Who Supports the War(s)

[Nic Name]

It's probably just me, but I can't seem to follow long threads that use italics (which indicate emphasis to me) as an indication of quotes.

It is probably easier for slang to type [i] than [quote] and it's certainly easier for me not to read or think about all that ... so we both win.

[slang]

[quote]Originally posted by Nic Name
It's probably just me, but I can't seem to follow long threads that use italics (which indicate emphasis to me) as an indication of quotes.

It is probably easier for slang to type [i] than

and it's certainly easier for me not to read or think about all that ... so we both win.

Sorry about the tag error. This format is a bit tough for me to work with, I'll use the "quote" from now on.

[Nic Name]

OK, and I'll read your mindless drivel.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Slang, I am sure you will note, as we all have, that ole Jaguar is exceedingly weak on punctuation, and could use some remedial review on the mechanics of the written English sentence. He should slow down and take care, but never does. I'd've made him repeat eighth-grade English, had it been up to me.

He's unacceptably soft on genocide and weak on civil rights, too, but that's an entirely separate issue. Comes of his being either downright anti-gun, or insufficiently pro-gun. The one is despicable, the other weak.

[slang]

I'm inhaling nice positive energy..................and exhaling tense and negative energy....aaahh..



And putting the vodoo doll of Jaguar down on the table (next to my defensive handun, nut not too close).




This written warfare has kept me up past my bedtime, I'll be back. Take care all.

[jaguar]

slang you may want to check the details of that reactor. I'm well aware of it, i did a report on sinoamerican relations earlier this year that included a large subpaper on N.Korea. In fact you're in luck, I'm just about to start going over this stuff for the exam next week so I've got all my docs out and look at this, a detailed doc here. . The rest i have are on paper. You might notice one of the key components of the reactors offered was its low plutonium yield. So in reality its a choice between them building highly unsafe, high plutonium yield reactors, or new, safe, low yield ones. Take your pick. The article is lacking in detail but it sums it all up well enough. Personally I have plans to visit Korea and Japan next year, I'd rather they weren’t covered with fallout form one of the old soviet ones in DPRK going bang. I think Clinton understood this too. Also – that plutonium came from their own reactors, soviet era.

Look around. People tend to die from terrorism too. And you arent immune, no matter how smart and refined you think you are. Terrorist will kill you just the same as me.

I'm yet to see any evidence linking Saddam to recent islamic terrorism.

Ohh urbane moralising again, i thought he'd be too busy looking for sandnigger terrorists to cap. The irony is urbane, I've got an above A average in english, at the top school in the state and had work published. So in short, bite me.

Oh also slang, my knowledge of American politics is by my own admission, patchy. Still waiting for that compelling evidence too, actually now i think abotu it, i'm waiting for *any* evidence of anything.

We appreciate you comments even if they are silly.

I feel depressed becase i am so thoughly vindicated.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by slang
I would sooner have smoked a dog turd as voted for Rendell and I dont smoke, have a dog, or think highly of handling dog waste.

Well hey, to each his own.

You still haven't answered the question I originally posed. You only spoke of Daschle and Clinton.

You originally stated: "You left wingers may have had fun patting yourselves on the back bashing the Iraqi war/ Republicans/ Bush but you are in the minority now. Sorry."

To which I asked: "When would you say the left-wingers were last in the majority?"

Originally posted by jaguar
So mon ami show me evidence that [ ... ] Saddam supports terrorism.

OMG LOLOL GET FUKING REAL LUZAR! LOL U R SILLAY!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...004766310.html

And if that's not enough, you can find more with Google. I'm not going to do your homework for you; this has been common knowledge for a very long time.

[ ... ] Iraq has WMDs. (Not WOMDs, learn how to form an acronym)

Please explain to me, then, how "WMDs" is a valid acronym - i.e., Weapons of Mass Destructions.

[jaguar]

Please explain to me, then, how "WMDs" is a valid acronym - i.e., Weapons of Mass Destructions.

You can't form a distinction between a pluralized word in an acronym, so it is correct.

Good work dave, you did such a good job paraphrasing my sentence you mangled it beyond recognition.

I'm yet to see any evidence linking Saddam to recent islamic terrorism.

Common knowledge? Sure. Apply to this? Sure doesn't.
This isn't about Isreali-Palastinian conflict. The support of terrorist groups in Israel in a populist political move and frankly, is incomparable to providing equip, money or safe hiding to people like Al Queda. Oh wait, don't tell me, they're all the same, right?

It's not correct, because if it were, you would have used "a WMD", making it singular. Your lack of "a" means you are clearly talking about plural, so the acronym is clearly "Weapons of Mass Destructions".

I took the snippet because I didn't feel like quoting the whole thing. I made it perfectly obvious that I was cutting (by putting the [ ... ] in). If it were ever unclear to anyone, they could go re-read your post. So that's really a non-issue.

As for linking to "recent islamic terrorism"... it really doesn't get much more clear-cut than his giving reward money to families of <b>Islamic</b> Jihad terrorists. What does Hamas stand for? "Islamic Resistance Movement"... so we have the Islamic part covered.

From dictionary.com, we have

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Sounds just about right for both groups. So we've got "terrorism" covered.

As far as recent... within the last few months is pretty recent to me.

So you'll excuse me if I don't exactly understand what the fuck your pseudo-point is. Don't be an ass. You fucked up on that one, 'cause he <b>does</b> fund Islamic terrorism. Rescind your bogus statement and let's get on to the more serious issues.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by dave

Originally posted by jaguar
So mon ami show me evidence that [ ... ] Saddam supports terrorism.



OMG LOLOL GET FUKING REAL LUZAR! LOL U R SILLAY!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002...7004766310.html

And if that's not enough, you can find more with Google. I'm not going to do your homework for you; this has been common knowledge for a very long time.

Ok, let's refine that then. When has Saddam supported terrorism against the United States? Palestinian terrrorism, which is in response to Israeli Occupation (even according to official US and UN documentation) is one thing, al Qaeda is completely different. Hizbollah (a Lebanese terrorist group and a recognized political party in Lebanon) has not attacked the US since 1982. I don't believe Hamas ever has. al Qaeda, on the other hand, have been linked to a number of attacks. Hussein has supported Palestinian terrorists, but no provable link has been made between him and al Qaeda, besides various claims of shadowy meetings made by the current administration that the CIA refused to back up.

In other words, not all terrorism groups are the same. Left-wing groups of the 60s, for example, are nothing compared to some of the recent religious terrorist groups. In addition, Hamas does not encompass all of the Palestinian terrorist groups. Many of them are secular. And my last point to dave - there are over 160 definitions of terrorism, (a real quick Google came up with this, which is kind of crappy, but shows the tip of the iceberg of this problem) and scholars can not decide on an all-encompassing one. So keep that in mind when you go to dictionary.com for its definition.

I really want to rip into slang here...I haven't had the time to be online for a few days, and this would be a lot of fun. I can be the un-apologetic left winger to his right winger, although I don't believe I am as far left as he is right (esp. if he is more right-wing than Rush; and with my general disdain for Chomsky).

So I'll just make a few comments.

-The DLC, which was the political movement inside the Democratic party (note the capital; if you're going to refer to a popular name, at least try to use some respect - but more on that later) that placed the current leadership in power, is decidedly centrist. Daschle backed tax cuts for the wealthy, and, eventually, the war on Iraq. As a denizen of the American Left, I can say it was furious about the first and split on the second (but leaning against it).

- If you keep referring to Bill Clinton as "Klinton," I'll find a similar name for Bush in any responses to your posts. It is improper and really makes you look like an idiot.

-The UN's sole purpose is to provide a forum for nations to air their grievances, and, with that in mind, I'd say it's done pretty well. Take a look at their charter. Read some resolutions, some speeches, some statements - and then form an opinion on its validity. But don't disavow it without any knowledge of it. Again, that makes you look like an idiot.

- So do blanket statements. American politics are not right, center right and left. There is a huge middle ground, and it would do you well to not ignore it.

- Gun control != anti-gun.

- China is, by most accounts, no longer Communist. See the recent discussion about the continuing change in leadership that was spawned by last week's directional meetings. I don't feel like looking it up, but try news.google.com. So to say that Clinton was a Communist sympathizer because he supported their introduction into the WTO isn't logically sound (I've never seen anything about sharing nuclear technology with China, so I'm relying on a different argument. If you have proof, please enlighten me.). It should be noted that we've extended MFN status to China for as long as I can remember. While I couldn't find an exact date, I know that there was debate about suspending it after the Tianneman Square massacre.

- What compelling evidence is there that Iraq was involved in the OK City bombing? That would be very interesting to see.

- The people opposing the current war in Iraq in the military are generally not doing so because it can't be done, but because the long operation that would be required (by most estimates, we'd have to pretty much run the country for 5-10 years a la post-WWII Japan) would divert resources from the war on terrorism - which is an entirely different thing. I have a friend in the Army whose unit will probably be called to war, and most of them (the people who will be dying) think there isn't enough reason.

- I agree with you that the Democrats have gone off-center, and don't support the poor and working class as much as they used to. However, I'd rather support a party who gives half of an interest to them than a party that outright disdains them.

- Welcome. Even though spelling and grammar bother me, unless they confuse the message, I think it's a dirty argumentive trick. So you won't hear any of that from me (unless, of course, you've screwed up so badly that I have no idea what you're trying to say anymore).

[jaguar]

I could have sworn i posted....
I looked back, i screwed up the acronym, didn't notice and was argueing against myself on that one...
On the other hand, i think hermit22 just saved me some time. You're comparing apples and oranges. Or what is in the eyes of the majority of the world legitimate reisitance to an occupation verses an organisation intent on the destrution of the entire western world. On a side note the stinking ball of slime that killed a mother and two toddlers a couple of days ago at that kibbutz should recieve a rear admiral. Along with the Isreali soldier who shot a two year old yesterday.

jag & hermit -

Am I to infer what he meant? All I have to go on are his words, and his words very clearly implied that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and "recent islamic terrorism". I very clearly pointed out that there was. I don't care that it's not al Qaeda - he didn't <b>say</b> that.

Regardless, the "War on Terror" isn't about just al Qaeda anyway. It's one of the big fish, but not the only one. So it really doesn't matter whether or not Saddam is linked to al Qaeda, 'cause just focusing there is a pretty fucking narrow view on the whole thing.

I'll agree that there isn't a whole lot of anything linking him to al Qaeda (but again, I'm not ruling out the possibility either - I am not sold on a war against Iraq, but I could be, if appropriate evidence were presented). But the United States government has more of a purpose than simply "eliminate al Qaeda and its associates". The main purpose is (and should be) "protect the citizens of the United States of America". There are all sorts of threats out there, and the government needs to neutralize them. If Saddam is tied to al Qaeda, hey, great - another reason to go nail him. But it need not be the only reason.

[hermit22]

The problem with "terrorism" is that it can be applied to absolutely any rebellion movement anywhere in the world. Do we want to get involved in every single one of those? The Israel/Palestine situation is a mess, but we are not attacking Palestinian terrorists. They generally pose no threat to the US - and they are the only group that Saddam is linked to. In fact, most of the Middle East is linked to the Palestinians - who, while they engage in terrorist activities, are incredibly close to being a recognised entity. (They have observer status in the UN.)

So while Saddam supports their terrorist activities, to use that as the reasoning for going after him is kind of hypocritical. We're not going after the Palestinians are we? Besides that, a lot of people in America and Europe support the Palestinian cause, if not their methods. Not too many support al Qaeda's cause.

Again, WHO THE FUCK CARES? I don't give a shit. That's not my point. I'm not saying it's justification. It's not, even though it's shitty.

My point is very simply that Saddamn <b>can</b> be tied to Islamic terrorism, so jag's notion that he can't be is silly. I'm not saying we need to do anything about it - just saying that the link can be made.

As for the Palestinians... don't lump all of them in with terrorists. They're hardly all bad. I just think your wording is very poor... "Palestinians - who, while they engage in terrorist activities"... only extremist Palestinians do that.