We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

	Subtopic	Started By	Posts
	Archive through Oct 05, 2004 Last Post: Oct 05, 2004, 05:59 pm		20
	Archive through Oct 07, 2004 Last Post: Oct 07, 2004, 11:49 am		20
	Archive through Oct 08, 2004 Last Post: Oct 08, 2004, 10:14 am		20
	Archive through Oct 10, 2004 Last Post: Oct 11, 2004, 08:39 am		20
	Archive through Oct 12, 2004 Last Post: Oct 12, 2004, 12:05 pm		20
	Archive through Oct 13, 2004 Last Post: Oct 13, 2004, 05:08 pm		20
	Archive through Oct 14, 2004 Last Post: Oct 15, 2004, 05:44 am		20
	Archive through Oct 16, 2004 Last Post: Oct 19, 2004, 07:10 pm		20
	Archive through Nov 02, 2004 Last Post: Nov 02, 2004, 12:00 pm		20
	Archive through Nov 03, 2004 Last Post: Nov 03, 2004, 11:04 am		20
	Archive through Nov 04, 2004 Last Post: Nov 04, 2004, 06:16 pm		20
	Archive through Nov 05, 2004 Last Post: Nov 06, 2004, 01:15 am		20
	Archive through Nov 08, 2004 Last Post: Nov 09, 2004, 09:56 am		20
	Archive through Jan 11, 2005 Last Post: Jan 14, 2005, 05:47 am		20

Posted By: Magus Jan 11, 2005 - 06:33 pm

I'll hear your opinions. Didn't you just post:

"If you allow yourself to be scared away by what someone has posted, that's a personal choice also. Don't complain about it. Do something about it. Have the courage of your convictions."

?

You should stand up to what you said then, in the above quote. You shouldn't stop posting based upon what others think.

Posted By: fanuilh Jan 11, 2005 - 06:43 pm

No, Magus, I won't, until you or BMat or another moderator or The Master tells me I have to. It was humor, even if feeble. That's what the smiley was for.

Posted By: Lastone Jan 14, 2005 - 03:43 am

Merle you “gotta” know that I love you dearly man. But I have to ask is this just a ploy to vamp up posting.

Because the timing, around the time that the bush administration concedes no weapons of mass destructions are to be found in Iraq, seems to be just a little coincidental with a change to we did it to free the masses. Since WMD was supposed to be the reason for invasion. Further your criticism of Russia over Chechnya is interesting.

You wrote.

“Your argument that once a nation fails to act against evil it is forever precluded from doing so in the future is puerile, and somewhat beneath you, I think. The Clinton administration and NATO intervened in Kosovo to prevent continued ethnic butchery. Should they not have done so, having failed to intervene in Chechnya, where Russia was trying to exterminate the Chechnyans? Or having failed to intervene in Rwanda?”

Have not the Chechnya’s with their actions proven themselves to be terrorist. Do we ignore the actions at the Moscow theatre, and that school? The Russian did nothing more in Chechnya, than what the U.S. did in Iraq. It was a war. People in this thread defended the U.S. killing civilians in Iraq as unfortunate collateral damage, which is a consequence of war.

This is where I have a problem with the hypocrisy. Russia bad. Therefore they cannot legitimately protect their security. They are supposed to let themselves get killed. But we are the good guys. We can kick butt. The Russian feel Chechnya threatens their security. But you describe their action as: “ where Russia was trying to exterminate the Chechnyans?”

What exactly did they do different in Chechnya to what was done in Iraq? They subdued resistance and installed another government.

But it goes further. If one was to look at threats and repressive regimes. One would have to say the North Korea is far more of a threat to the U.S. Than Iraq was. It actually has a WMD program. Why not pick on them. Let us also look a little closer to home. The government sponsored death squads of Honduras. Rape murder and repression. How about fixing your own back yard first. Sorry that government is one that this administrations supports.

It’s nice to think that our politicians act with altruistic intentions. Merle you are a Lawyer. You know the difference between the onuses of proof. I may not be able to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. However if I was to suggest to you that a politician has acted out of self interest rather than altruism. The balance of probabilities would suggest self-interest.

George Bush is a politician. His main aim after defeating Al Gore was to get himself elected for a second term. There has been some reports here that he was advised that the only way he would win a second term was to start a war. Now I do not support rape and repression. I did not support Saddam. I just thought it was up to the Iraqi’s to do something about it. But I have to ask you this question.

Since I know your are a man of integrity. Are you willing to risk that integrity on the bases that George Bush acted to free the Iraqi people and that that was paramount in his mind or does the evidence on the balance of probabilities suggest, that Bush’s main area of concern was a second term. Look to how he deal with countries like Honduras for your answer. See if he makes a distinction between despotic government who are friends?


PS…. Fan, Glad to see you are still going to post. It’s pretty hard to fly with just a left wing.

Posted By: Magus Jan 14, 2005 - 05:04 am

Personally I agree with you, Lastone. Bush = Poliitian. And I'm sure that just about everybody on this board knows that I'm no supporter of Bush. I supported Kerry, not really on many of his own merits, but because he wasn't Bush. I would have done the same to, most but not all, anybody who ran against Bush and had a fair shot to bring him down.

But even I have to say something. Bush is a smart polititian. He's crafty and intelligent and knows how to work an election. Now that he doesn't need to be re-relected he doesn't have to worry so much now for the public sentiment.

I'd also like to say that Bush has had a vendette against Iraq for decades. They tried to kill his father. I can understand that. But he's been talking of taking them out ever since he was Governor of Texas! I don't think that sombody with that kind of Bias should run our country when they have to power to wage war and live out their agressions with military force.

That's just my opinion.

Posted By: MerleZ Jan 14, 2005 - 05:47 am

LO, as you know I appreciate and understand your positions. My reason for bringing this back up was that I had run across the UN speech, and said to myself I ought to bring it up. I think it was conceded a long time ago that no WMDs would be found in Iraq. That every intelligence service in the Western world belieced Iraq had WMDs is apparently of no consequence, since what we know after the fact means the war was unjustified. Isn't that how it goes?

Anyway, Russia was doing in Chechnya exactly what Yugoslavia was doing in Kosovo, not really any different at all. The US and NATO intervened in Kosovo, and ignored Chechnya. Yes, the Chechnyans have since resorted to dispicable terrorist attacks. But my point is, that nations for many reasons ignore some wrongs, and take actions over others.

Maybe a better explanation would be thus: having ignored Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia, were France and England precluded from declaring war after his invasion of Poland? Of course not.

Magus, it is a terrible allegation against anyone that he would put at risk the lives of so many young men for a personal vendetta. That is the kind of thing that you had better be able to back up with something beyond, "well everyone knows it."

Posted By: Magus Jan 14, 2005 - 06:16 am

O.K. I can understand that. Let me see if I can find evidence now. This was all told to me by several of my teacher's over the past couple of years, some even predicting War in Iraq before it started.

O.K. Here's where you can read about The attempted assassination of former President Bush

And you can find out some of what Bush's origional vendetta was before he was the president.

I tried to find unbiased sites and this is what I found. The second one is rather leangthly and so I'll quote some key parts.

"Last September, at a Republican Party fund-raiser, the President referred to Saddam as "the guy that tried to kill my Dad". What has not been widely known until very recently is that Saddam is also the guy that tried to kill George jnr's wife.' "

"In his 1999 autobiography, A Charge to Keep, he wrote: "This is a unique moment in history. A generation after the successful struggle against an evil empire, a new generation of American leaders will determine how American power and influence are used. This is still a world of terror and missiles and madmen... Peace is not ordained, it is earned. It requires firmness with regimes like North Korea and Iraq, regimes that hate our values and resent out success." "

""If I find, in any way or shape or form," Bush said on the campaign trail in January 2000, "that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, I'll take him out." "

So it explains that prior to being president, prior to September 11, Bush had personal reasons for attacking Iraq.

Posted By: MerleZ Jan 14, 2005 - 07:41 am

Thanks, Magus. I find that evidence weak, but then I kinda like W. You are of course free to make of it what you will.

Posted By: Magus Jan 14, 2005 - 09:18 am

I just posted the first two sites on the issue that seemed to be pretty unbiased on the issue. I've heard more of this over the past several years from several sources, both online and off. But I never really took catalogue. This was as best as I could do on short notice.

Posted By: MerleZ Jan 14, 2005 - 11:46 am

Magus, I just won't jump to the conclusion, based on an acknowledgment of the President that he is aware that Sadaam had made an attempt on his dad's life, that President's motive was to get even with Sadaam. That's really the difference here. I don't think anyone can point to anything the President actually said, other than acknowledging what is pretty common knowledge (it's been on the news!), that would lead one to believe that the President was motivated by revenge.

I guess if you already have a negative view of someone, you will believe anything bad about him you wish to.

Posted By: Magus Jan 14, 2005 - 12:05 pm

No, that's not true. If you read the first article it says that an investigation confirmed that Iraq was behind the assassination attempt. They obviously would have told Bush sr. who evidently told Bush Jr. Because, as I pointed out in the above quote, Bush identifies Saddam as "the guy that tried to kill my Dad".

While I suppose we won't actually know how the clock that is Bush ticks, only he himself would know that, I think it's safe to assume that he's motivation for certain military actions against certain Islamic states are quite possibly something other then what he has claimed.

You asked for proof. I googled it and found these right off the bat. I only had to skip over one or two that were clearly anti Bush to these, which seemed as neutral as could be found.

"I guess if you already have a negative view of someone, you will believe anything bad about him you wish to."

And, no offense meant, I could turn that statement around fairly easily. I guess if you already have a positive view of a person, you will disbelieve anything bad about him you wish to.

Like I said, no offense intended. You asked for some sources and I found them for you.

Posted By: MerleZ Jan 14, 2005 - 12:18 pm

LOL! I'm not offended, and apparently my last post was unclear. What I'm saying is that the fact that the President knows that Sadaam tried to get his father is not proof that he has a vendetta. Now, he wouldn't be human if he didn't hold a little personal ill will toward him, but still that's not proof we invaded Iraq because W was ticked off about Sadaam trying to off his daddy.

And pretty clearly a couple posts above, I stated that I didn't believe that motive of W, but then again I kinda like him. So I acknowledge that the converse is also true.

Posted By: Magus Jan 14, 2005 - 01:15 pm

Ahhhh... I see now. I must have misunderstood your meening from the last post.

I do agree that it's not exactly hard evidence, but it's as close as we can come by. Really, as I said before, nobody will really know all of his agendas and vendettas, if any, except the big man himself. And he's already declined my interviewing him. So it looks like it's up to us to agree to disagree.

Posted By: Odrade Jan 19, 2005 - 07:28 pm

I am trying to find Hyperion. I hope this gets to him somehow....and if it does, he will forgive me my silence for so long.

Hyper, i know i have been bad, not bad like Bush here, but more bad like Clinton in forgetting to take care of those who care. Please forgive me my laspes, i could complain my life, but it is hardly an excuse.

Respond or write or something, just so i know you got this. Sorry.....