Oppositions to Arabs

[Zero]

if ur just gonna insult me go ahead. You havent even explained yourself so your statement means nothing. But if you honestly think so explain yourself and maybe I'll see why it was dumb, you'll see why your wrong.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Traelin
And saying that people are inherently good does not mean that we won't occasionally mess up. After all, we're not divine. Good people can do bad things. It's whether or not you're sorry for it later that matters.

i don't agree. a truly good person will not do bad things. but doing something bad doesn't make him bad either.
that's the trouble some people in this world have: it's either black or white, no greys (like some things your beloved 'W' said)... i believe that there is grey, actually i think that way over 95% of the people are neither really good, nor really bad.

I see your point about mass murder of innocents, but you agree with me that targetting even one innocent is evil, right?

yes!

but how calc II said: what is innocent?

are kids in front of a disco innocent? i'd say yes. but from the view of a radical believer (no matter if christian, muslim, jew or whatever) disco's are pure sin: sex (flirting, making out, going home together), drugs (alcohol and worse), loud music, late nights, etc.
I personally think it's awful to kill these people, but obviously some people don't think so.

another example: settlers. they are "bad" because they are breaking international laws and often are militant too. so they're not innocent. but in my eyes they don't deserve death... however in eyes of many other people they do.

i don't know if i'm able to explain what i mean. english is a foreign language to me, so it's difficult to express myself a i might want to. but do you understand my point?
i just want to say, that "good", "bad", "innocent" and other words cannot be defined, because everyone sees it different...

Honestly, the average American doesn't think himself/herself to be any better than any other country's average citizen. We don't have a superiority complex or anything like that. When it comes to Iraq, Bush is looking at Saddam for what he is: a brutal dictator who has committed heinous atrocities, and who could very well have weapons of mass destruction that could be used against innocents.

saddam has been doing evil things ever since he came to power. he's used ABC-weapons before. but now suddenly bush is making warmongering pressure. isn't that a bit questionable? imho he f#cked up the US (and with it the world) economy and now needs a distraction to raise his polls.

but about hussein, i totally agree: saddam is BAD and must go (sooner or later). but what are the alternatives and are they really better?

Of course we can't absolutely guarantee what someone else would or would not do. But I base my philosophy on evidence of the prior administration. Gore was in that administration, and the evidence suggests he would botch up foreign policy and the military in much the same way Clinton did.

first, i'm not even so sure if 9/11 would have happened under gore. his politics might have been just a that bit more acceptable that the hate wouldn't be so big. and his administration would have consisted of brighter people which maybe wouldn't have ignored the warnings which where admitted a half a year later.

you see: a whole lot of maybe's, if's and would's... it's purely hypothetical. same as your expected "goreian answer"

[roalan]

Sadamm

Well lets see you say Sadamm is not a bad person. If he does develope Nukes etc. where will he use them?? Lithuania perhaps USA a good chance ..So the way I see you say we should not bother Iraq because I believe the odds of you getting bombed are about NIL. We on the other hand -especially the east coast have an excellant chance of going up in smoke. Thats like me saying we should not bother with Hitler or the Russians the odds are reversed when talking about them. But that is usually the human reasoning .Since the bad guy won't bother me then lets not bother him, but if the bad guy has a good chance of getting me -well HELP LETS GET HIM FIRST. You people in Europe allways are screaming for us to help you when you are in trouble but when we are in trouble,your out to lunch.
AND buy the way show me in the history of human nations an independant country called Palestine.

[roalan]

Sonic

I met a couple for Lithuania once shall I base all people for Lithuania on those two??

[Zero]

Originally posted by sabrewolf

but how calc II said: what is innocent?

are kids in front of a disco innocent? i'd say yes. but from the view of a radical believer (no matter if christian, muslim, jew or whatever) disco's are pure sin: sex (flirting, making out, going home together), drugs (alcohol and worse), loud music, late nights, etc.
I personally think it's awful to kill these people, but obviously some people don't think so.

i don't know if i'm able to explain what i mean. english is a foreign language to me, so it's difficult to express myself a i might want to. but do you understand my point?
i just want to say, that "good", "bad", "innocent" and other words cannot be defined, because everyone sees it different...

Your doing real good. Some people in here who speak english fluently can;t even argue properly. So to you. And frankly I bet your english grammar is better than mine sometimes (though I too am not a native english speaker. still I have lived in US long enough)

I REALLY look at people who are so sure of the all the teachings that society imposed on us since birth with a suspicious eyes. Sometimes people refuse to think outside the box of what they have been grown taught.

saddam has been doing evil things ever since he came to power. he's used ABC-weapons before. but now suddenly bush is making warmongering pressure. isn't that a bit questionable? imho he f#cked up the US (and with it the world) economy and now needs a distraction to raise his polls.

Thats a good question that ive been asking. Why now?

first, i'm not even so sure if 9/11 would have happened under gore. his politics might have been just a that bit more acceptable that the hate wouldn't be so big. and his administration would have consisted of brighter people which maybe wouldn't have ignored the warnings which where admitted a half a year later.

Perhaps. We wouldnt know, but your opinion is respected. I would say that it wouldnt have had much difference, but We really wouldnt be able to find out whos right i guess.

[Zero]

Re: Sadamm

Originally posted by roalan
Well lets see you say Sadamm is not a bad person. If he does develope Nukes etc. where will he use them?? Lithuania perhaps USA a good chance ..So the way I see you say we should not bother Iraq because I believe the odds of you getting bombed are about NIL. We on the other hand -especially the east coast have an excellant chance of going up in smoke. Thats like me saying we should not bother with Hitler or the Russians the odds are reversed when talking about them. But that is usually the human reasoning .Since the bad guy won't bother me then lets not bother him, but if the bad guy has a good chance of getting me -well HELP LETS GET HIM FIRST. You people in Europe allways are screaming for us to help you when you are in trouble but when we are in trouble,your out to lunch.
AND buy the way show me in the history of human nations an independant country called Palestine.

I have been shot down before about stating this somewhere else. though person who replied did not provide enough information as to why it was flawed and simply sated "you must not be a history major (C'mon if your gonna mock me for not knowing something be at least descriptive)

But take World War II for example. Chemical warfare was prevalent before the second war, yet none of the side made a wide use of the chemical agent. Simply the risk of using chemical agnet would have been too great. Yes Geneva convention existed but any side could have simply ignored it. And even without it they would know that had they started using it other side would as well. Therefore the tension would have kept the usage in check.

If anything if we act too aggressive and provoke them, will there be greater chance of them bombing us. Saddam would not nuke us when we arent doing anything and he has his whole regime to lose. I bet he enjoys being a dictator, would he throw away his position just to press a big shiny red button aimed at us? Get real people. I don't want to downplay the danger. I don't want to take extremes and pretend nothing bad will EVER happen. Yes there is some danger. True. But all you panicky people make it sound like Saddam has O.C.D pressing red button that says Nuke US.

Are these the same people who can't even let their kids drink fountain water because they might have bacterial infestations?

And most people get the goose bumps at the word nuke. The fact is even if they have capabilty to build a nuclear weapon, as long as they dont have a ICBM technlogy, the danger to us will not be as great. Now, I don't know if Iraq is capable of having an ICBM, but even if that was true we don't have to go all panicky and make another "duck and cover" video (If you guys ever saw that propaganda film).

Should we even go into other country's right to research develop weapon's of mass destruction when we have them? I mean who isnt to say that they don't trust us and are nervous of us having numerous amount of missle capable of reaching all croners of the globe? Can we not just look from our " American-interest must-be-democratic" point of view?

What if evil powerful nation had millions of nukes and can dictate their interest to everyon else because they are powerful, wouldnt you want to have an insurance that says "hey dont bully us"? You may say well thats not the case your scenario is all biased since America is not evil. Well, CAUSE YOU ARE AMERICAN! (Not to say america is evil that dictates other nations but u get point)

In my conclusion, the fact is it doesnt matter if it is right or wrong wether we should invad Iraq.We can do whatever we want if we are strong. Who cares about what right and wrong when someone can possibly threaten your interest eh? So I probably was wasting my time argueing that it is not clear wether invading Iraq is right or wrong. Sigh such a pessimistic view I have. I bet we'll do it if we can.

[Sonic]

Roalam, we may argue if Saddam is good or bad but Saddam is definitely not stupid. Why? Because stupid people would never become leaders. In democracy they won't be elected, in totalytarism they wouldn't be able to organise a coup and attract enough folowers for it and even in monarchy as history shown stupid rulers can't hold power and ussually looses it either to their advisors or in coup.
So, as Saddam (and all other leaders for that matter) is not stupid, he won't launch nukes unless provocated, because he knows that if he launches he will get a retal. There could be such "martyrs" who would do so, but ussually they ends up as suicide bombers. If Saddam would be such guy (this is hypothetical because I doubt he would have even got power if he was such), he would be already "suicided", either by using ABC weapons on Israel, either by invading Turkey. As history shown, Saddam tends to take huge risks, but he would never take 100% risk.
The main reason why USA doesn't wants Saddam to aquire nukes is not that he would actually launch them unprovoked, but because if he would do so Iraq would get loose from US yoke, which is already quite thin. Then USA wouldn't be able to invade/threat to invade Iraq anymore, they would have to respect it at least a bit and try to solve issues via diplomacy not via military. However, although some (American) people would understand this as a good reason to attack Iraq also, some wouldn't and that is why this all "Saddam would launch nukes once he gets them" nonsense is being told. Nukes are like a political weapon and Saddam understands that. He needs them not to use them, but to eliminate the military threat from USA and maybe tell his people about his "achievements". If Saddam seriously wanted to "suicide" on Israel he would have already done this with other types of ABC weapons. And as for USA (and Lithuania, EU, etc.), he wouldn't even be capable to nuke them quickly even if he wanted to, because his best missiles only could reach Israel and those missiles are just on project.

[roalan]

Nukes

A nuke in a ship will do just as nice as on a rocket.I agree most likely Saddam will not use nukes etc. because of retaliation but one can not pretend to know the mind of a nut case. Don't forget there are a lot of people in that region that think nothing of blowing themselves up for their cause and becoming a marter. Sadamm doesn't give a hoot about his country or its people only himself.

[roalan]

Sonic

Never said Saddam was stupid although he can be because if he was a good commander he would have atttack the coalition before they could build up and destroy him. So he is not the brightest bulb in the room. As far a being suicidal it is to early to tell.So far no one has attacked him,he has his way with the UN and he feels he is winning at this point. If and when the war starts and he is Loseing and sees that he can not win then we will find out what he is or is not going to do.(unless his offensive capability is destroyed).The US Navy knew every tactic the Japannese would use it WW2 and nothing surprised them EXCEPT the Divine Wind -They never expected it. Same goes for Saddam,You never know what will hapen until it is over.

[roalan]

ASSUME

Gentlemen remember the old saying regarding when you assume something will or will not happen
ASSUME= when you assume something it will make an:ASS out of U and ME. That is what happens when you assume something.

[Zero]

Re: Sonic

Originally posted by roalan
Never said Saddam was stupid although he can be because if he was a good commander he would have atttack the coalition before they could build up and destroy him. So he is not the brightest bulb in the room.

If what you are claiming is true, that saddam is not bright because he attacked coalition and failed, then by definition nobody is smart. Everyone makes miscalculation, mistakes.

As far a being suicidal it is to early to tell.So far no one has attacked him,he has his way with the UN and he feels he is winning at this point. If and when the war starts and he is Loseing and sees that he can not win then we will find out what he is or is not going to do.(unless his offensive capability is destroyed).

Your still not getting the point, he's not gonna launch missles at us just because hes losing the war. Just because hes losing the war doesnt mean everything he holds dear is at stake. He lost the gulf war and he is still a powerful dictator that rules Iraq with iron fist. He has much to lose by launching nuclear missle at us, cause expected reaction is America's demand for unconditional surrender from Saddam in that case. And rarely anyone makes decision without weighing gains VS loss.

The US Navy knew every tactic the Japannese would use it WW2 and nothing surprised them EXCEPT the Divine Wind -They never expected it. Same goes for Saddam,You never know what will hapen until it is over.

False, had they studied the japanese culture, they would have WELL known suicide bombing would be well beyond their potential. Also, Theres a difference between Ignoring the possibilty and accepting the possibility but believing the possibility to be low. (98% chance of rain, Next day do you bring an umbrella expecting rain but are you caught off guard when dry stormy wind blows away ur umbrella or did you believe the chance to be low and understand the situation now?)

[Zero]

Re: ASSUME

Originally posted by roalan
Gentlemen remember the old saying regarding when you assume something will or will not happen
ASSUME= when you assume something it will make an:ASS out of U and ME. That is what happens when you assume something.

Nobody is asuming here except you. I already stated (though admitedly rather hazily) that I dont "expect" an exact behavior that I can descibe to predict a future. I already addressed the concern that my counter-arguement may downplay the actual danger of other country having a nuclear arms.

"I don't want to downplay the danger. I don't want to take extremes and pretend nothing bad will EVER happen. Yes there is some danger. True. But all you panicky people make it sound like Saddam has O.C.D pressing red button that says Nuke US."

What I am saying is that just because evil people have some mass-destruction gadget, they will not use it like OCD patient needing to use something. Nor will they suicidally try to destroy the world when cornered like a classic villains from the movies.

[Zero]

Re: Nukes

Originally posted by roalan
Sadamm doesn't give a hoot about his country or its people only himself.

Oh yes he does. he care about them rebeling against him, and dethroning him. A kinda different care u had in mind i guess. But he still cares.

A nuke in a ship will do just as nice as on a rocket.I agree most likely Saddam will not use nukes etc.

While I cannot totally eliminate the possiblity that Saddam can smuggle in a ship with a tactical nuke next to our shore, the probablity is low enough not to worry. I dont really think about a lightning hitting me and in effect kill me everyday.

but one can not pretend to know the mind of a nut case.

One cannot pretend that same nutcase will act as what his/her idea of nutcase act will be either.

Don't forget there are a lot of people in that region that think nothing of blowing themselves up for their cause and becoming a marter.

Wow very ignorant statement.
Don't forget there are a lot of people in that region that think nothing of blowing themselves up for their cause and becoming a marter.
I wouldnt even go to how many war heros in america are like terroist subject. They just blow themselves up for a cause? WHat is a cause, something you can resale at a pawn shop and buy a whopper jr? You make it sound like the "cause" that they believe they are fighting for and dying for is without a value. So they are a race that just loves to blow up eh? and we should watch out if they have a nuke since they just love some good blowing up fun!

Before you start to devalue other people dying for thier cause, try thinking about how many of our own people died, some rather suicidally, just for our "cause". I can't believe this came form a person who supposedly was born in 1936!

[roalan]

Calc11

Hate to bust your ballon pal but I was in the US Navy just after the Korean War and I know that we knew all except the Divine Wind. Just because a society has suicide as part of there life does not mean they will use it at any given time. If you think we new that the Jap planes would crash into our ships we would have been more prepared and the loss not so high.

I never said Sadamm attacked the coalition. I said he should have attacked them before they had the chance to build up and destroy him.Fortunately for him Bush quite before the deed was done.Otherwise if we had wanted to we would have /should have finished the job. Sadamm was lucky to get away with it. No one here is panicking just srtating that if Sadamm is about to lose he may or may not let loose with what he has.I would bet the odds are good he lets loose at Israel before the USA. By rthe way Israel already knows this and has threatened to retaliate if attacked. If you also recall Hitler wanted the entire Germany destroyed because he felt his people were not worth saving but Speer did not carry out his orders. So do not assume Sadamm would be crazy to launch nukes only Sadamm knows what he will do ornot do.

I also am NOT assuming anything. I mentioned that Those people who assume to know what a countries leader will or will not do are the ones assuming and through my life almost 70 years I find that most (not all) people that assume something usually end up WRONG. Just like most experts you see on TV are WRONG. That is why they have EX in front of the title.

[Cidifer]

if ur just gonna insult me go ahead. You havent even explained yourself so your statement means nothing. But if you honestly think so explain yourself and maybe I'll see why it was dumb, you'll see why your wrong.

1st of all, lol calc II is such a power poster, I can't remember the 1st time I saw him edit a post as opposed to replying to himself.

2ndly when your trying to make an argument you don't do a good job by explaining yourself point by point then saying "but I was kind of kidding" this tells me that you don't really firmly believe in your statement, and you can't back it up so you try to act as though you don't want to.

Also you started with an insult "you don't read do you" then you brought it up again in #3 (which you were shouldn't have, since if you read carfully you'd see he brought a 2nd group the Shi'a Muslims). You then brought up not reading again which doesn't at all support your possition and instead just tries to discredit the other person by insulting him. Sorry to say, but your arguement stunk, nothing personal.

EDIT:

I never said Sadamm attacked the coalition. I said he should have attacked them before they had the chance to build up and destroy him.Fortunately for him Bush quite before the deed was done.Otherwise if we had wanted to we would have /should have finished the job.

Roalan, as you seem like one of the few people on this board old enough to remember you may recall 80-90% of americans supported bringing the troops home as opposed to keeping them their to run the country, most people believed we had accomplished our goal (which was to get Iraq out of Kuwait not kill\remove Saddam).

This is why I think it's funny that the people now who are saying "no we shouldn't attack Iraq" will be saying "Bush should have gone after Iraq when he had the chance" 10 years from now if we find out he's got nukes or if he attacks another country. BTW I'm not saying I'm pro war or anything (not yet anyway) but I just think it's pathetic that these people who were opposed to staying last time (not you, I don't know what you thought) are now blaming it all on Bush.