VisorCentral.com - No Room For Dissent On Iraq, I Guess?

Pages (7): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- No Room For Dissent On Iraq, I Guess? (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=30367)

Posted by MarkEagle on 01-02-2003 01:16 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
If the U.S. is such a threat to the Middle East

Huh?

quote:
why aren't Iraq's neighbours welcoming the U.S with open arms?

You mean those neighbors we provide all kinds of aid and resources to?

quote:
It seems the only major country that welcome the U.S's presence is Israel -- and they have enough nukes to wipe out the entire Middle East.

The difference is that, IMHO, the Israeli's wouldn't use them as offensive weapons... Saddam, on the other hand...

quote:
North Korea is more of a threat to Asia and the world -- and they have nukes. I do not see the U.S. sending in the military. Instead, they came up with a "containment" policy.

At least we can talk diplomatically to the North Koreans. Iraq hasn't attempted to maintain a diplomatic dialogue with anyone since the Gulf war (when, as part of the cease-fire agreement, they were supposed to dispose of and stop further development of ALL weapons of mass destruction).

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

Posted by yardie on 01-02-2003 01:45 AM:

I meant that Iraq's neighbours would welcome the U.S with open arms if they were indeed threatened by Saddam.

Who say that the Israeli's wouldn't use their nukes as offensive weapons? I seem to recall that the Israeli's attacked a "potential nuclear" installation unilaterally in 1984.

I seem to recall that the U.S. has been talking diplomatically with the North Korea since 1994. This is why there were U.N atomic inspectors stationed there. Now they have kicked the U.N inspectors out -- and re-started the plant capable of making plutonium. What does the two-faced U.S has in store for North Korea? Containment.

quote:
Originally posted by MarkEagle
Huh?

You mean those neighbors we provide all kinds of aid and resources to?

The difference is that, IMHO, the Israeli's wouldn't use them as offensive weapons... Saddam, on the other hand...

At least we can talk diplomatically to the North Koreans. Iraq hasn't attempted to maintain a diplomatic dialogue with anyone since the Gulf war (when, as part of the cease-fire agreement, they were supposed to dispose of and stop further development of ALL weapons of mass destruction).

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by K. Cannon on 01-02-2003 03:02 PM:

Off Off-Topic

(quick question for yardie)
I'm trying to remember what your avatar was before the mouse...?
Kelley

Posted by John Nowak on 01-02-2003 05:21 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Come on now. There are no still no tangible evidence that Saddam has anything to do with September 11th.

[/QUOTE]

Isn't that interesting? You have to turn "Iraq is not a threat to the US" into "Iraq had nothing to do with September 11." In a few weeks, it will probably be "Iraq didn't sink the USS Maine, so it is therefore not a threat to the United States."

The United States did not invade Iraq in 1917 -- therefore, we are not a threat to Iraq.

quote:
Originally posted by yardie

In a court of law, the prosecutor (in this case the U.S.) would lose their case.

[/QUOTE]

Golly, that would explain why the Security Council voted down the latest Iraq resolution. Oh, wait -- it passed unaminously. Syria voted for it too.

Face it. Every government knows the US is probably right here. All the moaning is designed to curry favor with pinheads. In the final analysis, every member of the Security Council voted in support of the United States on this issue.

Posted by John Nowak on 01-02-2003 05:28 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
If the U.S. is such a threat to the Middle East, why aren't Iraq's neighbours welcoming the U.S with open arms?

Like Kuwait?

quote:
Originally posted by yardie

North Korea is more of a threat to Asia and the world -- and they have nukes. I do not see the U.S. sending in the military. Instead, they came up with a "containment" policy. Talk about playing chicken.

Oo, yeah, containment never works -- that's why the Soviet Union is still a threat.

Thanks for the advice on how to trigger regime change in Communist countries. I'm sure the United States has a lot to learn from you; after all, it's not like we're the only country that's actually done it or something.

Posted by BobbyMike on 01-03-2003 07:26 AM:

Wow... I was going to say something profound (or just found), but I just read this whole post and all this posturing (from both sides) has left me quite dizzy.

...and I want to know too... WHAT was your avatar before, Yardie? I will not be able to sleep tonight until I know...

Does anybody else remember the Capitol Building (in DC) being bombed in 1983-4? There was so much craziness going on that we (USMC) were trained for riot control because of the "upcoming riots". (hit people here, not here...) If common sense had not prevailed who knows what would have happened?

Just remember that too far left or right you get off balance. the center is nice. People are nice. Iraqi's are nice. Americans are nice. British are nice. Canadians are nice (that Michael J. Fox is so cute and plucky) Koreans are nice. Everybody nice. Bible says "Do not kill the people" and "Love your neighbor as you love yourself' also says "Strong must protect weak". Good words for everybody, not just christians.

I still want to punch Saddam in the nose. (I am weak sometimes)He kill his own people. Like Stalin did. Stalin is his idol. He not even a practicing muslim. I Pray for him to become touched by God like Saul on the road to Damascus. Change his name to Paul and have to love everybody and go preach the Gospel. That would fix his little red wagon!

I go to bed now....

Still wish I knew what Yardies old avatar was....

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by John Nowak on 01-04-2003 12:04 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike
Just remember that too far left or right you get off balance. the center is nice. People are nice. Iraqi's are nice. Americans are nice. British are nice. Canadians are nice (that Michael J. Fox is so cute and plucky) Koreans are nice. Everybody nice. Bible says "Do not kill the people" and "Love your neighbor as you love yourself' also says "Strong must protect weak". Good words for everybody, not just christians.

Fair comment, and I agree absolutely. It's entirely too easy to use shorthand comments like "the Americans" or "Europeans" when you're really talking about governments and impressions from the media.

The only Limbaugh fan I know personally is Canadian, a different Canadian was very pleased about Bush's decision to go forward with missile defense, and I'm very proud to say my mother's parents were illegal immigrants slipping out of Mussolini's Italy and that my father evaded the draft in Nazi Germany.

Posted by yardie on 01-05-2003 02:01 PM:

Re: Off Off-Topic

Kelley,

I didn't start using one until a few months back

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
(quick question for yardie)
I'm trying to remember what your avatar was before the mouse...?
Kelley

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 01-05-2003 02:06 PM:

Wait a minute. What does September 11 have to do with the UN Resolution? The UN resolution is about sending inspectors to look for so called Weapons of Mass Destruction.. and that has nothing to do with September 11th. I should also add the U.S got a much watered down version of the resolution that they proposed.

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak

Isn't that interesting? You have to turn "Iraq is not a threat to the US" into "Iraq had nothing to do with September 11." In a few weeks, it will probably be "Iraq didn't sink the USS Maine, so it is therefore not a threat to the United States."

The United States did not invade Iraq in 1917 -- therefore, we are not a threat to Iraq.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Golly, that would explain why the Security Council voted down the latest Iraq resolution. Oh, wait -- it passed unaminously. Syria voted for it too.

Face it. Every government knows the US is probably right here. All the moaning is designed to curry favor with pinheads. In the final analysis, every member of the Security Council voted in support of the United States on this issue. [/B][/QUOTE]

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 01-05-2003 02:10 PM:

Kuwait is a U.S protectorate and insignificant player in the Middle East. Is this the best that you can come up with?

I do not comprehend your second statement about containment and communist countries. I do have one comment though -- desperate times called for desperate measures. If the North Koreans feel that have their backs against the wall and have nothing else to lose what do you think will happen?

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak

Like Kuwait?

Oo, yeah, containment never works -- that's why the Soviet Union is still a threat.

Thanks for the advice on how to trigger regime change in Communist countries. I'm sure the United States has a lot to learn from you; after all, it's not like we're the only country that's actually done it or something.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by KRamsauer on 01-05-2003 02:56 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Kuwait is a U.S protectorate and insignificant player in the Middle East. Is this the best that you can come up with?

Is that not a dangerous thing to say? You're basically saying if a given party is small it is not deserving of the same protections as others.

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by K. Cannon on 01-06-2003 04:07 PM:

Re: Re: Off Off-Topic

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
I didn't start using one until a few months back

Hm. Did you have the little yellow car or was that someone else? I know it was either you or someone who seems to have some of the same political views as you...help?

Posted by John Nowak on 01-06-2003 05:37 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Is that not a dangerous thing to say? You're basically saying if a given party is small it is not deserving of the same protections as others.

Ah, but Kuwait supports the US, and therefore must be ignored.

Isn't it interesting how US allies automatically turn into puppets and puppy dogs when they voice support for US policies? Of course, it's pretty much inevitable when your beliefs amount to absolutely nothing but the reflexive naysaying of anything to come out of Washington.

Posted by John Nowak on 01-06-2003 05:41 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Wait a minute. What does September 11 have to do with the UN Resolution?

Why, nothing. So why did you bring it up?

Posted by John Nowak on 01-06-2003 05:50 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
I do not comprehend your second statement about containment and communist countries.

That doesn't surprise me. "Stupidity is as necessary as intelligence to maintain political orthodoxy," et cetera.

You see, Russia used to be called "The Soviet Union." The Soviet Union was brought down without a direct military confontation. The details were very different, but it's fascinating to note that much of the collapse happened under a US President that everyone knew was dumb as a post.

I'm not sure how foreigners define smart, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with being right, or winning.

Posted by Toby on 01-06-2003 06:16 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Off Off-Topic

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
Hm. Did you have the little yellow car or was that someone else? I know it was either you or someone who seems to have some of the same political views as you...help?

More green than yellow. It was homer that you're thinking of, though.

Posted by K. Cannon on 01-06-2003 06:18 PM:

Yeah, that's him...
Maybe Yardie just didn't have one?

Posted by MarkEagle on 01-07-2003 12:35 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Wait a minute. What does September 11 have to do with the UN Resolution?

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak
Why, nothing. So why did you bring it up?

I got confused about this, too. So I went back and re-read the thread and it was you, Yardie, that first mentioned September 11th (I think maybe it had something to do with all those eleven years references?

).

But, IIRC, there were some very vague "connections" made (in the press anyway) between Saddam and 9/11.

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

Posted by BobbyMike on 01-07-2003 05:12 PM:

Yardie,
Have you thought that a possible reason for any of Iraq's neighbors not wanting anyone getting into a war with Iraq is just plain old common sense? War tends to spill over and can have enormous consequences for innocent bystanders. This is the same guy who killed millions of Iranians ("fellow Muslims"). I posit that that's probably closer to the truth. If he did tomorrow of a heart attack, there wouldn't be too many Muslim tears shed (unless they were crocodile tears).

That being said, I don't personally believe war will solve this problem. This problem has been brewing for centuries and will not go away with a single war. The true problem is, whether you believe it to be true or not, that the Islamic nations are truly imcompatible with any other way of thought. Unlike Buddihsts, Christians, Raelians, etc. they feel they have been charged with converting the entire world to their worldview, with no room for oppsing thoughts. (If you actually knew what's currently going in Africa you would be amazed, but since the only people seemingly interested in the slaughter of millions of defenseless African men, women and children are Christian missionaries -notoriously unreliable people - it doesn't get much airplay) In fact, in their first 110 years of existence they had conquered, by force, the whole of the land bordering the Mediterranean from Istanbul (not Constantinople) all the way round the southern edge as far up into France as Tours! Look at a map, that's a lot of people forced into a religion by threat of death. The current Muslim fundamentalists are in the same way of thought. If you disagree, you die.

The Crusades didn't start with Christians going into Muslim countries, they started when the Muslims invaded and killed all their non-muslim neighbors. If it weren't for Charles the Hammer (a Frenchman!) we'd all be Muslim.

Now, of course, I suppose that someone will say that that's true of Christians too. I would have to point out that Jesus Christ (followers of whom we call Christians) never advocated violence, in fact he said to turn the other cheek. Mohammed, who originally advocated peaceful conversion, later changed his mind and said that Allah wanted people either to follow him or perish.

Man will not solve this problem, only the Living God will.

BTW before anyone brings up The Spanish Inquisistion, do your homework. That didn't involve conversion, or nonbelief, but heresy or non-doctrinal thinking amongst the Catholic Church. America was founded by Reformation-minded Christians who believed that no man/woman should be forced towards any doctrine. How that got changed into a wall completely separating Government (public life) and Religious (private life) in the 1960's (no, it's not in our Constitution) is an interesting look at how Secular Humanists have tried to change what actually happened into what they want to have happened)

I'm sure you will disagree with all/part of this Yardie, and I don't hold you responsible. I realize that Canada isn't really working on the world stage right know, being divorced from any real power base. What was the last war Canada got involved in? WWII? Must be nice have a neighbor that no-one wants to go toe-to-toe with. You get all the benefits of a strong military force, without any economic liability. Gives you a chance to do a lot of deep introspective thinking about how the rest of the world is screwing things up. Was probably rough when the USSR was together, what with the fear that they might lob a nuke or two this way, but since they mysteriously fell apart (socialism is viable! ) it must be a relief.

Last thought.... If an unmarried woman gets pregnant, what are the possible ways it can be handled?

Pro-choice: Be unwed mother or abort the fetus.
Christian: Be an unwed mother or have the baby and have an open adoption.
Islamic: Be an unwed mother, nurse the baby and then be stoned to death when the baby is weaned.

edited by me to correct mis-spelling

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by Toby on 01-07-2003 05:54 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike
[...] Man will not solve this problem, only the Living God will. [...]

"And they say that a hero can save us. I'm not gonna stand here and wait."

quote:
BTW before anyone brings up The Spanish Inquisistion, do your homework. That didn't involve conversion, or nonbelief, but heresy or non-doctrinal thinking amongst the Catholic Church.

Um, when the Catholic Church is the ruling authority (or is really ceding that "divine right" to a monarchy), who doesn't fall under its control?

quote:
America was founded by Reformation-minded Christians who believed that no man/woman should be forced towards any doctrine. How that got changed into a wall completely separating Government (public life) and Religious (private life) in the 1960's (no, it's not in our Constitution) is an interesting look at how Secular Humanists have tried to change what actually happened into what they want to have happened)

I think you've got that backwards. The first amendment combined with the words of the founders like Madison and Jefferson make it quite clear that religion was not to encroach upon secular matters. It's a bit disengenuous to say that because some of the colonies were founded by religious separatists that the country was founded on religion and the 60s corrupted that. I'd argue that the 50s corrupted much more with their witchhunts and modifying of the pledge and whatnot.

quote:
Last thought.... If an unmarried woman gets pregnant, what are the possible ways it can be handled?

Pro-choice: Be unwed mother or abort the fetus.
Christian: Be an unwed mother or have the baby and have an open adoption.
Islamic: Be an unwed mother, nurse the baby and then be stoned to death when the baby is weaned.

Weird how marriage to the father isn't even considered as an option in any of those. Must be my own NoneOfTheAbove heathen philosophy that made the thought even occur to me.

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:17 PM.

Pages (7): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page