Full Version: Random Thoughts
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 746, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 766, 767, 768, 769, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780, 781, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788, 789, 790, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, 800, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831, 832, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 868, 869, 870, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 912, 913, 914, 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964, 965, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 977, 978, 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 989, 990, 991, 992, 993, 994, 995, 996, 997, 998, 999, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021
| QUOTE |
| Does religion tie into the laws in Iraq, or did the US make up laws for Iraq? or is dude being prosecuted according to US laws? (just asking because i have not followed this propaganda, um i mean story) |
ahhh hah...now this is actually the question..really it is...
to be honest, Iraq is trying him for THE WORLD..not just for their country. There are attorneys from several parts of the world that are helping the defense (believe it or not) and the prosecution gets ALOT of advice from other counsel too.
They wanted a change of venue BIG time to try to keep it safe for witnesses...MAYNE...they need to prosecute his azz right there. ..I surely don't want him coming to other parts of the Middle East, the world, or even Washington D.Cc to get tried, esp. when the crimes against humanity mainly occurred over there.
It is real twisted about the laws, the outside help and how they are applied in relation to him. WE are still trying to figure out that ish at my network...the funny thing...it is all revolving around the TRANSLATOR...
there was a big debate about WHO was going to translate it...and American Arabic speaking person ...or an Arabic English speaking dude....THERE is a BIG difference.
My days and nights are ALL running together...court for them starts at 2:30am MY TIME...
RWC, I'm trying hard to make your wife's function...but Saddam has got my life a little on pause this week.
In my opinion...BUSH is just not as BLATANT about murdering folks like Saddam is...
and Hollywood..i'm with you on the religion ordeal...he pulled out the Koran when it was extremely convenient for his azz.
| QUOTE (mrdilligaf456 @ Dec 5 2005, 05:28 PM) | ||
Sup Cole  ,Saddam probably feels that he's about as much of a murderer as GWB. When he was the leader of Iraq he had some very difficult choices to make. As a result of those choices I'm sure quite a few people died. Be that as it may very well be, given the questionable history of our very own country, I don't think we're in a position to judge that man. To the victor goes the spoils but "might" doesn't neccessarily make it "right". |
egads man!
well sure in his mind; there is a bit of a discrepancy with the truth though.
LOL this is a bit too much to bear here.
Hard choices to make? Are you following the testimony at the trial today? We aren't in a position to judge? I feel like I'm in some kind of bizarro world here.
Saddams Atrocities Go Beyond Formal Charges
Declassified British Dossier on Hussein's Torture Methods
Picture Essay of Mass Graves - estimated 400, 000 killed
Saddam Trial Told of Horror in Room 63 (todays testimony - meat grinders used on human flesh children murdered)
Mass Graves attest to Saddams Atrocities
- cording to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south." Refugees International reports that the "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran."
- Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. o The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.
This took me about 4 minutes to find, the list goes on and on and there isn't a single analyst with a shred of respectability that would deny that Huseein's regime was the single most oppressve and bloodiest in the bloody middle east.
Hard choices??
As to whether "this country" is in a position to judge" lol fuck the country...I haven't had any babies thrown out of windows lately - is it ok if I judge? I don't understand this line of thinking by the way at all. So who should judge then? The Iraqi people - and thats what it means to be able to get up on the stand and testify - no anonymonity, against the man himself.
As a chapter in the humanitarian struggle against fascists and tryants this is a history making and unprecedented event in the middle east. A watershed victory for humanity tainted by the blue state tears of bitter politics in this country.
Again Dill, this isn't politics, there isn't a single human rights organization that doesn't agree that the vicousness and casuality with with human life was regarded under Hussein was singluarly UNPRECEDENTED - this isn't Republican blather or victor written history...
AMAZING.
This is the random thought thread right?Sorry to interrupt but:
I want a cigarette.
Back to Iraq...
| QUOTE (Hollywood Cole @ Dec 5 2005, 05:54 PM) | ||||
egads man! well sure in his mind; there is a bit of a discrepancy with the truth though. LOL this is a bit too much to bear here. Hard choices to make? Are you following the testimony at the trial today? We aren't in a position to judge? I feel like I'm in some kind of bizarro world here. Saddams Atrocities Go Beyond Formal Charges Declassified British Dossier on Hussein's Torture Methods Picture Essay of Mass Graves - estimated 400, 000 killed Saddam Trial Told of Horror in Room 63 (todays testimony - meat grinders used on human flesh children murdered) Mass Graves attest to Saddams Atrocities - cording to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south." Refugees International reports that the "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran." - Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. o The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror. This took me about 4 minutes to find, the list goes on and on and there isn't a single analyst with a shred of respectability that would deny that Huseein's regime was the single most oppressve and bloodiest in the bloody middle east. Hard choices?? As to whether "this country" is in a position to judge" lol fuck the country...I haven't had any babies thrown out of windows lately - is it ok if I judge? I don't understand this line of thinking by the way at all. So who should judge then? The Iraqi people - and thats what it means to be able to get up on the stand and testify - no anonymonity, against the man himself. As a chapter in the humanitarian struggle against fascists and tryants this is a history making and unprecedented event in the middle east. A watershed victory for humanity tainted by the blue state tears of bitter politics in this country. Again Dill, this isn't politics, there isn't a single human rights organization that doesn't agree that the vicousness and casuality with with human life was regarded under Hussein was singluarly UNPRECEDENTED - this isn't Republican blather or victor written history... AMAZING. |
Cole, Cole, Cole...
Interesting tactic fam, I've heard of the good ole Baffle them with Bullshit routine, but your the first person I know to successfully employ the Drown them with Data technique.
Long story short Iraq was at war with Iran, Saddam suspected some Iraqi's to be siding with the enemy and planning the overthrow of his government. He was at war and did as he saw fit at the time to maintain power and stability in his country. Whatever the number of people who died as a direct result of his "choices" as leader of Iraq it will pale in comparison to the number of people who will die when all out civil war breaks loose after America decides to make a hasty retreat.
We(all of us) were better off with Saddam in power. We are going to rue the day he was ejected from office.
| QUOTE (mrdilligaf456 @ Dec 5 2005, 06:38 PM) |
| Cole, Cole, Cole... Interesting tactic fam, I've heard of the good ole Baffle them with Bullshit routine, but your the first person I know to successfully employ the Drown them with Data technique. Long story short Iraq was at war with Iran, Saddam suspected some Iraqi's to be siding with the enemy and planning the overthrow of his government. He was at war and did as he saw fit at the time to maintain power and stability in his country. Whatever the number of people who died as a direct result of his "choices" as leader of Iraq it will pale in comparison to the number of people who will die when all out civil war breaks loose after America decides to make a hasty retreat. We(all of us) were better off with Saddam in power. We are going to rue the day he was ejected from office. |
Sometimes I swear you post just to find out which crusaders took the red pill...and which ones were happy with the blue...
Being that some of the women on TC post photos of women that them men be appreciating . . . do you think the men would do this for us? 
Soooo you would take a fake, short term stability in exchange for the aggregious violations of human rights, repression of minorities, summary executions, mass graves and cleansings. Does this sound familiar?
If you'd like to crassly argue numbers - that maybe 10 percent of the mass graves are traitors, or 14,000 of the estimated 400,000 were enemies of the state, I don't have the stomach for it. But saying we would all be better off with Hussein in power is like farting at the dinner table, or congratulating Lebron James for that homerun..I'm saying...fart away but I'm not gonna just breathe this shit.
(looks left, looks right)
Are you seriously suggesting that doing whatever it takes to stay in power including rape squads, imprisonment of children, execution of the elderly and unarmed, torture of political opponents...summary executions is okay so long as we're not bothered? Crimes against humanity. Not over there, in that corner, under that rock. Humanity – everywhere. Are you messing with me? I know you like to be irreverent and all but this is textbook, paint-by-numbers ass out 30 point BOLD and sparkling fascism.
Its easy to say we'd be better off when in fact it makes no immediate material difference to the personal here in the west in the states in queens or someshit. But to the scores of millions of people not in favor with the king and his court...duke this is honestly depressing lol such a cheap and bitter analysis –
How is it that we can celebrate the triumph over tyrannical and pernicous government when they are persecuting...irv gotti(?! Btw I agree with you in principle completely here) but not when a very real and literal tyrant is made to stand trial? This isn't odd?
This drown by data is more properly called a preponderance of evidence Dilla, are you saying that all these famously left civil rights organizations, the red cross, the UN..all got Hussein wrong? That there is something right about holding on to power through bloody terror? Or is it safe?
Trading freedom for security is cowardly according to your sig (forgive me for paraphrasing this I'm working with a THC addled short term memory), doesn't that sort of literally apply here?? Just a little ? That those unfree people made things safe?
If you'd like to crassly argue numbers - that maybe 10 percent of the mass graves are traitors, or 14,000 of the estimated 400,000 were enemies of the state, I don't have the stomach for it. But saying we would all be better off with Hussein in power is like farting at the dinner table, or congratulating Lebron James for that homerun..I'm saying...fart away but I'm not gonna just breathe this shit.
(looks left, looks right)
Are you seriously suggesting that doing whatever it takes to stay in power including rape squads, imprisonment of children, execution of the elderly and unarmed, torture of political opponents...summary executions is okay so long as we're not bothered? Crimes against humanity. Not over there, in that corner, under that rock. Humanity – everywhere. Are you messing with me? I know you like to be irreverent and all but this is textbook, paint-by-numbers ass out 30 point BOLD and sparkling fascism.
Its easy to say we'd be better off when in fact it makes no immediate material difference to the personal here in the west in the states in queens or someshit. But to the scores of millions of people not in favor with the king and his court...duke this is honestly depressing lol such a cheap and bitter analysis –
How is it that we can celebrate the triumph over tyrannical and pernicous government when they are persecuting...irv gotti(?! Btw I agree with you in principle completely here) but not when a very real and literal tyrant is made to stand trial? This isn't odd?
This drown by data is more properly called a preponderance of evidence Dilla, are you saying that all these famously left civil rights organizations, the red cross, the UN..all got Hussein wrong? That there is something right about holding on to power through bloody terror? Or is it safe?
Trading freedom for security is cowardly according to your sig (forgive me for paraphrasing this I'm working with a THC addled short term memory), doesn't that sort of literally apply here?? Just a little ? That those unfree people made things safe?
| QUOTE (mrdilligaf456 @ Dec 5 2005, 06:38 PM) |
| Long story short Iraq was at war with Iran, Saddam suspected some Iraqi's to be siding with the enemy and planning the overthrow of his government. He was at war and did as he saw fit at the time to maintain power and stability in his country. Whatever the number of people who died as a direct result of his "choices" as leader of Iraq . . . |
Personally, I have an issue with Saddam being prosecuted, and the above quote is the reason why. We're not talking about some ordinary person who roamed the streets killing people. We're talking about the leader of a country. The "president." The person charged with doing "what's in the best interest of the country." (Whether you agree that what he did was actually in the best interest of the country is really inapposite to this issue).
And before anyone goes down that road, no I don't condone or agree with what he did. Yes, his actions were horrible to say the least. Yes, he's a "bad, bad man." Nevertheless, his actions were taken in the capacity of "president."
Random Thought:
Why is it so damn cold in here? And why does it feel like the a/c is blowing cool air instead of heat? I can't work like this.
i cant seem 2 get this lionel tate case off my brain...damn! i just wanna talk 2 him...
How come nobody from TC showed up for shades's party???????????
This last Nip/Tuck episode was nothing short of ill.
The chick with the paper bag over her head was
My wife, per normal routine and schedule called me an asshole for laughing.
The chick with the paper bag over her head was
My wife, per normal routine and schedule called me an asshole for laughing.
| QUOTE (RoyaleWithCheese @ Dec 6 2005, 10:23 AM) |
| This last Nip/Tuck episode was nothing short of ill. The chick with the paper bag over her head was My wife, per normal routine and schedule called me an asshole for laughing. |
Nip/Tuck is the shit......the first episode i watched was the one with the fat lady on the couch. I was like
what kindof show is this?The music is illmatic.....
| QUOTE (RoyaleWithCheese @ Dec 6 2005, 10:23 AM) |
| This last Nip/Tuck episode was nothing short of ill. |
Dang. . . . I missed this week’s episode?
Why does the son (white Michael Jackson) keeps finding himself in worst and worst relationships?
| QUOTE (LJB @ Dec 6 2005, 10:33 AM) | ||
Dang. . . . I missed this week’s episode? Why does the son (white Michael Jackson) keeps finding himself in worst and worst relationships? |
...lol wait! is there a black michael?...rofl! damn i needed that laugh...thanks ljb 
| QUOTE (Mathematic @ Dec 6 2005, 10:31 AM) | ||
Nip/Tuck is the shit......the first episode i watched was the one with the fat lady on the couch. I was like what kindof show is this?The music is illmatic..... |
That was a gross episode
| QUOTE (dimendaruff @ Dec 6 2005, 10:35 AM) | ||||
...lol wait! is there a black michael?...rofl! damn i needed that laugh...thanks ljb |
| QUOTE (LJB @ Dec 6 2005, 10:39 AM) | ||||||
|
ok..so back 2 my initial question...there is a black michael?
| QUOTE (dimendaruff @ Dec 6 2005, 10:42 AM) | ||||||||
ok..so back 2 my initial question...there is a black michael? |
Years ago . . . . .
| QUOTE (LJB @ Dec 6 2005, 10:46 AM) | ||||||||||
Years ago . . . . . |
thanks again girl!
Wow Cole, where shall I begin? Let's take it from the top...
| QUOTE |
| Soooo you would take a fake, short term stability in exchange for the aggregious violations of human rights, repression of minorities, summary executions, mass graves and cleansings. Does this sound familiar? |
Yeah Cole it does sound familiar, have you ever heard of American history??? We've had all that stufff and a whole lot more. Repression of minorities? Check. Summary executions? Check. Mass graves and cleansings? Check. Yeah Cole all of this stuff does have a familiar ring to it. Given the "growing pains" of our vaunted republic, I would hope that we'd better understand this "nation building" thing isn't an easy task and every once in a while an atrocity or 2 or 3 is bound to happen. Furthermore your argument doesn't "hold any oil" because we continue to lay in bed with similiar regimes who better serve our purposes.
| QUOTE |
| If you'd like to crassly argue numbers - that maybe 10 percent of the mass graves are traitors, or 14,000 of the estimated 400,000 were enemies of the state, I don't have the stomach for it. But saying we would all be better off with Hussein in power is like farting at the dinner table, or congratulating Lebron James for that homerun..I'm saying...fart away but I'm not gonna just breathe this shit. |
Cole, I can't "crassly argue numbers" with you because math obviously isn't your strong suit. 10% of 400,000 is 40,000 not 14,000. As for the rest of this gibberishy paragraph all I have to say is "the hell you know is better than the heaven you don't know".
| QUOTE |
| Are you seriously suggesting that doing whatever it takes to stay in power including rape squads, imprisonment of children, execution of the elderly and unarmed, torture of political opponents...summary executions is okay so long as we're not bothered? Crimes against humanity. Not over there, in that corner, under that rock. Humanity – everywhere. Are you messing with me? I know you like to be irreverent and all but this is textbook, paint-by-numbers ass out 30 point BOLD and sparkling fascism. Its easy to say we'd be better off when in fact it makes no immediate material difference to the personal here in the west in the states in queens or someshit. But to the scores of millions of people not in favor with the king and his court...duke this is honestly depressing lol such a cheap and bitter analysis – |
You see Cole herein lies our fundemental differences, the so called "crux" of the matter. I'm a dyed in the wool American. I love my country and would die a happy man fighting for our IDEALS. But I also recognize our faults as well and I acknowledge that we are in no position to act like we are on some kind of a higher moral plain than everyone else. You on the other hand my brother, have actually drunk the kool-aid. Your dogmatic belief in our moral superiority has lead you to become that which you despise the most, Mr. Moral Majority- The Facist in sheep's clothing.
| QUOTE |
| How is it that we can celebrate the triumph over tyrannical and pernicous government when they are persecuting...irv gotti(?! Btw I agree with you in principle completely here) but not when a very real and literal tyrant is made to stand trial? This isn't odd? This drown by data is more properly called a preponderance of evidence Dilla, are you saying that all these famously left civil rights organizations, the red cross, the UN..all got Hussein wrong? That there is something right about holding on to power through bloody terror? Or is it safe? Trading freedom for security is cowardly according to your sig (forgive me for paraphrasing this I'm working with a THC addled short term memory), doesn't that sort of literally apply here?? Just a little ? That those unfree people made things safe? |
Cole we're too far along in our societal evolution to not be outraged by the shameful abuse of power known as the Irv Gotti "persecution" err I mean "prosecution". The "drown in data" tactic hence forth to be known as "The Hollywood Cole Shuffle" is not a perponderence of the evidence as you so eloquently stated. It's really just a function of the propaganda machine the Bush administration put in place to help drum up support for the war. The Red Cross and the U.N. were right about Saddam, just like they were right about George Bush and this nonsensical war against Iraq.
Revolution occurs when the people, the masses are so dissatisfied with their conditions they reach a critical mass and become willing to sacrifice it all. The Iraqi people always had the option to "Rage against the Machine" but they never did. It wasn't our job to do it for them.
D
1) my math isn't off - I said 10% or meaning one or the other...that you'd pick on this is telling though, and gives lie to the hollowness of your argument. I may have a mispelling or two wanna run it through a spellcheck lol.
2) an atrocity or two? boggling how cavalier that is.
3) You're engaging in ad hominem attacks - I said nothing about America or our "moral superiority" - not a single, solitary thing. My argument does not distinguish between borders or nations, in fact the exact opposite - its a humanitarian one - these were crimes against humanity; I think thats pretty clear in my post. I know you'd like to turn this into a red state blue state thing and maybe pick up some knee jerk points here but thats not the case. These are purely classically liberal ideals.
finally
4) I'm just looking for an explanation to the assertion that we are better off with Hussein killing people over there then we are with him in jail...you've answered that with a meek - "the hell we know" is that totality of your argument? Sounds just like safety over freedom to me. But if thats it, thats it.
btw you are making characterization's about me that you know aren't true - again signs of a weak argument (I challenge you to show me what I've written here even smells fascist lol...just nutty man this is getting a bit much Dill).
2) an atrocity or two?
boggling how cavalier that is. 3) You're engaging in ad hominem attacks - I said nothing about America or our "moral superiority" - not a single, solitary thing. My argument does not distinguish between borders or nations, in fact the exact opposite - its a humanitarian one - these were crimes against humanity; I think thats pretty clear in my post. I know you'd like to turn this into a red state blue state thing and maybe pick up some knee jerk points here but thats not the case. These are purely classically liberal ideals.
finally
4) I'm just looking for an explanation to the assertion that we are better off with Hussein killing people over there then we are with him in jail...you've answered that with a meek - "the hell we know" is that totality of your argument? Sounds just like safety over freedom to me. But if thats it, thats it.
btw you are making characterization's about me that you know aren't true - again signs of a weak argument (I challenge you to show me what I've written here even smells fascist lol...just nutty man this is getting a bit much Dill).
| QUOTE (Hollywood Cole @ Dec 6 2005, 11:35 AM) |
| 1) my math isn't off - I said 10% or meaning one or the other...that you'd pick on this as your first point is telling though, and gives lie to the hollowness of your argument. I may have a mispelling or two wanna run it through a spellcheck lol. 2) an atrocity or two? boggling how cavalier that is. 3) You're engaging in ad hominem attacks - I said nothing about America or our "moral superiority" - not a single, solitary thing. My argument does not distinguish between borders or nations, in fact the exact opposite - its a humanitarian one - these were crimes against humanity; I think thats pretty clear in my post. I know you'd like to turn this into a red state blue state thing and maybe pick up some knee jerk points here but thats not the case. These are purely classically liberal ideals. finally 4) I'm just looking for an explanation to the assertion that we are better off with Hussein killing people over there then we are with him in jail...you've answered that with a meek - "the hell we know" is that totality of your argument? Sounds just like safety over freedom to me. But if thats it, thats it. btw you are making characterization's about me that you know aren't true - again signs of a weak argument (I challenge you to show me what I've written here even smells fascist lol...just nutty man this is getting a bit much Dill). |
Damn, damn, damn! I expected more Cole. I really, really did. My last post was a WMD. Some rather fine work if I do say so myself. This right here is the epilogue, our little back and forth thing ended the second I hit the "Add Reply" button on my last post.
1) First you say "my math isn't off" then you say "that you'd pick on this as your first point is telling". Cole, that wasn't my first point.
2) Not worthy of comment.
3)Cole, your veiw of humainty is based your morality. Come on dude, you know this. This is Basic 101 stuff here.
4) Saddam provided the region with stability, now that he's been ousted the whole thing is gonna go to hell in a handbasket.
Bonus) Lock your computer. Stand up and walk to the bathroom. Look into the eye's of your reflection. Recite the following 3 times,"I'm a facist, I just don't know it yet." Feel better, the truth has set you free.
D
| QUOTE (mrdilligaf456 @ Dec 6 2005, 12:00 PM) | ||
Damn, damn, damn! I expected more Cole. I really, really did. My last post was a WMD. Some rather fine work if I do say so myself. This right here is the epilogue, our little back and forth thing ended the second I hit the "Add Reply" button on my last post. 1) First you say "my math isn't off" then you say "that you'd pick on this as your first point is telling". Cole, that wasn't my first point. 2) Not worthy of comment. 3)Cole, your veiw of humainty is based your morality. Come on dude, you know this. This is Basic 101 stuff here. 4) Saddam provided the region with stability, now that he's been ousted the whole thing is gonna go to hell in a handbasket. Bonus) Lock your computer. Stand up and walk to the bathroom. Look into the eye's of your reflection. Recite the following 3 times,"I'm a facist, I just don't know it yet." Feel better, the truth has set you free. D |
With all that was said your best effort to proving your case is:
| QUOTE |
| 4) Saddam provided the region with stability, now that he's been ousted the whole thing is gonna go to hell in a handbasket. |
Are you saying that no one else could provide the region with stability? I was hoping for a well backed up argument here...I'm disappointed.
Lets get to the meat of the matter here:
3) My view of humanity - that people should be free wherever they can - is an example of my moral superiority? In what way is that morally superior? What exactly is your view of humanity? Leave me the fuck alone?
4) Stability in exchange for freedom - this we are not arguing about correct? Thats precisely the devils bargain there let's just be clear how've you betrayed that quote in your sig.
try and stick to the argument dill, no one except you cares about how well you're doing or what a great post you made lol. I'll get gold stars and hand them 0out at the next getup for all the bold and poetic put downs you've made...
3) My view of humanity - that people should be free wherever they can - is an example of my moral superiority? In what way is that morally superior? What exactly is your view of humanity? Leave me the fuck alone?
4) Stability in exchange for freedom - this we are not arguing about correct? Thats precisely the devils bargain there let's just be clear how've you betrayed that quote in your sig.
try and stick to the argument dill, no one except you cares about how well you're doing or what a great post you made lol. I'll get gold stars and hand them 0out at the next getup for all the bold and poetic put downs you've made...
I wish the United states was able to help every country with problems but at the same time take care of business at home.
why do our soldiers get pennies compared to Haliburton truck drivers?
since we're in the business of taking out bad leader ship we should help out other countries with similar problems?
would any crusaders allow their children to go to war no matter what the cause is?
why do our soldiers get pennies compared to Haliburton truck drivers?
since we're in the business of taking out bad leader ship we should help out other countries with similar problems?
would any crusaders allow their children to go to war no matter what the cause is?
| QUOTE (MsBrg722 @ Dec 6 2005, 12:05 PM) | ||||||
With all that was said your best effort to proving your case is:
Are you saying that no one else could provide the region with stability? I was hoping for a well backed up argument here...I'm disappointed. |
I felt the best course of action was to sum up my stance in a few words as possible. That point was but one of many points I have made. Cole didn't address the vast majority of my post, and he made a clearly false assertion, yet you feel the need to assail my post. I'm sorry if I dissapointed you
. I guess it's because your standards for me a so much higher than your standards for ColeNow back to the peanut gallery where you belong until you have something constructive to say. You're pretty smart, why don't you give Cole a helping hand. He obviously needs it.
I hate when its 12:30 and the sky DARKENS....
I can't get Private Dancer (the song and video) by Tina Turner out of my head.
| QUOTE |
| would any crusaders allow their children to go to war no matter what the cause is? |
hell to the nawh. I, personally, would NOT die for this COUNTRY nor any country..
so I'm damn sure not letting my future kids go to war...even if they wanted to...i'd try my best with my last breath in my body to stop them from going.
| QUOTE (tarheelnny @ Dec 6 2005, 12:39 PM) | ||
hell to the nawh. I, personally, would NOT die for this COUNTRY nor any country.. so I'm damn sure not letting my future kids go to war...even if they wanted to...i'd try my best with my last breath in my body to stop them from going. |
i think that would be the first and only time i would beat my son's ass...there's no way i would let him join the armed forces..
| QUOTE (SeeLaH @ Dec 6 2005, 12:35 PM) |
| I can't get Private Dancer (the song and video) by Tina Turner out of my head. |
Epiphany for Career Change perhaps???
| QUOTE (Hollywood Cole @ Dec 6 2005, 12:06 PM) |
| Lets get to the meat of the matter here: 3) My view of humanity - that people should be free wherever they can - is an example of my moral superiority? In what way is that morally superior? What exactly is your view of humanity? Leave me the fuck alone? 4) Stability in exchange for freedom - this we are not arguing about correct? Thats precisely the devils bargain there let's just be clear how've you betrayed that quote in your sig. try and stick to the argument dill, no one except you cares about how well you're doing or what a great post you made lol. I'll get gold stars and hand them 0out at the next getup for all the bold and poetic put downs you've made... |
LOL
Cole I see I've whittled you down to 2 points. Sadder yet is your inability to address any of the points I've made thus far.
3) While we don't disagree in our view of humanity (I also believe people should be free). Where we do part company however is in our definition of "free", and furthermore who should pay for that freedom(cause freedom aint free, that ish costs a whole lot). Free for me isn't going over into Iraq under guise of a pack of lies, and imposing our way of life on another group of people. That's not freedom for me. Freedom for me aint sending our troops undermanned and underprotected into the field of battle then "prematurely" declaring an end to the hostilies. You cavalierly believe that our form of "democracy" can work everywhere. You cavalierly believe that in order to be "free" you should live as we live and think as we think. That don't sound like "free" to me.
4) Cole, I'm not gonna allow you change the game in the ninth inning fam. No can do. THIS WAR WAS NOT SOLD TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS A WAR FOR IRAQI "FREE"DOM. IT WAS SOLD AS A WAR TO HELP BETTER PROVIDE SECURITY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ALL OUR CITIZENS. It will provide neither. No security for us, and no freedom for Iraqi's. And to answer your implied question, no I wouldn't have supported(i've never supported this war) this war even if it was presented as a freedom mission for Iraq. If the Iraqi's had revolted and request some support that would have been a different situation entirely.
Where are you gonna do the "Hollywood Cole Shuffle" to next?
D
| QUOTE (RoyaleWithCheese @ Dec 6 2005, 12:51 PM) | ||
Epiphany for Career Change perhaps??? |
go in the other thread about real estate and answer my damn question. Then I'll be a happy person again. I'll worry about my possible enlightenment in career changes.
| QUOTE (mrdilligaf456 @ Dec 6 2005, 12:24 PM) |
| I felt the best course of action was to sum up my stance in a few words as possible. That point was but one of many points I have made. Cole didn't address the vast majority of my post, and he made a clearly false assertion, yet you feel the need to assail my post. I'm sorry if I dissapointed you . I guess it's because your standards for me a so much higher than your standards for Cole Now back to the peanut gallery where you belong until you have something constructive to say. You're pretty smart, why don't you give Cole a helping hand. He obviously needs it. |
at the delusions of grandeur.I have yet to join the argument because I haven't really been able to wade through the overuse of intellectual jargon to find the point, which is why I am asking for clarification.
Are you saying that neither America nor any other world leader has any ethical obligation to wage war in the name of human rights interests?
I am not a proponent of this war, but I will say...actually, I won't say until I fully understand your POV.
thank you for answering my question...now that I'm Happy SeeLaH again, I can safely say that if I were to ever decide, for whatever reason, to be a "private dancer", I would be the best one on the planet!! With that said, my lack of confidence in the looks of my body would forever kill that dream.
It's not to say that I have a horrible looking body but it's not definitely not good enough for the standards that I would put on dancers, in general.
....and any old music won't do!
| QUOTE |
| I have yet to join the argument because I haven't really been able to wade through the overuse of intellectual jargon to find the point, which is why I am asking for clarification. |
I'm sitting back trying to soak both arguments up ALL while listening to the live testimony I'm getting in from the feed from Baghdad.
Why is Saddam refusing to come to court tomorrow. He is saying HE's being disrespected and he wants out...
| QUOTE (MsBrg722 @ Dec 6 2005, 12:58 PM) | ||
at the delusions of grandeur.I have yet to join the argument because I haven't really been able to wade through the overuse of intellectual jargon to find the point, which is why I am asking for clarification. Are saying that neither America nor any other world leader has any ethical obligation to wage war in the name of human rights interests? I am not a proponent of this war, but I will say...actually, I won't say I fully understand your POV. |
BRG,
Damn, not you too
This war was about WMD's. This war was about terrorism. This war was about sexy things like Nuke's, and chemical weapons, and biological weapons and the like. This war was about oil.
This war was never about human rights interests. Don't you think we should clean up our own back yard before we worry about someone else's.
Sad.
| QUOTE (mrdilligaf456 @ Dec 6 2005, 01:07 PM) | ||||
BRG, Damn, not you too This war was about WMD's. This war was about terrorism. This war was about sexy things like Nuke's, and chemical weapons, and biological weapons and the like. This war was about oil. This war was never about human rights interests. Don't you think we should clean up our own back yard before we worry about someone else's. Sad. |
at the dramatics my friend.My question was a general question as to your overall point of view on the subject of global political ethics, not specifically this war. This war IS about oil (which quite frankly would have been a lot easier to swallow had they been honest with the American public)...and the vengence of a little boy who thinks Saddam tried to kill his daddy.
However you my friend are doing your own shuffle in not answering my question
Are you saying that neither America nor any other world leader has any ethical obligation to wage war in the name of human rights interests?
Perfection does not exist so to require that the USA have NO social issues to deal with within its own society before it is allowed to lends a hand to other countries with dire human rights issues and no financial means to attack those issues is cressie.
| QUOTE (MsBrg722 @ Dec 6 2005, 01:34 PM) | ||||||
at the dramatics my friend.My question was a general question as to your overall point of view on the subject of global political ethics, not specifically this war. This war IS about oil (which quite frankly would have been a lot easier to swallow had they been honest with the American public)...and the vengence of a little boy who thinks Saddam tried to kill his daddy. However you my friend are doing your own shuffle in not answering my question? Are you saying that neither America nor any other world leader has any ethical obligation to wage war in the name of human rights interests? Perfection does not exist so to require that the USA have NO social issues to deal with within its own society before it is allowed to lends a hand to other countries with dire human rights issues and no financial means to attack those issues is cressie. |
Simple answer BRG.
No one country should have the right to unilaterally decide to attack another country in the so-called interest of human rights. I believe this job is better suited for organizations like the U.N. , where a group of countries can decide to act together to end oppression.
I acknowledge at the door that this is an imperfect solution, but we must all acknowledge that this is also an imperfect world we live in.
What's your stance on the topic?
| QUOTE (mrdilligaf456 @ Dec 6 2005, 12:53 PM) | ||
LOL Cole I see I've whittled you down to 2 points. Sadder yet is your inability to address any of the points I've made thus far. 3) While we don't disagree in our view of humanity (I also believe people should be free). Where we do part company however is in our definition of "free", and furthermore who should pay for that freedom(cause freedom aint free, that ish costs a whole lot). Free for me isn't going over into Iraq under guise of a pack of lies, and imposing our way of life on another group of people. That's not freedom for me. Freedom for me aint sending our troops undermanned and underprotected into the field of battle then "prematurely" declaring an end to the hostilies. You cavalierly believe that our form of "democracy" can work everywhere. You cavalierly believe that in order to be "free" you should live as we live and think as we think. That don't sound like "free" to me. 4) Cole, I'm not gonna allow you change the game in the ninth inning fam. No can do. THIS WAR WAS NOT SOLD TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS A WAR FOR IRAQI "FREE"DOM. IT WAS SOLD AS A WAR TO HELP BETTER PROVIDE SECURITY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ALL OUR CITIZENS. It will provide neither. No security for us, and no freedom for Iraqi's. And to answer your implied question, no I wouldn't have supported(i've never supported this war) this war even if it was presented as a freedom mission for Iraq. If the Iraqi's had revolted and request some support that would have been a different situation entirely. Where are you gonna do the "Hollywood Cole Shuffle" to next? D |
You haven't whittled anything down I'm just cutting the fat - if there's a point I'm neglecting feel free to point it out.
3) So I'm no longer morally superior - was that a real point or just something to throw the dogs off the scent? To drill down to what you think is an incorrect definition of freedom - What way of life have we imposed on Iraq, Dill? The chance to have a say in the future of the country? How is this an American ideal and not a human one? Are you saying there is something...endemic to the region - or specifically Arabs that is incompatible with voting? What specific form of democracy is there being imposed in Iraq that is incompatible with the Middle East?
4) I don't imply questions Dill - I just ask you straight out. I know you wouldn't have supported any war in any form. I'm simply asking you why you think Hussein in power is better for everyone then Hussein in jail. You're answer I think is that the devil we know...etc. Its weak and pitiful and cowardly, but it is yours and most likely yours alone lol.
LOL @ requesting support under a tryant - would an email have sufficed? Interoffice memo or wire transmission? SEND HELP STOP. BEING TURNED INTO HAMBURGER STOP. Under tyranny there is no such thing as an opposition group, its difficult to get word out when you're being raked across broken glass.
| QUOTE (Hollywood Cole @ Dec 6 2005, 01:56 PM) | ||||
You haven't whittled anything down I'm just cutting the fat - if there's a point I'm neglecting feel free to point it out. 3) So I'm no longer morally superior - was that a real point or just something to throw the dogs off the scent? To drill down to what you think is an incorrect definition of freedom - What way of life have we imposed on Iraq, Dill? The chance to have a say in the future of the country? How is this an American ideal and not a human one? Are you saying there is something...endemic to the region - or specifically Arabs that is incompatible with voting? What specific form of democracy is there being imposed in Iraq that is incompatible with the Middle East? 4) I don't imply questions Dill - I just ask you straight out. I know you wouldn't have supported any war in any form. I'm simply asking you why you think Hussein in power is better for everyone then Hussein in jail. You're answer I think is that the devil we know...etc. Its weak and pitiful and cowardly, but it is yours and most likely yours alone lol. LOL @ requesting support under a tryant - would an email have sufficed? Interoffice memo or wire transmission? SEND HELP STOP. BEING TURNED INTO HAMBURGER STOP. Under tyranny there is no such thing as an opposition group, its difficult to get word out when you're being raked across broken glass. |
Last response for a little while.
3. We have imposed DEMOCRACY Cole, D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y, ya dig? That 1 person, 1 vote concept works well in homonogenized societies, but tends to be problematic in fractured countries where you have large divions of different ethnicities, religions, tribes and the like. The very fact that you liken the "American ideal" to a "human ideal" is why I feel you're a facist. We have no right to tell those people how to live. Furthermore the vast majority of OUR DEMOCRACY would have never supported a war in Iraq if it's basis was to bring so-called human rights to Iraq. How can you ignore such a basic point? Americans, the republic, the average Joe, the Al Bundy's, the Homer Simpson's, would have never wanted this war had the stated goal been to bring "freedom" to the Iraqi people. Never. The will of the people in our democracy has been violated.
4. Weak and cowardly? Try North Korea. Try China. Try Pakistan. Try Saudi Arabia. Try Isreal's treatment of the Palestianians. I have something STRONG and BRAVE for you.
You have yet to make one solitary point, one single coherent argument. Simply put Cole you're pointless.
To be honest, I am not sure if I am proud of my feelings on the subject. But here they go:
America is a superpower…when it comes to the tone of world politics most if not all countries around the world at the very least are influenced by our stance on the issues. As a superpower we are expected to be generous in foreign aid and we are looked to for leadership in the area of human rights. I think we have an ethical obligation to fight for oppressed populations whom have neither the voice nor the means to defend themselves. I do not think our status as a world power automatically circumvents the proper channels that need to be taken in rectifying global human rights issues…ie proper diplomatic relations/negotiations. However, I also feel that since we don’t need permission from foreign nationals to dispense funds internationally, we also do not need permission to (as a last resort) wage war to rectify human rights issues either.
That said…the US government does however have a responsibility to wage a war in the interest of its citizens. That right there is the key…
America is a superpower…when it comes to the tone of world politics most if not all countries around the world at the very least are influenced by our stance on the issues. As a superpower we are expected to be generous in foreign aid and we are looked to for leadership in the area of human rights. I think we have an ethical obligation to fight for oppressed populations whom have neither the voice nor the means to defend themselves. I do not think our status as a world power automatically circumvents the proper channels that need to be taken in rectifying global human rights issues…ie proper diplomatic relations/negotiations. However, I also feel that since we don’t need permission from foreign nationals to dispense funds internationally, we also do not need permission to (as a last resort) wage war to rectify human rights issues either.
That said…the US government does however have a responsibility to wage a war in the interest of its citizens. That right there is the key…
Wow, this discussion really blew up. Reminds me of the good old days. And I've been too busy to really jump in. But, Dill pretty much carried the spirit of my sentiment on the issue.
| QUOTE (MsBrg722 @ Dec 6 2005, 02:31 PM) |
| To be honest, I am not sure if I am proud of my feelings on the subject. But here they go: America is a superpower…when it comes to the tone of world politics most if not all countries around the world at the very least are influenced by our stance on the issues. As a superpower we are expected to be generous in foreign aid and we are looked to for leadership in the area of human rights. I think we have an ethical obligation to fight for oppressed populations whom have neither the voice nor the means to defend themselves. I do not think our status as a world power automatically circumvents the proper channels that need to be taken in rectifying global human rights issues…ie proper diplomatic relations/negotiations. However, I also feel that since we don’t need permission from foreign nationals to dispense funds internationally, we also do not need permission to (as a last resort) wage war to rectify human rights issues either. That said…the US government does however have a responsibility to wage a war in the interest of its citizens. That right there is the key… |
Just two and a half questions, and possibly some follow up:
Who do you believe should set the standard for "human rights?" and Why?
Don't the two obligations you listed conflict?
Looking forward to your response.
| QUOTE (kounslor @ Dec 6 2005, 02:40 PM) | ||
Just two and a half questions, and possibly some follow up: Who do you believe should set the standard for "human rights?" and Why? Don't the two obligations you listed conflict? Looking forward to your response. |
Hi Kouns:
The second question being the easier of the two, I will start there. American’s foreign policy should always be looked at in terms of what the American citizens want. We live in a time where there is a Quinnipiac poll for almost everything; it is not difficult to figure out where the American “majority” lay on a specific issue. (Unfortunately, this is a “best case” scenario, in which every American citizen understood the value of his or her political responsibility and made sure it wasn’t wasted. Since this is not the case, polling typically speaks to a very biased “majority”. But you won’t see me knocking their hustle…because these are the people taking the initiative to be heard, but alas I digress.) Like it or not after 9/11 there was an emotional outcry made by the people of the US granting permission for our government to take action against our “enemies. While yes the facts may have been misrepresented, each of us has a responsibility to find the truth…not accept the truth because it is handed to us on silver platter. That did not happen in this case. However issues such as Apartheid…The International Aids Crisis…and finding peaceful solutions to the Middle East Conflict are all issues I believe we needed to lend our resources to.
(I do understand why you feel the two issues may be conflicting, I just feel that in the issue of democracy a case must be proven to the American people, not just to government officials)
As for what qualifies as human rights issues…this is a little more difficult and please take into consideration that I am ever evolving in my thinking on this topic. By my estimation, a blatant human rights violation occurs when populations of people are not allowed to leave oppressed situations. I don’t think that the western world views outrank other countries; however, if a woman living in the Middle East is unhappy with the oppression she faces she must be given the means and opportunity to leave such a situation. If a government is making such an exit next to impossible or extremely dangerous for its people – this is blatantly a human rights issue. Additionally mass health crisis in which governments are effectively facilitating mass homicide of its people by withholding information or purposely distributing false information is also a blatant human rights issues. Others do exist…these two were just the first to come to mind.
As for other human rights issues that are less obvious it is up to advocacy groups to make American citizens aware and help get their movement noticed and heard. Once they can prove that majority support exists, the government must take it into consideration.
I’m for heavy political involvement from the people. A lot of people are not.
I hope I was clear enough...
eloquent and well put Berg. I'll drop a few thoughts in a bit...
| QUOTE (MsBrg722 @ Dec 6 2005, 03:20 PM) | ||||
Hi Kouns: The second question being the easier of the two, I will start there. American’s foreign policy should always be looked at in terms of what the American citizens want. We live in a time where there is a Quinnipiac poll for almost everything; it is not difficult to figure out where the American “majority” lay on a specific issue. (Unfortunately, this is a “best case” scenario, in which every American citizen understood the value of his or her political responsibility and made sure it wasn’t wasted. Since this is not the case, polling typically speaks to a very biased “majority”. But you won’t see me knocking their hustle…because these are the people taking the initiative to be heard, but alas I digress.) Like it or not after 9/11 there was an emotional outcry made by the people of the US granting permission for our government to take action against our “enemies. While yes the facts may have been misrepresented, each of us has a responsibility to find the truth…not accept the truth because it is handed to us on silver platter. That did not happen in this case. However issues such as Apartheid…The International Aids Crisis…and finding peaceful solutions to the Middle East Conflict are all issues I believe we needed to lend our resources to. (I do understand why you feel the two issues may be conflicting, I just feel that in the issue of democracy a case must be proven to the American people, not just to government officials) As for what qualifies as human rights issues…this is a little more difficult and please take into consideration that I am ever evolving in my thinking on this topic. By my estimation, a blatant human rights violation occurs when populations of people are not allowed to leave oppressed situations. I don’t think that the western world views outrank other countries; however, if a woman living in the Middle East is unhappy with the oppression she faces she must be given the means and opportunity to leave such a situation. If a government is making such an exit next to impossible or extremely dangerous for its people – this is blatantly a human rights issue. Additionally mass health crisis in which governments are effectively facilitating mass homicide of its people by withholding information or purposely distributing false information is also a blatant human rights issues. Others do exist…these two were just the first to come to mind. As for other human rights issues that are less obvious it is up to advocacy groups to make American citizens aware and help get their movement noticed and heard. Once they can prove that majority support exists, the government must take it into consideration. I’m for heavy political involvement from the people. A lot of people are not. I hope I was clear enough... |
BRG,
I'll give you this much credit, atleast you tried. I must be honest with you though, this is your worst post ever. You tried to defend the undefendable and you came out with nonsensical drivel. Please don't ask me to break down the myriad reasons why I feel the way I do. Just re-read your post and hopefully things will begin to become self-evident..
| QUOTE (MsBrg722 @ Dec 6 2005, 03:20 PM) | ||||
Hi Kouns: The second question being the easier of the two, I will start there. American’s foreign policy should always be looked at in terms of what the American citizens want. We live in a time where there is a Quinnipiac poll for almost everything; it is not difficult to figure out where the American “majority” lay on a specific issue. (Unfortunately, this is a “best case” scenario, in which every American citizen understood the value of his or her political responsibility and made sure it wasn’t wasted. Since this is not the case, polling typically speaks to a very biased “majority”. But you won’t see me knocking their hustle…because these are the people taking the initiative to be heard, but alas I digress.) Like it or not after 9/11 there was an emotional outcry made by the people of the US granting permission for our government to take action against our “enemies. While yes the facts may have been misrepresented, each of us has a responsibility to find the truth…not accept the truth because it is handed to us on silver platter. That did not happen in this case. However issues such as Apartheid…The International Aids Crisis…and finding peaceful solutions to the Middle East Conflict are all issues I believe we needed to lend our resources to. (I do understand why you feel the two issues may be conflicting, I just feel that in the issue of democracy a case must be proven to the American people, not just to government officials) As for what qualifies as human rights issues…this is a little more difficult and please take into consideration that I am ever evolving in my thinking on this topic. By my estimation, a blatant human rights violation occurs when populations of people are not allowed to leave oppressed situations. I don’t think that the western world views outrank other countries; however, if a woman living in the Middle East is unhappy with the oppression she faces she must be given the means and opportunity to leave such a situation. If a government is making such an exit next to impossible or extremely dangerous for its people – this is blatantly a human rights issue. Additionally mass health crisis in which governments are effectively facilitating mass homicide of its people by withholding information or purposely distributing false information is also a blatant human rights issues. Others do exist…these two were just the first to come to mind. As for other human rights issues that are less obvious it is up to advocacy groups to make American citizens aware and help get their movement noticed and heard. Once they can prove that majority support exists, the government must take it into consideration. I’m for heavy political involvement from the people. A lot of people are not. I hope I was clear enough... |
Thanks for responding Ms.B.
You didn't mention other countries. Is it your opinon then that as long as a majority of American citizens agree, then the U.S. can take action, sans the rest of the world, in the interest of "human rights?"
I can't believe this shit!!! I ain't hit King Kong's millions.
Dill: Feel free to attack my post, I view the exchange of ideas as less of a competition and more as a learning experience; your attack will benefit me. I never expected for us to see eye to eye on this topic being that we differ at the very core of the argument (in that I think the powerful have a responsibility to use their power to help the down trodden). As for you disappointment in the post itself... what can I say?
what can I say?| QUOTE |
| You didn't mention other countries. Is it your opinon then that as long as a majority of American citizens agree, then the U.S. can take action, sans the rest of the world, in the interest of "human rights?" |
Kouns: This is a great, very difficult question. I see the paradox in that a global "human rights" issue without a global support for action seems like an oxymoron, but it isn't. In very rare cases such instances occur...and during those rare times I still feel that the US governments first obligation is to act in the interest of its citizens; and I still feel that we need not attain global permission to action.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.