|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 09:08:32 [Permalink]
|
quote: --Then get the fuck out. I buried far too many damn fine men who served this country for your 'shame' to be our reward. You'll never know what sacrifices people are willing to make to support freedom. If you're ashamed to be American, then you're a hypocrite if you stay. Every the tax on every pack of gum is supporting that which shames you. So piss off somewhere else. Or are you just running your mouth? You won't go anywhere. And I'll bet you don't even see the incredible irony of being able to run that mouth exactly because of this country is about freedom. Some of us have EARNED that freedom. Some men, who I an HONORED to have known, died earning freedom. Whatever evil conspiracy you think the military serves, me and my friends were there supporting freedom. I handed out food and medical supplies. I helped dig wells. We made sure aid convoys got thru. Just what exactly did YOU do, oh critical one?
Are you for real here? This is like one of those cliche red neck retorts made when someone dares exercise the freedoms they claim Americans have. So which is it?
My point is not that all military action by the US has been bad but the current president is nuts and is doing things that shame me and make me embarrassed. You might not agree but that doesn't mean I should leave the country. Is that why you joined the military? So you could feel you could tell people to leave when they don't agree with you? I don't feel a need to agree with everything and every decsion our government makes and I think it is my responisibility as an American to say what i think and not just sit there silently with a little frowny face.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 11:33:52 [Permalink]
|
quote: Are you for real here? This is like one of those cliche red neck retorts made when someone dares exercise the freedoms they claim Americans have
--Hey, if you are so shamed by this country and what it represents, Don't let the door hit you on the ass..... I would never support something I am ashamed of. Every tax dollar you spend goes to support this evil nation. It's hypocracy to stay and support it. Maybe you simply lack the integrity to stand by your convictions of this country. Were nazis that didn't really buy into the Aryan thing any less wrong for supporting the system that did. If we're so evil, then you support it. Put up or shut if you want to maintain a facade of moral superiority. I find it nauseating for someone to bask in the freedoms provided to you by the country you claim is so evil. to use your phrase: So which is it?
quote: but the current president is nuts and is doing things that shame me and make me embarrassed
--Last I checked the resolutions came primarily during two other presidents. What's so embarrassing? Enforcing UN sanctions and resolutions? Toppling madmen with a jones for genocide? I'll be far more sypathetic to your view when we invade Luxembourg, or any other free and peaceful country. Again, the Bush runs it all conspiracy. Like the HBers, your conspiracy starts off small but needs to ballon up to maintain itself. First Bush, but then the SecDef, JCS, congress, and countless others all need to be in on 'Bush's Global Domintation Plot', for it to happen. All the intelligence analyists, briefers, and aides all eventually have to fall under the conspiracy to keep it alive. Or just maybe all those experts see something there that we SHOULD be worried about. Ever hear of Occum's Razor? quote: I don't feel a need to agree with everything and every decsion our government makes and I think it is my responisibility as an American to say what i think and not just sit there silently with a little frowny face.
--I certainly disagree with our government alot. I've said that I'd like 5 minutes alone with Cheney or Powell for their personal responsibility in the needless deaths of US soldiers in Somalia. But ashamed? No. I have the integrity to not support something I'm ashamed of. Your responsibility is to improve the country, more than just bitching on a BBS about it. Some of us take responsibility by joining the military. Others by getting elected and working to improve the country. Others do nothing. It's just interesting how it is generally this last group of people that whine the loudest.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 12:40:49 [Permalink]
|
It's clear that people like Solly and Slater either aren't serious, or they really do hate liberty, freedom, justice and the rule of law.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 13:39:02 [Permalink]
|
This from a person who thinks that sedition is a virtue and responsibility a vice.
------- My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 13:47:32 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, yeah. War is peace, etc., etc.
[quote] This from a person who thinks that sedition is a virtue and responsibility a vice. /quote]
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 13:53:47 [Permalink]
|
Here's a little something about our President's wishy washy, pick and choose which UN resolution to support policy:
quote: The last time--and only time--the United States came before the United Nations to accuse a radical Third World government of threatening the security of the United States through weapons of mass destruction was in October 1962. In the face of a skeptical world and Cuban and Soviet denials, U.S. ambassador Adlai Stevenson presented dramatic photos clearly showing the construction of nuclear missiles on Cuban soil. While the resulting U.S. military blockade and brinksmanship was not universally supported, there was little question that the United States had the evidence and that the threat was real.
Despite vastly improved reconnaissance technology in the subsequent forty years, President George W. Bush, in his long-anticipated speech before the United Nations, was unable to present any clear proof that Iraq currently has weapons of mass destruction or functioning offensive delivery systems.
Yet lack of credible evidence was only one problem with the president's speech.
For example, his comparison with the League of Nation's failure to stand up before Japanese, Italian, and German aggression in the 1930s is completely ahistorical. The Axis powers were heavily industrialized countries that had conquered vast stretches of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Today's Iraq, by contrast, is an impoverished Third World country that for twelve years has been under the strictest sanctions in world history and has long since been forced to withdraw from neighbors it once briefly occupied.
President Bush also asserted that Iraq was poised to march on other countries back when it seized Kuwait in 1990--a charge originally made by his father--to demonstrate the need for unilateral American initiatives. This claim, however, has long-since been disproven by subsequently released satellite photos that showed less than one-third the number of Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait than claimed by the United States and that--rather than massing on the border as alleged--they were actually digging in to defensive positions around Kuwait City.
Virtually every delegate representing the world's nations present at the President's speech must have recognized the brazen act of hypocrisy in citing findings by the UN Human Rights Commission on Iraq, whose reports criticizing the human rights records of American allies have often been summarily dismissed by U.S. officials.
Double standards were most apparent, however, in President Bush's stress on the importance of enforcing UN resolutions.
The list of UN Security Council resolutions violated by Iraq cited by President Bush pales in comparison to the list of UN Security Council resolutions currently being violated by U.S. allies. Not only has the United States not suggested invading these countries, the U.S. has blocked sanctions or other means of enforcing them and even provides the military and economic aid that helps make these ongoing violations possible.
For example, in 1975, the UN Security Council passed a series of resolutions demanding that Morocco withdraw its occupation forces from the country of Western Sahara and that Indonesia withdraw its occupation forces from East Timor. However, then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan later bragged that, "The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. The task was given to me, and I carried it forward with not inconsiderable success."
East Timor finally won its freedom in 1999 after 24 years of U.S.-backed occupation. Moroccan forces still occupy Western Sahara, however, with the Bush administration supporting Morocco's defiance of subsequent UN Security Council resolutions that simply call for an internationally supervised referendum for the Western Saharan population to determine the fate of their desert nation.
Meanwhile, Turkey remains in violation of UN Security Council resolutions 353 and 354 calling for its withdrawal from northern Cyprus, which this NATO ally of the United States has occupied since 1974.
The most extensive violator of UN Security Council resolutions is Israel, by far the largest recipient of U.S. military and economic aid. Israel's refusal to respond positively to the formal acceptance last March by the Arab League to the land for peace formula put forward in UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 arguably puts Israel in violation of these resolutions, long seen as the basis for Middle East peace. There can be no argument, however, that Israel remains in defiance of a series of other UN Security Council resolutions. These include resolutions 262 and 267 that demand Israel rescind its annexation of greater East Jerusalem, as well as the more than dozen other resolutions demanding Israel cease its violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, such as deportations, demolitions of homes, collective punishment, and seizure of private property.
Unlike some of the hypocritical and mean-spirited anti-Israel resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly, such as the now-rescinded 1975 resolution equating Zionism and racism, these Security Council resolutions challenging Israeli policies have been well-grounded in international law.
For example, UN Security Council resolutions 446 and 465 require that Israel evacuate all of its illegal settlements on occupied Arab lands. The United States, however, insists the fate of the settlements is a matter of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In fact, the Clinton Peace Plan of December 2000 would have allowed Israel to illegally annex most of these settlements and surrounding areas into Israel. Even more disturbing, the U.S. decision to help fund Israel's construction of Jewish-only "bypass roads" in the occupied West Bank to connect the illegal settlements with Israel puts the United States in violation of Article 7 of resolution 465, which prohibits member states from facilitating Israel's colonization drive.
There is little doubt that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein is in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. The regime must indeed either be forced to change its behavior or be replaced. That, however, is a decision for the Iraqi people or the United Nations, not the United States alone.
According to Articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted and specifically authorizes the use of military force. This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, which violated a series of resolutions passed that August that demanded their withdrawal. When Iraq finally complied by withdrawing from Kuwait in March 1991, this resolution became moot.
Although UN Security Council Resolution 687, which demands Iraqi disarmament, was the most detailed in the world body's history, no military enforcement mechanisms were specified. Nor has the Security Council specified any military enforcement mechanisms in subsequent resolutions. As is normally the case when it is determined that governments are violating all or part of UN resolutions, any decision about enforcement is a matter for the Security Council as a whole--not for any one member of the Council.
If the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq because of that country's violation of Security Council resolutions, other Counc |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 14:00:40 [Permalink]
|
I didn't realize until recently, the missile crisis was about Cuba trying to defend itself against the United States' attacks. After the Soviet Union backed down, they almost had to go to war with Cuba to get their missiles back. It wasn't the U.S.S.R.'s idea to put them there, it was Cuba's. This of course at a time when the U.S. had missiles up Russia's nose in Turkey.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 16:35:49 [Permalink]
|
quote: How I feel about these policies is my own business and for someone to imply that I should leave for what I think is as dangerous a threat to freedom as any our country has ever faced
--Not that you would be bothered to defend 'our country' anyway. Yeah, we're the bad guy- the only ones that enforced UN resolutions. It's just oh-so-bad in Afghanistan now that we've 'invaded' there too, right? Better bring back the Taliban. Again, I say show me where we have been agressive towards any free and peaceful nation. Show me the evidence that the US brings sorrow and misery to say, Norway. This big bad US is taking out real stand up world citizens. Ever seen a mass grave in Kosovo? Well I have. Yeah, that big bad US picking on little Milosevic. Sure. So Bush is all just making it up? So you think the hundreds of analysts that intrerpreted the intelligence and briefed him are all part of the big conspiracy too? Here's a fun experiment, substitue NASA for Bush and analysts for engineers. You've just described the moon hoax conspiracy too. It just gets bigger and bigger.... Call me when we topple someone that hasn't started 2 wars in 20 years, used chemical weapons on his own people, slaughtered Kurds and Shiites by the thousands, raped and looted Kuwait, defied UN (and therefore WORLD, not just US) resolutions, et al. quote: do hate liberty, freedom, justice and the rule of law.
--yeah, I hated it so much I put my own life up in offering. When all is said and done, some of us have walked the walk. ALL you've done is talk. You don't even have a concept of what sacrifice for this country and it's ideals is. Apparently you were too busy to be of any use to freedom. The difference is that you think America OWES you freedom, with no better qualification than because your parents fucked. I actually EARNED freedom. Part of that was in a decade of deployments were that big bad US went to feed and shelter people. I earned their freedom too. They were too weak to earn it for themselves and needed help. What's your excuse?
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 17:26:24 [Permalink]
|
quote: Yeah, we're the bad guy- the only ones that enforced UN resolutions. It's just oh-so-bad in Afghanistan now that we've 'invaded' there too, right? Better bring back the Taliban.
Why do you make up shit like this? Because you can't make an argument based on fact? You need to read more about what the facts are. You have no idea what my stances are on some things and if you did you would know that I was all for invading Afghanistan. I agree sometimes military means are the only way but I do not just fall into step behind our dumbshit President. I am way too smart for that.
Once again, because everyone seems to miss this, I agree that Saddam is a very bad man but in my opinion invading Iraq at this point, with the whole world against us on this, is wrong and stupid. My point is not that Saddam doesn't have it coming. My point is that invading now will probably make it more likely that we see more terrorist act. Not less. Just don't take my words and twist them into some fantasy.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2002 : 00:38:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That's the point, WE CAN 'run off at the mouth'
Interesting to note that sedition laws were finally put to rest in the 1960's.
And again Solly's point is missed. Niether of you is dim, so I must assume you are missing it on purpose. The right to run off at the mouth was paid for. All your rights were paid for, and they don't come cheap.
But they weren't paid for by you.
No point was missed by me. I was only answering that idiotic statement of get out if you don't like it. And what do you mean 'they weren't paid for by you'? How would you know? How do I know they were even paid for by Solly?!
---------------- *Carabao forever
*SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES
www.CuriousCreations.com
*All lives are movie settings, it's what channel you're on that counts. Zatikia
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2002 : 03:16:57 [Permalink]
|
Yes, by definition everything the U.S. does is backed by Jesus H. Christ hisself, and everyone they decide to attack is the devil.
Because of that, anyone who criticizes any U.S. action is the devil and thinks that all soldiers are the devil.
Of course, Solly thinks that because he wants to get someone alone in a room he thinks he's criticizing U.S. policy. What he's criticizing of course, is not that the U.S. helped screw up Somalia in the first place, or that the world would have been much better off if the Marines hadn't landed in Somalia. What he's criticizing is that the leadership was incompetent in whatever he thought the goal was. He could have run it better.
Same with the "anti-war" criticisms about Viet Nam. Not that the U.S. attacked Viet Nam and slaughtered millions and destroyed the countryside, but that the leadership was incompetent, and "we" should have won.
quote:
Call me when we topple someone that hasn't started 2 wars in 20 years, used chemical weapons on his own people, slaughtered Kurds and Shiites by the thousands, raped and looted Kuwait, defied UN (and therefore WORLD, not just US) resolutions, et al.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 09/25/2002 05:28:38 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2002 : 05:30:47 [Permalink]
|
German soldiers put up their lives. Iraqi soldiers put up their lives. What does that have to do with anything?
quote:
--yeah, I hated it so much I put my own life up in offering.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2002 : 10:57:32 [Permalink]
|
(this was how I read it, so @tomic can correct me if I'm wrong, but...)
quote:
--Hey, if you are so shamed by this country and what it represents, Don't let the door hit you on the ass.....
But @tomic's (valid, IMHO) objection to your bifurcation fallacy ("Love it or leave it!") is that he isn't ashamed of "what this country represents", he's ashamed of who's representing this country.
The American ideal of freedom is not inextricably tied to the current government. It is most certainly and justifiably possible to hold those ideals sacred (which I do) yet be ashamed of our current government (which I am, and have been since I started caring about the news).
I'm actually quite surprised that someone who seems to value freedom at least as much as I do could have a "love it or leave it" attitude. One of the most wonderful things about our country is the ability to try and make it better, and even the most simple forms of protest/activism/making one's voice heard (i.e. posting on an Internet BBS) shouldn't be held in contempt.
Saying that someone has no right to complain about their own government because they haven't served in the military is, quite frankly, ridiculous, and I have no doubt that the Founding Fathers would have told you the same.
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2002 : 19:51:59 [Permalink]
|
quote: My point is that invading now will probably make it more likely that we see more terrorist act
--Invading ANYTIME is going to make a terrorist attack more likely. Why wait until that includes a WMD attack? What the hell kind of 'plan' is wait until he the bad guy nukes someone, maybe us, before going in? Nearly ANYTHING we do will invite some wacko to plant a bomb. Waiting for the threat to become WORSE?! WTFO? We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. You're suggesting that we can only ever attack in direct self defense. Wait wait wait. Until what? We get a cloud of bioweapon spreading across the country? The reason I'm so hostile is given that THAT argument just doesn't make sense, I can only infer that it's cowardice that makes you want to hide from a pretty clear threat. The threat of terrorism is always there. Running our national policy in fear of it and letting people like Saddam threaten the world? Even if you don't believe he can NOW, what exactly does waiting until he DOES accomplish? You say you think we have to remove him then you say we shouldn't. Which is it, man?
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2002 : 16:58:51 [Permalink]
|
quote: What he's criticizing of course, is not that the U.S. helped screw up Somalia in the first place, or that the world would have been much better off if the Marines hadn't landed in Somalia
Correct. I do not hold the US, or it's ideals in the wrong. I don't blame the government system in the wrong either. I hold three individuals responsible for Oct 3-4, '93. Cheney and Powell made a political decision to not allow AC-130 Spectre gunships in Somalia. The decision was based on video of the capabilities of Spectre which Powell said "wasn't the best imagery on CNN". They chose publicity over the lives of US Soldiers. Those were my friends. 1 Spectre on station would have changed the outcome of that battle in minutes. I've called in Spectre before, I know what it can do. Third, I blame Clinton for running a government that operated in such a fashion. Ultimately the shit rolls up hill to the GIC (Guy In Charge). And does anyone else think Somalia was better off before or after the UN operation? They had famine and warlords terrorizing the people, total anarchy. If you've never seen what chaos is up close and personal, the kind of chaos where torture and mass murder are REAL, not on TV a world away. I've stood watch on a counter-sniper perch and watched first hand what a country of millions with NO government looks like. I'll pass. The short time the UN was there, we did enormous good. The few at the top, not the system, and not even the operation itself, failed us. quote: He could have run it better
--Gomer Pyle could have. Hell, even YOU could have run it better. Here's a brand spanking new president, who is NO friend of the military, who just one the election on promises to minorities and you face shocking images on the news of a terrible famine in Africa. Clinton was merely incompetent. I don't even conspire to think he butt-fucked the military out of malice. He was just in way over his head. I'll even admit he got better at it- Bosnia and Kosovo were resounding successes. Credit where it's do. quote: Same with the "anti-war" criticisms about Viet Nam. Not that the U.S. attacked Viet Nam and slaughtered millions and destroyed the countryside, but that the leadership was incompetent, and "we" should have won
--First, I'd like to see some proof of these MILLIONS of dead. You're being a drama queen. Secondly, yes, I am saying the leadership failed us in Vietnam. The intention was to stop the spread of communism. This was not communism by popular vote, by the way. This was terrorizing villiages with rape and murder. The fact that the US played some damn dirty pool and committed it's share of atrocities is a failing of the leadership to keep the ideals of America in focus. I don't see this being the case with Iraq. Here we have a genuine bad guy that if we act quickly, we may remove as a threat before he can cause some horror of WMD. He may be able to, at least locally, now. If the US falls into the same unsavory behavior in this war, then the leadership will have failed us. I think they would be failing us if they ignored this threat like Clinton ignored Al Queda. quote: Iraqi soldiers put up their lives
--They huddled in holes until they could surrender. Some even surrendered to a news crew. quote: I'm actually quite surprised that someone who seems to value freedom at least as much as I do could have a "love it or leave it" attitude. One of the most wonderful things about our country is the ability to try and make it better, and even the most simple forms of protest/activism/making one's voice heard (i.e. posting on an Internet BBS) shouldn't be held in contempt
--I do not equate supporting conspiracy theories (it's BUSH, he's the boogyman. Everything the US does is for some evil hidden agenda that he alone controls. He WAS in Skull and Bones, you know...let's name this for what it is) on a BBS with doing ANYTHING to support freedom or improve the country.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
|
|
|