Peace Protesters

[Shanobi]

"And if that's the case, you are one ignorant a$$hole who does nothing but parrot the insane ravings of OTHER ignorant a$$ holes."


Vrai? no hate? Oh that's ok. It's not the 1st time someone has talked ill of me. But anyway, let's get beyond personal beef. I don't want to get into a shouting match, I just wanna debate the issues.
What's the point of debate if everyone's on the same side anyway? Then ya just got a bunch of yes men and go girls.

 

[vraiblonde]

Vrai? no hate?

That's not hate, dearie - that's merely my opinion of your opinion. I don't have a personal beef with you - again, I don't even know you.

So answer the question - if you wanted your brother to stay home and never have to fire a weapon, why didn't you talk him out of joining the military?

 

[Shanobi]

OK Vrai, you pose a good question. Why I didn't try to talk my brother out of the Army.
I didn't talk him out of it becasue he thought it was one of his only options after school. He didn't have the grades to get into college and didn't wanna hang around and get fat in our small town. He joined when there was peace throughout the land (hehe) and 1/2 way through boot camp 911 struck and everything changed. He was just in it for the money and experience and a stop off point before the rest of his life just like a lot of people in the military. Now he's in the middle of a war zone. I'm not gonna say I told ya so becasue that's the risk anyone faces when they join the military.
I don't disagree with our nation having a huge standing army, and I don't disagree with his decission to join. I just don't want a war for revenge and dominance to be fought in my name.
And if you say that this war is fought to liberate a people who are suffering from a ruthless dictator then why haven't we done anything for RWanda? Or Sudan? or Columbia (besides help them kill their own people), or Burma? or Palestine?

 

[vraiblonde]

I just don't want a war for revenge and dominance to be fought in my name.

I ddin't see your name anywhere on this war - what makes you think it was fought in your name? Maybe it was fought in my name.

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I ddin't see your name anywhere on this war - what makes you think it was fought in your name? Maybe it was fought in my name.

Yeah, your's, mine, and about 73% of the US Population.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Shanobi
I just don't want a war for revenge and dominance to be fought in my name.

Revenge or dominance? This war was fought in all of our names to protect us from a ruthless tyrant who has/had a penchant for using weapons of mass destruction, that had ties to terrorists that had already killed our people, and against a regime that thought nothing of murdering it’s citizens and neighbors. How is that revenge or dominance?

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Shanobi
our small town.

ah ah ah, no using the S word without my permission

 

[Shanobi]

THis war is being fought in my name as long as I am an American citizen...Unless it's GW's war. We seem to forget our history or seem to misplace it when it comes to Iraq. They didn't develop WMD on their own, they had a lot of help back when they were our "ally" against Iran. Both US and British companies sold chemical weapons and know-how to Iraq. We seem to fund all of our enemies with the tools they need to bite us in the ###. We trained Bin Laden..oops. Rumsfeld visited Hussian just a year after he gassed a bunch of Kurds (where were his principles then?) and it didn't seem to bother us. What has changed? We impose a 10 year embargo and no-fly-zone that has killed more people than both Iraqi wars combined and we're gonna kill more folk becasue of some illeged WMD...Where are they? If the US doesn't find any they better make something up fast before we realize that we went to war for.....for.......for what? so Betchal and Dynacorp and Halliburton can rebuild the country in their image? We are now a hyperpower and are using our power to enrich the obscenely rich...

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Shanobi
THis war is being fought in my name as long as I am an American citizen

Okay, but what about the rest of us? I WANT this war to be fought in my name. You don't. Who gets their way, me or you?

Your examples are mostly true - Snopes would give them a yellow ball.

• Who was President when we considered Iraq an "ally" against Iran?
• Who was President when we "trained" bin Laden? (Actually, it was my understanding that we didn't directly do that but we did supply funding to these groups to feed themselves, etc, and that's just what they used the money for. Someone please correct me if that's wrong.)
• Who is President now?

What has changed?

Answer the above questions and you'll have the answer.

We need to get off this history business - things change and our foreign policy must change to meet it. Just because France was an ally back in the day doesn't mean they are now. They have a new President, too, and one that doesn't necessarily do things the same way a previous President would.

We impose a 10 year embargo and no-fly-zone that has killed more people than both Iraqi wars combined

Please explain that statement. How, exactly, did the embargo kill all those people? And, PS, WE didn't impose this embargo - the UN did.

Answer my questions so we can have an intelligent conversation instead of just trading barbs.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Shanobi
THis war is being fought in my name as long as I am an American citizen...Unless it's GW's war.

This war isn’t being fought in our names. It is being fought because we, as Americans, are facing a threat to our national security that was determined by Congress.

We seem to forget our history or seem to misplace it when it comes to Iraq. They didn't develop WMD on their own, they had a lot of help back when they were our "ally" against Iran. Both US and British companies sold chemical weapons and know-how to Iraq. We seem to fund all of our enemies with the tools they need to bite us in the ###.

Iraq wasn’t our ally against Iran, we assisted Iraq with some equipment and intelligence during their war with Iran, but we didn’t do any active engagements like an ally would. At the time that technology transferred to Iraq for some weapons there weren’t any sanctions against them. We did not give them chemical or biological weapons, as we do not possess any. Granted we educated their people and from that they obtained the ability to create these weapons, but our country educates most scientists from that part of the world. Does educating these folk make us culpable for the acts that they do later?

We trained Bin Laden..oops. Rumsfeld visited Hussian just a year after he gassed a bunch of Kurds (where were his principles then?) and it didn't seem to bother us. What has changed? We impose a 10 year embargo and no-fly-zone that has killed more people than both Iraqi wars combined and we're gonna kill more folk becasue of some illeged WMD...Where are they? If the US doesn't find any they better make something up fast before we realize that we went to war for.....for.......for what? so Betchal and Dynacorp and Halliburton can rebuild the country in their image? We are now a hyperpower and are using our power to enrich the obscenely rich...

No, we trained the Mujahadeen, remember the freedom fighters doing battle with the invading Soviet Union. We also provided them with some weapons that made the Soviets job impossible. That was part of what we were back then. To suggest that all should stand still is not very intellectual. Iraq has WMD, they have had them, have used them, and if our superior forces hadn’t overrun them so swiftly they might have used them against us. Does this upsets you? It will take a while to locate where it is that they have hid it. Remember that Iraq is about the same size as California and there are many places that you can hide this stuff. Not to mention the 12 years of building bunkers and tunnels. Already we have found warheads capable of accepting the concoctions, missiles that exceed the sanctioned range, precursor chemicals for the development of the weapons, and enough evidence where a reasonable mind would conclude that our Congress and President were wise to end this now rather than waiting for a tragedy that would make 9/11 pale in comparison.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Ken King
Iraq wasn’t our ally against Iran, we assisted Iraq with some equipment and intelligence during their war with Iran, but we didn’t do any active engagements like an ally would.

Might want to tell that to GW, considering how often he used the term ally to discuss supporters of the war against iraq, though they probably never touched foot in the country.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Might want to tell that to GW, considering how often he used the term ally to discuss supporters of the war against iraq, though they probably never touched foot in the country.

Why don't you tell me how many different nations sent troops in to support our effort there?

 

[SmallTown]

well, an early list from february. Not many sent troops.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-27-iraq-glance_x.htm

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by SmallTown
well, an early list from february. Not many sent troops.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-27-iraq-glance_x.htm

Yeah an old list and no answer to the question, about par for you. I know which nations sent troops and I figured you wouldn't follow the activity close enough to know or care.

At issue is the implication that we were allies of Iraq a couple of decades ago. How do you think the crew of the Stark feels about Iraq? I wouldn't say so, we provided them with some equipment, training, and intelligence but not much else. We have sold items, provided technical expertise and assisted China, Russia, and even France, but I wouldn't call any of them an ally either.

 

[Pookie]

Originally posted by Ken King
Yeah an old list and no answer to the question, about par for you. I know which nations sent troops and I figured you wouldn't follow the activity close enough to know or care.

At issue is the implication that we were allies of Iraq a couple of decades ago. How do you think the crew of the Stark feels about Iraq? I wouldn't say so, we provided them with some equipment, training, and intelligence but not much else. We have sold items, provided technical expertise and assisted China, Russia, and even France, but I wouldn't call any of them an ally either.

Hey - I thought we were here to bash Shanobi, not ST???

 

[Shanobi]

OK, let me answer these few questions and then we can call a cease-fire on the barbs.
When Iraq was our “ally” (and that’s not a fair term because they were never our ally, we just used them because we had a common enemy in Iran) the president was Ronald Reagan. Reagan was also the pres when the CIA gave training to OBL to help fight Soviets in Afghanistan (once again, not an ally, just someone with a common enemy). Also, and here’s where it gets interesting…In Nov. 1983 US Sec. Of State George Shultz received a report on how Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons on an almost daily basis in this war against Iran. Now just one month later Pres Reagan dispatched Donals Rumsfeld, then CEO of Searle Pharmaceutical, to meet with Saddam Hussein. That meeting is considered to be the trigger that ushered in a new era of US-Iraq relations that opend the door for shipments of munitions, chemical and biological agents. But Rummy’s main reason for his trip was to talk Hussein into allowing the Betchel Corp to build a pipeline that runs from Iraq through Jordan and out to the gulf of Aqaba. You might hear Bechtel in the news today as it’s one of the big contract winners for the rebuilding of Iraqi oil. Another interesting thing: George Shultz, the Sec. Of State under the Reagan era was the former CEO of Bechtel. Another former oil CEO, Dick Cheny of Haliburton, is seeing his cronies cash in on huge contracts to rebuild Iraq. And her is currently receiving deferred payments from Halliburton, so he’s still getting paid. Ironic? I think the only person in the Executive wing who is not cashing in on this war directly is Colin Powell and his brother is chairman of the FCC so he’s getting paid by the war “coverage” and the media wars. This is a reason why I see that this war is fought for the wrong reasons and fought to line the pockets of the powers that be. Please correct any of this info that you know is incorrect.
And as far as getting over history? Tell that the folks who suffered at the hands of our or anyone else’s history. Yes policy changes, attitudes change, perception changes but history never changes…unless you have a time machine

http://www.ips-dc.org/crudevision/072084.pdf
http://www.ips-dc.org/crudevision/072084.pdf

Here are a couple of documents to at least prove the legitamacy of the pipeline.

Oh, and my apologies to small town for unautorized use of his name...And now I'll stop talking so Ememdee can resume the bloodlust... Game on!

 

[Pookie]

Originally posted by Shanobi
line the pockets of the powers that be.

Isn't that what politics are all about???

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Ken King
Yeah an old list and no answer to the question, about par for you. I know which nations sent troops and I figured you wouldn't follow the activity close enough to know or care.

At issue is the implication that we were allies of Iraq a couple of decades ago. How do you think the crew of the Stark feels about Iraq? I wouldn't say so, we provided them with some equipment, training, and intelligence but not much else. We have sold items, provided technical expertise and assisted China, Russia, and even France, but I wouldn't call any of them an ally either.

The point, Ken, was your misunderstanding and thus misuse of the word ally. It doesn't mean sending troops to fight.
Qatar isn't listed on the coalition of the willing, but guess where our central command is located? Not everyone on the list provided troops, but still considerer allies.

from websers:
To place in a friendly association, as by treaty: Italy allied itself with Germany during World War II.
To unite or connect in a personal relationship, as in friendship or marriage.

v. intr.
To enter into an alliance: Several tribes allied to fend off the invaders.

n. pl. al·lies
One that is allied with another, especially by treaty: entered the war as an ally of France.
One in helpful association with another: legislators who are allies on most issues. See Synonyms at partner.
Allies
The nations allied against the Central Powers of Europe during World War I. They were Russia, France, Great Britain, and later many others, including the United States.
The nations, primarily Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States, allied against the Axis during World War II.

 

[Shanobi]

Thank You Small Town for the extensive Ally definition. I'd just like to add for the record that Alyze (rock dude spelling) were the opening band for Spinal Tap back in 1994. But I don't think Websters would even mention them in a footnote. No loss I'm sure....Anyhoo....

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by SmallTown
The point, Ken, was your misunderstanding and thus misuse of the word ally. It doesn't mean sending troops to fight.
Qatar isn't listed on the coalition of the willing, but guess where our central command is located? Not everyone on the list provided troops, but still considerer allies.

from websers:
To place in a friendly association, as by treaty: Italy allied itself with Germany during World War II.
To unite or connect in a personal relationship, as in friendship or marriage.

v. intr.
To enter into an alliance: Several tribes allied to fend off the invaders.

n. pl. al·lies
One that is allied with another, especially by treaty: entered the war as an ally of France.
One in helpful association with another: legislators who are allies on most issues. See Synonyms at partner.
Allies
The nations allied against the Central Powers of Europe during World War I. They were Russia, France, Great Britain, and later many others, including the United States.
The nations, primarily Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States, allied against the Axis during World War II.

My misunderstanding and misuse? Nope, I don’t buy that one bit, I think it is you that has things screwed up again. Show me a treaty we entered into with Iraq joining their effort against Iran (see your entry for the use as a noun)? I won’t hold my breath as you won’t find one. I was over there on and off during three years of their war (1983 to 1986), I maintained my awareness throughout the war even though I was no longer in theater, I am well aware of our intelligence sharing policy at that time and it was not an alliance. At best I think you could call it clandestine cooperation. I know how the intelligence data was routed to the Iraqis and it wasn’t encouraged, endorsed, or requested to be done by our government, we simply looked the other way as other nations accomplished the task.

Originally posted by ememdee19
Hey - I thought we were here to bash Shanobi, not ST???

They're the same person or at least connected at the neck and share the same @ss.