone cosmic. The question before us is very large and very simple: Can -- and will -- the civilized part of humanity disarm the barbarians who would use the ultimate knowledge for the ultimate destruction? Within months, we will have a good idea whether the answer is yes or no. [/quote]Is this all you people have? This has been quoted in EVERY pro-war thread here. It seems like that's all there is. Oh my gosh, no....there's only one source for war now? Well, there's not one against war because it's all being censored, and don't deny it. You know it's true. We are truly being censored...you see all the coverage of the anti-war rallies? One person talking...that's not the voice of everone. That's the voice of the one person they found to be most harmless. This is true.

[Raki]

Support this war or not, we all should look back our human history. That's the most valuable thing that people have archived. What will happen if we attach Iraq first. That's pretty obvious.

[rold]

[quote]Originally posted by Raki: [b]Support this war or not, we all should look back our human history. That's the most valuable thing that people have archived.[/b][/quote]Agreed 100% :thu:

[Nawledge]

HOW Do you Fight Terrorism and Terrorist, while doing things that Perpetuate Terrorism? I don't get it??? some body tell me. I really am listening Now=terrorist after war= countless more terrorist. am I wrong about that? do you people supporting the war actualy think that there will be less terrorist? I'm serious I am totaly listening to what you have to say about this because this simple math problem is staggering to me.

[Salyphus]

CarmenC, post some thoughts of your own and I'd be happy to 'rebut' them. I'm not going to waste a bunch of my time typing up a response to something that you simply copied and pasted :rolleyes: Show us that you can think for yourself, and if you want to refer us to an article, post a link and not the complete text.

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

[quote]Originally posted by Nawledge: [b]do you people supporting the war actualy think that there will be less terrorist? .[/b][/quote]I believe a war in Iraq will send a clear message to countries who harbor, fund, or arm terrorists that America(and hopefully the U.N. countries) will not tolerate that and we will remove your leaders and make your lives hell if neccessary. I can't prove the upcoming war will create fewer terrorists but I believe it might. It's probably all a moot point anyway. Technology has advanced faster than man's ability to get along. Someday, we will all be eating Kellogg's Ricin Krispies for breakfast. Yum. :p

[Chris Johnson]

[quote]Originally posted by SteveRB: I believe a war in Iraq will send a clear message to countries who harbor, fund, or arm terrorists that America(and hopefully the U.N. countries) will not tolerate that and we will remove your leaders and make your lives hell if neccessary.[/quote]Well, certain extremist Islamic radical types have claimed that they will not tolerate what the US arms, funds and harbors, and will remove our leaders and make our lives hell if necessary. In fact, they have demonstrated that they will try. Apart from any consideration of whether they have a legitimate beef- did it work? Chris Johnson

[Nawledge]

Steverb i don't think that this is going to work because, and these are irefutable facts that i am pointing out> "the terrorist have already proven that they don't come from one place, they are all over the world in many countries, and in our own" that is a fact, so attacking these nations when they have not attacked us is not going to do anything but multiply that by the thousands.

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

[quote]Originally posted by Chris Johnson: [b][QUOTE]Apart from any consideration of whether they have a legitimate beef- did it work? [/b][/quote]Why shouldn't it be a consideration of whether they have a legimate beef ? No, it didn't work but if terrorists want to do us real harm they surely could. Hans Blix mentioned last week, the tons of unaccounted for chemical and biologcal weapons is very troubling. Well said Hans, but don't you think it would have more impact if you shouted it- get a little animated Hans baby. :D I don't want that stuff in the wrong hands- troops are in position-Hussein is gone-the real challenge of replacing his regime with a sane one begins- :thu:

[Kaptain Karl]

I don't know how many of you actually have to deal with traffic these days. Well let me tell you Los Angeles is hell.Its not necessarily a problem of too many drivers as it is many drivers abusing and not following simple rules of the road such as simply not using the turn signal for lane changes not to mention an actual turn. Do these drivers not understand or know the rules? Perhaps they just don't care thinking 'its not my problem I know where I'm going, f the rest of you.' We can A. look past it and perhaps hope it resolves itself or B. stand up and do something about it. How much patience do you have? Can you just look past it and move on? Do you just not notice it at all? Do you just say f it and join in? If you do stand up and shout who'll listen? What governmental bodies do you have go through to truly resolve such an issue? If you look past it while it just goes on and potentially gets worse when do you step up if at all? If you join in well I'll ask you who is your friend and who is your foe? Who will be behind you if you are known to say one thing and do another? This war is a bigger issue than any one person here can resolve or state what is in our best interest. Its a decision to be made amongst many nations all with different motives and views. Its a battle of right and wrong. Its a moral battle. Its an ethical battle. A political battle. Its a matter of how much time,engergy and money you have and are willing to throw at it. Whats the price? Either way you pay for it in the end. The U.S. is a very very powerful and rich nation. How we use that is the question at hand for those in the U.S. Do you support Bush or oppose him. Well did you vote for him or not? Perhaps you like his views on one subject but not another. Thats ok too. Its land of the free. Free doesn't mean you'll never have to pay for it. Observations and experiences of the past tell us war is bad but at the same time some good things have come about from the battles of the past. Were the good things worth the price? Was the American revolution worth it? How about the war of 1812? The Mexican-American? Civil? Spanish-American? WWI? WWII? Korean? Vietnam? peace