OT: Funny Thing About the People Who Support War

[CarmenC]

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie-brm: [b] [quote]Originally posted by CarmenC: [b]No constructive comments, so the personal attacks begin....typical.[/b][/quote] [quote]Originally posted by CarmenC: [b]It reinforces your point alright, the one on your head... :wave: [/b][/quote]hhmmmm. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]Touche... Interesting you don't call out the guy who called me an ass... Double standard..or higher standard? :wave:

[CarmenC]

[quote]Originally posted by Kobb: [b]While wasting time on the web, I came across this little tidbit when I tried to go to the "Guest book" section at one of the Susan Sarandon websites. "The Guest book is now closed I have decided to close the Guest Book. Just for the record, I am pro peace, anti Saddam, pro America and anti Bush. Inconsistent? Yes, but that's life. If you disagree, that's fine by me, but I won't give up my Web space to the ill-informed right-wing rantings, peppered with This site has attracted some adverse comments from visitors who are ignorant enough to think that "liberal" is an insult. It isn't - it's a compliment. Let this serve as a reminder to the rest of us that there are still some genuine bigots out there. Just remember that Free Speech is unconditional and does not have a tag line of 'only if you agree with me'." What was that last line again? "Just remember that Free Speech is unconditional and does not have a tag line of 'only if you agree with me'." Oh, so that must be why the liberal weenie who runs this site CLOSED THE FREAKIN' GUESTBOOK - because Free Speech is unconditional! If you're saying "What the f.. ?" right now, congratulate yourself for having a brain. Yeah... you read it right. A perfect example of hypocrisy in action.[/b][/quote]Got a link to the site?

[Nawledge]

if you folks are going to fight, would you take it to a private stage, the rest of us are not intrested. please send a private message to someone you want to call a name. ------------------------------------------------- Does anybody think that we've come to the time to use what should be a last resort? the reason i ask is because the point we are at with saddam hussein is the same point we've been at for 15 years, hardly necessary then for us to attack iraq this year. some might say well now since 9/11 things are different, but first of all that isn't true, things have been the same in the rest of the world after 9/11 as before regarding the issue of terrorism and americas foreign policy. only here in america have things been different. does it make sense to liberate iraqis with death?

[Michael Quayle]

Smug was never my intention. Oh well, you're operating on a level that I don't want to descend to, so I'm out of this. But for the record, and before you get too high and mighty, you DID post the same article twice. In fact, you did it in two consectutive posts. Go figure. Don't believe the hype? Here's the link where you can go check it for yourself: http://www.musicgearnetwork.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=010966;p=1

[Chip McDonald]

Wow. I didn't notice the XTC avatar.

[Gtoledo3]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b]Wow. I didn't notice the XTC avatar.[/b][/quote]Doesn't that make CarmenC even weirder? it's like "how could he/she?" :)

[Kobb]

[quote]Originally posted by CarmenC: [b]Got a link to the site?[/b][/quote] http://www.chrisbaker.co.uk/guest.htm

[GZsound]

So now this morning they have an Iraqi defector involved in the weapons programs talking about the mobile labs and underground storage of bio weapons and chemical weapons. Talking about the deals with terrorist organizations that will distribute them and use them on us. Photographs of the ship from Germany with chemical weapon precursors. If we had the opportunity to stop Hitler in 1939, should we have done it? Should we support France and Germany who have billions of dollars invested in Iraq? Should the United States really keep supporting the UN? Should the United States really have unilaterally signed the Kyoto agreement when the worst polluting countries in the world refused to sign it? Are we in a situation now that is black and white? No.. Does calling our president a butcher make it more simple for some of you to understand the problems? Does war fix the problem..No. Does doing nothing fix the problem..you tell me. Clinton played kick the can with the terrorist problem and we got 9/11. Is that what we need again? Do we need another large scale killing in our own country to motivate the liberals into supporting a proactive approach to our defense? How can we simply cover our eyes and ears and blame the government for everything when we are at such a huge risk? George Bush didn't cause any of the problems he now has to resolve. Those that think otherwise have been asleep for the past thirty years. You can blame past presidents including George Bush Sr., but to blame our current administration on the sorry state of the world is simply liberal dogma and cannot be supported by the facts. Someone explain to me what George Bush did between January 2001 and September 11, 2001 that caused Bin Laden to decide to attack us. Explain how the terrorists pilots attending american flight schools for over a year knew he would be elected. Explain how our reaction to the Cole bombing, Kobar towers bombing, etc. was George Bush. The world is not black and white. The solutions are not black and white. To forget history is pure stupidity. We armed Bin Laden, we armed Sadam. They were attacked by our enemy. Remember the hostages in Iran? We armed Iraq to stop Iran. We armed Bin Laden to stop the Russians in Afghanistan. The solution would be to leave the world stage. Don't help any more friends because in twenty years they may become enemies. But blaming George Bush? Pure and simple liberal dogma..

[DanYmaL X]

[quote]Originally posted by Kobb: [b] http://www.chrisbaker.co.uk/guest.htm [/b][/quote]While I'm not defending Susan Sarandon, or anyone else, for that matter, you guys need to keep in mind that[b] this is a personal fan site, in no way [i]officially[/i] associated with the actor herself[/b] ... if this person wants to close their guestbook to avoid nasty comments and disparaging remarks by the 'ignorant masses,' that's their perogative. I would, too. I can just imagine how many guestbook entries they have gotten in the recent past that were less than pleasant. Just my .02 DX

[fantasticsound]

[quote]Originally posted by Kobb: While wasting time on the web, I came across this little tidbit when I tried to go to the "Guest book" section at one of the Susan Sarandon websites. [quote]attributed to Susan Sarandon's website: "The Guest book is now closed I have decided to close the Guest Book. Just for the record, I am pro peace, anti Saddam, pro America and anti Bush. Inconsistent? Yes, but that's life. If you disagree, that's fine by me, but [b]I won't give up my Web space to the ill-informed right-wing rantings[/b], peppered with...[/quote]...What was that last line again? [quote]attributed to Susan Sarandon's website: Just remember that Free Speech is unconditional and does not have a tag line of 'only if you agree with me'.[/quote]Oh, so that must be why the liberal weenie who runs this site CLOSED THE FREAKIN' GUESTBOOK - because Free Speech is unconditional! If you're saying "What the f.. ?" right now, congratulate yourself for having a brain. Yeah... you read it right. A perfect example of hypocrisy in action.[/QB][/quote]For the record, I disagree with Ms. Sarandon's political stance. However, you misinterpret what's going on here. Free speech doesn't mean she has to listen to insults in her own home. It's her dime that pays for the website, and she shouldn't have to pay to be harrassed. Those who disagree with her have literally hundreds if not thousands of forums to display their disagreement, and for that matter, distaste with her stance. By closing the door on [i]everyone[/i] (She's not allowing supportive statements in an attempt to show solidarity, is she?), she has not stepped on anyone's right to free speech. She may or may not be a hypocrite, but your example hardly supports such a conclusion... As several members have stated regarding CarmenC, you only make yourself look depricating and foolish when you spin facts to support ridiculous conclusions.

[Michael Quayle]

Fantasticsound you have missed a minor point with regard to this. Susan Sarandon has no involvement with this site. It is a co.uk site - a personal fan page - some poor guy who has probably had his page up for a long time and is now getting bombarded with less than savoury messages. Read this direct quote from the home page - "This is a unofficial, personal fan site with no commercial support. It has no affiliation with Susan Sarandon (though I hope she might like it if she saw it!). There is nothing in here that I would not let my kids see & I hope that you take the same view." - there is nothing in there that he would not let his kids see - who are we to say that any number of the guest book messages he received didn't contain profanities of the highest order? That aside, I actually support your premise that people should have the freedom to not be attacked on their own doorstep, it is just that in this case, she is neither being attacked, or conversely, perpetrating acts of hypocrisy, through any channel of her own at all - somebody, whoever originally posted the link to that site,I believe it was Kobb, was clearly just looking for distorted evidence to support their own particular rant. In terms of discussion, that site carries as much validity as this one: http://www.whitehouse.org/ If some anti-Bush proponent was to use that site as proof of what a danger bush is, he would be laughed out of the discussion. I can see no difference with the posting of this unoffical Sarandon link.

[knunchucksammy]

Well this conversation certainly has been warped since it's beginning. For the sake of redirection here is my stance on the oringinal idea. It isn't quite fair to say that everyone has made those three generalizations.... I am pro-war because take a step back here people, is there anything else that you can think of that will fix this current problem?? It bothers me when people are against war and then you ask them what they think we should do and they something along the lines of.... I think we should keep peace. Well ummmmmm... whats that gonna solve??? Right now it's as if there is a big forest fire burning up a big part of your beautiful hometown and you can be rowdy and mess up the surrounding trees by driving firetrucks over and putting it out (pro-war) or you can sit there and watch it burn untill it is out of control and it destroys all of our homes and life the way we know... (anti-war). I don't think people should bash suggested agenda that the government has in store for us unless they have an actual GOOD idea that might do some help. Waving flags and saying "be peacefull" is not going to help a single problem in the world. And for the score I dislike Bush more than anyone I know. I think he is a fool and a bad representation of a president in a lot of ways but I can not deny that he is doing what needs to be done and in the right manner. I just feel I would be more comfortable with a Democratic approach as I am a true blue Democrat. Matt

[DanYmaL X]

[quote]Originally posted by knunchucksammy: [b] Right now it's as if there is a big forest fire burning up a big part of your beautiful hometown and you can be rowdy and mess up the surrounding trees by driving firetrucks over and putting it out (pro-war) or you can sit there and watch it burn untill it is out of control and it destroys all of our homes and life the way we know... (anti-war). [/b][/quote]Now there's an analogy I can identify with, living only a few miles from where the Biscuit Fire raged last year... gov't screwed [i]that[/i] up too. All good points, though, and from a Democrat to boot! DX

[strat0124]

Israel is in violation of lessee....about 23 UN resolutions.....look it up yourselves, don't take my word for it. Folks who believe one way or the other won't admit their position may be on shaky ground even if the proof were a videotaped confession. Given the fact that the current administration only wants to bust ass on countries with oil reserves, nevermind the countries who may be 100 times more dangerous, is a smoking gun, to me. To completely ignore that fact, to me is denial. Weapons of mass destruction????? Thats an excuse, because look for yourself how many "rogue" nations have them in one form or another. My neighbor just got back from Afghanistan, after the better part of a year. In passing I asked him what he saw, after a long pause, he said....."Lots of pipe". He wouldn't elaborate..... North Korea has a means of delivering a comparable weapon, and joins the ranks of nations we won't screw with. Not directly. Remember the cold war? Somehow we don't want to fight anybody who can fight back. Which I'm thankful for, with reference to our men and women in uniform's safety. But its kinda like the biggest guy in grammer school......he'll rule for a while, but sooner or later he'll get squashed by someone smaller. I hope and pray that never occurs, premptive strikes will not help in the long run. I fear it will spark a revolt and cause a coalition of nations against us. I'm not alone in that veiw. Make a pro-con list, and be objective, with reference to invading Iraq. The pros are weak at best, with the old "Destroy the village to save it" mentality, banking on jubilant Iraqi's to rally around the American troops after we "liberate" them. Just looking at the costs, both in human lives (both allies and Iraqi), money (estimated in billions), occupation (Korea/Japan for over 50 years), destabilization of the region. It gets scary. What happens to the oil? Who decides who is Iraq's next leader.....the Iraqi's....or us? Whats the exit strategy? Who is next? Maybe cooler heads would prevail if our elected leaders had to send their sons and daughters to battle. As it is...very few have that connection. This subject is very personal to me, given my military service, and that I have two draftable children. I hope and pray that we are not too proud and arrogant to deliver the same liberty to others that we expect given to us. I do have a problem with folks who want war, but don't want to have to fight it. But thats personal.

[Kobb]

Can you recognize the irony of ANYBODY writing this... "Just remember that Free Speech is unconditional and does not have a tag line of 'only if you agree with me'." ...while at the same time closing the guestbook because people were probably posting stuff that the webmaster didn't "agree with". I never said this was an OFFICIAL Susan Sarandon website operated under her control. I also agree that this fellow has the right to close his guest book if he wants to. Here's the point, fellas: Don't lecture us about free speech while closing your guestbook. It seemed to me to be a perfect example of a liberal acting in a hypocritical fashion. Much like all of the celebs (such as Susan Sarandaon) who rail against those who would defend the prosperity of the United States - the same prosperity that has allowed them to lead their fairy tale lives.

[Michael Quayle]

Kobb, I don't take issue with your initial point - if you are simply asking us to see the irony in that statement then yes, it is in plain view and I can't argue with that, nor would I wish to. Where your argument breaks down for me is when you then resort to this whole suggestion that celebrities who speak out against the war actually have no right to because they have been successful in the states, and they are showing shocking anti-american tendencies by doing so. If you dig a little deeper than the surface you will see an even greater irony at play here. Now, I am not an American, but the first amendment and the concept of liberty and justice for all are great ideals and I can understand why anyone would want to defend that particular way of life. All that is being suggested here is that the reasons behind the impending war on Iraq do not stem from such noble premises as the ones you are so understandably eager to uphold. Out of the 6.3 billion people currently on this earth, the combined populations of the US and Great Britain represent somewhere between 350-400 million. That's roughly 7%. You have to understand that from an international perspective, the US/UK coalition has set itself up as the global police force, deciding who can and cannot arm themselves, with scant to no regard for the protestations of other states. They continue to do this with impunity. Can you see how this might be percieved as shocking arrogance? Can you perhaps understand why some citizens of the US and UK might also feel this is shockingly arrogant? Is it possible to accept that some of these may wish to use their celebrity to add weight to their protestations? Anti agression is not anti-american. Nor am I. I do however seem to have a diametrically opposed view of this war to many of those who have posted on this and other threads. And I have to observe, that, without exception, all of those who are pro-agressive action who have so far posted have done so from the US.

[coxnvox]

[quote]Originally posted by Nawledge: [b]o does it make sense to liberate iraqis with death?[/b][/quote]And the alternative would be through...what, an election? I hear Saddam got about 100% of the vote last time... I'm sure next time he'll see to it that a champion of democracy is able to run against him, and the Iraqi people will just be able to vote Saddam out of office without any bloodshed. And the all lived happily ever after...(Isn't that how you end all fairy tales?) later, kc

[SFOracle]

Geenard - you bring up some greate points. Let's look at who are friends and enemies in Asia are: Israel: Status - Friend, Ally. Government: Multi-party Democracy Head of State: - Ariel Sharon. World Court in Hague has ruled that only Sharon's status as head of state prevent him from currently being charged with war crimes related to his role in Sabra and Chatilla refugee camp masacres. Weapons of Mass Destruction: Nuclear - yes, weaponized. Has not signed NPA or CTBT. Nuclear Proliferator - not recently. Provided some technical support to South Africa which has subsequently abandoned its nuclear program. Chemical - yes. Biological - probably. Long Range Balisitic Missile capability: Yes. Human Rights - varies. Israelis enjoy most of the same civil rights as western nations, but Palestinians and Arabs are subject to inequality, and at time brutal repression. Israel faces real terrorist threats on a daily basis, however Israeli responses to terrorism often target civilians. Outlook - has been invaded by and has invaded most of it's neighbors. Not known to support terrorism. Currently - we support Sharron's goverment and provide tacit approval of his methods. Pakistan: Status: - friend, Ally against Afghanistan. Government: Military Junta Head of State: Gen. Pervez Musharaf. Sieized power from elected Pres. Mohammed Tafiq Terar in 1998. Weapons of Mass Destruction: Nuclear - Yes, weaponized. Conditional signature to NPA, non-signature to comprehensive test ban treaty CTBT. Nuclear proliferator - Yes, supplied North Korea with enrichment technology. Chemical Weapons: - unknown. Biological Weapons - unknown. Balisitc Missile technology: - crude, but improving thanks to technology exchange with N. Korea. Human Rights: - abysmal, among the worst in the region. Child "bonded" labor - slavery. Women have been senteced by tribal counsels to be gang raped for crimes such as being seen in the company of a male. Religious persecution of Hindu and Christian and Ba'hai minorities is institutionalized. Outlook: - has instigated years of border conflicts with India over disputed Kashmir region. Pakistan provides direct and indirect support for Kashimiri terrorist and was a strong supporter of the Taliban and El Queda. Currently: Pakistan is the staging point for our efforts in Afghanistan. Iraq: Status: Mother or all evil empires. Government: - Single party system, dictatorship. Head of State: Sadam Hussein. Brutally represses any and all opposition. Has executed his own family members, gased thousands of Iranians, Kurds and Shi'ites. Ultimate boogeyman to US Presidents named Bush. Weapons of Mass Destruction: Nuclear: - No. at worst, in research stage, but active research and development has been slowed or halted by sanctions and inspections. Non-proliferator. Chemical: - Yes. Mustard gas, VX, Ricin. Claims stocks have been destroyed - yet unconfirmed by UNSCOM inspectors. If stocks exist, probably not weaponized. Biological: - Yes. Anthrax and Botulotoxiin have been developed. Probably not weaponized. Claims stocks destroyed. Not confirmed. Balistic Missiles: - Yes. Limited range. Scud's have been destroyed, replaced by newer short range missile with 150Km (+/- 25 Km) range. Human Rights - worse than Pakistan. Outlook: - war with Iran for most of the 1980s. Invaded Kuwait in 1991. Not known to support terrorism any more than say Saudi Arabia's support for Hamas "charities". Currently: we are staging troops for an "preemptive" invasion of Iraq - probably without UN support. Saudi Arabia Status: Friend, Ally. Governement: Monarchy. (corrupt) Head of State: HRH King, Fahd Bin Abd Al-Aziz Al. Sa'ud. Extremely old and feable. Effective head of state is Crown Prince Abdulla Faud (half brother). King heads all three brances of governement. Corruption is rampant. Weapons of Mass Destruction: None. Human Rights. Execution by beheading. Corporal Justice - a man was recently sentenced to have his eye surgically removed because he has caused an injury to another man's eye. Religious and racial discrimination is institutionalized. Non-followers of the Wahabist interpretation of the Sunni Muslim tradition face arbitratry injustice and discrimination, which occaisonally leads to imprisonment or death. Women have essentially no rights. Official law is Isalmic Sharia - as interpreted by the Sa'udi courts. Outlook: - Peaceful towards neighbors. Has provided much support for Palestinian terrorists over the years. The largest single financial backer of Hamas terrorist group. Currently: Saudi Arabia is our most important ally in the region next to Israel. Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea): Status: Member of "Axis of Evil" Status: Communist Dictatorship. Head of State: President for life, exalted leader Kim Jong Ill. A real piece of work. "Military first: policy has starved over 1 million Koreans to death. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nuclear: - Yes, weaponized. Has at least 2 maybe as many as 6 war heads, and an active program to develop more. Withdrew from NPA and CTBT adn expelled IAEC inspectors and monitors. Chemical: - unknown. Biological - unknown. Balistic Missiles: - Yes. Capable of reaching at least Japan and China, newest versions may reach US. Outlook: - openly clashed with South Korea over disputed maritime borders. Has never signed treaty to officially end Korean war. Not known to support terrorism. Human rights - abysmal. Torture, political imprisionment, summary executions etc. Currently: - we are pursuing diplomatic channels to get DPRK to abandon it's nuclear and missile programs. Given the similarities between many of our allies and enemies, and the differences in our relationships with these countries I am having a hard time figuring our why we are going to war with Iraq? On what basis is Iraq so much different that the other countries I have listed. The war on Iraq is just an example of "round up the usual suspects". "Regime Change" - nice euphemism for a large scale invasion and massacre of civilians as well as Iraqi soldiers - who have no choice but to defend their homeland against a foreign aggressor. It's not about "liberating" the Iraqi people - Bush doesn't give a damn about them - he is planning on killing thousands of them. Oil - I don't really belive that either. It is really just misdirected rage and revenge for 9/11 directed at the most convenient target.

[DanYmaL X]

Neeever mind... DX :D

[Kobb]

[quote]Originally posted by Michael Quayle: [b]You have to understand that from an international perspective, the US/UK coalition has set itself up as the global police force, deciding who can and cannot arm themselves, with scant to no regard for the protestations of other states. They continue to do this with impunity. Can you see how this might be percieved as shocking arrogance? [/b][/quote]So call me arrogant. I like the idea of reasonable democratic states having the biggest stick on the block and maintaining that status. Is the US and its current administration perfect? No. But regardless of what all of the protesters would have you believe, the TRUTH is that the US regime (Bush) is a hell of a lot more humane than the Iraqi rigime (Saddam). Nobody will ever convince me otherwise, and I think that anybody who honestly thinks that Bush is more evil than Saddam is a fucking moron.

[Kobb]

BTW Michael, I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't calling YOU a fucking moron (unless you happen to fit the criteria, which I don't think is the case). You made some reasonable points, although I don't agree with all of them.

[SFOracle]

[quote] Should the United States really have unilaterally signed the Kyoto agreement when the worst polluting countries in the world refused to sign it? [/quote]The United States IS the worst polluting country in the world. We are responsible for 24% of all anthropormophic CO2 emissions. (Source World Wildllife Fund). The G8 countries are responsible for 48% of all CO2 emissions.

[coxnvox]

[quote]Originally posted by SFOracle: We are responsible for 24% of all anthropormophic CO2 emissions. [/QB][/quote]I ask this in all seriousness: Is CO2 actually a pollutant? Isn't CO2 what plants essentially breathe? Isn't it also a large percentage of the air around us? I'm not asking these rhetorically. I seem to have some knowledge that these things may be true, and I'm wondering if someone can shed some more light on it for me... Thanks, kc

[Michael Quayle]

CO2 as you know is carbon dioxide - it's what we breathe out after we have taken all the oxygen from the air that we breathe in. Our bodies cannot process it basically. Trees breathe CO2, and breathe out oxygen, which is pretty damn lucky for us. Now, as you are no doubt aware, there are fewer and fewer trees on earth with each and every day that passes (which reminds me, dear old George Dubya is currently making great inroads in the deforestation of your currently beautiful country), and we also have lots of artificial processes that emit C02 as a by-product. Before we know it, there is more C02 in the air than we can possibly handle, and we die. I believe it's also the gas that lingers around in one of our atmospheric layers and keeps heat from escaping, causing the well known greenhouse effect. All in all, not a good gas to have an imbalance of. You might have to go and check all this to confirm it - I'm just reeling off what I can remember from memory as it's currently very early in the morning after a very sleepless night for me. But I think that's pretty much the deal with CO2.

[fantasticsound]

[quote]Originally posted by SFOracle: [b]...Currently: Pakistan is the staging point for our efforts in Afghanistan... [/b][/quote]FYI, this hasn't been correct for over a year. We hardly had a presence in Pakistan in March of last year. Staging of personel and equipment is in several Saudi peninsula states. Interesting facts. Your conclusion isn't supported by those facts, however. Just your opinion, I guess.

[Charlie-brm]

[quote]Originally posted by Geenard Skeenard: [b]Maybe cooler heads would prevail if our elected leaders had to send their sons and daughters to battle. As it is...very few have that connection. [/b][/quote]Geenard; [quote] By Associated Press, 2/17/2003 02:15 PORTLAND, Maine (AP) Robert and Anne O'Brien want their representatives in Washington to remember their son when they vote on military matters. No one in the House of Representatives has a child in the military and only one Senator does, they say, and that worries them. [/quote]