’luci - ‘old bean’, ‘old cock’, old chap’, all of the same ilk; not old as in age but in the knowing; been around together for a while, etc. Could be 25 and been at scholl together for 20 years, that kind of thing . . .
Werewolf of London is perfectly fine by me!
I don’t know - are you claiming that World War II was an attack on the German and Japanese people?
And I would say we certainly liberated the Germans from a certain unpleasant paper-hanger and his cronies. To do so, we had to conquer their armies. In the same way, setting up Japan as a liberated country involved a good deal of military action against their fleets.
“Liberation” means “setting a country free”. Are you now alleging that neither Japan nor Germany is now free? Or are you alleging that the people of Iraq are now just as badly off as when Saddam was feeding them thru plastic shredders?
What exactly are you saying?
If anything.
Regards,
Shodan
Boy, that’s a tough one!
Might it have something to do with the fact that in the first instance, you have an actual attack, with real airplanes and bombs and stuff…
And the other instance, you have war made on a nation purported by the attacker to possess Invisible Pink Unicorns armed with 1920’s Style Death Rays?
Blither as much as you like about the semantic distinctions between “conquest” and “liberation”, the ground facts remain the same.
Dropping two atomic bombs on civilians is an attack on the people.
The occupation and division of Germany after WWII was an attack on the people (and the “people” in Nazi Germany were active participants in the crimes of that regime. they were not just innocent bystanders).
We were also at war with those countries as countries. The countries themselves were defined as the enemy. Bush sold the invasion of Iraq as simply a regime change. He took pains to deny that we were declaring war on Iraq a a country but that we were just removing Saddam with the stated intention of restoring sovereignty to the Iraqi people without the interference or control of the US government.
It remains to be seen whether Iraq is any better off.
And, AFAIK, war was never declared.
Once again, all together.
“Iraq had nothng to do with 9/11”
Not really a tough concept to grasp.
**
Yes 2 UN security council members.
**
Good for you.
**
Yes, this is because we have a war on terror going on, remember? The very war we are diverting our resources away from when we do stupid shit like attack Iraq, * which had nothing to do with Al qaeda*. Obviously we were able to accomplish some things, just not as much as we could, because one hand is busy with bullshit.
**
Didn’t we go to war because we knew exactly what they had and where it was? And don’t give me that “they buried it in the sand” bullshit.
**
This was not clear at all. Saddam didn’t have shit, but didn’t want to admit it because he’s an asshole.
**
Please show me where all the Al Qaeda training camps were in Iraq, I must have missed them.
Now the standard is al Qaeda training camps in Iraq. Whatever. You hate Bush.
You want actual weapons? Are you sure? We’ll probably find them in Lebanon, Israel, New York, or New Jersey before we find any in Iraq.
Did I say that was the standard?
Let’s start with a concrete link.
**
So we invaded Iraq so we could go to NY and get SH’s wmd? What the fuck are you even talking about? I hate Bush because he led us into this false war.
The simple fact of the matter is that we have less resources devoted to protecting us - to providing, in other words, for our national defense - than we did before Bush started this war.
Period.
Nothing, and I mean nothing, else matters.
I could give a flying fuck about Iraq.
As could anyone else on this board, before Bush got a wedgie about Saddam.
Americans have died, and will die in the future because of this useless asshole, this corrupt profiteer, and his slavish apologists.
Nothing else matters.
I like the cut of your jib.
Not a chance, it’s not that simple. The question was never whether or not Iraq had huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons (we’ll ignore nuclear weapons research for the moment) but what happened to them. Saddam claimed they were destroyed without any records being made of their destruction and simultaneously told weapons inspectors to get bent.
It’s almost as if the “where are the WMD’s” debate is for domestic consumption only, inexplicably. We should likely be relieved when the WMD’s are found, and our concern should only heighten if they are not. The logic is inescapable, and the likelihood is that several caches of weapons have been secreted in Iraq, or shipped to “friendly” countries, etc.
I’d say the real likelihood is they lied to a us, and any of you dumbasses who still believe them should be rounded up and shot, as you are what is impeding America.
Or never existed in the first place? Wouldn’t want that possibility to escape our attention. Fact is, I kinda lean in that direction.
I’d like to replace “any of you dumbasses” with “any dumbasses” as I wasn’t addressing anyone here.
Yeah I guess I should have mentioned that in my post instead of saying whatever I just said. 
I guess I can comment.
Earlier you posted this:
Having said that I’m not worth talking to even for “shits and giggles” and declaring your attention to leave it seems kind of stupid and contradicory to expect prompt attention from me.
So my first comment is that you’re an impatient and contradictory asshole who by is own declaration isn’t worth my courtesy since you’re just seeking a reply for “shits and giggles.”
On to the post in question:
Ok, let’s see. Yadda yadda yada, false statements misrepresentations, semantic game playing and attempts at deconstruction concerning a hijack, insult, accusation of paranoia, and a leading question or two to bait me into continuing the hijack with you.
So, I guess my comments on this would be that you’re continuing to be an asshole playing games for irritation value who has as much as stated they have no intention of debating anything seriously.
Which is exactly the kind of thing Saddam did.
Now I understand your objections to the war which removed Saddam from power.
An excellent comment! Entirely irrelevent to the actual posting, of course, as it is concerned with painting your self-portait in sepia tones of injured nobility and wounded dignity.
Regretably, if anyone troubles to actually check the link that Werewolf of London provides, he will discover that the matter under discussion is your entirely laughable indulgence in paranoid self-pity and delusional martyrdom.
Conspiracy. What rot.
Just between us girls, whisper to me: did you really, no shit, honest-to-God think that bullshit would convince anyone?
Scylla, Uzi. Uzi, Scylla
You two will get along splendidly, I’m sure.
Svin:
Under the Big Dawg, the present situation would not have been allowed to materialize because Israel would not have allowed or been coerced into allowing the refugee settlements.
It appears to me that the Big Dawg can and is being applied to the present situation. Having now occupied these territories for a generation the Palestinians have a de facto claim and cannot reasonably be expected to move.
Bush appears to be implementing Big Dawg by promising US support for a Palestinian state provided they institute leadership that denounces and fights terrorism and is committed to peace, and will expect forbearance and cooperation from Israel in this regard provided the conditions are met.
We are using our power and relations with both Israel and the Palestinians as carrot and stick to attempt to create a peaceful and stable region, and an end to hostilities.
Easier said then done. To make it stick we may have to follow through, as both sides do not now seem committed to good faith efforts, IMO. We may actually be a good arbitrator for this as we have the need to satisfy our Arab allies as well as support Israel.
Creating peace between the Palestinians and Israelis is a goal not unlike trying to exceed the speed of light in it’s seeming difficulty, but if anybody has a shot at arbitrating such a peace it is us.
Our interests lying more with Israel given continued committed acts of terrorism by the Palestinians we may be forced to abandon our stance of creating peaceful coexistance. If we do this, we have the choice of A, allowing Israel to annex the territories and enforce citizenship of the Palestinians under Israeli rule and forcing the Arab neighbors to accept it (a bad idea,) or engaging in Nation building and creating a Palestinian state as we would like it through force (marginally less bad.)
It happens quite a bit in history. What I meant was the refugee camps should not have been allowed. The Palestinians would have been forced to disburse as refugees and be absorbed by other nations, so that the Palestinian cause in effect ceased to be a factor. I guess that’s pretty awful, but it doesn’t seem as bad in hindsight as the decades of misery and strife that have ensued.
You’re getting histrionic. This is what I mean by seeming to defend Saddam as an innocent. The guy declared his side against us, and has been a major pain in the ass in so many different ways, any of which by itself is cause for regime change. This is not a case of simple disagreement. This is one of the worst dictators who is our declared enemy in a very sensitive and volatile part of the world, a part of the world that is a hotbed of terrorism. He has attacked his neighbors, repressed his own people, used chemical weapons, tortured, and repeatedly shown that he is not interested in peace. If ever there was a maggot begging to be wiped off the face of the earth and made an example of, he’s the guy.
That is a good question. What gives us the right is that we have the power. I don’t mean that in a “might means right” kind of way, either. We have both the power and the influence to do it, or not. Either way is a choice. Using our power is an exercise in power. Not doing it is also an exercise in power. We cannot absolve ourselves of the choice by claiming we don’t have the right, because that is in itself making a choice. Not acting is an action with consequences, just as acting is.
I would think that the tradittion needs to change to reflect the circumstances. I personally think that Libya as a state sponsoring terrorist attacks against us would have been a perfectly reasonable cause for removing the leadership of the country at the time it occured. I find it preferential to trying to bomb and sanction him into submission. If we had done so, we would have removed him as a threat and provided an example to other dictators or rogue nations that might have been of a similar mind. Perhaps if it would have been done, the growth of terrorism might have been stymied. I think it would have. We just need to look at state sponsored terrorism as equivalent to an overt military attack and deal with it accordingly.
No I don’t. You make a good point. It also serves my thesis. If we got that effect from a simple retaliation bombing imagine how much better the world might be if we had really gone after his ass at the time.
Well, they let you in. 
Via con huevos, Felice Navidavid, and Happy New year. It’s been a pleasure.