- This topic has 135 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
”Aleck” wrote:A -DM wrote:
Please tell me where you are getting this nonsense from?, I have yet to see anything that suggests that the Taliban are returning, so I suppose the US and UN are going to allow the Taliban too waltz back into Afghanistan after all the trouble it took to oust them?, and also that we’re going too allow Osama to come back, because if the Taliban do so, then you can be damned sure Osama would be back, doing so is a huge security risk and I don’t know what political lobby you subscribe to, but whoever they are they must be insane to think that this would be the case, so again I say you are posting unfounded rumour and gossip, and no I won’t accept a link from you as definitive proof before you start with that, because it’s most likely that it will be from the same places where this nonsense began
The Associated Press. That’s where my “nonsense” is coming from. Do some research, please, before you start flying off the handle. Do a search for the headline “Taliban making a largely uncontested comeback in Afghanistan.” Reported from Kandahar, Afghanistan.[/quote]
I read the papers every day, check Sky news on the net, so doing research is not neccessary, and I have not seen anything to say about the Taliban, or anything else you claim may or may not happen for that matter.
So as far as I’m concerned you’re just a drama queen looking to make things look as negative and bleak as you possible can, you make assumptions that you can’t back up, and a lot of it is just personal supposition that has no credibilty whatsoever.
FX was right, you’re just having a rant, personally I would call it a tantrum, but whatever the reason you have explored everything that can go wrong and then tried to maintain that this will in fact happen, when in truth you cannot make any claims to say that what you say will be the case.
It’s people like you that put uneccessary fear and panic into people’s minds, you should leave well alone and don’t prejudge when you don’t know will happen.
I know that like in the UK you have press in the US that try to paint another picture of this war, but they are just as bad as giving the correct information as the Iraqi communications minister, who said tanks had not got into Baghdad, while over his shoulder was an Abrams M1 tank parked, obviously this press is a feeder for people like you, who need to know things are going wrong even when it’s untrue, just so you can satisfy your own personal views.
But one that does remain true, is that you don’t any extra insight into what will happen and no facts to back up the rubbish you’ve already spouted.
ADM
ADMSadgeezer – None of my remarks have meant to be inflammatory. As for the quoting of books, I believe those books to be correct. You can believe whatever you want.
A-DM – Firstly, The SA bit was in response to FX’s post.
– Secondly, You have again not understood what I am saying. I don’t expect Saddam to come to the table and be diplomatic. I am talking about the US and other Countries. I believe the US should have got more backing from other Countries, rather than just go ahead and not give a second thought to the rest of the world, purely because they thought the rest of the world was taking to long to decide.To Everyone – The reason I am unhappy with the US foreign policy is because of the threat of terrorism, in particular to the US. September 11 was one of the most sickening things I have ever seen. These terrorists believe the USA to be the ‘ultimate evil’. Herein lies my problem. By the US government going ahead and attacking by itself it stands out as the sole enemy. If the US was just a member of a group of forces governed by a world vote, battling terrorism… then the US would not be seen as the ultimate enemy by the muslim world. This will make Sadgeezer twitch, but Im going to my books again anyway. Stan Turner (former head of the CIA) has two books that I feel are really important. They are “Secrecy and Democracy” and “Terrorism and Democracy”. It deals with exactly this and are his thoughts on how the US should change it’s dealings with the middle east. To sum it up he basically provides reasons as to why he believes the US, as the world super power, should act like a policeman and work on behalf of the free people (in other words the west), rather than act alone and cause the sole blame to be placed on the shoulders of the American people.
My worry is that Saddam will be replaced, but somewhere, sometime, another fundementalist will rise and attack the free world. I believe that the west needs to find some common ground and show the middle east and muslim world that they are not evil. The US will never be able to do this unless it changes current policy.
I support the US. I support the war on terrorism. I just believe it is being fought the wrong way. The past proves this. Twice the US has been bitten by their own dog (Saddam and Osama). Lets learn from that.
Now, before all the insults come rolling it at me Im off for the rest of the afternoon. Will see you all later.
Have a great day, Im off to the beach.
lexxrobotech wrote:Sadgeezer – None of my remarks have meant to be inflammatory…..
Oki I accept that, but FYI, comments like ‘Your ignorance is staggering…‘, ‘I find it insulting that you‘ and ‘you should read up on….. before you judge it’ are considered by more than a few, to be inflammatory.
lexxrobotech wrote:….. As for the quoting of books, I believe those books to be correct.
Yes, they probably are, but I and many of the readers of your post don’t know that. You can’t quote a book to strengthen your argument, you can only quote the facts or opinions that lie within it.
lexxrobotech wrote:….. You can believe whatever you want.
Haha. A truer definition of a SadGeezer or Lady SadGeezer(besides being a great lover and a really, really nice person), doesn’t exist! 😉
ADM. Please don’t be offended, but you are still not following the correct posting etiquette. Highlighting your points doesn’t get over the fact that you are not crediting the original poster with their words which you are posting/arguing. I know that in the heat of reply, it’s difficult to have to concentrate on fiddly quote tags, but it makes your post easier to read and understand.
There certainly have been a lot of inflammatory comments. Here’s my inflammatory remark of the day: haemorrhoids.
Any new suggestions on how to soothe the inflammation (in this thread)?
I can’t help but feel that this thread crossed the line early on…
Just some thoughts on the state of this thread…
The positions are a little too polarised — though there are fence sitters etc., but when you see people dismissing whole posts as rubbish, then it makes me wonder if this thread is serving any useful purpose — we’re not reaching much in the way of compromise or concord. Our minds are made up already. What I’d really like to see are more posts like “While I can understand your concerns with … there is another way to look at it” etc. We don’t even have the usual vacuous pleasantries happening like “Interesting point, but…”
Maybe we should all step back and try our best to argue it from both sides; both sides do have valid concerns. In fact, and again I haven’t done this much either, a well prepared argument should address both sides of the issue well. Always keep in mind The Principle of Charity when debating — you should put the other’s argument into the strongest possible form and discard the irrelevant bits etc. This principle suggests that the arguer be given the benefit of the doubt, but remeber that when you come up with a response that the burden of proof is your responsibility. Anyway, there is too much opinion, and not enough formal arguing, IMHO. The only opinion (position claim, belief, or thesis) that should be accepted is one that you can defend with a good argument (are the premises acceptable, relevant, and sufficient to support your conclusion). Maybe we should stick to the standard form of an argument:
Since… (premise),
and… (premise)
and… (premise)
Therefore… (conclusion)It would also be a lot easier to read; less cluttered, less wordy, and easier to understand.
Moving on…
It’s one thing to debate, and disagree with eachother’s points of view (and I’m expressing marybeth’s sentiments), ad hominems (personal attacks/insults on our fellow geezers) is not really acceptable. BTW, I am no doubt guilty of that too. To any that I have offended, I apologise, and I will try harder to be more compassionate and thoughtful.
We can expect this subject to be divisive, but I hope that this thread won’t lead to lasting animosity amongst our geezer community.
From a rather sad geezer and Prep-H: We do our best to put the reparation back in preparation. 🙂
Unfortunately, Aleck is not making up the stories about the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, there have been a number of reports in the US press over the past week (NY Times and Washington Post among others). They have started a new offensive against the Karzai government, partially under cover of the US’ distraction with the war in Iraq.
The Bush administration has not done well at all in the “reconstruction” of Afghanistan. A couple of months ago when the Bush budget was submitted to Congress, it included 0 dollars (that’s right ZERO) for humanitarian and reconstruction aid in Afghanistan. Congress stepped in and appropriated $300 million for the time being which will of course not go that far.
The Administration characterized it as an “oversight”. BBC on-line as well as the American press carried the story:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2759789.stm
It is just one of the things that makes the distrust and worry that’s being expressed here and around the world regarding US plans for post-war Iraq more understandable.
elmey
Few of us dare to argue facts with Aleck. I might dissagree with his views :), but argueing his facts is not worth the trouble.
Victory in the war is not victory in the argument about the war.
By Michael Kinsley
http://slate.msn.com/id/2081376/
So, we’ve won, or just about. There is no quagmire. Saddam is dead, or as good as, along with his sons. It was all fairly painless—at least for most Americans sitting at home watching it on television. Those who opposed the war look like fools. They are thoroughly discredited and, if they happen to be Democratic presidential candidates (and who isn’t these days?), they might as well withdraw and nurse their shame somewhere off the public stage. The debate over Gulf War II is as over as the war itself soon will be, and the anti’s were defeated as thoroughly as Saddam Hussein.
Right? No, not at all.
To start with an obvious point that may get buried in the confetti of the victory parade, the debate was not about whether America would win a war against Iraq if we chose to start one. No sane person doubted that the mighty United States military machine could defeat and conquer a country with a tiny fraction of its population and an even tinier fraction of its wealth—a country suffering from over a decade of economic strangulation by the rest of the world.
Oh, sure, there was a tepid public discussion of how long victory might take to achieve, in which pro’s and anti’s were represented across the spectrum of opinion. And the first law of journalistic dynamics—The Story Has To Change—inevitably produced a couple of comic days last week when the media and their rent-a-generals were peddling the Q-word. No doubt there are some unreflective peaceniks still mentally trapped in Vietnam, or grasping at any available argument, who are still talking quagmire. But the serious case against this war was never that we might actually lose it militarily.
The serious case involved questions that are still unresolved. Factual questions: Is there a connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11? Is that connection really bigger than that of all the countries we’re not invading? Does Iraq really have or almost have weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United States? Predictive questions: What will toppling Saddam ultimately cost in dollars and in lives (American, Iraqi, others)? Will the result be a stable Iraq and a blossoming of democracy in the Middle East or something less attractive? How many young Muslims and others will be turned against the United States, and what will they do about it?
Political questions: Should we be doing this despite the opposition of most of our traditional allies? Without the approval of the United Nations? Moral questions: Is it justified to make “pre-emptive” war on nations that may threaten us in the future? When do internal human rights, or the lack of them, justify a war? Is there a policy about pre-emption and human rights that we are prepared to apply consistently? Does consistency matter? Even etiquette questions: Before Bush begins trying to create a civil society in Iraq, wouldn’t it be nice if he apologized to Bill Clinton and Al Gore for all the nasty, dismissive things he said about “nation-building” in the 2000 campaign?
Some of these questions will be answered shortly, and some will be debated forever. This doesn’t mean history will never render a judgment. History’s judgment doesn’t require unanimity or total certainty. But that judgment is not in yet. Supporters of this war who are in the mood for an ideological pogrom should chill out for a while, and opponents need not fold into permanent cringe position.
Of course opponents have been on the defensive since the day the fighting started, forced to repeat the mantra that we “oppose the war but support the troops.” Critics mock this formula as psychologically implausible if not outright dishonest, but it’s not even difficult or complicated. Most of the common reasons for opposing this war get more severe as the war grows longer. Above all is the cost in human lives, especially the lives of American soldiers. (And most American war opponents share with American war supporters—with most human beings, for that matter—an instinctively greater concern for the lives of fellow nationals, however illogical or deplorable that might be.) Unlike Vietnam, where opposition barely existed until the war had been going on for several years, this is a war in which calling for a pullout short of victory would be silly. So, once the war has started, no disingenuousness is required for opponents to hope for victory, the quicker the better.
What is an honest opponent of a war supposed to do? Since even the end of this war won’t settle most of the important arguments about it, dropping all opposition at the beginning of the war would surely be more intellectually suspicious than maintaining your doubts while sincerely hoping for victory. Inevitably, more than one supporter of this war has taunted its opponents with Orwell’s famous observation in 1942 that pacifists—the few who opposed a military response to Hitler—were “objectively pro-fascist.” The suggestion is that opposing this war makes you objectively pro-Saddam. In an oddly less famous passage two years later, Orwell recanted that “objectively” formula and called it “dishonest.” Which it is.
The psychological challenge of opposing a war like this after it has started isn’t supporting the American troops, but hoping to be proven wrong. That, though, is the burden of pessimism on all subjects. As a skeptic, at the least, about Gulf War II, I do hope to be proven wrong. But it hasn’t happened yet.
——————————————————————————–
Northern Lite (an excellent overview of reporting of events)
Article URL: http://g.msn.com/0NL62004/1472
edited by a generalised unpopular demand.
——————————————————————————–
bonnee, do you post news articles because you think none of us here ever watch televisioin, read newspapers, magazines or online news websites? Do you think we are all completely ignorant? That we live in a total void through which this bulletin board is our only source of information?
🙄I haven’t said much of anything in this thread until now. But I just want to say right now that I’m so glad that the glorious United States of America is establishing a more secure presence in the Middle-east. Our tanks, jets, and missiles will help insure the existence of a New World Order. And all of Islam will be crushed under our boot. It will be just like the old days of colonial imperialism. It’s our duty to bring the civilized ways of the West to these savages. And it’s our moral obligation to convert them all to the one, true religeon: Christianity! Hey, it’s what all the arabs think anyway. So why not give them what they want? They all say our Christian crusades where really horrible. But we are in danger of being outdone in the field of religeous atrocities by the endless onslaught of islamic fundamentalist terrorism. We can one up them! There’s plenty of space in those deserts for oil refineries as well as concentration camps! Yahoo! Kill ’em all and let God sort them out!
Hmmm. I’m not a big fan of people posting other people articles much either. I’m much more interested in hearing everyone’s views.
Unfortunately Flame, you clearly arn’t interested in sharing yours – which is a shame. :/
We’d better do the reconstuction properly with minimum reparations inflicted on the people of Iraq- or by popular demand, we’ll end up with a governement similar to the one we’re trying to depose resulting with us going back to square one.
SadGeezer wrote:Hmmm. I’m not a big fan of people posting other people articles much either. I’m much more interested in hearing everyone’s views.
Unfortunately Flame, you clearly arn’t interested in sharing yours – which is a shame. :/
Since our views are at least partially formed by the articles we read, and more importantly, IMHO, those articles we choose to share can often be seen as a reflection of our personal views, I find the posting of them both useful and interesting (some boards discourage it because in some cases the distribution, re-printing or reposting of another’s material is a breach of intellectual property rights). I don’t know if this board has an explicit policy on this — we certainly wouldn’t want to see any breaches of board etiquette and policies.
I also felt that the first article Bonnee posted put many of the issues on the table in a very thoughtful and organised fashion — far better than I could have with my limited time and even more limited intellect 😉 😛 Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the conclusions, it does help to clarify what some of the important questions/issues for many people are — and like I said, it also gives insight into what Bonnee thinks is important, as well as many of the anti-this war people.
I actually thought about suggesting that we do use more articles from other sources — or better yet, a summary of them (properly cited, of course). And then people could counter with an article, or a summary of an article, from another source — it could be fun as a supplemental way of arguing. Those articles from professional writers are often better written and expressed than many of us have time to come up with by ourselves, and it might help somewhat to impair personal attacks on the posters who come up fully with their own posts in their own words — of course some might choose to attack the one who posted it (and not email the one who originally wrote it) because it shows their biases.
As for Flame, I think that his obvious use of irony made his general views quite clear.
BTW, we all read articles etc., but I appreciate it when someone takes the time to find an article that that person thinks offers useful insights. I hadn’t read either of those articles and so I appreciated the chance to read them. Also, many of us will only read articles from sources (or follow the media) which have inherent biases similar to ours (we are ALL biassed) the practise of posting articles may expose us to professional opinions that we would not otherwise be exposed to, or we would ignore. If one doesn’t want to read the articles, it is one’s choice to ignore them.
Anyway, just some more thoughts on the state of this thread, and ways to potentially improve the quality (including our conduct) — take it or leave it.
Back to the REAL issues:
”fluffy wrote:We’d better do the reconstuction properly with minimum reparations inflicted on the people of Iraq- or by popular demand, we’ll end up with a governement similar to the one we’re trying to depose resulting with us going back to square one.
Yes, and the international community (not just those who supported the war), and the UN must be involved every step of the way. And all of the Iraqi peoples (deliberately pluralised), must take an active role in the decision making process — including what’s in their own best interests.
When are we going to get right down to it and build Disneyland Near-east? I bet Minnie Mouse will look sexy in a burka.
Hi All,
I’d like to know what you all think is going to happen to Iraq when all the fighting stops & there’s some order in the cities of the country. All I’ve read from this post, especially from A-DM, is either about Saddam Hussain, whether or not 1 supports our Troupes & attacking 1 another about whether a person is for or against the war. I’m not an idiot, blinded by things or anything else; I’m just hoping that we never forget what happened the last (1991) & just leave the Iraqi people hangin’ yet 1 more time.
This war that King George forced us into has nothing to do with NYC, TWTC (the World Trade Center) or the other war we’d forgotten (Afghanistan); instead of blaming King George & Blair, we’re picking on our Troupes instead of supporting them; it’s not their fault their there; King George put them there. We all shouldn’t be attacking 1 another for our points of view; instead, we all should be blaming the real person, King George. He’s the 1 separating his own people; anyway, King George doesn’t believe in peace.
I’m a peaceful person that believes in peaceful solutions to everything; what we need to do now is to keep our Troupes in Iraq until they have some sort of government (not like Saddam’s), find or try to find the regime of Saddam, find Saddam & his sons (if they’re still alive) & help the Iraqi people establish their own Democratic government & make sure that we don’t leave them hangin’. The Iraqi people are in cayos right now & need some kind of order as well as aid, food & other necessities that we Americans, Britians, Canadians & the alike, take for granted. Plus, we must not forget, that our Troupes are still fighting a war there; not all the cities in Iraq are secure; also, there’s still more fighting yet to come.
The other thing is we can’t forget about the other war that’s still going on; what’s that 1; the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. We still have many of our Troupes still fighting in that war; & we still haven’t fisnished that 1 nor secured the Afghanistan people. The Afghan people also need our assistance, food & the alike; we can’t just forget about them.
Take care, have a nice April & pray for world peace for all.Peace to All,
JhevzLogan wrote:Since our views are at least partially formed by the articles we read, and more importantly, IMHO, those articles we choose to share can often be seen as a reflection of our personal views, I find the posting of them both useful and interesting….
I understand what you’re saying Logan, but personally, I think the peeps on this board are more interesting than those ‘professionals’. Few of them are real SadGeezers and IMHO most have their heads up their arses. It’s comentative masterbation at it’s worst! The discussions here have been more interesting – both sides! I certainly learned a lot!
If we are really honest, there are good arguments on both sides. If we were to look at the pro’s and con’s objectively we would be undecided. No really, I think it’s very, very hard to chose right from wrong in this. But the most infuriating thing (besides watching all the suffering) was watching a whole swathe of bloody idiots – the so-called-experts gesticulating and pontificating on the rights and wrongs of the war …. on TV.
In a frightened (and sometimes drunken) stupor I’ve sat up until the early hours of the morning watching developments on the news channels desperately wanting the whole damn thing to end. But most of the time we either saw very badly reported biased coverage from the against reporters or gung ho ‘I’ve only got one brain cell’ coverage from the for reporters. I’ve seen little objective reporting and it’s soooo depressing. The press are a bit like the UN – they are involved and not, if you see what I mean. They haven’t had much to do except talk drivel.
So, any time I see an article from an expert or some of that fucking incestuous, ‘and now, lets hear the views of our correspondent at the front…. in qatar..’ it just winds me up.
Ordinary sci fi fans like us may not be as learned but to this sadgeezer, they are certainly more honest! Professional reporters preach too far much to be convincing and I for one take much of what they say with a pinch of salt.
(mainly talking about the disgraceful BBC, the ludicrous ITV and laughable Sky News – Brit TV News channels)
SadGeezer wrote:…I think the peeps on this board are more interesting than those ‘professionals’. Few of them are real SadGeezers and IMHO most have their heads up their arses. It’s comentative masterbation at it’s worst! The discussions here have been more interesting – both sides! I certainly learned a lot![/i]
Some good and interesting points in your post, Sad, and I appreciate your graciousness and generosity to the Sadgeezer community. You’re too kind, no really, you’re way too kind! 😉 😛 (j/k)
SadGeezer wrote:So, any time I see an article from an expert or some of that !@£* incestuous, ‘and now, lets hear the views of our correspondent at the front…. in qatar..’ it just winds me up.
Whenever I even hear the term “expert” used on the news I start getting that sinking cynical feeling.
SadGeezer wrote:Ordinary sci fi fans like us may not be as learned but to this sadgeezer, they are certainly more honest! Professional reporters preach too far much to be convincing and I for one take much of what they say with a pinch of salt.
Well I might agree with you except for one major flaw in your argument: We are hardly ordinary sci-fi fans! Now extraordinary fans I could accept, but I think super-duper sci-fi freaks would be a more apt description. 😉
SadGeezer wrote:(mainly talking about the disgraceful BBC, the ludicrous ITV and laughable Sky News – Brit TV News channels)
Come to Canada, and try my homeland’s glorious CBC! 😀 Actually, what really bugs me about much of the news on TV is that it’s not in depth enough; I prefer the radio.
Excuse me Sad, I haven’t responded to the most substantial parts of your posts, nor have I even responded substantially to the excerpts quoted here — Real estate agent called and I’ve got to go through some documents. Hmm, in such cases I always wonder whether to finish the post later or just post it as is, I’ll opt for the second choice after this brief message….
Jhevz wrote:I’d like to know what you all think is going to happen to Iraq when all the fighting stops
Hmm, to tell you the truth, I can’t help but think that all the fighting will never stop, or at least not for a very long time… Not very helpful, I know, but I have to get down to things — sleepy though I am. But Jhevz, “post war” Iraq is a discussion that I really will be interested in participating in later — actually, some of us have touched on it a few times. So many issues, so little time.
Flamegrape wrote:bonnee, do you post news articles because you think none of us here ever watch televisioin, read newspapers, magazines or online news websites? Do you think we are all completely ignorant? That we live in a total void through which this bulletin board is our only source of information?
🙄Following Logan, I invoke Davidson’s principle of charity with a reminder that charity begins at home. 😉
At least one other, however, would seem to prefer the principle of parsimony (a variant of Occam’s razor) in order to cut and paste further vitriol. 🙄
SadGeezer wrote:Few of us dare to argue facts with Aleck. I might dissagree with his views :), but argueing his facts is not worth the trouble.
Saddy, it has been requested of me not too prolong an argument with Aleck, and I will abide by that, but I will say that for the best part he does not offer facts, but sheer speculation, he has no more insight to this war than the rest of us and his last post is not based on anything other than his own fears as too where this conflict may lead.
ADMLogan wrote:BTW, we all read articles etc., but I appreciate it when someone takes the time to find an article that that person thinks offers useful insights. I hadn’t read either of those articles and so I appreciated the chance to read them. Also, many of us will only read articles from sources (or follow the media) which have inherent biases similar to ours (we are ALL biassed) the practise of posting articles may expose us to professional opinions that we would not otherwise be exposed to, or we would ignore. If one doesn’t want to read the articles, it is one’s choice to ignore them.
.
Logan, to quote Neil Young – this note is for you! (Its quite funny the way Hitchens turns our critisism against us)
Giving Peace a Chance
The war critics were right—not in the way they expected.
By Christopher Hitchens
http://slate.msn.com/id/2081326/
So it turns out that all the slogans of the anti-war movement were right after all. And their demands were just. “No War on Iraq,” they said—and there wasn’t a war on Iraq. Indeed, there was barely a “war” at all. “No Blood for Oil,” they cried, and the oil wealth of Iraq has been duly rescued from attempted sabotage with scarcely a drop spilled. Of the nine oil wells set ablaze by the few desperadoes who obeyed the order, only one is still burning and the rest have been capped and doused without casualties. “Stop the War” was the call. And the “war” is indeed stopping. That’s not such a bad record. An earlier anti-war demand—”Give the Inspectors More Time”—was also very prescient and is also about to be fulfilled in exquisite detail.
So I’m glad to extend the hand of friendship to my former antagonists and to begin the long healing process. Perhaps one might start by meeting another of their demands and lifting the sanctions? Now the inspectors are well and truly in, there’s no further need for an embargo. I noticed that Kofi Annan this week announced that the Iraqi people should be the ones to decide their own government and future. I don’t mind that he never said this before: It’s enough that he says it now.
What else? Oh yes, the Arab street did finally detonate, just as the peace movement said it would. You can see the Baghdad and Basra and Karbala streets filling up like anything, just by snapping on your television. And the confrontation with Saddam Hussein did lead to a surge in terrorism, with suicide bombers and a black-shirted youth movement answering his call. As could also have been predicted, those determined to die are now dead. We were told that Baghdad would become another Stalingrad—which it has. Just as in Stalingrad in 1953, all the statues and portraits of the heroic leader have been torn down.
Some other predictions, it is true, didn’t fare so well. Saddam Hussein didn’t manage to fire any poisons into Israel (where they would also have slaughtered the Palestinians), and the Israeli government didn’t seize the chance to expel the population of the occupied territories. Nor did the Turks manage to annex Iraqi Kurdistan. Osama Bin Laden, or one of his ghostwriters, did admittedly call for a jihad. But then, he always does that. Meanwhile, the Muslim world and its clerics seem decidedly undecided about whether or not Saddam really was a great Saladin after all. The Sunni Kurds and the Shiite slum-dwellers, who fought against Saddam and who rebelled against him the first chance they got, would appear on the face of it to have as good a claim to be Muslim as anybody else.
But these are mere quibbles. We should celebrate our common ground as well as the gorgeous mosaic of our diversity. The next mass mobilization called by International ANSWER and the stop-the-war coalition is only a few days away. I already have my calendar ringed for the date. This time, I am really going to be there. It is not a time to keep silent. Let our voices be heard. All of this has been done in my name, and I feel like bearing witness.
A -DM wrote:Saddy, it has been requested of me not too prolong an argument with Aleck, and I will abide by that….
Haha, requested not to prolong and argument with Aleck?! That’s a first! Who told you that? I could dissagree with him all I liked, but I wouldn’t dispute the facts he uses to back up his opinions, Aleck, in my opinion, is usually accurate in the facts that he quotes.
I think you both feel very strongly about differing parts of the argument (as do many people). Most of us express this in different ways and you, Aleck, bonnee, Logan, lexxrobotech, FX…. etc. etc.
Personally, I like that. As long as it doesn’t get personal…. or too personal, I’m happy for it to continue.
– [ – Edited because dispite repeated requests to use the correct forms of accreditation, the poster has failed to do so. – ] –
A -DM wrote:I’m happy that the threat is gone and that’s all I wanted, so for me this thread is now over.
BTW, congrats to the US and the UK, too Bush and Blair and all our forces, you proved them all wrong as I knew you would…job well done.
ADMI just want to take the opportunity to thank the US and the UK for cleaning up an incredibly repressive power structure, and replacing it with a very messy power vaccuum.
My very best wishes to the liberated people of Iraq – try not to steal too many vases or kill any wayward Muslims in the determination for your newfound ‘freedom’. Please remember – there will be no pork in your Big Macs , and ‘Mecca’s’ will be open for breakfast time after your daily morning prayers.
Logan wrote:Maybe we should all step back and try our best to argue it from both sides; both sides do have valid concerns. In fact, and again I haven’t done this much either, a well prepared argument should address both sides of the issue well. Always keep in mind The Principle of Charity when debating — you should put the other’s argument into the strongest possible form and discard the irrelevant bits etc. This principle suggests that the arguer be given the benefit of the doubt, but remeber that when you come up with a response that the burden of proof is your responsibility. Anyway, there is too much opinion, and not enough formal arguing, IMHO. The only opinion (position claim, belief, or thesis) that should be accepted is one that you can defend with a good argument (are the premises acceptable, relevant, and sufficient to support your conclusion). Maybe we should stick to the standard form of an argument:
Since… (premise),
and… (premise)
and… (premise)
Therefore… (conclusion)It would also be a lot easier to read; less cluttered, less wordy, and easier to understand.
Oh WOW! That would be great. I don’t think though, that in a debat such as this, many of us can do the very first bit…. ‘take a step back’ 🙂
Nice idea though, I’ll try and follow that from now on.
Logan wrote:Maybe we should all step back and try our best to argue it from both sides; both sides do have valid concerns. In fact, and again I haven’t done this much either, a well prepared argument should address both sides of the issue well… The only opinion (position claim, belief, or thesis) that should be accepted is one that you can defend with a good argument (are the premises acceptable, relevant, and sufficient to support your conclusion). Maybe we should stick to the standard form of an argument:
Since… (premise),
and… (premise)
and… (premise)
Therefore… (conclusion)It would also be a lot easier to read; less cluttered, less wordy, and easier to understand.
And if sadgeezers had wings, our arguments would fly. 😆
Sorry, I meant to provide an invalid argument of your valid point.
If p, then q (if pigs had wings, then they would fly).
p (pigs have wings).
therefore q (pigs can fly).
Disclaimer : please note that bonnee in no way is implying that sadgeezers are pigs – or indeed, high flyers. Just having some fun at logic’s expense. 😯
A -DM wrote:- [ – Edited because dispite repeated requests to use the correct forms of accreditation, the poster has failed to do so. – ] –
Excuse me, but it’s not as if I attempted to do this on purpose, I colour coded my posts at your request, it’s not my fault if your system can’t pick up the quotes, I’ve done the best I can, you can blame your software for that…not me.
Instead of doing that, why don’t you just send me a private mail telling me how to get it too work properly, for christ’s sake I can build a P.C from scratch and have good understanding of all OS’s and other software, but your board and it’s constant ‘Excceeded Bandwidth messages’, logging me out whenever it feels like it and the stupid posting errors I keep getting give one big goddamn headache, so instead of whining about, why don’t you help me???
ADMA -DM wrote:Excuse me, but it’s not as if I attempted to do this on purpose…
I never said you did.
A -DM wrote:I colour coded my posts at your request,
I never said you should… erm. Ie. you shouldn’t colour code your posts, it’s bloody garish for one things and the quote tag is much easier to understand.
A -DM wrote:…. it’s not my fault if your system can’t pick up the quotes, I’ve done the best I can, you can blame your software for that…not me.
The quote tags work fine. In fact they work FAR TOO WELL! and they are really easy to use!
A -DM wrote:Instead of doing that, why don’t you just send me a private mail telling me how to get it too work properly, for christ’s sake I can build a P.C from scratch and have good understanding of all OS’s and other software,
Good for you!
A -DM wrote:.. but your board and it’s constant ‘Excceeded Bandwidth messages’,
It happened once because of a server problem! Nothing to do with me! (or sadgeezer.com)
A -DM wrote:… logging me out whenever it feels like it ….
More than a slight exageration I think!
A -DM wrote:… and the stupid posting errors I keep getting give one big goddamn headache
I guess it would.
A -DM wrote:….so instead of whining about
I dont whine, I just delete your posts!
A -DM wrote:… why don’t you help me???
ADMRant and rant at me inulting all you like and then ask me to help and respond in a private message – that’s fair! NOT!
But rather than join the rant privately I’ll just re-post the message (from page 6 or 7 of this thread.
A previous post from this thread regarding the use of ‘Quote’ tags
SadGeezer wrote:ADM, your posts are getting increasingly dificult to read, there are some that I just can’t follow.
Please follow the correct posting etiquet and make sure your quoted text is credited to the correct poster. This can be done in the following ways:
The Quote tag should be used to highlight text quoted by other posters in a separate box
For instance:
[code:1][quote="Saddy"]The Quote tag should be used to highlight text quoted by other posters [b]in a separate box[/b][/quote][/code:1]
would produce:
”Saddy” wrote:The Quote tag should be used to highlight text quoted by other posters in a separate box
The quote=”postername” (encased in square brackets) should be placed at the start of the quoted text and a /quote tag (encased in square brackets) should be placed at the end of the quoted text.
You should avoid wherever possible quoting too much text as people don’t want to re-read text that they have seen above. Try to just quote the points you are arguing.[/quote]
There. Hope that helps.
Better still, I’ll use the ‘CODE’ tag to show you exactly how this post is displayed (ie. with all the quote tags). That way you can see for yourself.
[code:1][quote="A-DM"]Excuse me, but it’s not as if I attempted to do this on purpose… [/quote]
I never said you did.[quote="A-DM"]I colour coded my posts at your request,[/quote]
I never said you should… erm. Ie. you shouldn’t colour code your posts, it’s bloody garish for one things and the quote tag is much easier to understand.[quote="A-DM"]…. it’s not my fault if your system can’t pick up the quotes, I’ve done the best I can, you can blame your software for that…not me.[/quote]
The quote tags work fine. In fact they work FAR TOO WELL! and they are really easy to use![quote="A-DM"]Instead of doing that, why don’t you just send me a private mail telling me how to get it too work properly, for christ’s sake I can build a P.C from scratch and have good understanding of all OS’s and other software,[/quote]
Good for you![quote="A-DM"].. but your board and it’s constant ‘Excceeded Bandwidth messages’,[/quote]
It happened [b]once [/b]because of a server problem! Nothing to do with me! (or sadgeezer.com)[quote="A-DM"]… logging me out whenever it feels like it ….[/quote]
More than a [i][b][color=orange]slight[/color][/b][/i] exageration I think![quote="A-DM"]… and the stupid posting errors I keep getting give one big goddamn headache[/quote]
I guess it would.[quote="A-DM"] ….so instead of whining about[/quote]
I dont whine, I just delete your posts![quote="A-DM"]… why don’t you help me???
ADM[/quote]
Rant and rant at me inulting all you like and then ask me to help and respond in a private message – that’s fair! [b] NOT![/b]But rather than join the rant privately I’ll just re-post the message (from page 6 or 7 of this thread.
[quote="SadGeezer"][b]ADM, your posts are getting increasingly dificult to read, there are some that I just can’t follow.[/b]
[b][color=yellow]Please follow the correct posting etiquet and make sure your quoted text is credited to the correct poster. [/color][/b] This can be done in the following ways:
The [color=cyan]Quote [/color]tag should be used to highlight text quoted by other posters [b]in a separate box[/b]
For instance:
[code][quote="Saddy"]The Quote tag should be used to highlight text quoted by other posters [b]in a separate box[/b][/quote][/code]
would produce:
[quote="Saddy"]The Quote tag should be used to highlight text quoted by other posters [b]in a separate box[/b][/quote]
The [b]quote="postername" [/b](encased in square brackets) should be placed at the start of the quoted text and a [b]/quote[/b] tag (encased in square brackets) should be placed at the end of the quoted text.
You should avoid wherever possible quoting too much text as people don’t want to re-read text that they have seen above. Try to just quote the points you are arguing.[/quote]
There. Hope that helps.[/code:1]
That’s all I want to contribute to this highly volatile topic AND please remember you are in a cyber pub in a cyber universe; let’s not spill any cyber blood; I think in reality we humans have done enough of that.
I voiced my opinions in a letter to my Congressman in Feb. I do not need to restate them here. I did my part albeit small but I did DO something.
We are in Iraq, there is nothing we can do now to turn back the clock, and absolutely no sense in bashing each other here.
It is good to feel passion about life and about the people and events we see as wrong or unjust; but aren’t we making WAR on our other fellow Sadgeezer gentlemen and ladies? Is it neccessary?
This is only a small microcosm in the world; and it illicits this type of
behavior; do we, as humans, have a chance at achieving anything global.I will, as always, prepare for the worst, but hope for the best.
Peace to all of your hearts,
bonnee wrote:I just want to take the opportunity to thank the US and the UK for cleaning up an incredibly repressive power structure, and replacing it with a very messy power vaccuum.
This is a bad thing? I think it’s great!
I’m beginning to suspect that muslims really suck at modern warfare.
bonnee wrote:My very best wishes to the liberated people of Iraq – try not to steal too many vases or kill any wayward Muslims in the determination for your newfound ‘freedom’. Please remember – there will be no pork in your Big Macs , and ‘Mecca’s’ will be open for breakfast time after your daily morning prayers.
I think it’s great. The sooner they westernize the country and set up a democracy, the better. From there, we can use Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel as bases to take over the rest of the Middle-east. United States marines and tanks, rolling through the streets of Mecca! Yeah! That will put an end to all conflict!
I think it’s great. The sooner they westernize the country and set up a democracy, the better. From there, we can use Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel as bases to take over the rest of the Middle-east. United States marines and tanks, rolling through the streets of Mecca! Yeah! That will put an end to all conflict!
gods i hope your being sarcastic 😮
Flamegrape wrote:bonnee wrote:I just want to take the opportunity to thank the US and the UK for cleaning up an incredibly repressive power structure, and replacing it with a very messy power vaccuum.
This is a bad thing? I think it’s great!
I’m beginning to suspect that muslims really suck at modern warfare.
bonnee wrote:My very best wishes to the liberated people of Iraq – try not to steal too many vases or kill any wayward Muslims in the determination for your newfound ‘freedom’. Please remember – there will be no pork in your Big Macs , and ‘Mecca’s’ will be open for breakfast time after your daily morning prayers.
I think it’s great. The sooner they westernize the country and set up a democracy, the better. From there, we can use Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel as bases to take over the rest of the Middle-east. United States marines and tanks, rolling through the streets of Mecca! Yeah! That will put an end to all conflict![/quote]
I think you are missing the bigger picture. The fall of Bagdad is all part of Allah’s battle plan, and an indication that the jihad involves one battle plan amongst many. It was written that the Baath party would act as a blood bath , luring the infidels to the holy land under a false pretence and sense of security. The Mid East must be colonised in order to enable the muslim right to the land – we can only rid the world of imperalists if we can invite them into our homes and strangle the sleeping dogs whilst they lie awake thinking of Lawerence of Arabia et al.
Hi All,
I’ve been reading the recent posts & find them most interesting; but has anyone forgot about the POW’s that were held captive & were just set free. & what about the soldiers still Missing in Action & the other POW’s they haven’t found yet.
😆 Hooray, our POW’s are free from their captures & finally home with their families.
😆 😀 We all should celebrate our POW’s coming home; they’ve been held captuive since 3/23 & were finally set free from their captures, for feeding them from their own pockets, on 4/13; they’re finally coming home. 🙂
There’s still fighting that will remaining for awhile, including in Bagdad; we should pray everyday for their safe return home; there’s been enough killing, on both sides, that will last a lifetime.
This war hasn’t been won yet & won’t be declared for sometime, possibly weeks, months or a yr; but however long it takes, let’s just hope & pray for peace for this whole wide world.
Take care, have a nice April & Passover & pray for peace in the world.Peace for you all,
Jhevz 😉Well, just as it seems this war is won, the US leadership looks to be picking it’s next opponent…Syria, and in this case I don’t support action.
I’ve always believed that the Iraq war has been jusitfied and I still stand by that, but if Bush is now looking to take on Syria, then I have to conclude that he is what so many have described him as being… a raving egomaniac.
True Syria can be seen as a threat, but it’s too early to compare the dangers posed is equal to that of Saddam, ok, Syria obviously has a state sponsored terrorist programme going on, and if they are in fact producing chemical weapons then eventually they must be dealt with, but for gods sake Bush, the war isn’t even over in Iraq and the US are making hostile gestures to another middle eastern country.
The danger then becomes that the world may have let the US have their way in this war, but taking it further so soon makes the US and her allie(s) (UK) more than just a target for the terrorists, it won’t be long before China, Russia and even European nations become fed up with it and challenge the US’s military might, Bush will be biting off more than he can chew if he looks to start on Syria.
I doubt very much anyone in the UK will support this action as it then will look without a doubt as a war on Arabs, I would even say that the US people won’t be happy to see this happen.
If Bush does declare an action against Syria then he needs to go, because he is then becoming too much of a threat, he is, in this case wrong, and should he target Syria, then this time he will need more than just hear’say to start a war, the proof has to be there and the UN needs to see it.
Although, Syria are potentially dangerous, I would not class them as a threat that comes close to that of Saddam, certainly not right now, in this instance, time is an option we can afford, and I feel that Syria is more ameniable too diplomacy than that of the Iraqi regime, I would put Syria in the same class as say Libya, a danger perhaps, worthy of another war….Absolutely not.
ADMSo who’s gonna be the next Osama Bin Ladin? Let’s place bets on which middle-eastern country he’ll be from. (It’s certain that it will be a man, of course.) Odds are very good that it will be another Saudi. But it could be a Baath party member from Syria or a Taliban from Afgahnistan. I’m going to go with a Philipino as the long shot.
And place your bets for the next terrorist target and it’s method. Will it be a nuke at an american port city, smuggled in a cargo container? Or how about another plane crash? Or maybe it will be just like in Israel with occasional suicide bombers in public places in the United States?
This sh*t is NEVER going to end.
EVER.
This sh*t is NEVER going to end.
EVER.
my thoughts exactly, more succinctly put…let’s not forget that the original bin- laden (though we may have to accept substitutes 😉 ) is still out there…and that is still the core of the problem, not saddam, not syria, and not bush’s motives…
Hi All,
Since our US Government has concurred Iraq & pushed Saddam & his men (where ever they are) in hiding (if they’re still alive), took Iraqi Troupes as POW’s & have taken over Bagdad; because of this, the Iraqi people don’t want our Troupes there anymore. & besides of which, not all of Iraq, including Bagdad is safe & totally free; let’s let the Iraqis control their own country & get our Troupes back home safe & sound.I know that King George wants to occupy Syria & get the chemical & biological weapons (which was the main reason for the War on Iraq) from them & get the rest of Saddam’s men; I say, `let’s finish up with the 1st war that was started & never finished, then concur another country.’ The war I’m talking about is the unfinished war after that horrific day of 9/11/2001, the war in Afghanistan.
I say, `Let’s make peace with China, France, Germany, Russia, Iraq & the rest of the world.’ There doesn’t need anymore wars; there needs to be peace in this world, especially for the next generation.
Take care, have a nice April & Easter & peace to you all.Prettanoma,
JhevzHere’s a good one:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2038.htm
“Shaking Hands with the enemy,” Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.