sk Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 (edited) sexual_chocolate said: Exactly. When will the world's largest superpower figger it out? (Hint: They don't wanna.) well we can't seem to get Sadam to ply by our rules... should we play by his? (fear not... I will change my auto sig soon enough... If I spelled it corectly no one would believe I typed it ) woohoo Edited February 18, 2003 by Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer Quote
To_The_Top Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 fear not... I will change my auto sig soon enough... If I spelled it corectly no one would believe I typed it ) Quote
j_b Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 as usual MtnGoat's cynicism knows no bound. It is well documented that if the Iraqis are starving today it is due to the sanctions we keep enforcing. UNICEF estimates that 350,000 children under 5 have died since 1991, this number is in addition to the typical death rate prior to the 1990 gulf war. Talk about morals all you want, until you act accordingly it does not mean squat. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/iraq/life1.shtml I hope everyone is noticing that most of the grandiose diatribes above are not supported by any links to reputable articles. As they say, the ideologues come out of the woodwork and the innocents pay the price. Quote
iain Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 perhaps "Don't You Forget About Me" by Simple Mines? Quote
MtnGoat Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 add another one iain. it's quite something to have someone counting my posts, as well as keeping track of when I am logged on! Quote
iain Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 j_b said: I hope everyone is noticing that most... I think you're asking a lot from me Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted February 18, 2003 Author Posted February 18, 2003 well we can't seem to get Sadam to ply by our rules... should we play by his? Hey you, it isn't about either Iraq or the US dictating the rules; it's about having some semblance of a fair procedure for developing rules, without ONE GODDAMN COUNTRY having all the say. And we talk about Iraq being in breach of UN resolutions; do you know what goddamn country is currently in breach of THE MOST UN RESOLUTIONS? I'm not sure, just asking! So damnit, Muffy, SPINK befour you dark. OK? Quote
sk Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 sexual_chocolate said: well we can't seem to get Sadam to ply by our rules... should we play by his? Hey you, it isn't about either Iraq or the US dictating the rules; it's about having some semblance of a fair procedure for developing rules, without ONE GODDAMN COUNTRY having all the say. And we talk about Iraq being in breach of UN resolutions; do you know what goddamn country is currently in breach of THE MOST UN RESOLUTIONS? I'm not sure, just asking! So damnit, Muffy, SPINK befour you dark. OK? Dude lay off my spelling okay?? we all know SK CAN"T SPELL Look I don't know who is in violation of the UN more than Iraq. The truth is that SOME ONE HAS TO MAKE THE RULES> if not then it becomes the definition of Anarchey. i get what you are saying, that it SHOULD be fair. But it isn't, It won't ever be. who ever told you life was going to be fair??? Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted February 18, 2003 Author Posted February 18, 2003 Look I don't know who is in violation of the UN more than Iraq. The truth is that SOME ONE HAS TO MAKE THE RULES> if not then it becomes the definition of Anarchey. i get what you are saying, that it SHOULD be fair. But it isn't, It won't ever be. who ever told you life was going to be fair??? Muffy you wanker! (sprayer) Some of the stuff you say, I just cannot believe. "Gee life isn't fair so just get over it ok and let (someone) make all the rules and be empiric and peremptory about it cuz that's just the way life is." Is this the drivel you teach your kids? Teach your kids that we CAN make a difference, you indifferent (muffy). I'd love to see the world (hate to see) if everyone had your attitude: "Gee,slavery's not THAT bad. You get used to it, and you usually get fed." "Hey, I don't want to vote anyway. My place is in the kitchen (Really? Yours too, Muffy?)." "Hey, WWI was kinda bad, WWII too, but trying to work together through an international coalition for future WW prevention seems like a BAD IDEA to me." "I don't CARE if you're not guilty. You STILL get the death penalty. Life Isn't Fair. What kind of an upstart are you, anyways? " "Ahh gee mom (muffy), how come the bully always gets his way on the playground? I thought might wasn't supposed to make right?" "Shut up kid. I'm just a hypocritical hippy who once was kinda dippy. Now I'm sane, just playing the Republican's game." Sadness takes the form of water, nourishes new growth. What pain for new green. I cannot let go. Must let go. Must let go. Quote
sk Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 sexual_chocolate said: Look I don't know who is in violation of the UN more than Iraq. The truth is that SOME ONE HAS TO MAKE THE RULES> if not then it becomes the definition of Anarchey. i get what you are saying, that it SHOULD be fair. But it isn't, It won't ever be. who ever told you life was going to be fair??? Muffy you wanker! (sprayer) Some of the stuff you say, I just cannot believe. "Gee life isn't fair so just get over it ok and let (someone) make all the rules and be empiric and peremptory about it cuz that's just the way life is." Is this the drivel you teach your kids? Teach your kids that we CAN make a difference, you indifferent (muffy). I'd love to see the world (hate to see) if everyone had your attitude: "Gee,slavery's not THAT bad. You get used to it, and you usually get fed." "Hey, I don't want to vote anyway. My place is in the kitchen (Really? Yours too, Muffy?)." "Hey, WWI was kinda bad, WWII too, but trying to work together through an international coalition for future WW prevention seems like a BAD IDEA to me." "I don't CARE if you're not guilty. You STILL get the death penalty. Life Isn't Fair. What kind of an upstart are you, anyways? " "Ahh gee mom (muffy), how come the bully always gets his way on the playground? I thought might wasn't supposed to make right?" "Shut up kid. I'm just a hypocritical hippy who once was kinda dippy. Now I'm sane, just playing the Republican's game." Sadness takes the form of water, nourishes new growth. What pain for new green. I cannot let go. Must let go. Must let go. I am sorry you missed my point sexy sure those things are wrong and sometimes great wrongs can be righted. But UTOPIA is a fantisy. People are not all nice and the world will never be perfect. Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted February 18, 2003 Author Posted February 18, 2003 Ahh Utopia: Mtgoat learns analogy and metaphor, loses his computer. Polish Bob climbs 5.12. Fairweather understands, votes for Nader! And gives me a foot massage. Doctor Flash Amazing keeps the heathens in line; brings the rest of us fine wines from you-know-where. Dwayner becomes an enlightened Rabbi, spreading understanding to all the ignorants of the world. Muffy gets spell-check software for ALL her posts. I merge with sun and moon universal. Quote
MtnGoat Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 "as usual MtnGoat's cynicism knows no bound." Taking into account what really occurs in Iraq, may be cynicism for you, for me and others, it's called accepting reality. You can complain about cynicism all you like, that doesn't empty the Iraqi torture chambers nor does it divert food for oil money from Saddam to it's intended recipients, his people. Supporting a path where no deaths occur seems real nice of course, but since that path doesn't exist in reality, supporting it doesn't really do much. "It is well documented that if the Iraqis are starving today it is due to the sanctions we keep enforcing." You're not in favor of sanctions? "UNICEF estimates that 350,000 children under 5 have died since 1991, this number is in addition to the typical death rate prior to the 1990 gulf war." Does UNICEF account for the diversion of funds to weapons programs by Saddam? "I hope everyone is noticing that most of the grandiose diatribes above are not supported by any links to reputable articles." It's "grandiose" to point out diversion of oil money to weapons instead of food, or point out the ongoing horrors in Saddams basements? Ignoring it, or using "grandiose", doesn't change it's reality. Those who've been doing their reading know both of these items are factual, wether or not they agree with our actions on Iraq. I really don't see they point of wasting anyone's time providing more links to what anyone here discussing this already knows. I'd rather waste it discussing what we know already, means from other angles. A direct question: Are you denying Saddam is diverting food money? Are you denying Saddams use of torture? "As they say, the ideologues come out of the woodwork and the innocents pay the price. " And of course *you're* no idealogue, only someone with ideals who argues for them, judges their own actions and those of others by them. But not an idealogue, of course not. And it's impossible any innocent could pay the price for your non ideology, of course. Right. Quote
MtnGoat Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 "Fairweather understands, votes for Nader! And gives me a foot massage." Fairweather (and I) already understand Nader. That's precisely why we'll never vote for him. All one needs to do is read his plans for everyone, to see that it's just one more take on socialism, with the everpresent fallacy of "we'll do it right this time, because we *really* care" fully included at no extra charge. Unless you count near total loss of your right to own your own body, life, choices, beliefs, actions, and labor, of course. Quote
Dru Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 settle Iraq conflict with a Trial of Champions, prehistoric Celtic style: each side sends a champion to fight to the death. winning champions' side wins. it'd be like Ultimate Fighting Battlecage meets WWF!! Think of the profit motive for the Vegas bookies! Quote
sk Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 Dru said: settle Iraq conflict with a Trial of Champions, prehistoric Celtic style: each side sends a champion to fight to the death. winning champions' side wins. it'd be like Ultimate Fighting Battlecage meets WWF!! Think of the profit motive for the Vegas bookies! that is the best idea yet Quote
j_b Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 oh yeah, 1) we impose sanctions that are ultimately responsabe for the death of 100,000's (and keep wanting enforcing them in hte face of common sense), 2) we gear up for war upon a people on the brink of starvation, 3) we supported this same regime for years as we knew all along what it was up to, and 4) we justify our actions by saying we want to prevent the persecution of dissidents while we continue supporting other regimes with similar practices. Only the fools and the ignorant would buy such a scenario. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 I feel like this soap opera never changes. J-B Quote: "I hope everyone is noticing that most of the grandiose diatribes above are not supported by any links to reputable articles. As they say, the ideologues come out of the woodwork and the innocents pay the price." I have repeatedly stated how many of J-B's links in the past haven't been all that "reputable" but have come to understand that his claim here is honest: his politics do not rely upon logic but rather the "democracy of the committed" where the loudest and most pompous (read in this case left wing protestors) have somehow established a greater claim to be heard and obeyed; a greater correctness. Sadly these "Loudittes" and "Pompousites" are mostly a disparate collection of bodies that are merely reactions to the existence of a status quo. I think that in the past J-B has referred to Edward Said. Perhaps not. Nevertheless he is often referred to in the debate over Middle East issues and while his ideas on exploitation remain utter crap they are in fact held in high regard by many lefties. Lets see what he wrote in Al-Ahram , an Egyptian government funded newspaper. [/i]"For the moment, I shall discount George Bush and his coterie of advisers, spiritual mentors, and political managers like Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, and Karl Rove: they seem to me slaves of power perfectly embodied in the repetitive monotone of their collective spokesman Ari Fliescher (who I believe is also an Israeli citizen). Bush is, he has said, in direct contact with God, or if not God, then at least Providence. Perhaps only Israeli settlers can converse with him". [/i] Whow! What inflammatory racist shit. Beneath contempt. Not even accurate about Ari. Notice the way he constructs his claim? Leaving enough wiggle room so that he can't be hung when it comes out it is BS. I say he knew it wasn't true from the start. As to Peaceniks what can we say? Will they ever learn? Here is the always erudite John O'Sullivan stating the obvious: As to the "irresistible" character of the marchers and their opinions, it is worth recalling that there have been three such mass movements in the last two decades. In the years 1982 and onwards, there were massive "peace" marches in Western Europe and the U.S. to protest against the installation of defensive U.S. missiles in NATO countries when the Soviet Union refused to withdraw its own SS-20s. NATO and the West stood firm; the Soviet Union imploded; and it is now hard to find someone who admits to having been a peace marcher. Nine years later in 1991 there were massive peace marches in Europe to protest against the U.S.-led war to liberate Kuwait. The young (well, youngish) Gerhard Schroeder, now Germany's Chancellor, led the campaign, warning that the Bush regime might use nuclear weapons against Iraq "with terrible consequences." But the U.S.-led coalition ignored the marchers and liberated Kuwait without any of the horrors predicted. Does even Schroeder now defend his "peace" activities then? Almost certainly he would prefer a kindly veil to be drawn over them. So today's peace marches really are "déjà vu all over again." All that remains of the first two campaigns is a fading outline of revolutionary posturing and a nasty smell of idealism gone sour. The irresistible advance of the peace marchers was resisted. And history sees them merely as the dupes of tyrants Muffy is right concerning the slimey Frenchmen and oil but here is a wonderful article on the Noble German: Noble Germany. From the first paragraph:two German government ministers let readers know that there is little danger now that that American-hating terrorists could unleash the smallpox virus on the German population."Germans first suppress the info, then say "don't worry they won't waste their precious smallpox on Germany they want the US!" Pathetic. The ideologues come out of the woodwork and the innocents pay the price." Precisely what many have noted as they watched the protests succor Saddam. By supporting him they make war inevitable. The "Anti war protests for war." How ironic. PP Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted February 18, 2003 Author Posted February 18, 2003 And there seem to be plenty around. What the hell's up with that? Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 Peter_Puget said: I feel like this soap opera never changes. [substance] PP It doesn't. So kick back with some bon-bons and watch to see who's diddling, two-timing, or trying to poison whom. Grand fun, Mr. Puge! Quote
MtnGoat Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 "oh yeah, 1) we impose sanctions that are ultimately responsabe for the death of 100,000's " why isn't the man misusing the money responsible for those deaths? It is, after all, a socialist nation and therefore responsible by definition for how it's resources are used. "we gear up for war upon a people on the brink of starvation," I'm certain you will not find one cruise missile aimed at starving civilians. "3) we supported this same regime for years as we knew all along what it was up to, " Does that mean we should not correct our actions now? If we do something wrong before, that means we can't do right, later? What an interesting standard. "and 4) we justify our actions by saying we want to prevent the persecution of dissidents while we continue supporting other regimes with similar practices." No, we jusitify them them with the persecution of dissidents + his lack of disarmament. Those other regimes with similar practices, we have better relations with. You're the one telling us war should be a last resort, and with regimes we can work with without war, I agree. "Only the fools and the ignorant would buy such a scenario." And of course those who disagree with you, are one or both. Such an elegant display of precisely how you value dissent from your viewpoint. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 Just as long as you'll always give me Smith beta! Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 Gaston, high-step, mono, crimp, go again, match, huck, clip! Quote
Peter_Puget Posted February 18, 2003 Posted February 18, 2003 Damn! Can't do that many moves between bolts. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.