1/20/2003: Violent "peace" protestors - Page 3

Uryoces · 01-21-2003, 05:16 PM

Or watching a PETA protest and seeing that many people are wearing leather shoes. Ya know, their hearts are in the right place...

tw · 01-21-2003, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by warch
I am confused. But I do know that knocking over a newspaper box is just stupid, meaningless vandalism.

Meaning that:
1) war is hell
2) war only causes trash in street (can't be - Philly already has enough)
3) having an opinion must result in vandalism
4) fighting for peace means war - we must burn the village to save it
5) peace is a violent anti-American movement
6) Sharon did it
7) it was a terrorist plot by six Arabs who crossed the border from Canada
8) the picture was politically motivated
9) the picture was misrepresented; a result of the Eagle's game
or
10) the picture is irrelevant and only misrepresents reality.

quzah · 01-22-2003, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mlandman
Unlike MANY protester's beliefs, America's desire is not to go kill Iraqi children. It's to change Saddam's regime, plain and simple.

Bullshit. It has nothing to do with the Saddam regime. It has to do with this black stuff that comes out of the ground. Nothing more. Nothing less.

People seem to forget that what, we HELPED this horrible, evil monster test shit on his own people. We* did this. Not them on their own. We helped. Funny how the media never brings that up huh? Where the hell do you think they got their "weapons of mass destruction"? Cracker Jacks(TM)?

So now they're suddenly bad because we don't like them again? Shit. Oil. That's all folks. Oil.

Quzah.
*by we I mean the government of the United States.

quzah · 01-22-2003, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Uryoces
Or watching a PETA protest and seeing that many people are wearing leather shoes. Ya know, their hearts are in the right place...

Like you could spot real leather from fake from a picture on TV. I had to buy a pair of "dress shoes" for work once. It's fairly easy, without even going out of your way to try, to find shoes without leather in them.

All in all, it depends on your personal views as to why you believe or behave the way you (you being any given person) do.

It's like people that are vegetarian. Personally, they annoy the shit out of me. "I'm vegetarian because I don't like to see animals hurt! Mmmm that milk was tasty! So was that fish sandwich!"

Then they get all defensive when I scoff at them. Really, that's my only problem with "meat eaters" (I almost said the 'C' word, but then the black vans would show up if I mention it more than once a day...) is that they get all defensive and have to PROUDLY PROCLAIM THEIR RIGHT TO EAT RAW RED MEAT. No one gives a shit. Eat what you want. I don't care. Just don't jump on my case when I state my reasons for not.[/rant]

See what you started.

Quzah.

Uryoces · 01-22-2003, 02:08 AM

Actually, it was a leather jacket I saw at a fur protest in Seattle. I don't know if said person was actually participating or watching, but of course the camera focused in on them. The talking head didn't point this out in the newscast, but it was there. I still have my leather jacket, and wore with the understanding and glib explaination that I wasn't wasting said cow. I now don't fit into it. Between 23 and 30 I added three inches to my height. I'm trying to remember the last time I ate cow flesh. I've been eating a lot of chicken and pork in various oriental/semi-oriental ways.

The shoe comment actually came from my brother. Usually I buy from local Volume Shoesource. Not a lot of leather there to choose from.

-- Hoping Quzah doesn't notice that the factories that produce for Volume Shoesource underpay their workers --

wolf · 01-22-2003, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Uryoces

There's no need to blow a seal.

I really don't think it's fair to bring his/her sexual preferences into this discussion.

option · 01-22-2003, 11:12 AM

Hey, why not, it's the internet after all.

russotto · 01-22-2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by quzah

Bullshit. It has nothing to do with the Saddam regime. It has to do with this black stuff that comes out of the ground. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Nope, it's not about that. Not primarily, not even secondarily. Mostly, it's likely about Saddam taking a shot at W's daddy.

Quote:

People seem to forget that what, we HELPED this horrible, evil monster test shit on his own people. We* did this. Not them on their own. We helped. Funny how the media never brings that up huh? Where the hell do you think they got their "weapons of mass destruction"? Cracker Jacks(TM)?

They did not get their weapons of mass destruction from the US. The US DID provide military aid during the Iran-Iraq war, but not WMD.

And if "we" DID create him, isn't it our responsibility to destroy him?

option · 01-22-2003, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Nope, it's not about that. Not primarily, not even secondarily. Mostly, it's likely about Saddam taking a shot at W's daddy.

You're joking I think.

Quote:

They did not get their weapons of mass destruction from the US. The US DID provide military aid during the Iran-Iraq war, but not WMD.

Although it's been widely known for ages that we gave Iraq both biological and chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war, after the post-9/11 anthrax scare, the fact was more or less officially acknowledged to the media, i.e.

The Observer on Antrhax

"Scientists investigating the attacks say the bacteria used is similar to the 'Ames strain' of anthrax originally cultivated at Iowa State University in the 1950s and later given to labs throughout the world, including Iraq." (And that's just from one of the first two links that come up in google when you type in "u.s. iraq anthrax".)

And if you want to go on a military crusade to rid the world of such weapons, start with North Korea. Or Pakistan. Or China for that matter... Oh wait, none of those places have oil fields. Never mind.

01-22-2003, 03:29 PM

The prospect of going after China is a joke, Pakistan is our new friend and we've already discussed why there's no military option in DPRK. I'm not saying military action is justified in Iraq, but if we're looking for a war we can win, it's the best option.

option · 01-22-2003, 03:52 PM

Mentioning China was indeed a joke. As for the rest, Pakistan is "our new friend" who is also the chief financial and military backer of the Taliban, and who is on the verge of nuclear war with India and home to an unelected government (whose figurehead speaks English with a charming British accent) beset by popular Islamic fundamentalists. Can you say Iran-before-the-fall-of-the-shah?

As for North Korea... why don't you catch me up? Why, again, is there no military option?

If all you're looking for is a war you can win, invade Saudi Arabia. You have about as much of a pretext.

juju · 01-22-2003, 04:45 PM

Isn't it rather hypocritical of our nation to go around taking other people's weapons away from them, and then keeping our own?

01-22-2003, 04:49 PM

Saudi Arabia is our big oil friend. Invading them makes about as much sense as shoving a pencil in your eye. It's just one of those things you don't do.

Like I said, Pakistan has no problem because they're our new buddies. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but <b>that is the way it is</b>.

I gave a really short overview of why we can't attack DPRK here. It is by no means exhaustive, but should be a good overview.

Personally, I'm not at all looking for a war. I am not at all convinced we need to be attacking Iraq. I also have a friend that's been called up (as has Cellar user Tobiasly), and I'm not at all interested in hearing that they're coming home in boxes. I'm just trying to look at this from a realist perspective. If we are going to attack someone, Iraq is probably the best option. :\

option · 01-22-2003, 05:25 PM

I'm afraid I don't agree with your analysis.

The first bad sign is that you took my example of Saudi Arabia literally, as if it were a suggestion.

The second bad sign is that your argument on why we won't attack Pakistan is because "they're our friend, and that's the way it is" (emphasis removed). I really don't like to dignify this kind of non-thinking with an answer, but I'll stoop anyway: Iraq used to be our friend too, until they became our enemy.

Your reasoning behind not attacking North Korea is funny when you compare it to the situation in Iraq. In my opinion, though some of the points you make are grounded, you conclusion is specious. I think attacking Iraq is more dangerous than attacking North Korea. You have a unilateral American invasion sparking the kind of anti-American sentiments that could drive a revolution in Pakistan (and put nukes in the hands of fundamentalists) - fomenting conflict and ultimately revolution in Pakistan has been one of Al Qaeda's big missions (ref. the recent terrorist attacks in India). You have the ability of Iraq (or another regional power technically "at war" with Israel) to do something nasty in former Palestine which will draw the Israelis into the conflict. That will cause a variety of alliances among the U.S. and the arab states to unravel. Then you have the chem/bio wildcard. What do you think the Israelis will do if a flight of SCUDs carrying chemical weapons hit Tel Aviv? If you have nothing to lose, and you're looking at "regime change" (death and/or American prison, not just for Saddam, but for his officers), that's exactly when you contemplate doing that kind of stuff.

You point out the troops in the Korean DMZ that are at risk for a missile strike... hmm... yeah... those troops in the DMZ are just immobile hostage-troops, from the special "Human Target" brigade (unlike our troops deploying to the gulf right now, of course).... North Korean missiles really make it impossible to confront them militarily...

In fact, unlike in East Asia, a messy, spiraling conflagration in the Middle East will do nasty, unpredictable things to the oil supply, and thus, the global economy... But we can risk all that - it's not as worrisome to you as South Korea throwing a "shit fit."

Anyway, North Korea will rest much easier tonight, upon hearing that they have nothing to fear militarily from the U.S..

01-22-2003, 06:47 PM

I think you're mis-reading much of what I'm saying. I'd usually try and explain it, but you're obviously a waste of energy. So please respond to this in an uppity, condescending tone. Then let's keep an eye on the news and see whether or not I'm right about us attacking DPRK.

01-22-2003, 11:12 AM	#37
option Layperson Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 13	Awww Hey, why not, it's the internet after all.

01-22-2003, 03:52 PM	#41
option Layperson Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 13	Hmm Mentioning China was indeed a joke. As for the rest, Pakistan is "our new friend" who is also the chief financial and military backer of the Taliban, and who is on the verge of nuclear war with India and home to an unelected government (whose figurehead speaks English with a charming British accent) beset by popular Islamic fundamentalists. Can you say Iran-before-the-fall-of-the-shah? As for North Korea... why don't you catch me up? Why, again, is there no military option? If all you're looking for is a war you can win, invade Saudi Arabia. You have about as much of a pretext.

01-22-2003, 05:25 PM	#44
option Layperson Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 13	Sorry I'm afraid I don't agree with your analysis. The first bad sign is that you took my example of Saudi Arabia literally, as if it were a suggestion. The second bad sign is that your argument on why we won't attack Pakistan is because "they're our friend, and that's the way it is" (emphasis removed). I really don't like to dignify this kind of non-thinking with an answer, but I'll stoop anyway: Iraq used to be our friend too, until they became our enemy. Your reasoning behind not attacking North Korea is funny when you compare it to the situation in Iraq. In my opinion, though some of the points you make are grounded, you conclusion is specious. I think attacking Iraq is more dangerous than attacking North Korea. You have a unilateral American invasion sparking the kind of anti-American sentiments that could drive a revolution in Pakistan (and put nukes in the hands of fundamentalists) - fomenting conflict and ultimately revolution in Pakistan has been one of Al Qaeda's big missions (ref. the recent terrorist attacks in India). You have the ability of Iraq (or another regional power technically "at war" with Israel) to do something nasty in former Palestine which will draw the Israelis into the conflict. That will cause a variety of alliances among the U.S. and the arab states to unravel. Then you have the chem/bio wildcard. What do you think the Israelis will do if a flight of SCUDs carrying chemical weapons hit Tel Aviv? If you have nothing to lose, and you're looking at "regime change" (death and/or American prison, not just for Saddam, but for his officers), that's exactly when you contemplate doing that kind of stuff. You point out the troops in the Korean DMZ that are at risk for a missile strike... hmm... yeah... those troops in the DMZ are just immobile hostage-troops, from the special "Human Target" brigade (unlike our troops deploying to the gulf right now, of course).... North Korean missiles really make it impossible to confront them militarily... In fact, unlike in East Asia, a messy, spiraling conflagration in the Middle East will do nasty, unpredictable things to the oil supply, and thus, the global economy... But we can risk all that - it's not as worrisome to you as South Korea throwing a "shit fit." Anyway, North Korea will rest much easier tonight, upon hearing that they have nothing to fear militarily from the U.S.. Last edited by option; 01-22-2003 at 05:29 PM.

01-21-2003, 05:16 PM	#31
Uryoces 2nd Covenant, yo Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Pugetropolis Posts: 583	Or watching a PETA protest and seeing that many people are wearing leather shoes. Ya know, their hearts are in the right place...

01-22-2003, 02:08 AM	#35
Uryoces 2nd Covenant, yo Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Pugetropolis Posts: 583	Actually, it was a leather jacket I saw at a fur protest in Seattle. I don't know if said person was actually participating or watching, but of course the camera focused in on them. The talking head didn't point this out in the newscast, but it was there. I still have my leather jacket, and wore with the understanding and glib explaination that I wasn't wasting said cow. I now don't fit into it. Between 23 and 30 I added three inches to my height. I'm trying to remember the last time I ate cow flesh. I've been eating a lot of chicken and pork in various oriental/semi-oriental ways. The shoe comment actually came from my brother. Usually I buy from local Volume Shoesource. Not a lot of leather there to choose from. -- Hoping Quzah doesn't notice that the factories that produce for Volume Shoesource underpay their workers --

01-22-2003, 03:29 PM	#40
dave Guest Posts: n/a	The prospect of going after China is a joke, Pakistan is our new friend and we've already discussed why there's no military option in DPRK. I'm not saying military action is justified in Iraq, but if we're looking for a war we can win, it's the best option.

01-22-2003, 04:45 PM	#42
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	Isn't it rather hypocritical of our nation to go around taking other people's weapons away from them, and then keeping our own?

01-22-2003, 04:49 PM	#43
dave Guest Posts: n/a	Saudi Arabia is our big oil friend. Invading them makes about as much sense as shoving a pencil in your eye. It's just one of those things you don't do. Like I said, Pakistan has no problem because they're our new buddies. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but <b>that is the way it is</b>. I gave a really short overview of why we can't attack DPRK here. It is by no means exhaustive, but should be a good overview. Personally, I'm not at all looking for a war. I am not at all convinced we need to be attacking Iraq. I also have a friend that's been called up (as has Cellar user Tobiasly), and I'm not at all interested in hearing that they're coming home in boxes. I'm just trying to look at this from a realist perspective. If we are going to attack someone, Iraq is probably the best option. :\

01-22-2003, 06:47 PM	#45
dave Guest Posts: n/a	I think you're mis-reading much of what I'm saying. I'd usually try and explain it, but you're obviously a waste of energy. So please respond to this in an uppity, condescending tone. Then let's keep an eye on the news and see whether or not I'm right about us attacking DPRK.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)