Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   where are the WMD?
gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 46 of 78 (39116)
05-06-2003 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by compmage
05-06-2003 5:45 PM


quote:
Yes, it is your money. You may do with it as you will.
Thank you.
quote:
However, consider this. Would I be a better person if I attacked an abusive husband in his own home, killing some of his family members in the process.
That's a bad analogy because it grossly overestimates how many Iraqis we killed. "Some" of his family? How large is the household? What percentage does that imply? 40% of the entire civilian/family population? More?
How many people are there in Iraq? How many civilians did we kill?
What percentage of the population is that?
How many people would Saddam have killed anyway if allowed to remain in power?
Another flaw in your analogy is this. You implied it was "his" home. Saddam never had a right (by Western standards) to rule Iraq, he was not chosen by the ballot or by legitimate Iraqi law he was chosen by a coup. Therefore it was not his "home", it was somebody elses' home he took by force.
A better analogy would be a prolonged hostage situation in some building with a large number (at least 100) of people inside. Let's say that there is a terrorist in there who has already killed or tortured ten people (my guess) and the rest of them are forbidden to leave, live in fear, and have every aspect of their daily lives ruled by this terrorist. Then you send in a SWAT team to kill the terrorist and one or two hostages is accidentally (and regrettably) killed in the crossfire.
That's the war in Iraq, though I think 1% of all the population of Iraq is still a gross overestimate of civilian deaths.
Now as for this money issue. I pointed out to you that it was our money to do as we please, and you agreed. I think though that you missed the implication of that. You have no right to hold that against us because it is indeed our money to distribute (or not distribute) as we choose. You cannot criticize us for redirecting funds because we do not "owe" those funds to anyone.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by compmage, posted 05-06-2003 5:45 PM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by compmage, posted 05-06-2003 6:50 PM gene90 has not replied
 Message 49 by Silent H, posted 05-06-2003 7:41 PM gene90 has not replied
 Message 58 by Peter, posted 05-11-2003 4:09 AM gene90 has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 47 of 78 (39119)
05-06-2003 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by gene90
05-06-2003 6:16 PM


gene90 writes:
That's a bad analogy because it grossly overestimates how many Iraqis we killed.
I agree, your analogy works better. Although I would make some changes.
gene90 writes:
Let's say that there is a terrorist in there who has already killed or tortured ten people (my guess) and the rest of them are forbidden to leave, live in fear, and have every aspect of their daily lives ruled by this terrorist. Then you send in a SWAT team to kill the terrorist and one or two hostages is accidentally (and regrettably) killed in the crossfire.
Except that at the time you decide to send in the SWAT team, you already have a negotiator inside and the chance still exists that the situation might be solved without force.
Do you wait to see if the situation can be resolved peacefully or do you send in the SWAT team?
Also, I might add some civilians outside the building also dying (redirection of money).
gene90 writes:
Now as for this money issue. I pointed out to you that it was our money to do as we please, and you agreed. I think though that you missed the implication of that. You have no right to hold that against us because it is indeed our money to distribute (or not distribute) as we choose. You cannot criticize us for redirecting funds because we do not "owe" those funds to anyone.
I am permitted to form an opinion about you based on how you spend your money. What I am not permitted to do is force you to spend it differently.
------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 6:16 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by truthlover, posted 06-10-2003 10:32 PM compmage has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5906 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 48 of 78 (39123)
05-06-2003 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
05-06-2003 2:10 PM


crashfrog writes:
Out of curiosity, how much violence have the Amish brought an end to? Last I checked, people were still shooting and raping each other in Pennsylvania...
While the Amish have not brought an end to violence in the rest of Penn, I don't think they have that much problem with rape and shooting within their own community.
crashfrog writes:
I guess that's the problem I have with pacifism. Ultimately there are people who have committed to violence, and the only way to oppose them is the careful use of violence. That's why policemen carry guns. Does that require murder to stop murder? Sometimes it may have to
I totally agree with you which is why I am not a pacifist either. It seems to me when one's enemy is commited to violent action against you, it is reasonable and justified to defend onesself through violence. I was totally for the war in Afghanistan and might have supported a war against Iraq under other pre-conditions.
Then again, as a rebuttal to our own position, there have been some successful nonviolent movements.
Ghandi and MLK Jr removed oppressive regimes with a firm commitment to pacifism. If the bible is to be believed, so did Christ. That takes a pretty strong faith in God or in the goodness of humanity itself, not to mention alot of guts, to stick to such a commitment.
That is why I find it offensive when people equate pacifism with support for violent regimes. They are trying to end oppression through setting an example of goodness, and argue that that will work in the long run (ie, believe it is an viable and preferable alternative, even if slow, than violent action in kind).
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2003 2:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 05-07-2003 2:35 AM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5906 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 49 of 78 (39130)
05-06-2003 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by gene90
05-06-2003 6:16 PM


I agree that your hostage analogy is closer than compagne's neighbor analogy. However, compagne is correct with his addition/alteration.
There are other some other additions as well. First of all that hostage taker himself was originally a SWAT "undercover agent" sent in with a green light to take hostages as he felt necessary. And until the agent took over a neighboring gas station, the SWAT team encouraged his murdering and torturing of hostages as a viable solution to the problem he was sent in to correct.
People in the neighborhood, as well as the hostages, are well aware of this fact and do not look kindly on SWAT coming back in for a second crack at "solving their situation." Especially as the house was not within that SWAT unit's jurisdication in the first place, and their attack would be in violation of the law.
While clearly this would not create an end of the world scenario, it does create a mistrust of SWAT in general, and perhaps plant the seeds of more violence in the future. Surely it encourages a disregard for law, except the law of the jungle.
As compagne outlined, there were negotiations ongoing, and this type of solution was preferable to the local community as well as the larger community as a whole.
There may have been more murders, but there will be (and have been) since SWAT ran in shooting up the place. It is not certain that their actions have done anything besides remove the singular rogue agent.
What's worse is SWAT's future credibility has been put on the line, by announcing they had to rush in because the rogue agent had powerful weapons he was about to use any minute, yet this was doubtful at the time and afterward it is clearly turning out not to be the case.
It may ge good that the rogue agent is gone. I'd agree with that. The SWAT team may have even had a moral obligation to do the removing. But the method was flawed and should have taken into consideration the longterm consequences of its actions. After all it was their rash actions in the beginning which put the rogue agent in power.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 6:16 PM gene90 has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5906 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 50 of 78 (39173)
05-07-2003 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by gene90
05-06-2003 3:33 PM


gene90 addressing stock dilemma criticism writes:
What are those alternatives...
Some have already been stated. You have simply not addressed them.
gene90 addressing stock dilemma criticism writes:
...what is the the probability of success, and how long would it take?
Good question, but irrelevant to whether you have used the stock dilemma. One might add that in addition to probability of success and duration, one should also assess legality, and longterm consequences regarding our credibility and impact on international law.
gene90 writes:
If you remember, we tried alternatives to war. Twelve years ago sanctions were imposed. Saddam flourished while the people fell even further into poverty.
This is inaccurate. It is merely a continuation of the false alternatives fallacy.
The sanctions/inspections process originally put in place was not as rigorous as it should have been, nor was it backed as it should have been (by a credible threat of force). This was not the only process available as a diplomatic alternative, and as alternatives go it was a poor one.
9-11 prompted a review of the sanctions/inspection process. That is when we saw a more realistic carrot-stick approach which began bearing results. Bush's rhetoric was unnecessary and unhelpful, but his basic actions of forcing a new dynamic of aggressive inspections was warranted. This was also not the only diplomatic alternative, but it was working better than the one in place for the last 12 years.
gene90 writes:
Months ago Saddam was offered asylum. He refused. Bush gave him a 48 hour deadline. He still refused.
This was not a diplomatic alternative at all. It was a provocative rejection of the new dynamic which appeared to be working, replacing diplomacy with a baldfaced threats. It had a flimsy justification and almost zero probability of success (and ultimately did fail).
Bush's only legal justification for such an action was the imminent WMD threat that he claimed at the time, which even you do not seem to believe was real. That makes our action illegal, even if our goal was admirable.
Just as the goal of liberating Palestinians from Isreali oppression may seem admirable to many, but that in no way makes terrorist actions in support of that liberation legal.
gene90 writes:
Alternatives failed. War succeeded.
If the only alternatives were the ones already tried, and we ignore that one which was working was dropped without justification, then you would be correct.
War did succeed in taking Saddam out of power. Whoever questioned this would be the result of war, would have been wrong. But this did not make war right, or even the best alternative, only the quickest.
gene90 writes:
By the way, I never saw any protestors on TV with signs presenting alternatives.
Signs would be too small to present real alternatives. But many protestors (admittedly not all) had alternatives, including ones that addressed humanitarian concerns. Of course you did not get to hear them, because of that huge "liberal media bias" going on.
gene90 writes:
By the way, I believe the US tried for years to get rid of Castro without a full scale assault by American armed forces. Guess who's still running things down there?
And are we threatened by Cuba in some way? This actually works as a counterexample to your own claims. Even republicans have noted that many remaining problems in Cuba relate to our continued (and ineffective) embargo, and not Castro. Are you seriously suggesting we should violate international law to invade Cuba as well?
gene90 writes:
Actually Holmes, I wanted Saddam gone in 1991, and in 1998...
I was pro-war before Bush came into office.
Well that still makes me anti-saddam and certainly anti-Taliban... according to your rules not mine... before you.
People were protesting Rumsfeld's and Reagan's and Bush's and Cheney's support for Saddam in Iraq, as well as Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan long before 91 and 98. Back then we could have simply not supported these nuts, instead of arming them until the time we had to (predictably) go in to remove them, or put them under diplomatic sanctions.
gene90 writes:
No actually that's not my definition. People who don't agree with Bush but don't try to persuade others aren't necessarily pro-Saddam.
Okay, I get what you're saying, but this isn't exactly what your equation said. It said being against the war (not just protesting against it) was pro-Saddam.
gene90 writes:
The people who make signs and go march, and worse block traffic, were actively supporting Saddam Hussein, just as the US once did.
This is not true. Once the war began protests were pointless, and in the case of traffic blockers, annoying and counterproductive for their own cause. But they did not influence the outcome of this war in one direction or the other.
gene90 writes:
Bush didn't make his opponets sit on glass bottles until their intestines were slashed into bleeding rags, holmes. You will never be able to compare a republic with a bill of rights and constitutional limits to Saddam's regime. To even try would be offensive but I'm not surprised that would do so.
It is an undeniable fact that the CIA "renders" suspects to countries that do just this kind of thing when we need info fast. This was admitted by CIA officials over the last several years on public TV no less. About the only thing which is unknown is how many might have been rendered to Iraq when Saddam was our pal.
You have dodged the fact twice now that Bush and Co are stripping our bill of rights in pursuit of the War on Terror. I readily admitted that we are not even close to the intents and methodology of Saddam. But we have certainly fallen from our position of world leader of rights and democracy.
gene90 writes:
Perhaps so. Or maybe just a weak ruler who bowed to international pressure when he should not have. We don't know what he actually would have liked to have done.
Conjecturing is unnecessary. Bush Sr has already talked about why he did not continue to Baghdad and chastised Jr for his hasty unilateral march to war this time.
It is not weakness to take into account international opinion, or seek such support, unless one's country is in imminent danger. However it is arrogant to do the opposite, as Bush Jr himself said during his election campaign.
gene90 writes:
Which makes this an interesting point. Do you admit that the primary reason Saddam was still in power is because of the UN?
ABSOLUTELY. The UN did not do all that it could have or should have, especially with respect to regulations after the first gulf war. It should have fast-tracked inspections and sanctions (the latter meaning proof the aid was getting to civilians). This may very well have resulted in a second gulf war, but so be it. That would have been the right time and for the right reasons.
However, since the role of the UN is to keep the peace between nations, and not to remove tyrants within nations, its weakness regarding Iraq is somewhat understandable, if not really an excuse.
Now will you admit that the ONLY reason Saddam was ever in power in the first place, was firm support by western powers, most notably Rumsfeld, Reagan, and Bush? And that many of those killed and tortured by Saddam, especially the Kurds, were brutalized with US knowledge as well as political and military support?
If the US had not put him in power, the UN would never have been placed in the awkward position of having to take him out.
gene90 writes:
I've been on this board a heck of a lot longer than you (are you even a member yet?) and it is not "dominated" by Christian theology.
Whoops. By "dominated" I did not mean "ruled". What I meant was that the dominant theology presented on these boards are Xtian in nature.
Please stop hyping how long you've been here. That has no relevence to whether your arguments are valid or mine are not.
gene90 writes:
I haven't heard of any Amish protests. They may not agree with war even in principle but they are not actively supporting dictators by opposing liberation.
I'm assuming this is a joke. Neither the Amish nor the anti-war protestors opposed liberation of the Iraqi people. But to the pacifist contingent of both groups, war never equals liberation and so will always be opposed.
This is why it is offensive to deride pacifists protesting the war as supporting dictators, or opposing liberation. They simply wish to achieve liberation by convincing others to nonviolence through example.
It may not be the quickest way to freedom. But it is the only method which keeps everyone's hands clean (from their point of view).
gene90 writes:
You speak for Christ?
Do I really have to? I think the words of the Bible speak for themselves. But if you need help with interpretations all but some evangelical religious leaders firmly opposed the war, including the leader of Bush's own denomination.
gene90 writes:
No for Christ because he is not necessarily anti-war. (Lots of non-Christian members of the Left like to call him a warmonger, now you are trying
to make him a hippie? He was a liberal for his time but I *think* he would be a moderate who would want to liberate Iraq.)
I guess I'll take your word for it that some liberals call Christ a warmonger... never heard it myself. And I never said he was a hippie. Please stop putting words in my mouth and telling me what I do (as if I am a stereotyped bleeding heart liberal).
While God endorsed certain acts of violence, Christ was clearly against warfare and the idea that he would approve bombing Iraq to liberate the populace seems borderline blasphemy. My guess is he'd have been active in getting Iraqis to liberate themselves (through a form of passive resistance).
How do you square your opinion with the interpretation of every major Xtian leader? I don't mean this as an insult. I want to know what teachings of Christ lead you to such an opposite conclusion... biblical references?
gene90 writes:
You think... Saddam is somehow going to keep his WMD program running full throttle there? And you think the terrorist camps would continue running?
This was never my argument. Assuming that WMDs and WMD technology existed in Iraq, war was not going to eliminate them, or prevent them from being passed on to terrorist organizations or other nations. Yes it would stop Saddam from using them, but it does not eliminate them and it only increased the chance he would trade them before his demise.
This criticism was made by worldwide intelligence authorities (hardly liberals), and I put that question to pro-war supporters on this board. There has been no response to it at all.
Rumsfeld has confirmed this criticism to be accurate as he now admits WMDs may have been transferred during the fog of war, and Iraqi scientists will need to be prevented from "living free". Short of lifetime imprisonment, there will be no guarantee that Iraqi WMD technology will spread, particularly in a newly freed Iraq which is poor and scientists have valuable knowledge to sell.
gene90 writes:
Do you think we should have signed a peace treaty with Hitler?
This analogy has already been shot down. Hitler invaded countries and so needed to be stopped. At the very least pushed back, contained, and disempowered before the need for WW2. I would never have supported appeasement of Hitler or Saddam.
Interestingly enough it was the US filling the role of 1930's Germany this time. While the intention was different, the "appeasement" we were requesting was much the same. We were asking the world to allow us to attack another country for reasons of national security, when there was no imminent threat in existence. It was no wonder most of the world balked at this, particularly the UN.
gene90 writes:
Actually, last I heard, we were still at war with al-Qaeda, rather than "supporting" them.
Iraq has diverted efforts that could have been used to finish the war with Al-Queda, including putting greater pressure on--- or "assistance" to--- Pakistan in order to catch BinLaden.
You still haven't admitted that your rules make Bush "pro" various terrorist organizations and dictatorial regimes. His championing diplomacy over war with NKorea (unquestionably a greater threat to its neighbors and the US than Iraq) makes him totally "pro-Kim Jung il."
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 3:33 PM gene90 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 78 (39190)
05-07-2003 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Silent H
05-06-2003 7:01 PM


I don't think they have that much problem with rape and shooting within their own community.
I think there's a certain level of "security by being a sitting duck" at work for the safety of the Amish. I mean, it's so easy to rob or hurt the Amish that it feels bad to. (Not that I know of course!) More seriously, I think the simple fact is that people who would be predisposed to being violent just don't want to live with the Amish. I personally would find them annoying day after day. (I feel safe saying that because I'm pretty sure no Amish will read this.)
Ghandi and MLK Jr removed oppressive regimes with a firm commitment to pacifism.
MLK Jr. didn't change the regime. The regime changed for him. The black civil rights movement was by no means entirely peaceful. And racist violence against black people continues to this day.
Anyway, MLK Jr. held up pacifism because he was struggling against laws, not people. Thus he opposed the law through civil disobediance.
I understand the liberation of India was by no means peaceful. Ghandi may have not advocated violence, but a vast amount of anti-british violence was done in his name.
I'm just saying - pacifism can only protect you against the people it is in your power to educate. People who think differently than you will always have the upper hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 05-06-2003 7:01 PM Silent H has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7664 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 52 of 78 (39191)
05-07-2003 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
05-06-2003 2:55 AM


quote:
Well, if Saddam IS taking human life, and one has the power to do something about it and doesn't, isn't that contradictory to a moral stance against taking human life?
But if that so-called power involves taking human life? I could not do the moral calculus involved.
quote:
I don't see how opposing war without a better idea isn't the same as supporting such a regime.
No. One can oppose the war and the regime. Many pacifists opposed the apartheid South African regime very actively but never would endorse Mandela's campaign. When it comes to evil regimes, they never stand alone.
I heard a debate on French radio the other day, where a French finance ministry official claimed that the US had spent more money on each day of the recent campaign than they had in policing or enforcing sanctions ever since the Kuwait invasion. I cannot vouvh for the accuracy of those figures, but they sound as if they may be in the ballpark, don't you think? I am not convinced that the West was ever serious about removing Hussein or curtailing his abuses of his own people until September 11th brought home to the US that the troubles of the Middle East could actually affect Americans with terrible directness.
Nor do I think for one moment that the suffering of the Iraqi people played a part in motivating the recent war. America and Britain have historically supported despicable regimes whenever it suited them - there is no reason to believe they could not have "accomodated" Saddam's human rights abuses in their Realpolitik if they felt that appropriate. Rumsfeld, for one, would have been playing the same old song: one he has practised to perfection over the years. America surely went to war for America.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2003 2:55 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-07-2003 3:06 AM Mister Pamboli has replied
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 05-07-2003 3:09 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3947
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 53 of 78 (39193)
05-07-2003 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Mister Pamboli
05-07-2003 2:48 AM


A little comment
Just a quick comment, before I resume my procastination/slow progress on my response in regards to the not forgoten White House/Pentagon matter.
quote:
...policing or enforcing sanctions...
To me, the sanctions themselves were highly morally questionable. What did they accomplish, versus what suffering of the Iraqi civilians did they cause? Were they intended to prod the Iraqi people into rising against Saddam?
Likewise for the Cuban embargo. I'm inclined to think that such things mostly only hurt the weak and powerless, not the responsible leadership.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-07-2003 2:48 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-07-2003 3:51 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 78 (39194)
05-07-2003 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Mister Pamboli
05-07-2003 2:48 AM


Nor do I think for one moment that the suffering of the Iraqi people played a part in motivating the recent war.
Well, I certainly agree with this. But I do think it's possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. I'm hoping that's what happened in Iraq.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-07-2003 2:48 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7664 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 55 of 78 (39199)
05-07-2003 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Minnemooseus
05-07-2003 3:06 AM


Re: A little comment
quote:
To me, the sanctions themselves were highly morally questionable.
Oh sure. But I think the French claim does point up a serious flaw in the "no alternative to war" argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-07-2003 3:06 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4637 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 56 of 78 (39232)
05-07-2003 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by gene90
05-06-2003 3:36 PM


Re: WTC families
quote:
Wait a minute, are you saying that the invasion of Afghanistan was not linked to al-Qaeda?
Last I checked, we were talking about Iraq. Don't tell me that you honestly think this war could have happened without 9-11. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but this is a fairly obvious thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Our country's shock and indignation has been manipulated to create support for a cause. Those of us sufficiently educated about the US's own human rights abuses worldwide, however, were not as shocked and therefore less vulnerable.
quote:
And you seem to have overlooked my point: that you can probably find a family member of a 9/11 victim with any opinion humanly possible, if you look hard enough.
Yes, any opinion could theoretically be found. This has no bearing on the legitimacy of a particular opinion that has in fact been publicly voiced. That's what I chose to focus on.
quote:
I think 9/11 is a clear indicator that the US MUST be proactive in toppling threats. And when we topple dictators like Saddam and bring democracy to the Middle East, all the better.
Several members have already raised the concern that this stance would advocate the invasion of many, many countries around the world with "evil" dictators and possible (even definite) WMDs, etc. Besides, we did not by any means invade Iraq just to remove a threat. This war, as a pre-emptive strike, was completely unprecedented and changes our image drastically. I think it does so in a way that increases the numbers of our potential enemies.
I'm going to leave this discussion now. I'm not sufficiently dedicated to this topic to continue investing my efforts, only to have carefully constructed logic discounted without explanation. Everyone's entitled to their beliefs and I'm happy to leave it at that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 3:36 PM gene90 has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1566 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 57 of 78 (39671)
05-11-2003 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by gene90
05-02-2003 7:03 PM


Fair enough ... but can you arrest me if you
think I own a gun?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by gene90, posted 05-02-2003 7:03 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2003 4:12 AM Peter has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1566 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 58 of 78 (39672)
05-11-2003 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by gene90
05-06-2003 6:16 PM


quote:
Therefore it was not his "home", it was
somebody elses' home he took by force.
Like the USA you mean ... taken by terrorist action against
the British owners?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 6:16 PM gene90 has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 78 (41669)
05-29-2003 3:29 AM


Can someone tell me what the latest excuse is for the inability of alliance troops and investigators to find Iraq's weapons of wass destruciton?

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 78 (41672)
05-29-2003 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peter
05-11-2003 4:03 AM


Fair enough ... but can you arrest me if you
think I own a gun?
In my country, if you've ever been convicted of domestic assault, I believe so, yes.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Peter, posted 05-11-2003 4:03 AM Peter has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024