Madness

[Yorick]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: War and divorce are both cancers of societies.

Unhappy marriage is pretty cancerous too. call.[/QUOTE]I was including that under "divorce". 'Divorce' being a drawn out process, not an end result (which is 'divorced')

[Animal]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: Hmm, isnt it kind of hypocritical too say you hate war and human disasters and be agaisnt the war in Iraq. I dont believe we are waging war just for the hell of it, or for oil, or because Bush wants payback. I believe we are attacking Saddam Hussien because he is an evil man who has killed alot of innocent people, and might kill more at will anyday, anytime. Its like having a stormy day and watching the weather and they say there is a tornado warning and not taking heed. But then its also hypocritical to to attack Iraq because you want to prevent innocent civlians dieing, becaue as horrible as it is, we all now there is going to be some screw ups and non-militants are going to die. But I believe it will be better for long term. Just my two cents.

The power of the press at it's finest.
The conflict in the Gulf during the last two decades has been about one thing: OIL
There are a lot of evil people in the world, doing evil things. Look at the number of hate crimes, murders, rapes etc... in any country at any time.
Bush would like the world to think that his is doing this for humanitarian reasons, but I really, really doubt it.
Take North Korea lately for example. If reports are to be believed they are developing weapons of mass destruction faster than Iraq, yet the focus is still on Iraq. Why? Because there is no oil in North Korea.
I think if the politicians themselves where holding rifles on the front lines of combat, we'd see a lot less "police actions" for humanitarian reasons.

[Iron_Ranger]

Originally posted by Animal: quote: Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: Hmm, isnt it kind of hypocritical too say you hate war and human disasters and be agaisnt the war in Iraq. I dont believe we are waging war just for the hell of it, or for oil, or because Bush wants payback. I believe we are attacking Saddam Hussien because he is an evil man who has killed alot of innocent people, and might kill more at will anyday, anytime. Its like having a stormy day and watching the weather and they say there is a tornado warning and not taking heed. But then its also hypocritical to to attack Iraq because you want to prevent innocent civlians dieing, becaue as horrible as it is, we all now there is going to be some screw ups and non-militants are going to die. But I believe it will be better for long term. Just my two cents.

The power of the press at it's finest.
The conflict in the Gulf during the last two decades has been about one thing: OIL
There are a lot of evil people in the world, doing evil things. Look at the number of hate crimes, murders, rapes etc... in any country at any time.
Bush would like the world to think that his is doing this for humanitarian reasons, but I really, really doubt it.

If thats what you like to believe, be my guest.

Take North Korea lately for example. If reports are to be believed they are developing weapons of mass destruction faster than Iraq, yet the focus is still on Iraq. Why? Because there is no oil in North Korea.

But you know what there is in Korea? Nuclear facilitys and a really big and capable army. Do you support action in North Korea? Wouldnt that be a bigger human disaster? Two well trained armys that are pretty willing to rip each others throats out.

I think if the politicians themselves where holding rifles on the front lines of combat, we'd see a lot less "police actions" for humanitarian reasons.[/QUOTE] We would also have no leaders. I dont think all this is about oil. We have oul right here in the US. We can buy oil for Russia, Saudi Arabia and a host of other countrys. Was Desert Storm about oil? Partly, it was also partly, a bigger party about defending Kuwait.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Animal: I think if the politicians themselves where holding rifles on the front lines of combat, we'd see a lot less "police actions" for humanitarian reasons.

Hmmmm. I'd be alot more inclined to fight for a man who was willing to die alongside me. There are plenty of bureaucrats and diplomats in pressed, white-collar suits in America who can run the technicalities of rulership, Bush should enter the battle he has so desperately pressed for with his men, as a true warrior. Not as a talker who pays others to fight for him and watches the outcome from afar. Maybe then he'd get a better idea of the world he is making. I might be able to respect him then.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: Bush should enter the battle he has so desperately pressed for with his men, as a true warrior. Not as a talker who pays others to fight for him and watches the outcome from afar. Maybe then he'd get a better idea of the world he is making. I might be able to respect him then.

Come on, Bush should lead the charge on horseback? Isn't that a bit much?

Originally posted by Animal: The power of the press at it's finest. The conflict in the Gulf during the last two decades has been about one thing: OIL Your proof sir? Iraq did not invade and wage war with Iran for ran's oil, it was about religion. Iraq did not invade Kuwait for it's oil, it was about religion and conquest. The USA did not wage the first war solely for oil and there is ample proof, that the US goes to war to aid people being faced with injustice (somalia, kosovo, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam war none of which were about oil. Though some of the motivations were self serving, it was never the sole reason for involvement. There are a lot of evil people in the world, doing evil things. Look at the number of hate crimes, murders, rapes etc... in any country at any time. Bush would like the world to think that his is doing this for humanitarian reasons, but I really, really doubt it. And your doubts are based on nothing at all. He stated his reasons, and unless you can demonstrate your psychic abilities, you have ZERO proof that he is lying. You just want him to be lieing. Which is far from being fact. Take North Korea lately for example. If reports are to be believed they are developing weapons of mass destruction faster than Iraq, yet the focus is still on Iraq. Why? Because there is no oil in North Korea. You are showing a surprising lack of knowledge about what is going on in Korea, you seem to know nothing about the political leverage the US has over N.K. Not only is the US pressuring China, Japan and S. Korea to take steps against NK, there are and HAVE been US troops stationed in S.K., along with several billion dollars in military hardware and the US Pacific Fleet being in the general vicinity when needed. We don't need to employ the same tactics for every situation. I think if the politicians themselves where holding rifles on the front lines of combat, we'd see a lot less "police actions" for humanitarian reasons. Good rhetoric but useless waste of words in the end.

Originally posted by The Hierophant: quote: Originally posted by Animal: I think if the politicians themselves where holding rifles on the front lines of combat, we'd see a lot less "police actions" for humanitarian reasons.

Hmmmm. I'd be alot more inclined to fight for a man who was willing to die alongside me. There are plenty of bureaucrats and diplomats in pressed, white-collar suits in America who can run the technicalities of rulership, Bush should enter the battle he has so desperately pressed for with his men, as a true warrior. Not as a talker who pays others to fight for him and watches the outcome from afar. Maybe then he'd get a better idea of the world he is making. I might be able to respect him then.

The days when the King rode into battle with his troops whent away when it meant that being leaderless would see the whole nation plunge into anarchy and starvation and deprivation of the government programs that so very many depend on to keep them alive foundered. [/QUOTE]

[Ronn_Bman]

Certainly if Saddam had led his troops into battle against the coalition during the Gulf War, we wouldn't be facing this problem today.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by MagiK: The days when the King rode into battle with his troops whent away when it meant that being leaderless would see the whole nation plunge into anarchy and starvation and deprivation of the government programs that so very many depend on to keep them alive foundered.

Very true. But that only counts if you're unable to lead yourself. I don't need A King, President or Grand Visier to tell me what's best for me. I can figure that out on my lonesome. If a King, President or Grand Visier wants me to go to war for them though, I'd like to see them fighting right there beside me, or at least somewhere relatively close to the hotspots. It just seems to be 'go risk your lives so my circle of friends can get even richer'. Whether that's true or false, it's how it seems to the eyes of an outsider.

And it's like old Robert Del Naja said in relation to this situation, if you say you're anti-war, people just assume you're pro-Saddam. *shrugs*

[ 01-08-2003, 06:32 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: Very true. But that only counts if you're unable to lead yourself. I don't need A King, President or Grand Visier to tell me what's best for me. By virtue of living as a citizen of a democratic republic (if you were a US citizen that is) you have already agreed to having this done. Oce you choose to live within the society, it is too late to say you won't abide by its rules. I can figure that out on my lonesome. If a King, President or Grand Visier wants me to go to war for them though, I'd like to see them fighting right there beside me, or at least somewhere relatively close to the hotspots. Again, this idea is ludicrous and will never happen. It has nothing to do with the bravery or lack there of of the leaders, it is all about the good of the nation and the needs of EVERY nation to have an intact leadership. It just seems to be 'go risk your lives so my circle of friends can get even richer'. Whether that's true or false, it's how it seems to the eyes of an outsider. Your personal bias is showing thru here, this is not about GWB and his personal circle of friends. I know the liberal left (as defined by USA standards and not european) in the USA seems to think they are psychic and know the "real" motivations fo people, the fact of the matter is, that there are larger global issues at stake, not just oil concerns. And it's like old Robert Del Naja said in relation to this situation, if you say you're anti-war, people just assume you're pro-Saddam. *shrugs* I don't think you are pro-saddam. I do believe that the philosophy you "appear" to be presenting here is unworkable in the real world is all. [img]smile.gif[/img] A major point of contention between us I think [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-08-2003, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]