Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » The other side of the American occupation of Iraq
The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #110496] Mo, 15 August 2005 13:30
onq  
Voices in the Wilderness Issues Press Statement

For Further Information: Jeff Leys or Kathy Kelly at 773-784-8065

Chicago-On August 12, 2005 U.S. Federal District Judge John Bates ordered
payment of a $20,000 fine imposed against Voices in the Wilderness.
Voices was fined for bringing medicine to Iraq in a classic campaign of
open nonviolent civil disobedience to challenge the economic sanctions
imposed by the U.S. and the U.N. against Iraq. The U.S. Treasury
Department initially imposed the fine in 2002, days after Voices
participated in international actions to oppose the U.S. buildup for war
against Iraq.

Voices in the Wilderness issued the following statement:

"Today, the judiciary branch of the U.S. government completed a perfect
trifecta of inhumanity in upholding a $20,000 fine against Voices in the
Wilderness for bringing medicine to Iraqi citizens. Judge Bates agrees
that it was lawful and proper for the U.S. government to deny needed
drugs and medical supplies to Iraq's most vulnerable citizens, despite
the evidence that several hundred thousand innocent children were dying
because of brutal economic sanctions.

"Voices will not pay a penny of this fine. The economic sanctions regime
imposed brutal and lethal punishment on Iraqi people. The U.S. government
would not allow Iraq to rebuild its water treatment system after the U.S.
military deliberately destroyed it in 1991. The U.S. government denied
Iraq the ability to purchase blood bags, medical needles and medicine in
adequate supplies-destroying Iraq's health care system.

"We chose to travel to Iraq in order to openly challenge our country's
war against the Iraqi people. We fully understood that our acts could
result in criminal or civil charges. We acted because when our country's
government is committing a grievous, criminal act, it is incumbent upon
each of us to challenge in every nonviolent manner possible the acts of
the government.

"We continue to oppose the U.S. occupation of Iraq, which continues the
devastation of the Iraqi people. Over the past two years of occupation,
the health care and water systems in Iraq have not improved. Nearly
300,000 children under the age of 5 now suffer from acute child
malnutrition. It's likely that over 100,000 Iraqis have died because of
the occupation-either killed outright by military action or died because
of the lack of safe drinking water, adequate health care, lack of food.
What has our country wrought in Iraq?

"We choose to continue our non-cooperation with the government's war on
the Iraqi people through the simple act of refusing to pay this fine. To
pay the fine would be to collaborate with the U.S. government's ongoing
war against Iraq. We will not collaborate.

"We fully understand that the U.S. government may take other action
against Voices in the Wilderness, or possibly us as individuals, for our
continued refusal to collaborate with the government's policies. But we
invite representatives from the government to enter into dialogue with us
about how best to correct the misguided, ill-conceived and criminal acts
of our country towards the Iraqi people. We invite all U.S. citizens to
pause and consider how we might bring about an end to the blood shed and
the violence in Iraq-an end to the occupation and payment of reparations
to Iraq for the devastation our country has wrought upon the Iraqi people
these past 15 years.

"We pause to ponder the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who asked of
himself and his co-conspirators in resistance to Hitler, whether they
were yet of any use. We too live in times of unspeakable peril and
violence. We too live in times when questioning and resisting our
government is the one path remaining to act for justice. We too have
struggled and seen untold numbers of innocent people die at our
government's hand. We too answer as Bonhoeffer did, that yes, indeed, our
acts and fidelity to our brothers and sisters throughout the world are
not only of use, but of absolute necessity. We invite all to join us in a
conspiracy of life to end our country's war against the Iraqi people."

#####


--
To unsubscribe from: Voices in the Wilderness eMail List, just follow
this link:

http://vitw.org/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi?f=u&l=vitwlist& ;e=onq [at] indigo.ie&p=5810234

Click this link, or copy and paste the address into your browser.
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #113512 ] Mi, 17 August 2005 11:36
Ty  
"Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:43007CDC.A1AD87F2 [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
> Voices in the Wilderness Issues Press Statement

<snip>

The economic sanctions were imposed by the UN Security Council *after*
Saddam Hussein refused to honor his requirements under the ceasefire and
related UNSC resolutions after the 1991 Gulf War. The *entire* Security
Council imposed them, so it is most curious why you idiots insist on
characterizing them as *US* sanctions. It is even more absurd for you to
blame anyone but Saddam Hussein for them. Had he merely complied with the
UNSC resolutions -- which he agreed to do in exchange for the 1991
ceasefire -- there would have been no sanctions. Yet you gibbering fools
continue to ignore this fact and whine about purported US sanctions. It must
have really hurt you "morally superior" lefties when Saddam was finally
removed, eh?

By the way, the sanctions had the force of international law. And since you
lefties *claim* to so respect international law, I'm sure you wouldn't so
hypocritically support a flagrant violation of your beloved international
law. Would you?

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #113569 ] Fr, 19 August 2005 13:28
onq  
Ty wrote:

> "Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:43007CDC.A1AD87F2 [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
> > Voices in the Wilderness Issues Press Statement

> <snip>

> The economic sanctions were imposed
> by the UN Security Council *after*
> Saddam Hussein refused to honor his
> requirements under the ceasefire and
> related UNSC resolutions after the 1991 Gulf War.

Which required him to do *what* exactly. What are you saying he did not
do?

> The *entire* Security
> Council imposed them,

A subset of the United Nations, comprised of countries which have abused
both their own and foreign populations in the past. I've always thought
that "security" is a misused word.

> so it is most curious why you idiots insist on
> characterizing them as *US* sanctions.

Let's see. Promoted by the US? Policed by the US? Justified by the US?

> It is even more absurd for you to
> blame anyone but Saddam Hussein for them.

Since he didn't impose them, he carries no blame whatsoever. The old
argument of "you made me do it", just doesn't fly.

Certainly he played no part in targeting the bombs that fell during the
gulf war on the civilian population and infrastructure.

> Had he merely complied with the
> UNSC resolutions -- which he agreed
> to do in exchange for the 1991
> ceasefire -- there would have been no sanctions.

Tell me again how he failed to comply?

> Yet you gibbering fools
> continue to ignore this fact and whine
> about purported US sanctions.


<snicker>

You're the one gibbering here.

> It must have really hurt you "morally
> superior" lefties when Saddam was finally
> removed, eh?

That allegation must be hardwired into the brain of every Rightie to
posts to usenet, but you've never showed any proof of what you say. I see
no active supporters of Saddam in the Tolkien groups, but many who
actively criticize America for its foreign policy.

> By the way, the sanctions had the
> force of international law. And since you
> lefties *claim* to so respect international law,
> I'm sure you wouldn't so
> hypocritically support a flagrant
> violation of your beloved international
> law.

Please post proof of my being a Leftie.

Please post proof of my support for "International Law" as opposed to my
support for the Geneva Convention, the Hague Protocol and the case law in
Nuremberg.

Please note that I have equally declaimed both the firestorming of
Dresden as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki as War Crimes. You can add the
bombing of Basra during the Gulf War and the attacks by American bombers
on a retreating army on the Highway of Death.

M.
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #113570 ] Fr, 19 August 2005 13:35
Dan C  
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:28:21 +0100, Michael O'Neill wrote:

>> It is even more absurd for you to
>> blame anyone but Saddam Hussein for them.

> Certainly he played no part in targeting the bombs that fell during the
> gulf war on the civilian population and infrastructure.

The bombs fell because of him and his actions, you ignorant fuck.

>> Had he merely complied with the
>> UNSC resolutions -- which he agreed
>> to do in exchange for the 1991
>> ceasefire -- there would have been no sanctions.

> Tell me again how he failed to comply?

....Yawn... It's well documented, and even the dipshit fanatics over in
that part of the world don't argue this point. Shut the fuck up and take
your drivel to a political newsgroup, moron.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #113581 ] Sa, 20 August 2005 00:39
Flame of the West  
Dan C wrote:

> ...Yawn... It's well documented, and even the dipshit fanatics over in
> that part of the world don't argue this point. Shut the f*** up and take
> your drivel to a political newsgroup, moron.

I wonder if O'Neill trolls the political NGs by posting
there about Tolkien.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #113588 ] Sa, 20 August 2005 21:07
Ty  
"Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:4305C255.1579E6BD [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
> Ty wrote:

> > "Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote in message
> > news:43007CDC.A1AD87F2 [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
> > > Voices in the Wilderness Issues Press Statement

> > <snip>

> > The economic sanctions were imposed
> > by the UN Security Council *after*
> > Saddam Hussein refused to honor his
> > requirements under the ceasefire and
> > related UNSC resolutions after the 1991 Gulf War.

> Which required him to do *what* exactly. What are you saying he did not
> do?

<yawn> I am remarkably unenthusiastic about playing "20 Questions" with you.
However, since your question indicates that you know nothing about the
subject that you so confidently opine on, I'll try to give you the basics.

1. The UNSC imposed sanctions on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. A
measure, btw, that lefties supported. Remember their whining about "giving
sanctions a chance" rather than use force to get Saddam out of Kuwait?
Resolution 661.

2. Pursuant to the ceasefire after Coalition forces routed the Iraqis from
Kuwait, Resolution 687 provided that sanctions would be lifted after Saddam
complied with the requirements of paragraphs 8-20. This was, effectively, a
new (though very similar) sanctions regime since 661 seemed to envision the
elimination of sanctions after Iraq got out of Kuwait. Generally Saddam had
to accept the destruction of his WMDs, cooperate with inspectors, etc.,
comply with the reporting requirements, etc. I'll type this real slow so you
can understand...HE FAILED TO COMPLY. So the sanctions remained. It really
is that simple and it is stunningly ignorant of you to blame *anyone* except
Saddam Hussein for the sanctions. I would note that the feckless amnesiac
Hans Blix flatly stated that Saddam failed to comply with its obligations
under these resolutions. And the UNSC found, as a matter of international
law, that Iraq had failed to comply with its obligations.

So I am curious as to how any sane person can blame anyone *but* Saddam
Hussein.

> > The *entire* Security
> > Council imposed them,

> A subset of the United Nations, comprised of countries which have abused
> both their own and foreign populations in the past. I've always thought
> that "security" is a misused word.

<yawn>

Not interested in your whining. I am only noting that it is disengenuous to
call them "US sanctions."

> > so it is most curious why you idiots insist on
> > characterizing them as *US* sanctions.

> Let's see. Promoted by the US? Policed by the US? Justified by the US?

Voted for by the *entire* UNSC. Are you so hopelessly blinded by your
irrational hatred of the US that you can't even acknowledge that the UNSC
created the santions?

> > It is even more absurd for you to
> > blame anyone but Saddam Hussein for them.

> Since he didn't impose them, he carries no blame whatsoever. The old
> argument of "you made me do it", just doesn't fly.

<blink>

You *must* be joking.

> Certainly he played no part in targeting the bombs that fell during the
> gulf war on the civilian population and infrastructure.

Before you whining hypocrites start on that one again, you should learn
about the history of warfare. The civilian losses in Iraq were *microscopic*
compared to WWII. Infinitely fewer civilians died in Iraq (per ton of bombs
dropped) than in WWII.

Even a moron like you should understand that people die in wartime.
Civilians die in wartime. And to characterize the Allied bombing of Iraq as
uniquely horrible belies either a complete ignorance of the history of
warfare or complete derangement. Or maybe both.

> > Had he merely complied with the
> > UNSC resolutions -- which he agreed
> > to do in exchange for the 1991
> > ceasefire -- there would have been no sanctions.

> Tell me again how he failed to comply?

Answered above. Ask Hans Blix, who flatly stated that Iraq failed to comply.

> > It must have really hurt you "morally
> > superior" lefties when Saddam was finally
> > removed, eh?

> That allegation must be hardwired into the brain of every Rightie to
> posts to usenet, but you've never showed any proof of what you say. I see
> no active supporters of Saddam in the Tolkien groups

Besides you, of course.

Oh, I know, you *really* hate him. But despite your purported hatred of him,
you have opposed *any* course of action that had a reasonable chance of
removing him. And you have exculpated him from any responsibility for the UN
sanctions. You claim to be *so* concerned about the Iraqi people, but never
mention the hundreds of thousands of dead Muslims that Saddam is responsible
for. I can't even get you to answer a simple question -- "do you think a
majority of Iraqis wish Saddam was still in power?"

<shrug>

How would the actions of an open supporter of Saddam materially differ from
yours?

> > By the way, the sanctions had the
> > force of international law. And since you
> > lefties *claim* to so respect international law,
> > I'm sure you wouldn't so
> > hypocritically support a flagrant
> > violation of your beloved international
> > law.

> Please post proof of my being a Leftie.

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, I call it a "duck". Same
with hypocritical whingeing lefties.

> Please post proof of my support for "International Law" as opposed to my
> support for the Geneva Convention, the Hague Protocol and the case law in
> Nuremberg.

Uh, these things are all sources of international law...

I just think that it's hypocritical for lefties to posture about
international law, then support its violation whenever it's convenient.

> Please note that I have equally declaimed both the firestorming of
> Dresden as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki as War Crimes. You can add the
> bombing of Basra during the Gulf War and the attacks by American bombers
> on a retreating army on the Highway of Death.

You are hopelessly ignorant of international law.

Enemy troops, whether retreating or advancing, are legitimate military
targets. They only become protected when they *surrender*. Now, I'll type
slowly because you seem unable to grasp simple facts...RETREATING IS NOT THE
SAME AS SURRENDERING.

Please post *any* valid source of international law to the contrary.

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #113590 ] So, 21 August 2005 00:01
Morgil  
Ty wrote:
> "Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:4305C255.1579E6BD [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...

>>>so it is most curious why you idiots insist on
>>>characterizing them as *US* sanctions.
>
>
>>Let's see. Promoted by the US? Policed by the US? Justified by the US?
>
>
> Voted for by the *entire* UNSC. Are you so hopelessly blinded by your
> irrational hatred of the US that you can't even acknowledge that the UNSC
> created the santions?

Only US and UK wanted to hold on to the sanctions, and
as everybody knows, UK does what US tells them to do.
And that's what makes them US sanctions. Is this clear
or are there no limits to your stupidity?

>>Please post proof of my being a Leftie.
>
>
> If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, I call it a "duck". Same
> with hypocritical whingeing lefties.

Failure to post proof noted. Since you happen to think that
Softrat is a leftie as well, your estimations are nothing
but a pathetic joke. Just like you.

Morgil
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #113591 ] So, 21 August 2005 04:02
Ty  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:de897d$gq8$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Ty wrote:

> > Voted for by the *entire* UNSC. Are you so hopelessly blinded by your
> > irrational hatred of the US that you can't even acknowledge that the
UNSC
> > created the santions?

> Only US and UK wanted to hold on to the sanctions, and
> as everybody knows, UK does what US tells them to do.
> And that's what makes them US sanctions. Is this clear
> or are there no limits to your stupidity?

Given that you are the idiot incapable of seeing the simple *fact* that the
UNSC imposed the sanctions, your statement is perhaps unfortunate.

> > If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, I call it a "duck". Same
> > with hypocritical whingeing lefties.

> Failure to post proof noted.

*You* are lecturing someone about failing to produce proof? Amazing...

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #113602 ] So, 21 August 2005 14:10
Morgil  
Ty wrote:
It is even more absurd for you to
> blame anyone but Saddam Hussein for them. Had he merely complied with the
> UNSC resolutions -- which he agreed to do in exchange for the 1991
> ceasefire -- there would have been no sanctions.

"At this juncture, my view is we don't want to lift these sanctions
as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." -President George Bush, 1991

"We are not interested in seeing a relaxation of sanctions as long as
Saddam Hussein is in power." -James Baker, Secretary of State, 1991

"Saddam is discredited and cannot be redeemed. His leadership will
never be accepted by the world community and, therefore, Iraqis will
pay the price while he remains in power. All possible sanctions will
be maintained until he is gone. Any easing of sanctions will be
considered only when there is a new government."
-Robert M. Gates, Deputy National Security Adviser, 1991

"There is no difference between my policy and the policy of the
present Administration.... I have no intention of normalizing
relations with him." -Bill Clinton, 1993

"We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies
with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions
should be lifted." -Madeline Albright, Secretary of State,1997

"Sanctions and the pressure of sanctions are part of a strategy
of regime change." -Colin Powell, Secretary of State, 2002.

Morgil
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #113610 ] So, 21 August 2005 19:13
Ty  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:de9r0e$e4a$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Ty wrote:
> It is even more absurd for you to
> > blame anyone but Saddam Hussein for them. Had he merely complied with
the
> > UNSC resolutions -- which he agreed to do in exchange for the 1991
> > ceasefire -- there would have been no sanctions.

<snip>

They're still *UN* Sanctions, moron.

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #113614 ] So, 21 August 2005 21:52
Ty  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:de9r0e$e4a$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...

<SNIP>

By the way, do you think that a majority of Iraqis wish Saddam and his sons
were still in power?

<nonanswer predicted>

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #113616 ] So, 21 August 2005 23:03
Morgil  
Ty wrote:
> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:de9r0e$e4a$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
> <SNIP>
>
> By the way, do you think that a majority of Iraqis wish Saddam and his sons
> were still in power?

Do you think majority of Iraqis approved of the sanctions?

Morgil
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #113622 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 00:03
samdekat  
Ty wrote:
> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:de9r0e$e4a$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
> <SNIP>
>
> By the way, do you think that a majority of Iraqis wish Saddam and his sons
> were still in power?
>

I saw an interview with an Iraqi the other day, and he observed that
things are pretty much the same under the present puppet regime as they
were under the previous one (Saddams). The only difference is that the
killing takes place during the day, instead of at night. We can safely
assume that that attitude is pretty typical of the average Iraqi.


> <nonanswer predicted>


On the subject of which, I still have a list of outstanding questions
for you, left over from our previous conversation. Does your re-entry
into this forum signal your willingness to now answer those questions?



>
> --Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #113628 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 00:57
Baronjosefr  
"Ty" <tybeardSPAM [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:CC2Oe.106$rS4.26 [at] newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:de9r0e$e4a$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>> Ty wrote:
>> It is even more absurd for you to
>> > blame anyone but Saddam Hussein for them. Had he merely complied with
> the
>> > UNSC resolutions -- which he agreed to do in exchange for the 1991
>> > ceasefire -- there would have been no sanctions.
>
> <snip>
>
> They're still *UN* Sanctions, moron.
>
> --Ty
>
>

And, from reports of Hans Blix and others, it really didn't matter what the
view of U.S. government personnel happened to be as Sodamn never met the
conditions set by the UNSC for consideration of the sanctions being lifted.
Any attitides aside from that are moot, as the decision never had to be made
as to keeping the sanctions past a point where Sodamn was compliant, as he
never fully was as required.
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #113636 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 06:51
Flame of the West  
Morgil wrote:

> "At this juncture, my view is we don't want to lift these sanctions
> as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." -President George Bush, 1991
>
> "We are not interested in seeing a relaxation of sanctions as long as
> Saddam Hussein is in power." -James Baker, Secretary of State, 1991
>
> "Saddam is discredited and cannot be redeemed. His leadership will
> never be accepted by the world community and, therefore, Iraqis will
> pay the price while he remains in power. All possible sanctions will
> be maintained until he is gone. Any easing of sanctions will be
> considered only when there is a new government."
> -Robert M. Gates, Deputy National Security Adviser, 1991
>
> "There is no difference between my policy and the policy of the
> present Administration.... I have no intention of normalizing
> relations with him." -Bill Clinton, 1993
>
> "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies
> with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions
> should be lifted." -Madeline Albright, Secretary of State,1997
>
> "Sanctions and the pressure of sanctions are part of a strategy
> of regime change." -Colin Powell, Secretary of State, 2002.

Point to Morgil. Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 all wanted
nothing less than the overthrow of Saddam. More proof BTW
that we Americans really have no choice in foreign policy.
Sort of like you Europeans, who get to integrate whether
you like it or not since all political parties are for it.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116439 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 16:19
onq  
Dan C wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:28:21 +0100, Michael O'Neill wrote:
>
> >> It is even more absurd for you to
> >> blame anyone but Saddam Hussein for them.
>
> > Certainly he played no part in targeting the bombs that fell during the
> > gulf war on the civilian population and infrastructure.
>
> The bombs fell because of him and his actions, you ignorant fuck.

Must be the only American bombs capable of being aimed, deployed and
armed by a non-aligned country that isn't a member of Nato, you clueless
clown.

> >> Had he merely complied with the
> >> UNSC resolutions -- which he agreed
> >> to do in exchange for the 1991
> >> ceasefire -- there would have been no sanctions.
>
> > Tell me again how he failed to comply?
>
> ...Yawn... It's well documented,

*bweheheh*

No, the allegations are well documented, including that fact that he
stopped allowing the UN inspectors in because the CIA were using them as
cover to infiltrate spies into Iraq, which they later admitted.

> and even the dipshit fanatics over in
> that part of the world don't argue this point.

Since they don't post to newsgroups, that appears to be an unsupported
point, Danny-boi. No surprises there though, ehhhhh...?

> Shut the fuck up and take
> your drivel to a political newsgroup, moron.

Coming from somebody that has dodged, run away from and otherwise avoided
every question in my post, that deserves a laugh.























BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!111!!



Muppet.

M.
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116442 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 16:57
Ty  
"Flame of the West" <FotW [at] NOSPAMsolinas.org> wrote in message
news:jaKdncXn3uFaxJTeRVn-

> Point to Morgil. Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 all wanted
> nothing less than the overthrow of Saddam. More proof BTW
> that we Americans really have no choice in foreign policy.
> Sort of like you Europeans, who get to integrate whether
> you like it or not since all political parties are for it.

You know, the War on Terror has really numbered the far Left among its
victims:

1. It's Made Their Utter Hypocrisy Obvious. It's kinda funny listening to
all the purported anti-war lefties today. Most of them were deafeningly
silent when Bill Clinton was "unilaterally" (i.e. without French permission)
sending US troops all over the globe or bombing Iraq. Apparently these
lefties are only antiwar when a Republican is president...

2. It's Made Their Utter Hypocrisy Obvious #2. Even more entertaining is
their sanctimonious moralizing in opposition to removing Saddam. "It's
immoral to remove a murderous despot who has been responsible for the deaths
of hundreds of thousands of Muslims", they intone. While reasonable people
may disagree on whether it was the best use of our resources to take Saddam
out, only a morally bankrupt hypocrite could oppose his removal on *moral*
grounds. Of course, they know this, which is why you can't get them to
answer a very simple question: "do you think a majority of Iraqis wish
Saddam hadn't been removed?"

3. It's Made Their Utter Hypocrisy Obvious #3. Nothing is quite so
satisfying as enthusiasm so many self-righteous lefties have for embracing
and defending cultures that stand in direct opposition to the values lefties
*claim* to hold so dear -- gay rights, women's rights, secular consensual
governance, free speech, religious tolerance, no death penalty, etc. The
very same lefties who will wail ad nauseum about these things in any other
discussion, suddenly go deaf and dumb when they irrationally defend Muslim
cultures. Kinda like the silence of all the supposed feminists when Bill
Clinton was accused of committing sexual harrassment several times (and
proven to have committed it once). Clarence Thomas telling a dirty joke to a
subordinate is sexual harrassment, but Bill Clinton find innovative uses for
a cigar with a young intern isn't sexual harrassment. Right. I always knew
that many lefties were utter hypocrites. It is so enjoyable for them to now
make the case for me.

4. It Has Convinced a Majority of Americans That They Cannot Be Trusted With
National Defense. The beatings administered to the Democrats in 2002 and
2004 were nearly unprecedented. Ordinarily, the president's party loses
strength in the Congress. But not after 9-11. The reason is that after 9-11
the far left continued their insane, lurid, anti-american gibbering. But
this time, people were listening. And the people decided that these morons
couldn't be trusted and voted accordingly. So I just love it every time some
idiot lefty rants about "Bush = Hitler", excuses (and even supports) Saddam
Hussein, blames all the world's problems on the US, embraces lying
hypocritical propagandists like Moore and Soros, and openly hopes for a US
defeat in Iraq. Because they are making a case far more successfully than we
conservatives could ever have made -- that the left has departed controlled
flight. Keep talking guys...we can't do it without you. A special
"Republican Lifetime Acheivement Award" must go to Howard Dean (aka "The
Gift That Keeps on Giving"). Thanks for everything, Howard. And thanks to
Michael, George, Teddy, Nancy, Mr. Kerry-Heinz, etc. We really couldn't have
done it without you.

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116451 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 20:24
Ty  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:deaq82$429$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Ty wrote:
>> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:de9r0e$e4a$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...

>> <SNIP>

>> By the way, do you think that a majority of Iraqis wish Saddam and his
>> sons were still in power?

> Do you think majority of Iraqis approved of the sanctions?

<blink>

No.

Relevance?

Since I answered your question, please tell us... do you think that a
majority of Iraqis wish Saddam and his sons were still in power?

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116452 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 20:24
Ty  
"Bajori" <baronjosefr [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:7F7Oe.68108$uo4.25169 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
> "Ty" <tybeardSPAM [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

>> They're still *UN* Sanctions, moron.

> And, from reports of Hans Blix and others, it really didn't matter what
> the view of U.S. government personnel happened to be as Sodamn never met
> the conditions set by the UNSC for consideration of the sanctions being
> lifted.

True.

> Any attitides aside from that are moot, as the decision never had to be
> made as to keeping the sanctions past a point where Sodamn was compliant,
> as he never fully was as required.

Yep, which is why Saddam Hussein deserves the blame for the sanctions.

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116453 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 20:32
Ty  
"Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Ty wrote:

>> By the way, do you think that a majority of Iraqis wish Saddam and his
>> sons
>> were still in power?

> I saw an interview with an Iraqi the other day, and he observed that
> things are pretty much the same under the present puppet regime as they
> were under the previous one (Saddams). The only difference is that the
> killing takes place during the day, instead of at night. We can safely
> assume that that attitude is pretty typical of the average Iraqi.

On the basis of a single interview, you conclude that a majority of Iraqis
see no improvement in Iraq since Saddam?

And you still didn't answer my question -- Do you really think that a
majority of Iraqis wish that Saddam and his sons were still in power?

>> <nonanswer predicted>

> On the subject of which, I still have a list of outstanding questions
> for you, left over from our previous conversation. Does your re-entry
> into this forum signal your willingness to now answer those questions?

It has always been my policy to answer relevant questions that do not assume
facts not in evidence (i.e. "do you still beat your wife").

However, I reserve the right to decide which discussions I will engage in
and to refuse to waste time on irrelevant questions. Included in that are
paranoid conspiracy theories; I'm just not interested.

So if you have a particular relevant question, please ask it. And do me the
same courtesy you demand of me.

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116455 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 20:46
Morgil  
Ty wrote:
> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:deaq82$429$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>>Ty wrote:
>>
>>>"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:de9r0e$e4a$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
>>><SNIP>
>
>
>>>By the way, do you think that a majority of Iraqis wish Saddam and his
>>>sons were still in power?
>
>
>>Do you think majority of Iraqis approved of the sanctions?
>
>
> <blink>
>
> No.
>
> Relevance?

Purpose of the sanctions was to get rid of Saddam. Since you
agree that the Iraqis do not neccessarily approve everything
that is done in the name of removing Saddam from power, your
favourite question becomes meaningless.

> Since I answered your question, please tell us... do you think that a
> majority of Iraqis wish Saddam and his sons were still in power?

The question is meaningless since you have acknowledged that
Iraqis did not approve everything that was done to remove
Saddam from power.

Morgil
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116456 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 21:03
Morgil  
Ty wrote:
> "Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>I saw an interview with an Iraqi the other day, and he observed that
>>things are pretty much the same under the present puppet regime as they
>>were under the previous one (Saddams). The only difference is that the
>>killing takes place during the day, instead of at night. We can safely
>>assume that that attitude is pretty typical of the average Iraqi.
>
>
> On the basis of a single interview, you conclude that a majority of Iraqis
> see no improvement in Iraq since Saddam?

Interesting. Didn't you a month ago write to me:
>Why should we believe you over the Iraqis? Do you live in Iraq?

And you blame others of hypocrisy. Tssk-tskk...

Morgil
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116462 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 21:39
Ty  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ded6il$ark$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Ty wrote:

>>>Do you think majority of Iraqis approved of the sanctions?

>> <blink>

>> No.

>> Relevance?

> Purpose of the sanctions was to get rid of Saddam.

Actually, while this would have certainly been desirable, the resolutions
stated that the sanctions would be lifted when Saddam complied with the
requirements in the assorted UNSC resolutions.

> Since you
> agree that the Iraqis do not neccessarily approve everything
> that is done in the name of removing Saddam from power your
> favourite question becomes meaningless.

How does it become meaningless?

>> Since I answered your question, please tell us... do you think that a
>> majority of Iraqis wish Saddam and his sons were still in power?

> The question is meaningless

Nonanswer.

So, do you think that a majority of Iraqis wish Saddam and his sons were
still in power?

And the question is directly relevant to the issue of lefty hypocrisy on
Iraq. You idiots *claim* to be so worried about the Iraqi people, yet you
opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein. If a majority of Iraqis are glad that
he was removed, this would annihilate your purported concern for the Iraqis.

Of course, even you aren't stupid enough to miss this point, so you continue
to evade the question. Why won't you simply do me the same courtesy I did
you and ANSWER THE QUESTION?

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116463 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 21:39
Ty  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ded7hc$bdc$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Ty wrote:
>> "Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>>I saw an interview with an Iraqi the other day, and he observed that
>>>things are pretty much the same under the present puppet regime as they
>>>were under the previous one (Saddams). The only difference is that the
>>>killing takes place during the day, instead of at night. We can safely
>>>assume that that attitude is pretty typical of the average Iraqi.

>> On the basis of a single interview, you conclude that a majority of
>> Iraqis see no improvement in Iraq since Saddam?

> Interesting. Didn't you a month ago write to me:
> >Why should we believe you over the Iraqis? Do you live in Iraq?

> And you blame others of hypocrisy. Tssk-tskk...

Please tell us how this statement amounts to hypocrisy.

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116465 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 22:04
Morgil  
Ty wrote:
> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ded7hc$bdc$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>>Ty wrote:

>>>On the basis of a single interview, you conclude that a majority of
>>>Iraqis see no improvement in Iraq since Saddam?
>
>
>>Interesting. Didn't you a month ago write to me:
>>
>>>Why should we believe you over the Iraqis? Do you live in Iraq?
>
>
>>And you blame others of hypocrisy. Tssk-tskk...
>
>
> Please tell us how this statement amounts to hypocrisy.

You want us to believe you over the Iraqis.

Morgil
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116466 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 22:09
Ty  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dedb46$dkb$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Ty wrote:

>>>>On the basis of a single interview, you conclude that a majority of
>>>>Iraqis see no improvement in Iraq since Saddam?

>>>Interesting. Didn't you a month ago write to me:

>>>>Why should we believe you over the Iraqis? Do you live in Iraq?

>>>And you blame others of hypocrisy. Tssk-tskk...

>> Please tell us how this statement amounts to hypocrisy.

> You want us to believe you over the Iraqis.

Where did I say that?

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116469 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 22:20
Morgil  
Ty wrote:
> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ded6il$ark$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>>Ty wrote:
>
>
>>>>Do you think majority of Iraqis approved of the sanctions?
>
>
>>><blink>
>
>
>>>No.
>
>
>>>Relevance?
>
>
>>Purpose of the sanctions was to get rid of Saddam.
>
>
> Actually, while this would have certainly been desirable, the resolutions
> stated that the sanctions would be lifted when Saddam complied with the
> requirements in the assorted UNSC resolutions.

"Sanctions and the pressure of sanctions are part of a strategy
of regime change." -Colin Powell, Secretary of State, 2002.

>>Since you
>>agree that the Iraqis do not neccessarily approve everything
>>that is done in the name of removing Saddam from power your
>>favourite question becomes meaningless.
>
>
> How does it become meaningless?

Because you agree that Iraqis not wishing Saddam was still in
power, does not follow up to that they would approve all things
that are done in order to remove him.

<snip>

> And the question is directly relevant to the issue of lefty hypocrisy on
> Iraq. You idiots *claim* to be so worried about the Iraqi people, yet you
> opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein. If a majority of Iraqis are glad that
> he was removed, this would annihilate your purported concern for the Iraqis.

Since Iraqis can oppose the things that are done in purpose
of removing Saddam from power, then so can people who are
concerned of their well-being. I hope this is clear now.

Morgil
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116470 ] Mo, 22 August 2005 22:34
Ty  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dedc1m$mp4$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Ty wrote:
>> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ded6il$ark$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...

>>>Ty wrote:

>>>>>Do you think majority of Iraqis approved of the sanctions?

>>>><blink>

>>>>No.

>>>>Relevance?

>>>Purpose of the sanctions was to get rid of Saddam.

>> Actually, while this would have certainly been desirable, the resolutions
>> stated that the sanctions would be lifted when Saddam complied with the
>> requirements in the assorted UNSC resolutions.

> "Sanctions and the pressure of sanctions are part of a strategy
> of regime change." -Colin Powell, Secretary of State, 2002.

<shrug>

This does not change the *fact* that the UN resolution providing for the
sanctions flatly stated that compliance with UNSC resolutions would result
in the lifting of the sanctions.

>>>Since you
>>>agree that the Iraqis do not neccessarily approve everything
>>>that is done in the name of removing Saddam from power your
>>>favourite question becomes meaningless.

>> How does it become meaningless?

> Because you agree that Iraqis not wishing Saddam was still in
> power, does not follow up to that they would approve all things
> that are done in order to remove him.

Please re-phrase. This sentence is unintelligible.

> <snip>

You snipped this:

So, do you think that a majority of Iraqis wish Saddam and his sons were
still in power?

Care to simply answer the question?

>> And the question is directly relevant to the issue of lefty hypocrisy on
>> Iraq. You idiots *claim* to be so worried about the Iraqi people, yet you
>> opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein. If a majority of Iraqis are glad
>> that he was removed, this would annihilate your purported concern for the
>> Iraqis.

> Since Iraqis can oppose the things that are done in purpose
> of removing Saddam from power, then so can people who are
> concerned of their well-being. I hope this is clear now.

Not really.

So, do you think that a majority of Iraqis wish Saddam and his sons were
still in power?

Why won't you simply do me the same courtesy I did you and ANSWER THE
QUESTION?

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116478 ] Di, 23 August 2005 00:01
Morgil  
Ty wrote:
> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dedc1m$mp4$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...

>>Since Iraqis can oppose the things that are done in purpose
>>of removing Saddam from power, then so can people who are
>>concerned of their well-being. I hope this is clear now.
>
>
> Not really.

What part is unclear?

Iraqis who support the removal of Saddam, can nevertheless
oppose things that are done in this purpose. Is this clear?

People who care about Iraqis and who support the removal of
Saddam, can *also* sometimes oppose things that are done in
this purpose. Clear?

So - opposing something that is done in the purpose of
removing Saddam, does *not* equal lack of care for the
Iraqi people, since Iraqi people themselves can sometimes
oppose such things as well.

Clear?

Morgil
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116480 ] Di, 23 August 2005 00:05
Matty-o  
Kerry lost - get over it.
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116483 ] Di, 23 August 2005 00:16
Ty  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dedhvc$qac$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Ty wrote:
> > "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:dedc1m$mp4$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...

> >>Since Iraqis can oppose the things that are done in purpose
> >>of removing Saddam from power, then so can people who are
> >>concerned of their well-being. I hope this is clear now.

> > Not really.

> What part is unclear?

> Iraqis who support the removal of Saddam, can nevertheless
> oppose things that are done in this purpose. Is this clear?

After a fashion. Of course, the relevance of the observation seems
questionable.

> People who care about Iraqis and who support the removal of
> Saddam, can *also* sometimes oppose things that are done in
> this purpose. Clear?

Yes. But we aren't talking about a mere disagreement over minor methods. You
antiwar lefties utterly opposed *any* action likely to remove Saddam.
Therefore, I submit it is rank hypocrisy to claim to be concerned about the
Iraqi people. And you obviously agree that a majority of Iraqis do not wish
that Saddam had been left in power. Therefore, your purported *concern* for
them seems at odds with what *they* want. And your disengenuous evasion of
the simple question indicates to me that you realize your hypocrisy and are
attempting to evade. Poorly, I would add.

> So - opposing something that is done in the purpose of
> removing Saddam, does *not* equal lack of care for the
> Iraqi people, since Iraqi people themselves can sometimes
> oppose such things as well.

Hmm. So you think that you can (a) truly care about the Iraqi people while
(b) opposing the removal of a brutal despot who murdered many thousands of
Iraqis and instituted a horrific reign of terror lasting for decades? Isn't
that kinda like claiming to be concerned about Jews, yet opposing the
removal of Hitler?

Please reconcile this inconsistency for us.

And by the way -- do you believe that a majority of Iraqis wish that Saddam
was still in power?

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116484 ] Di, 23 August 2005 00:16
Ty  
"ssssooo" <nospam [at] nospam.com> wrote in message
news:T_rOe.651$yo7.284 [at] newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> Kerry lost - get over it.

They haven't gotten over Gore's defeat yet...

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116486 ] Di, 23 August 2005 01:07
Morgil  
Ty wrote:
> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dedhvc$qac$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...

>>People who care about Iraqis and who support the removal of
>>Saddam, can *also* sometimes oppose things that are done in
>>this purpose. Clear?
>
>
> Yes. But we aren't talking about a mere disagreement over minor methods.

Your assertion lumps together all opposition of any methods.
But if you now agree that some methods are acceptable while
others are not, then what we have *is* precisely a disagreement
over which methods are acceptable and which are not.

Do you agree that there can be methods that are unacceptable
even for a purpose that in itself *is* acceptable?

Morgil
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116488 ] Di, 23 August 2005 01:32
Ty  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dedlrt$rt7$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Ty wrote:

> > Yes. But we aren't talking about a mere disagreement over minor methods.

> Your assertion lumps together all opposition of any methods.
> But if you now agree that some methods are acceptable while
> others are not, then what we have *is* precisely a disagreement
> over which methods are acceptable and which are not.

The problem has been that the antiwar left has opposed *any* method likely
to get rid of Saddam. Period. But just for fun, please tell us what specific
and credible alternatives you would have preferred and that would have been
likely to get rid of Saddam.

> Do you agree that there can be methods that are unacceptable
> even for a purpose that in itself *is* acceptable?

Of course. But this isn't what we're talking about. You antiwar types have
consistently failed to identify the specific, credible alternatives that you
supposedly would have supported. Throughout the process, you have opposed
the one thing guaranteed to remove him (military force) and have refused to
identify credible alternatives.

So on the one hand, we have this reluctance to identify credible
alternatives, the fact that Saddam is responsible for the death of hundreds
of thousands of people, and the fact that the majority of Iraqis do not wish
Saddam were still in power.

On the other hand, we have your bald claims to be concerned about the Iraqi
people.

<shrug>

Again, you sound like someone who claims to be concerned about Jews, yet
opposes the removal of Hitler.

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116489 ] Di, 23 August 2005 01:38
Yuk Tang  
Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:dedhvc$qac$1
[at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
> Ty wrote:
>> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:dedc1m$mp4$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>>>Since Iraqis can oppose the things that are done in purpose
>>>of removing Saddam from power, then so can people who are
>>>concerned of their well-being. I hope this is clear now.
>>
>> Not really.
>
> What part is unclear?
>
> Iraqis who support the removal of Saddam, can nevertheless
> oppose things that are done in this purpose. Is this clear?
>
> People who care about Iraqis and who support the removal of
> Saddam, can *also* sometimes oppose things that are done in
> this purpose. Clear?
>
> So - opposing something that is done in the purpose of
> removing Saddam, does *not* equal lack of care for the
> Iraqi people, since Iraqi people themselves can sometimes
> oppose such things as well.
>
> Clear?

Everyone in Britain supports making life hard for would be
terrorists. A lot of people in Britain oppose the introduction of ID
cards, which are supposed to make life hard for would be terrorists.
They argue that the measure would be ineffective for that purpose,
and the repercussions would not be worth the benefits it would offer.

But then Ty has difficulty grasping greys, it's all black and white
for him. Either for or against, never yes but.


--
Cheers, ymt.
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116492 ] Di, 23 August 2005 01:46
Ty  
"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message

> Everyone in Britain supports making life hard for would be
> terrorists. A lot of people in Britain oppose the introduction of ID
> cards, which are supposed to make life hard for would be terrorists.
> They argue that the measure would be ineffective for that purpose,
> and the repercussions would not be worth the benefits it would offer.

> But then Ty has difficulty grasping greys, it's all black and white
> for him. Either for or against, never yes but.

The problem, of course, is that the antiwar left did not articulate any
specific and credible alternatives. They did, however, reflexively and
absolutely oppose the one course of action that was certain to remove him
from power.

Which makes your whining about absolutism rather ironic.

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116498 ] Di, 23 August 2005 03:33
Morgil  
Ty wrote:
> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dedlrt$rt7$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...

>>Do you agree that there can be methods that are unacceptable
>>even for a purpose that in itself *is* acceptable?
>
>
> Of course.

I think that'll do for now. You have agreed that a method
can be unacceptable even when the cause itself is acceptable,
which in a nutshell is the reason why most anti-war people
have opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and thereby you have
no grounds for critisizing them based on that reason.

Morgil
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116514 ] Di, 23 August 2005 13:09
Ty  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dedudl$u4i$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Ty wrote:
>> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:dedlrt$rt7$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>>>Do you agree that there can be methods that are unacceptable
>>>even for a purpose that in itself *is* acceptable?
>>
>>
>> Of course.
>
> I think that'll do for now.

Not so fast.

You -- like the rest of the antiwar folks -- have failed to identify the
specific and credible alternatives to remove Saddam that you would have
supposedly supported. Instead, you appear to have resorted to a most
transparent ruse -- *claim* to support something, but condition that support
on impossible terms.

So again, please identify the specific and credible alternatives to remove
Saddam that you *would* have supported.

> You have agreed that a method
> can be unacceptable even when the cause itself is acceptable,
> which in a nutshell is the reason why most anti-war people
> have opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and thereby you have
> no grounds for critisizing them based on that reason.

Incorrect, as usual. Since they have not identified specific and credible
alternative methods that they would have support, I think that it is
reasonable to conclude that they are lying and would not have supported
*anything* that had a reasonable likelihood of removing Saddam. Your own
evasions and obfuscations on this point make this case far more eloquently
than I ever could.

You look at the many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lying in Saddam's mass
graves; the thousands of women raped by Saddam's thugs; the many thousands
of Kurdish civilians slain by poison gas; etc., and all you can say is that
you don't support Saddam, but opposed his removal OUT OF CONCERN FOR THE
VERY PEOPLE HE BUTCHERED. Of course, you claim, you would have supported his
removal by *different* methods, but you seem unusually reticent to identify
these different methods.

Sorry, but I think that you are lying. I think that you, like most other
antiwar types, opposed the removal of Saddam by *any* method that was likely
to succeed, the Iraqi people be damned. Of course, you're entitled to you
opinion. But what grates on me is your rank cowardice. Instead of simply
admitting this fact, the antiwar cowards sanctimoniously claim to be
concerned about the very people Saddam was butchering.

Again, you sound like someone who claims to be concerned about the Jews, but
who opposes the removal of Hitler.

--Ty
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116519 ] Di, 23 August 2005 14:26
Morgil  
Ty wrote:
> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dedudl$u4i$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>>Ty wrote:
>>
>>>"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:dedlrt$rt7$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>>
>>>>Do you agree that there can be methods that are unacceptable
>>>>even for a purpose that in itself *is* acceptable?
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course.
>>
>>I think that'll do for now.
>
>
> Not so fast.
<snip>
> So again, please identify the specific and credible alternatives to remove
> Saddam that you *would* have supported.

Maybe some other time. Your (unwillful) acknowledgement that
your main point of criticism has no grounds is enough for now.

Morgil
Re: The other side of the American occupation of Iraq [message #116523 ] Di, 23 August 2005 15:02
Ty  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:def4m1$d4p$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Ty wrote:
>> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>>I think that'll do for now.

>> Not so fast.
> <snip>
>> So again, please identify the specific and credible alternatives to
>> remove Saddam that you *would* have supported.

> Maybe some other time.

Non-answer and evasion noted.

Apparently, your hypocrisy goes far deeper than your absurd political
beliefs. Were you not the one who said "Failure to post proof noted"?

>Your (unwillful) acknowledgement that
> your main point of criticism has no grounds is enough for now.

Please explain to us how you arrived at this absurd conclusion.

--Ty
Vorheriges Thema:You don't have to be a war monger to be a real American
Nächstes Thema:COTW, Bk 6, Ch 6, "Many Partings"
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Mi Mai 23 21:10:07 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,14299 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered