Pro-war supporters, answer me this!

[Xian]

I hear the pro war protestors want a "solution" to dictatorships that violate human rights and UN resolutions.

If this is true, where the hell were they when the US was giving arms to Iraq, Turkey, Isreal, Terrorists in AFganistan, Indonesia just to name a few? How come they all supported Ronald Reagan when he waged or on millions of people in Latin America with Chemical and Biological weapons? How come they had no problem with George Bush the I invading Panama? Saddam's case is especially embarrasing, because Saddam was SUPPORTED by the West throughout virtually his entire career!

How come they never confront the country with the largest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world? The Country which has USED these weapons with devastating effects to over 10 million people across the world? The country which has vetoed more UN resolutions that any other country, and has violated the Declaration on human rights countless times? THe ONLY COUNTRY TO HAVE USED A NUCLEAR BOMB AND KILL 40,000 CHILDREN? the USA

I think its pretty clear that the Right-wing neo-nazis that support this war know very well that the middle east is the largest imperial prize and probably have stock in a bunch of oil companies.

Lets face it, 90% of these so called "conservatives" couldnt even find Nicaragua on a map, yet that have no problem with teh CIA killing children and blowing up hospitals there. same deal here.

The rich oligarchy in america want to drive attention away from their own brutal and terrifying crimes, and take control of oil.

Notice how Saddam Housein is our FRIEND AND ALLY from the 70's on up until 1991, when he lets France and Russi in on the oil trade - then all of the sudden hes the Beast of Baghdad, and we need to kill children in Iraq though starvation and blow up commercial airplanes - you guys are full of sheite and you know it. The US is a terrorist Rougue State with Nazi ideals. Just admiot it, youll feel alot better

[DanS]

You have already invoked Godwin's Law in the first post of the thread?

0/10.

[Xian]

whats godwins law?

The point of this post is actually NOT about the war, the poitn im trying to make if you cant see it clearly is that you shouldnt be genealizing about extremley diverse gourps, just as its stupid fot me to call all the supportesrs of the war neo-nazis, its stupid to say all the anti-war activists are extrem leftist

that said, i stand behind the FACTS stated in this thread, as much as the media attempt to deny them

[Starchild]

Ah, caps and name calling. The hallmark of young, leftwing idealists. I miss being one of those.

*continues to be devoured from within by the all consuming beast of cynicism*

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Xian
whats godwins law?

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

[SlowwHand]

Blow me, Xian.

[ranskaldan]

Starchild!


so do I, in fact.

Xian:

I'm not necessarily a pro-war supporter, but I'll answer you "this" anyway.

This war isn't about dictatorships. Politicians may claim that it is in the hope of gathering more populous support, but as you yourself have pointed out, America couldn't care less about dictatorships, bombings, etc etc.

Well actually, some Americans would be protesting what I just said, so I'll offer a compromising viewpoint: many American politicians and citizens alike may cherish nice and happy ideals of democracy deep in their hearts. However, politicians are faced day-to-day with the challenges of keeping America alive; keeping campaign-funds flowing; keeping votes coming in; keeping oil coming in; keeping American dominance alive; etc etc etc. Hence they often do things that violate whichever ideals that they claim to cherish.

This is why children get bombed, hospitals get blown to pieces, and the economies and infrastructures of various nations get torn asunder every decade by the military machinery of America.

Aha- now the comparison with Hitler arrives. Yes... no matter what ideals Hitler had about massive European plains cultivated by happy Teutonic farmers, his methods are generally considered repulsive.

But what the heck, the question is, is the Pax Americana worth it? The Pax Romana was worth it, because although the Romans fed people to lions for public entertainment, their efforts GENERALLY resulted in a boom of trade, commerce, communications, living standards and so on around the Mediterranean. I'm not saying they couldn't have gotten by with less lion-feeding, I'm saying that in general, their historical contribution was positive. You can't say this about Nazi Germany, whose policies were jsut too weird and could not outweigh whichever positive effect they created or tried to create.

What about America? Well the verdict is out on that one. But every day that trade flows around the world and nukes don't fly, I'm thankful. And I think the Pax Americana contributes to this, because without the stabilizing force of America, the world would be alot more chaotic.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Blow me, Xian.

Being called a neo-nazi turns you on?

hmmmm.....

[Edan]

Re: Pro-war supporters, answer me this!

Originally posted by Xian
I hear the pro war protestors want a "solution" to dictatorships that violate human rights and UN resolutions.

No- at least not me. I want agressive nations that sign cease fire agreements to abide by those agreements.

Turkey, Isreal

Have either of these broken any legally binding security council resolutions?

How come they all supported Ronald Reagan when he waged or on millions of people in Latin America with Chemical and Biological weapons?

Who said I supported Ronald Reagan?

(When did RR use biological weapons against millions of people?!)

Saddam's case is especially embarrasing, because Saddam was SUPPORTED by the West throughout virtually his entire career!

Well, he also was supported by the UN when he was starting out because he drastically improved conditions in his first 5 or so years - he actually won humanitarian awards because of the improvments.

Of course, that doesn't change that he's a meglomaniac. It's easy (or at least easier) to make improvements when you're a dictator.

Saddam was also a better alternative than Iran at the time, with it's radical extremism. That administration made the geopolitical choice of picking the better of two evils. Life, and centainly geopoliticss, is often like that. And making no choice can be even worse.

The important thing now is try to fix up the mistakes that we have made in the past.

How come they never confront the country with the largest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world?

Who, Russia? Why do we want to attack them when that would lead to a global nuclear war?

The Country which has USED these weapons with devastating effects to over 10 million people across the world?

??? When did the US kill 10 million people using NBC weapons?

The country which has vetoed more UN resolutions that any other country, and has violated the Declaration on human rights countless times?

The US has violated human rights countless of times?

I think its pretty clear that the Right-wing neo-nazis that support this war know very well that the middle east is the largest imperial prize and probably have stock in a bunch of oil companies.

I'm definately neither right wing nor a neo nazi.

The rich oligarchy in america want to drive attention away from their own brutal and terrifying crimes, and take control of oil.

Also, have you never considered that Saddam could well destroy his own oil resources and his neighbors when an invasion starts? I'm sure the administration has, given Saddams actions in the last war.

The US is a terrorist Rougue State with Nazi ideals. Just admiot it, youll feel alot better

Much as I would take pleasure in lowering myself to your standard by insulting you in a simmilarly grotesque manner, I don't think I want to be today, thank you.

[Sandman]

Well done for setting back the anti-war argument, Xian. Assuming this isn't a spoof.

[<<==EPYON==>>]

Interesting.

So you're asking what good is a war for?

The answer is simple, without war, there would never be any real advancement in human development and people as a whole will never appreciate and fight for peace as we do today. The fact remains that after a war, human development in all areas, be it military, be it agricultural, be it machinery and energy, sky rockets. War creates the need and human development works fastest when there is a need to drive it forward.

The popular adage is, "You never value something that you already have. It is only when you lose it when you begin to truely value it." The same can be said about war. When war happens, despite all the attrocities and deaths that war brings, it also ultimately brings a peace to the world. From that peace, people begin to appreciate it and fight for their right to retain it.

[Sandman]

The answer is simple, without war, there would never be any real advancement in human development and people as a whole will never appreciate and fight for peace as we do today. The fact remains that after a war, human development in all areas, be it military, be it agricultural, be it machinery and energy, sky rockets. War creates the need and human development works fastest when there is a need to drive it forward.

I disagree. Inventions which happen during a war get a special status, which peacetime inventions don't get. You never hear people going on about how great peace is because of all the discoveries that are made during peacetime. War accelerating human development is an illusion.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
.

But what the heck, the question is, is the Pax Americana worth it? The Pax Romana was worth it, because although the Romans fed people to lions for public entertainment, their efforts GENERALLY resulted in a boom of trade, commerce, communications, living standards and so on around the Mediterranean. I'm not saying they couldn't have gotten by with less lion-feeding, I'm saying that in general, their historical contribution was positive. You can't say this about Nazi Germany, whose policies were jsut too weird and could not outweigh whichever positive effect they created or tried to create.

Yes, it is well known that the Cartagenians and the Greeks were lousy traders who only cared for sticking swords into the stomachs of savages. The Romans were also excellent scientists and their quantum leaps in areas of applied technology for the civilian sphere made sure they did not have to rely on slave labour at all. Sure thing.

What about America? Well the verdict is out on that one. But every day that trade flows around the world and nukes don't fly, I'm thankful. And I think the Pax Americana contributes to this, because without the stabilizing force of America, the world would be alot more chaotic.

Does that mean that if the tradeflow to the US is stopped because the US is incapable of paying for it the 'nukes will fly'? And should I get a job in a factory to drive down wages and make it cheaper for the American consumers to by 'stuff', instead of studying?

[Shi Huangdi]

Xian: The answer to your question of why we support the war on Iraq is because we are evil. A war would involve many deaths and much suffering, so that is a good reason to support war. But most importantly, it is important to support war because it will Increase's Americas hegemony and so will allow our American empire of darkness to more easily opress the people of the middle east.

[DanS]