Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: War with Iraq  (Read 26607 times)

malina

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • Ich bin ein Stachelschwein.
    • All I have for now, a Yahoo! profile.
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #60 on: September 13, 2002, 02:08:34 pm »


Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
                    "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.


This exception refers to bringing up hitler or the nazis for the purpose of ending the conversation, and that's not what happened.
Quote

6.  "Hitler!"  Ha!  The thread is over!

Nope, doesn't work that way.  Not only is it wrong to say that a
thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads
virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to
the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama (quirk@swcp.com):

   Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
           "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
   
   Sorry, folks.  Nice try, though.

From:http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

Godwin's Law is further at work already, as we're currently discussing the law itself.
(From the same FAQ)
Quote
When it [the invocation of Godwin's Law] happens, the thread is going to start either degenerating into a long flamewar over Nazi Germany or about Godwin's Law.


Selective quoting is a cheap defense, and besides, lighten up. Godwin's Law is nothing to get bent out of shape about, it's just an amusing set of observations.

Malina
Logged
"Self-contempt, however vague, sharpens our eyes for the imperfections of others. We usually strive to reveal in others the blemishes we hide in ourselves." -- Eric Hoffer

percy, aka tntsmum

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
  • SEE YOU IN THE FREE STATE!!!!
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #61 on: September 13, 2002, 03:28:45 pm »

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying the stories referenced from the Guardian are entirely fabricated?

These same stories appeared on US sources as well, they simply umm... poofed after a short while (counting on the American publics short memory... always a safe bet).
Quote

Ok - I'm ready, you get a free disparaging comment in my direction.


Hehehe, not my style. You just get to feel guilty for misbehaving is all.  :P

Elizabeth is prolly right however, the thread has prolly run its course (I agree with the ref to Godwin's Law as well).

People rarely if ever change their beliefs (usually strictly emotional based) due to bashing things about on message boards. That sort of thing more often requires running face first into it, which is normally a very unpleasant experience.

My "Guardian" comment was a general one not relating specifically to that article.
And thanks for taking the high road and not retaliating. Classy guy. Eventually It may rub off and I'll start behaving a little better.
You are right, this really does seem to have run it's course. It's been fun though.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #62 on: September 13, 2002, 03:47:40 pm »


Personally I think it's foolish to NOT misstrust the media!  No I'm not a conspiracy theorist I just think it's totally folish to believe something you hear from one source!  
-Eddie


I agree.  I simply am speaking against kneejerk assumptions about collusion and governmental control of the media.  

No media source (or any other source, for that matter) is unbiased.  We should recognize this and obtain our information accordingly taking into account likely lines of bias.

Bias does not assume collusion or conspiracy.
Logged

wolf_tracker

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #63 on: September 15, 2002, 08:00:37 pm »

check out this article of how long it will take iraq to
get nukes ....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-417076,00.html

and see why we are worried

Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #64 on: September 16, 2002, 12:19:59 pm »

It seems to me that it would cost a lot more to fight a war over the oil than it will to simply buy access to the oil.  I haven't done all the research to prove this, but isn't that why colonialism has collapsed?

Given the information that MouseBorg has posted, It does appear that we stand to gain some oil money as a result of war on Iraq.  But if that was the primary reason, I think we'd be spending more than we gain.  Since the war is already necessary for other reasons, then the spoils can surely be used to offset the military expenditures.

The two quoted democrats from the article saying that Iraq is not a threat, might examine their own party's stance on conflict with Iraq in 1998 (under Clinton's reign) when the leading democrats, Daschle, Kerry, and others, were banging the drums of war.  Democrats have an agenda to weaken the republican administration as much as possible in order to get more democrats elected in this mid-term election season.

The game of politics makes it very difficult to believe any politician, and the philosophy behind Democratic politicians makes them even less easy for me to believe.  The media plays this game as well, but not as often and with less finesse.  The media is bound by facts, at least to some degree, so once the spin is mentally removed, you can often come up with the facts.  Politicians, on the other hand, speak pure spin and can speak without saying anything conclusive at all.  In this case, the democrats in question are touting opinion as fact and attempting to turn the tables, accusing the administration of being the aggressor in the conflict.  The go aggressive, claiming war as an agenda for the elections (which is possible, but an expensive way to improve public perception) before the Republicans can say that their slanderous words are part of an election agenda, thus making it more difficult for them to make that point.  My point is that these democrats are playing the game (pretty well) and that their words bear no direct relation to the facts.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #65 on: September 16, 2002, 05:32:11 pm »

Admittedly, MouseBorg, you are rather convincing.  You've made me think of other possible causes for this situation.  That doesn't mean that I agree with you, but just that I have to work harder at disagreeing. :)  I haven't had a workout like this in a long time.

I'll get back to it when I can do a little more reading on the sources you've brought up.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #66 on: September 16, 2002, 05:52:28 pm »

Iraq agrees to weapons inspections

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq says it will allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return "immediately and without conditions."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20020916/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/


We may not have to worry about this war after all.  On the other hand, if this _is_ entirely about the oil, Bush will try to spin the situation to concentrate on the past human rights violations and continue the war anyway.  Even if it you are right, MouseBorg, it is possible that Bush will abandon the idea for political reasons, so the only thing this can do is prove your point.  It can't prove mine, unfortunately :).  Lets watch how things unfold.  
Logged

wolf_tracker

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #67 on: September 18, 2002, 04:06:20 pm »


Iraq agrees to weapons inspections

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq says it will allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return "immediately and without conditions."



except for the following :

http://www.thisislondon.com/dynamic/news/top_story.html?in_review_id=698298&in_review_text_id=671535

from the british press .... and not the u.s. press

Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #68 on: September 18, 2002, 05:22:21 pm »

Yeah, I got my hopes up but Saddam appears to be attempting stall tactics and/or divisive tactics.  Very intelligent of him, but I doubt it will work.  The war looks to be reasonably well-supported by the general population based on the polls.

I can't say I'd be sorry to see it happen, although thanks to MouseBorg, I'll be a little more wary of events.  I can see that one of the reasons for attacking Iraq could be oil accomodations (although not likely outright takings, since the political reaction to that would be quite dangerous), but I don't necessarily see that an ulterior motive negates the _other_ reasons for going to war.  

As to the expenditure of military lives, it seems to me that war is what they signed up for, and that they have no contractual right to be upset at being sent.  They can protest the war causes in private, but they are bound to fight the war by contract.  Regardless, we're not likely to lose very many men.  Iraq is not a difficult target, as was shown in the _first_ gulf war.

I think that if we take as given that the US is going to remain an international interventionist, then this war must be fought.  I can understand arguments for military non-interventionism (I think there's a shorter term but it slips my mind) and I consider it a possibility that we would be better off following such a separatist approach.  I think that pulling back instantly at this time would probably cause some serious world-wide chaos, but I support the reduction of intervention in the long run.  In the short run, I favor war with Iraq for reasons I have stated before on this thread.
Logged

wolf_tracker

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #69 on: September 18, 2002, 05:27:09 pm »


I support the reduction of intervention in the long run.  In the short run, I favor war with Iraq for reasons I have stated before on this thread.


i agree and i believe that to much is being said about oil ... i believe
it is about protecting the people of the world more then it is about
oil.

Logged

Dave Reese

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • I'm a llama!
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #70 on: September 22, 2002, 10:07:01 am »

Mouse:

One might think that your profound distrust of the media would prevent you citing it as any sort of an authoritative source, particularly if your citation comes from a part of the American media.

Dave

Logged

Dave Reese

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • I'm a llama!
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #71 on: September 23, 2002, 09:08:11 am »


Quote
author=Dave Reese
One might think that your profound distrust of the media would prevent you citing it as any sort of an authoritative source, particularly if your citation comes from a part of the American media.


Yup, one would think such, wouldn't one...  ;D

But I'm going to have to search back there through all of that to find the part where I said any of the sources were authoritative, as I don't recall doing so... Actually quite the opposite if I remember correctly.

Addition:

Nopers, I checked... no such critter.

Am I safe in presuming your post was an attempt to point out some form of flawed internal logic, in that I present references which I feel lack authority to others who do feel they are authoritive?


Nah, not really . . . that would make you something of a sophist, which I'm sure you're not.

The point is simply that a profound distrust of the mainstream media (regarding them as more or less a mouthpiece of the state) should logically preclude the citing of said media should they support a position that criticizes the state.

No flame intended. It just doesn't seem to fit to me when the mainstream media is described in one sentence as a state puppet, and then in another sentence Dan Rather is quoted. If anyone is part of the mainstream media, it's Rather; as such he shares the media's supposed total lack of credibility.

Just my .02. :)

Dave
Logged

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #72 on: September 23, 2002, 04:07:00 pm »

Well I'm not as jaded as Mouse borge and I'm also not reading through this whole massive massive topic but here are my 2 cents.  What has happend world wide in the 3rd world dictatorship countries (at least the ones that pretend to be pro western) is that 'anti-terrorism' is just the latest buzz-word that allows dictators to do whatever they want.  It's like 'fighting communism' during to cold war or how Russia spins locking up innocent people as 'convicted on drug charges' everything is just media spin these days.  You find a 'legitamite' cause like fighting drugs or terrorism or communism and something that would otherwise be reprehensible becomes somewhere between 'questionable' adn 'taking a hard line' on drugs, communism, terrorism etc.  Pakistan's government has recently invented a terrorist group that it has been rounding up members of when really this is just Mushareff getting rid of some enemies.  All the important terrorist are still there and he can't touch them because they are too powerful politically with the people in certain areas.  I don't think Bush is going into Iraq for oil.  Yes I think it's part of the reason but I also think it's because ultimately he plans on taking out Iran and Syria also.  When 9-11 happend I heard that we were going into most of the middle east countries and taking out terrorist along with hostile regimes.  Well that might actually be what they are doing just much slower than I thought.  While everyone was up in arms still I thought the best approach was to call up the reserves and send ultimatums to almost all the middle eastern countries stating that each country must find a rout out terrorists and that they must submit to armed military occupation by the US until such time that terrorists are no longer a threat in their countries.  Cooperation must immediate and unconditional or war would be declared.  This I thought would be effective because the Americas would unify and we would systematically eliminate terrorist without boundaries to worry about.  Instead the current plan is more crafty.  Divide and conquer.  First Afganistan, also Pakistan is now our lap dog and as time progresses we will lean and lean and lean on them more and more until they find and imprison all of their terrist leaders.  In the mean time we do the same to Saudi Arabia and also we invade Iraq.  Then we Iran surrounded and we either aid the anti-gov types there or we help with an ivasion.  Syria is small an may be delt with by pressure or military or perhaps issrael.  This takes care of just about all of the middle east, Egypt is already pretty pro West and we have influence there.  This strategy is probably more effective from a logical stanpoint but it doesn't capitalize on the all of the passion to rid the world of terrorism everyone had after 9-11.  Again if we do this we must absolutely stay afterwards and build up these countries or else all will be for naught and they will hate us and we will have the same problems again.  Anyway maybe I'm a war hawk but my main concern is not getting people killed.  If we can take over a country with minimun losses and give these people a representative government and peace and stability that will foster a real economy then we really have made the world a better place while making this country a safer place.  Everyone wins I think... but only if we stay and rebuild.  Right now in Afganistan we are not doing enough and our troops are only in the capital really.
Logged

Dave Reese

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • I'm a llama!
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #73 on: September 23, 2002, 09:58:50 pm »


Quote
author=Dave Reese
No flame intended.


None seen... Though you do seem to be arguing the presentation method, or the philosophical aspect of the method, as opposed to the data being presented. Interesting approach.  :)


Ya got me. I've enjoyed our exchange. :)

Dave
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #74 on: September 25, 2002, 09:32:55 pm »

So can I assume that that you have forgiven my unintentional insiunation when using "conspiracy theory?"

I considered this to be a new bit to add to the debate.  That even if Bush was rolling in oil interests, we cannot consider that as an immediate reason to cancel any plans to go to war with Iraq.  For an oil conspiracy to be the key reason for war, we must debunk each other individual reason until there is no reason that holds up to scrutiny.

You _have_ caused me to doubt the administrations reasons, but not to reject them.  With further examination of other sources which I have determined I can trust (specifically Neal Boortz) as well as CSPAN radio, an unbiased direct reporting of events (unbiased since they do not add _any_ commentary whatsoever), I feel that there is still a need to remove Saddam.  They've provided the apparent facts of the matter, and I have used the political philosophy of Machiavelli and others to determine the logical course.

I don't believe in wide-scale governmental conspiracy because the government is split almost evenly between the two parties.  Both parties are statist, but are able to find the most vicious of issues to disagree upon.  They would never be able to work together in one conspiracy and I think there is little evidence that there is one conspiracy for each party.  Without unified action, no governmental conspiracy would have the power that would be needed to start wars purely over personal economic gain.

Regarding your aside, there are at least a few of us who think that the federal government as determined by the constitution is a reasonable one.  The power to declare war is specifically a power designated to Congress, and the power to prosecute war is designated to the President.  As such, there is nothing unconstitutional going on with regard to war.

You'll find that I disagree with almost everything else that the federal government does.  Their role is very limited by the constitution and they've been slowly usurping power for over 100 years now.  The fedgov also has the right to enact diplomacy among nations, even when that diplomacy ends up being the cause of great strife.  I disagree with their actions in many of these cases, but not their constitutional right.  If international affairs was the only problem with the fedgov, I'd probably be a happy member of the republican party right now, working to change the platform in _my_ state.  Their interference with citizen's liberty is what makes me a FSP supporter (not yet a member due to overwhelming fiscal responsibilities)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up
 

anything