War - What The Hell Is It Good For - Page 8

"Good point - lol - but I'm talking about history and precedent and the fact that Iraqis, Jordanians, Saudis, Syrians and Iranians have been in control of their NATIONS for half a century."
Well, German and Italian noble families had controleld their little principalities for close to half a millenia. That didn't stop them believing a common nation existed.

"Are they Iraqi nationals? Are they targeting civilians?"
What does this have to do with representing a government? As, allegedly, a terrorist is someone without a government.

"We are new at this game and the debaathification process may in hindsight have been a mistake;. HOWEVER it was a mistake urged by leading Iraqi dignitaries and dissenters who were experts in the region. Allawi admitted yesterday that HE made a mistake there too. However, I am not convinced yet it was a mistake - I think its just too soon to determine."
I think it was also stupid and foolish to make post-war plans almost entirely based on the opinions of Iraqis who had not actually been in Iraq for decades and who were bound to be pro-American and out of touch.

Are you saying that Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Eygpt aren't really nations? I mean honestly - is that what you really believe?

"What does this have to do with representing a government? As, allegedly, a terrorist is someone without a government."

Because they may be representing the government that was disposed. They may be insurgents.

"I think it was also stupid and foolish to make post-war plans almost entirely based on the opinions of Iraqis who had not actually been in Iraq for decades and who were bound to be pro-American and out of touch."

You may be right - however the key person that you are speaking about, Chalabi, was just about elected PM of Iraq and is one of the most popular men there.

Dude, they all sound like criminals to me, I just can't fathom your one sided nature, you honestly believe that Republicans are not as guilty as Democrats? Again with naivety and hypocricy, OH, Democrats are evil, thank god for those saintly Republicans to save us.

I know they all sound like criminals to you because you are a conspiratorialist and always believe the worst about everyone and everything.

No all democrats are not evil - many are good Americans with honest motives - no all republicans are not saints - many are opportunist power-hungry demagogues. But what is sad is that you have absolutely no ability to discern either.

"Are you saying that Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Eygpt aren't really nations? I mean honestly - is that what you really believe?"
I don't know if they are nations. I am saying its not clear cut for many of them (Iran and Lebanon are nations because of the presence of Persians and other ethnic groups respectively). And that many "foreigners" see themselves as Arabs fighting for Arabs (or alternatively as sunni Arabs fighting against shiits).

"What does this have to do with representing a government? As, allegedly, a terrorist is someone without a government."

"Because they may be representing the government that was disposed. They may be insurgents."
Not killing civilians and not being a foreigner means you represent Saddam?? If they are Islamists who do not attack civilians, they are still terrorists by your definition. It is weak, useless and can virtually any guerilla fighter can be charged of it.

"I think it was also stupid and foolish to make post-war plans almost entirely based on the opinions of Iraqis who had not actually been in Iraq for decades and who were bound to be pro-American and out of touch."

"You may be right - however the key person that you are speaking about, Chalabi, was just about elected PM of Iraq and is one of the most popular men there."
Um.. He joined the non-secular shiite bandwagon and then made bogus claims that he could be PM. This was quickly denounced Ibrahim al-Jaafari.

I think it was foolish to trust them anyway. Just because they are Iraqis doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

"Not killing civilians and not being a foreigner means you represent Saddam?? "

Sure - they clearly want it the way it was and oppose Iraqis that want democracy and oppose Americans for liberating them.

"If they are Islamists who do not attack civilians, they are still terrorists by your definition."

Well not necessarily - they are mercenaries though.

The point is that we don't want to make it easier for people that would tend towards terrorism or mercenaries - we don't want to legally legitimize it. We want to discourage such behavior and if you grant them the same rights as real soldiers you are doing exactly that.

"Um.. He joined the non-secular shiite bandwagon and then made bogus claims that he could be PM. This was quickly denounced Ibrahim al-Jaafari."

I believe Chalabi is now the second most powerful man in Iraq.

"Well not necessarily - they are mercenaries though."
Why? They're just fighting to topple a regime, like every other rebel group. They aren't necessarily being paid for it by someone (although I imagine they get funding from either Iran, Syria or Saudis, but then, the US Army is funded too)

"The point is that we don't want to make it easier for people that would tend towards terrorism or mercenaries - we don't want to legally legitimize it. We want to discourage such behavior and if you grant them the same rights as real soldiers you are doing exactly that. "
Its WAR. If Nazi Soldiers can have POW rights then so can so-called terrorists! Regardless of whether or not they represent a government. If you deny them rights on those grounds, every independent rebel group on Earth is "terrorist".

"No all democrats are not evil - many are good Americans with honest motives - no all republicans are not saints - many are opportunist power-hungry demagogues. But what is sad is that you have absolutely no ability to discern either."

No my sad little naive hypcritical friend, what is sad is you think you can, I know I cannot like no one else can, I don't even know these people, and neither do you.

The fact that you so heartily speak of devilish democratic ways of the absolution and moral superiority of whatever particular representatives you speak so highly of, to keep from overgeneralizing and causing your little brain to freak out and call me a conspiritorialist while dodging your own naive ways.

Look, if you think conspiracy is such a bad and innapropriate term, tell the courts to stop charging people with criminal conspiracy, otherwise, shut the fuck up about your whining about conspiracy and how anyone who mentions it is off in the head.

You speak of conspiracy every time you mention something like DEMOCRATS rigging elections, your hypocricy and rediculousness in your one sided views are baffling. Try practicing what you preach or quit preaching.

And don't think you saying, Oh, I know not everyone is either bad or good does anything to diminish your flagrant hypocricy, because when we talk about groups of people for one that changes things, also when you say that Republicans aren't saints but you don't seem to think they do anything wrong past minor mistakes whereas Democrats by you are wholeheartedly accused of criminal acts.

You've spent a lot of time learning information, don't let it all be wasted on poor one sided judgement. And never forget you must be skeptical of it.

"I know I cannot like no one else can, I don't even know these people, and neither do you. "

This is why you are a cynical conspiratorialist because you lack the ability to make certain judgments. Also, what makes you a sophist is that you are incapable of discerning truths. In your sad hate-filled little world truth does not exist thus everyone is corrupt and everyone is a liar. For example since conspiracies do exist you equate all things in a conspiratorial mindset. Of course, you moron, I know that conspiracies exist - BUT everything is not a conspiracy - everyone is not a liar - some people, save you, have virtue.

DT - Im not arguing that they shouldnt have any rights - Im just saying that they are not covered under the Geneva Accords.

""I know I cannot like no one else can, I don't even know these people, and neither do you. "

This is why you are a cynical conspiratorialist because you lack the ability to make certain judgments. Also, what makes you a sophist is that you are incapable of discerning truths. In your sad hate-filled little world truth does not exist thus everyone is corrupt and everyone is a liar. For example since conspiracies do exist you equate all things in a conspiratorial mindset. Of course, you moron, I know that conspiracies exist - BUT everything is not a conspiracy - everyone is not a liar - some people, save you, have virtue."

The point is, you cannot know, no matter what high and mighty road you take, your information is just as subject to human lies, National Security censoring, Conspiracy, etc. etc.

And your claims of trust and moral clarity would be fine (doesn't mean it would be right) if it weren't for the fact that you so blatantly act like a cynical conspiracy theorist towards Democrats, don't you get that?

"This is why you are a cynical conspiratorialist because you lack the ability to make certain judgments. Also, what makes you a sophist is that you are incapable of discerning truths. "

Look, anything you say where your "facts" and information are actually false whether you know it or not is a sophist statement.

Past that, your claim of knowing your facts are more valid is absurd, you cannot know, you preach spin, you know only what you want to believe like everyone else, I simply know I cannot know, you continually delude yourself into thinking you have an inside track on truth and accurate information while quoting mainstream media.

You cannot make accurate judgements or adequately assess truth's without factual information. Without spin, without lies, without corruption, without disproving contradictory information just as official and "valid".

And if you continually blow off other information because it doesn't come from and contradicts your favorite pundits you will be truly lost, doesn't matter if you did listen either, BOTH SIDES LIE.

You say you understand that but then just say how not everyone does, well, thats wrong, everyone lies, sure, when and about what is highly important. But the point is you cannot possibly even begin to have the slightest chance of knowing if anyone is being honest or not at any given point in time. It doesn't work like that.

We all want to be able to trust people, but we have been given good reason to be wary, your undermining of this is doesn't change it.

And your claims of omniscience in your judgements and truth discerning is both sacreligious and laughable, predictable and pathetic.

More importantly and appropriately, I simply feel you are being unreasonable and one sided, and thus you are constantly called on in your hypocricy.

"The point is, you cannot know, no matter what high and mighty road you take, your information is just as subject to human lies, National Security censoring, Conspiracy, etc. etc. "

This is what all sophists believe. However truth can be known. I admit I cant fully explain the process - call it intuition or clarity paired with knowledge and experience - but it is possible to recognize truth. Its just like how I knew from the very first time I read you that you were a cynical conspiracist.

"And your claims of trust and moral clarity would be fine (doesn't mean it would be right) if it weren't for the fact that you so blatantly act like a cynical conspiracy theorist towards Democrats, don't you get that?"

But I don't. As I have said I believe there are honorable democrats. However when I do make claims about the few democrats I have mentioned I can substantiate those claims - unlike you, I do not rely on rumor and innuendo.

"Past that, your claim of knowing your facts are more valid is absurd, you cannot know, you preach spin, you know only what you want to believe like everyone else, I simply know I cannot know,"

Then how do you KNOW that I am wrong? Cant you see your hypocrisy? Cant you understand how illogical you are being?

"And your claims of omniscience in your judgements and truth discerning is both sacreligious and laughable, predictable and pathetic."

I have never claimed omniscience. What I have required is that when you make an accusation you base it upon some semblance of facts and not rumors and innuendo. I also beg that you try to articulate your arguments in a logical manner and avoid all the emotional bs. To that aim I have never succeeded with you - although I must admit that okcityboy has improved - atleast when I asked him to research the facts himself, which he did and found out that I was not spinning or lying.

- call it intuition or clarity paired with knowledge and experience - but it is possible to recognize truth

That is an outright assumption. Especially in regards to people and lying, as well as specifically censored and controlled information, meaning anything dealing with military or National Security, which we speak so much about.

"Then how do you KNOW that I am wrong?

Because I know you are human.

Cant you see your hypocrisy? Cant you understand how illogical you are being? "

By knowing I can't know if the media is lying to me and saying you can't either, what's illogical about that, how many cases have we heard of just recently in past years specifically of false stories in the news, how often do stories get changed or updated, how many times have you heard an apology from a newscaster for mistakes in information?

And you act like I'm crazy for being wary. I see Colin Powell and Condie Rice telling us in 2001 that Saddam is not a threat, then a year or two later he's the world's greatest threat in need of being invaded. And you wonder why I am skeptical of the Bush administration.

I hear Bush say God talks to him and tells him what to do, and another time refer to war lasting generations, somewhere a mention of a possible hundred years war, and you question my concern of intention, purpose and motivation, especially based on such flimsy evidence and proven falsehoods.

Even violating a no fly zone or firing upon planes that do does not warrant a full scale regime change invasion.

You said that you know one thing and that is you are wrong and then you accuse me of being wrong. If you know that you are wrong then your judgment that I am wrong must be wrong. Unless you are now arguing that you are right.

Which is it?

"And you act like I'm crazy for being wary. I see Colin Powell and Condie Rice telling us in 2001 that Saddam is not a threat, then a year or two later he's the world's greatest threat in need of being invaded. And you wonder why I am skeptical of the Bush administration. "

They never said he wasn't a threat - they said he wasn't an immediate threat - the threat wasn't what Saddam could do but what he was willing to do or what he was willing to help others do. Many people understood this in light of 9/11 - you don't - perhaps because you believe that CIA agents caused 9/11.

"I hear Bush say God talks to him and tells him what to do,"

Bush has never said any such thing - I wonder how you are hearing this - voices in your head?

"Even violating a no fly zone or firing upon planes that do does not warrant a full scale regime change invasion."

Really? Why not - the war was in a state of cease-fire - one of the two parties broke that cease-fire and now you say that we should just sit back and not respond? Do you understand the responsibilities that the sole superpower has? Do you understand the consequences of being viewed as weak and a push-over? Do you understand that by not acting you create the potential for war or more 9/11s? No of course you don't!

9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam. To think that Saddam would have the balls to give terrorists a nuke is absurd as it would result in the total anihilation of Iraq. M.A.D. could have kept him in check. What's more, it turns out Saddam had no intention of doing it. Clearly we went to war with insufficient evidence.

Especially as there were other regimes, like Iran or North Korea who were 100x more likely of having nukes or trying to get them.