A little odd request, but...

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:27 pm

Bengaley wrote:Actually, Monarchism was the original Right Wing, and Monarchists were the original conservatives.

No. Monarchism was collectivist, centrist, and credited the secular leadership with all rights and privileges and all others as being their disposable footstool.

There's a reason the founders of this country said "no king but Christ."

We did what we did in Iraq for the wrong reasons,

Bengalay, we went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein was violent, despicable warmonger who was providing aid and comfort to the terrorist networks upon whom we had declared war, and who more importantly <I>stood in complete violation of every provision of the ceasefire agreement--- not peace treaty, CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT--- he signed at the end of the first Gulf War.</i>

Tell me, Bengalay, if those AREN'T the right reasons--- what would have been?

Kerry Skydancer · Post by **Kerry Skydancer** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 10:21 pm

Zactly. It takes a lot to arouse the US, but we're pretty much the Incredible Hulk on the international stage. "Don't make us angry... you won't like us when we're angry..."

Osama has-been Laden kinda missed -that- lesson of history. We're gonna give him and all his buddies a refresher course now.

Of course that 300 billion on destroying Iraq is amusing, since we've not spent that much total, and much of what we -have- spent is on reconstruction; while the 35 million on disaster relief is just the pittance we threw away to shut up the UN while we did a few hundred million dollars worth of effort that was actually effective. Check this site out if you want the gory details from someone who was on scene...

http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/

Bengaley · Post by **Bengaley** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:07 am

Sorry, RH, I was in a rush to post and I guess I didn't quite review what I wrote...

1) Monarchism was the original Right-wing. Right and Left wing dates back to the French Revolution...

But, as I said, it doesn't matter anymore.

2) About Iraq: Sorry. Worded very poorly. Our STATED reasons for going into Iraq I felt were overstated, and because of that, if we just had those reasons to go into Iraq, it would have been an unjustified action, in my opinion.

However, thats not to say I don't like what we did in Iraq. Its like... mmm...

I'm trying to find an analogy here, but *shrug* I can't seem to find one that fits. Basically, what I'm trying to say, our reasoning may have been shitty, but it was an excuse to do a good thing.

If Bush said "We have some evidence that Sadam might have WMDs hidden from UN Inspectors, and if he doesn't he's certainly trying to manufacture them, and he's also a damned prime suspsect for assisting terrorists of the like of al-Quida. He's also an evil dictator who is opressing many of the Iraqi people and has attempted genocide. Lets go beat the **** out of him" then I would have been 100% behind him.

Okay, not exact words, but you get the meaning. As it is, in the question on Iraq, I'm still firm behind the country's commitment...

/Netto-kun, attempting to tread a fine line between everything

Kerry Skydancer · Post by **Kerry Skydancer** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:41 am

Bengaley wrote: About Iraq: Sorry. Worded very poorly. Our STATED reasons for going into Iraq I felt were overstated, and because of that, if we just had those reasons to go into Iraq, it would have been an unjustified action, in my opinion.

However, thats not to say I don't like what we did in Iraq. Its like... mmm...

I'm trying to find an analogy here, but *shrug* I can't seem to find one that fits. Basically, what I'm trying to say, our reasoning may have been shitty, but it was an excuse to do a good thing.

If Bush said "We have some evidence that Sadam might have WMDs hidden from UN Inspectors, and if he doesn't he's certainly trying to manufacture them, and he's also a damned prime suspsect for assisting terrorists of the like of al-Quida. He's also an evil dictator who is opressing many of the Iraqi people and has attempted genocide. Lets go beat the **** out of him" then I would have been 100% behind him.

Okay, not exact words, but you get the meaning. As it is, in the question on Iraq, I'm still firm behind the country's commitment...

/Netto-kun, attempting to tread a fine line between everything

The trouble is, that is pretty much what Bush said. Take a look at the original speech sometime (2003 state of the union speech, IIRC). WMD was a one-liner in a list of problems and reasons to go into Iraq. The media jumped all over that one reason after the fact because we didn't find any (in spite of the entire world's intel services agreeing that he had them), apparently because it was the only thing they could find to try making him look bad.

Bengaley · Post by **Bengaley** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 11:41 am

Sorry, I seem to remeber WMDs and a definate connection to al-Quida as the two main reasons for going in. Hellfire, I saw the speech Colin Powel gave infront of Congress stating the proof the Intelligence services had showing that Iraq had WMDs.

That was MY main sticking point the entire war, "They'd better find WMDs!".

Of course, I was in the camp saying 'We're certain he has 'em', too.

The MEDIA is one thing. Me is another.

Of course, not to say that having the first free elections in over 50 years is a BAD thing...]

Which is why you'll never hgear my say "We never should have gone to Iraq AT ALL."

/Netto-kun, dancing on the curvey line between two sides

UncleMonty · Post by **UncleMonty** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 4:49 pm

The whole world knows Saddam's Iraq had WMD's. He used them against Iran in war and against his own citizens in genocide. He repeatedly claimed he'd had them destroyed, but provided no documentation or evidence of it. That's why the UN kept voting sanctions against Iraq (and it takes a lot to make the UN mad. They even like Libya).
Circumstantial evidence that the weapons have not been destroyed: stockpiles of protective suits for Saddam's military, empty artillary shells designed to carry gas or biological agents. A carefullly cleaned truck containing fermenting tanks and a centerfuge for propagating and concentrating micro-organisms, and then there's that poison-gas bomb that was set off alongside a road while an American convoy was passing through. It made the national news here in America, but it seems to have been forgotten.

No, I'm quite convinced that the WMD's did exist. The only question is: Where are they now?
They exist somewhere, needing only a delivery system. And if that isn't a national security nightmare, I don't know what is. I suspect the only reason they haven't been used against another American target is: Our security forces are catching them too efficiently, and they're scared of the American military response.

This is frightening, but I am not posting this as a fear-monger. I think a large portion of our nation has gone into denial, and is busy convincing itself that Iraq was never a threat at all. I wouldn't want such people to convince the rest of us.

LoneWolf23k · Post by **LoneWolf23k** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:04 pm

Iraq's WMDs are almost certainly out on the black market now.. In the long period between the end of the "inspections" and the actual invasion, plus the chaos of the invasion, there was more then enough opportunity for the WMDs to get smuggled out of the country. Only the CIA can know for sure.

In the meantime, millions of Iraqis have voted for the first time in their lives, in spite of the threat of terror attacks. Basically, giving the insurgents a big fat one-fingered salute.

Heck, I heard that a group of Iraqi citizens actually took on a small group of insurgents all on their own.

Now THAT's courage.

StrangeWulf13 · Post by **StrangeWulf13** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 8:59 pm

Sounds a bit like the Iraqis are developing "redneck" attitudes...

"Give 'em hell, boys!" *various sounds of gunfire and insurgents dying*

Now that's the appropriate response. Let's hope more of them turn up soon.

Kerry Skydancer · Post by **Kerry Skydancer** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:12 pm

And in a couple places, they reformed their line after an attack. Brave, decent people. We need to remember this at the next election and rub it in the faces of anyone who whines that they were 'intimidated' because they had to drive past a traffic cop or couldn't wait in the line because it was raining.

If this works out, Iran will follow, and then the rest of the rotten regimes over there will topple like dominos. And -that- will please the 3000 who died in the Towers, I suspect. It will be a fitting memorial to them, at the very least.

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:41 am

They had a turnout of approximately 72% of all eligible voters.

SEVENTY TWO PERCENT.

We only had 63%---- and we didn't have anyone shooting at us!

That's it. Next little flea-picker comes up and talks to me about how they or their minority-of-choice was "disenfranchised" in an American election, I'm just gonna take a 2x4 and start whaling away.

Bengaley · Post by **Bengaley** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:29 am

I'd be there telling you to stop, RH.

Seeing as there aint any nails in that 2x4.

/Netto-kun, who didn't like the results of the election but will LIVE ON DESPITE IT *GASP*

Sharuuk · Post by **Sharuuk** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 2:45 pm

Bengaley wrote:I'd be there telling you to stop, RH.
Seeing as there aint any nails in that 2x4.

A 2x4 with nails....how crude......lemme get'cha one each alumy-um ball-bat with a coupla 1/2" rebar spikes in it.....makes a WONderful mace!

Iffn yer gonna start whaling on some pin-head.....do it right & make a BIG mess.

Shaaruuk

LoneWolf23k · Post by **LoneWolf23k** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:31 pm

How about we just use a crowbar? Far more effective a weapon...

Bengaley · Post by **Bengaley** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:42 pm

But then I don't want to get sued for copyright infringment from Gordon Freeman...

BoKiana · Post by **BoKiana** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:42 pm

LoneWolf23k wrote:How about we just use a crowbar? Far more effective a weapon...

The Crowbar! Voted 9 times out of 10 as the Weapon of choice byMild Mannered Scientists Trapped in alien wars/invasions. Buy now and use often!

Edit

Bengaley wrote:But then I don't want to get sued for copyright infringment from Gordon Freeman...

Dude! How DARE you steal my thunder!

Narnian · Post by **Narnian** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:56 pm

Not all liberals deserve to be whacked; hats off to the Washington Post for their editorial today, "A Vote to Persevere", on the Iraqi election that ended:

"Their votes were an act of courage and faith -- and an answer to the question of whether the mission in Iraq remains a just cause."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jan30.html

Sharuuk · Post by **Sharuuk** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:17 pm

Bengaley wrote:But then I don't want to get sued for copyright infringment from Gordon Freeman...

Or the AFL-CIO.

RKCoon · Post by **RKCoon** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:14 pm

Ya know, as much as i like democracy, people seem to forget that it is far from a flawless or perfect system.

Classic example --- can anyone here tell me who it was, both the person and country this person was in, that was elected with the greatest majority of the votes (for a country) the world has ever seen?

Kerry Skydancer · Post by **Kerry Skydancer** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:15 pm

RKCoon wrote:Ya know, as much as i like democracy, people seem to forget that it is far from a flawless or perfect system.

Classic example --- can anyone here tell me who it was, both the person and country this person was in, that was elected with the greatest majority of the votes (for a country) the world has ever seen?

Depends. Are you talking about a -real- election, even a rigged one, or one of those performances by the likes of Sodamn Insane or Kim Jong Mental where everyone in the country is marched in to vote at gunpoint and handed pre-filled ballots? The latter is -not- a democracy, no matter -how- much lipstick they've put on the pig. (Hmmm. Y'know, I think we need a new metaphor there, the pig in NaT looks pretty cute.)

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:16 am

Before anyone says Hitler.... no, he was not elected. He was APPOINTED Chancellor by the existing government.

On democracy, he is correct. Straight up democracy is just three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

A republic, the sheep gets to pick which wolves vote on dinner.

American style, constitutional government is where the sheep has a gun and a list of what's not on the menu.

That's the secret, you see. In order for democracy to work, there has to be an established, institutionalized and commonly accepted inviolate moral code--- a list of moral and ethical principles which are explicitly and emphatically NOT up for a vote, popular or otherwise: A list of what's not on the menu....The American Constitution and the bill of rights is a small part of that necessary inviolate code for our own society, for it enumerates just a few of the inalienable rights of man, and the over-arcing vital moral principle that governance is by the moral consent of the governed.

Without that inviolate code, a republic is merely a lottery of tyrants, and a democracy is nothing more than mob rule.