|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 18, 2003 6:38:50 GMT -5
“There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.” This is one of the many witness statements that were taken by researchers from Indict — the organisation I chair — to provide evidence for legal cases against specific Iraqi individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. This account was taken in the past two weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by TedRay80 on Mar 18, 2003 10:30:12 GMT -5
Absolutely disgusting. And it amazes me that all of our "liberals" have decided to support a fascist dictator over a conservative U.S. President.
The people who ignorantly went to Iraq as human shields have begun to complain because they're not allowed to do everything they want. Imagine that--they go over there to preserve the fascist state and then get upset that there's no freedom!! Ignorance is not bliss.
|
|
Wildcatblue7
Leading Scorer
Home of the Deadskins
Posts: 456
|
Post by Wildcatblue7 on Mar 18, 2003 22:13:10 GMT -5
Amen, TedRay. Saddam Insane needs to be dethroned NOW. You know, he's almost a threat to himself. he probably would kill himself if he thought he was a threat to his own power.  makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by truth on Mar 19, 2003 0:32:08 GMT -5
TedRay80 Rushedin with:
And it amazes me that all of our "liberals" have decided to support a fascist dictator over a conservative U.S. President.
So, uh, TedRay, what is your working definition of a "liberal" here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Seattlekat on Mar 19, 2003 5:49:14 GMT -5
Ah!!!! But - truth - what is your definition of "liberal" ?
|
|
|
|
Post by truth on Mar 19, 2003 7:22:53 GMT -5
Seattlekat wondered:
Ah!!!! But - truth - what is your definition of "liberal" ?
Of my many definitions of liberal, the following is most applicable to the current conversation:
Liberal \Lib"er*al\ (l[i^]b"[~e]r*al), a. [F. lib['e]ral, L. liberalis, from liber free; perh. akin to libet, lubet, it pleases, E. lief. Cf. Deliver.]
1. ...
2. ...
...
n. A word used in a yet undetermined way by TedRay80 in a post on Wildcat Maniacs chatboard.
n+1. ...
...
|
|
|
|
Post by TedRay80 on Mar 19, 2003 20:54:02 GMT -5
TedRay80 Rushedin with: And it amazes me that all of our "liberals" have decided to support a fascist dictator over a conservative U.S. President.So, uh, TedRay, what is your working definition of a "liberal" here? Sorry, truth, you're right. Just saying "liberal" is too broad. Let me try to specify. Most of the people who are most adamant against war are also typically rather involved in things like women's rights, gay rights, quota systems, etc. They are typically environmentalists, are against capital punishment, and dislike excessive governmental control. I realize that I am generalizing here, but that is something you have to do when describing a broad group. My point was that George W. Bush, while not extremely sympathetic to most of these points, is much closer to them than Saddam Hussein. Those who are against war are against stopping a dictator who is the exact opposite of everything they support. He has suppressed women as much as anyone, has had thousands of people needlessly killed, and recognizes no one's rights. Most of those whom I termed "liberals" would be horrified if they opened their eyes to see what Saddam Hussein does. When other nations' safety becomes a concern on top of all that, someone has to step in. Unfortunately, protests and picket lines won't work in a case like this. War is never a wonderful option, but sometimes it is the only decent option we are left with. If you do not believe in war, you do not believe in anything that has gained your freedom and the freedom of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Picket lines did not gain our freedom from Britain. Protests did not gain Jews freedom from the Nazis. Diplomacy did not give Kuwait its freedom back from Iraq in 1991. |
|
|
|
Post by MyBlueHeaven on Mar 19, 2003 21:50:19 GMT -5
TedRay80,
While we haven't always seen things "eye to eye", I am in unison with you as of late. That was an excellent post and I commend you on a brilliant rationale.
God Bless the USA and all those standing for its principles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 19, 2003 23:49:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by truth on Mar 20, 2003 3:30:00 GMT -5
TedRay80 responded:
Sorry, truth, you're right. Just saying "liberal" is too broad. Let me try to specify. Most of the people who are most adamant against war are also typically rather involved in things like women's rights, gay rights, quota systems, etc. They are typically environmentalists, are against capital punishment, and dislike excessive governmental control. I realize that I am generalizing here, but that is something you have to do when describing a broad group.
The operative word here is "broad". The spectrum of thought being what it is today - and definetely broad - most "centrists" will find themselves on both the "liberal" and "conservative" sides of the fence given a sample of issues: (I'm "liberal" on basic science research funding; "conservative" on central bank policy; etc ...) This is especially true on issues for which that person has intimate, personal, or independent knowledge of the subject. Thus, applying a label to try to associate a person's thoughts on one issue with his unknown position on another is error prone, lazy, and prejuidicial. We all do it. It's still not a useful practice.
at the risk of sounding franco:
vivé lá differencé; vivá lé discussion
|
|
|
|
Post by TedRay80 on Mar 21, 2003 1:21:47 GMT -5
Thus, applying a label to try to associate a person's thoughts on one issue with his unknown position on another is error prone, lazy, and prejuidicial. We all do it. It's still not a useful practice. Perhaps people's other positions are known. Why don't we look at some of those who have been most outspoken against war. Perhaps we should look at some people like Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle. I'd say these people would be considered "liberals" by most rational Americans. This group seems to generally fit the description I've given. You can look at their voting patterns, their public statements, etc. Will everyone perfectly fit the description? Of course not! But then, if you ever want to talk about any people group that is not perfectly clear like gender (becoming less clear), you are forced to generalize. Surely you could broadly speak of conservatives and come up with a number of generally correct descriptions. While all may not fit each conservative, you could still say that conservatives on the whole can be characterized in such a way. Is "applying a label to try to associate a person's thoughts on one issue with his unknown position on another" error prone, lazy or prejudicial? No! I don't know every strong environmentalist's stand on abortion, but I would guess that the majority are pro-choice (unrelated issue). Take a poll, and I bet you'll find out I'm right. Should we use associations when looking at individuals, truth? Of course not. You being the numbers man, you should know all about deviations and sample sizes. But take a large people group, and their stance on one political issue is usually correlated to another unrelated one. When I discuss "liberals," I'm not discussing you or anyone else specifically; I'm discussing the group on the whole. In that context, it would be hard for you to disagree that the group can be characterized as I've laid out. Please don't call me prejudicial or lazy for trying to prove a point. If I had specifically said that because YOU are a liberal (IF you are a liberal), YOU must be a big environmentalist, your accusation would have been right. When discussing the larger group, I think I have that freedom of association. Plenty of evidence to support it. I hope this is clear enough. |
|
|
|
Post by ForeverBigBlue on Mar 21, 2003 9:11:35 GMT -5
I don't consider myself a "liberal" per se. I vote with my heart & conscience, which is what my beliefs are based on as well.
I can't help but feel you are being somewhat condescending to those who are supportive of environmentalists, women's rights, and less governmental control. That would be like me saying conservatives are blood happy...after all, aren't they pro-war, pro-death penalty and suppressing the rights of any group with whom they disagree (perhaps women or gays?) Perhaps that was not your intent to seem condescending. I certainly HOPE it was not your intent.
Bottom line is, I am sick and tired of people making a judgement that those of us who do not favor war are somehow not patriotic or are somehow a lower-class person. I DO NOT LIKE DEATH & DESTRUCTION. Its that simple. Does Hussein need to be removed from power? Absolutely. Do I think more innocent Iraqis should be killed in the process? Absolutely NOT. It just seems contradictory to me that we claim this war is to save the very people we may kill in the process. But I suppose its ok when WE do the killing, because then its just "collateral damage", right?
I am not picking fights with anyone or even criticizing your beliefs. After all, thanks to our many veterans, we have the FREEDOM to express these beliefs, and pro-war or anti-war, I NEVER forget men have died to provide me with this right. By the same token, I think it only fair that those who are so supportive of this war could take a step back and maybe understand why some people do NOT share that viewpoint and be a bit more tolerant and understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by TedRay80 on Mar 21, 2003 10:56:34 GMT -5
I can't help but feel you are being somewhat condescending to those who are supportive of environmentalists, women's rights, and less governmental control. That would be like me saying conservatives are blood happy...after all, aren't they pro-war, pro-death penalty and suppressing the rights of any group with whom they disagree (perhaps women or gays?) Perhaps that was not your intent to seem condescending. I certainly HOPE it was not your intent. It wasn't my intent to sound condescending toward "those who are supportive of environmentalists, women's rights, and less governmental control." If I came across that way, I'm sorry. I was asked to define liberals, and I figured that was a pretty good general (not specific towards individuals) description. I didn't describe anything in a biased fashion (e.g. pro-death for babies instead of pro-choice, Greenpeace nuts, etc.) and would never intend to. It's pretty clear where I stand on the issue of war and where you stand. A bit of healthy debate and illustrating why we support what we do is never a bad thing to me. I'm not trying to criticize as much as point out what seem, at least from my point of view, to be flaws in the arguments of the other side--no different from posting Tubby's tournament stats over the past 6 years when others complain about him. On that note, my earlier comments were because of people who say they never favor war. Yes, there is certainly bloodshed, and I don't believe any of us think it's ok for innocent lives to be lost. I suppose the question is whether it is better for us to act and see innocent lives lost or not act and see loss of life. Surely you wouldn't say that World War II was a poor decision. Surely you wouldn't say the US should have sat back while Germany killed Jews and threatened the world. Why, then, is a war against a tyrant who is responsible for the deaths of nearly 1 million people unjust? Why is it unjust to try and stop someone who is believed to have extremely deadly chemical weapons before they are used? Who is at fault if the US goes to every length not to harm civilians while Saddam Hussein moves them into military areas? Lives will be lost in any war. This war, however, is an act to prevent future loss of life. Were the lives lost in World War II worth the lives saved? I believe so. I hope for as much this time around, and I believe it is quite possible. |
|
|
|
Post by ForeverBigBlue on Mar 21, 2003 11:08:09 GMT -5
I realize war is sometimes necessary...I just will NEVER like it. Might be the mother in me perhaps. I can so vividly imagine a mother in Iraq holding her child close to her to comfort her baby from the noises made by sirens and explosions, all the while hoping against hope her baby might somehow be spared. Later that same mother will be found dead, baby still clutched in her arms, dead as well. Regardless of how "necessary" a war may be, the images of innocent lives being lost disturbs me to the core.
And I do agree...healthy, respectful discussions on these issues are very productive. Understanding how everyone arrives at their beliefs, while perhaps not changing your beliefs, certainly helps both sides gain respect for one another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 21, 2003 16:43:48 GMT -5
Sometimes peace can only come from the other side of war. I don't consider myself 'pro-war' but sometimes battles MUST be fought. The Iraqi military have already fired weapons that should've been destroyed months ago. In fact, that was their claim. They have no scud missles.  Saddam MUST be removed from power NOW! 12 years is ample time for anyone to comply with UN sanctions. He has chosen otherwise. Saddam also has a net worth of over 5 billion dollars while the average Iraqi civilian earns app 100 dollars per month. That sounds fair huh? His riches are used, in part, to finance Al Quida and other terrorist networks to reek havoc on the rest of the world. I do not wish to see a repeat of 9-11 and if that means going to war to ensure this......so be it. So far, we've conducted ourselves VERY well in Bagdad. Heck, the power is still on even after we've struck many strategic sites. We are not after the people of Iraq. Only their leader and his followers and many nations are now supportive of our active roll in the liberation of Iraq. While I do not agree with President Bush's every position, this isn't one of them. |
|
[img src="
