The usual suspects were on the bandwagon all along

From an Icelandic A2K member
Hi

A few things about Iceland:

Literacy rate: it is actually not 100%, but 99.9%. Some people just don't learn.
The key, I think is the preschool system, very good, and used by almost every child.
There is a difference, I believe, between preschool and "daycare", the American way. It means a lot of exposure to books and to the cultural traditions of the country.
I also think the love of language, a very Icelandic trait, has to do with the high literacy rate.

There IS police.
The Ríkislögreglustjóri (National Commisioner of the Icelandic Police) heads it, under the Ministry of Justice.
They also go after you if you don't pay your taxes!
They care more about taxes than drugs.

Drugs are not legal, but -as Fishin' said- there is no big fuzz about it.
A policeman cannot buy drugs from you, and then arrest you.
There's very little marijuana, but lots of hash . It is expensive. Much more than in the US.
On theory, you can grow your own mj. The climate does not allow it.

Drinks. We are supreme coffee and Coca-cola drinkers.
We are also supreme liquor drinkers, or so goes the fame.
I think this is because there were tough anti-liquor laws decades ago. In fact, March 1st is "Beer Day", to celebrate the demise of the anti-beer law.

Women drink as hard as men, or maybe harder. Probably that's the reason of their supposed availability (not for everyone). If they're stoned, they are even more available (my AnnieHall like experience).
But, since women are so powerful here, I'd put it the other way: they think men are available.

Sex and marriage. Age of consent for sex is 14. Age of marriage without parental permission: 18. No antisodomy laws. Harsh laws against forced sex or "circumvented" sex (tricking people unto sex).
The majority of Icelanders are born out of wedlock (in the words of the American Right we are a nation of bastards), but there are strong social safety nets, and no prejudice about it (hell, they are the majority!). The divorce rate is high, but not as much as in the US.

Happiness. My take is that one thing is not being overstressed, and a different one is to be happy. Very few overstressed people in Iceland.
Happiness is also related to sunshine. People are happier in the summer than on Christmas.
Happiness is also related to being content with what you have. With the life you have lead. I think that has to do more with the philosophy of living (a cultural thing) than with the state of society.

I think I've written too much.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

A little more reading Fedral...Iceland does have a police force...they're main purpose is to catch tax cheats...because you see there is practically no crime there.......they have a prison as well....

The UN funds the military base is my understanding even though it is staffed by Americans..... no doubt to give the USA some sort of strategic advantage...don't get all choked up about the altruistic aspects of it......

and anyway, these stats are a negative for the country in what way?

I never said they didn't have a police force ... only that they didn't have a MILITARY.

And the money for the IDF does NOT come from the U.N, it comes from NATO with the lions share being paid for by ... you guessed it ... the American taxpayers.

But this is getting off the main topic (something the liberals are famous for with their 'look over here because I don't want you to see whats over there' mentality)

The purpose of the original posts stands ... Yes , President Bush went into Iraq under the mistaken idea that there were WMD's (and there still may be, we just haven't found them yet) but what has to be remembered is that, HE WASN'T THE ONLY PERSON TO BELIEVE THAT!

0 Replies

So we can maintain the predominate military presence in the area....we gain...that's the reason.....again, quit making it out as some altruistic thing....

0 Replies

Funny how you all hit on Bi-Polar and conveniently ignore ebrown-p's posts where he summarizes the basic point:

Quote:

There was a strong feeling among many who opposed the war that a strict regime of inspections was sufficient and preferrable to a war. And, it is clear now that inspections *were* sufficient to stop Iraq from having WMD's [..]

The very premise this inane thread is based on is flawed. The people who opposed the war never said that Iraq didn't have WMD's. The argument was that Iraq should be dealt with by the international comunity and that inspections were sufficient... and that argument appears to have been correct.

We know that Iraq had WMD back in the days. We know it because the US trumpeted the fact that 80% of them (figure quoted by heart) were dismantled thanks to the weapons inspections - back when the US were still touting these inspections as a good thing.

Basically, by 2003 the question had become: does Iraq still have any WMD, and if so, to any extent that Iraq poses an immediate threat to world peace? Can a regime of renewed weapon inspections combined with military threat tackle it sufficiently, or is war necessary?

GWB said: yes, we know Saddam still has WMD - we have the intel; Saddam poses an immediate threat to not just world peace, but the US itself, and after 9/11 we cant accept that anymore; therefore, we can not afford to take the time that weapon inspections would cost, we have to act now.

That, as we now know, was all wrong.

War opponents said: we dont know how much of his once-impressive WMD arsenal Saddam still has; we have no evidence that whatever is still there poses the kind of acute threat to the US that would warrant venturing into an immediate, unilateral all-out war at the cost of alienating half of our allies; instead weapon inspections should be give further time, as they seem to have done quite the job back then.

I'd say the opponents turned out to be right.

What you can hold against them - us - is that we made a costs/benefits assessment in "realpolitik" tradition, and that without evidence of any acute WMD that couldnt have been solved by inspections (without evidence of the spectre of a new 9/11 that GWB was evoking), the benefits of war (get Saddam out) didnt weigh up against the costs (war dead, ruptured UN and diplomacy, alienated allies, distraction from Osama, angry "Arab street" etc). That costs/benefits analysis left the Iraqi people at the losing end - war opponents considered the costs of liberating them from Saddam too high, especially considering the uncertainty of post-Saddam prospects of their liberation.

That can be called cynical, though conservatives make these kind of arguments all the time. But on WMD you dont really have much of an argument against the war opponents here, because you're setting up a straw man.

0 Replies

Nimh, i'm surprised--surely you know it's bad form to tell the emperor that he has no clothes . . .

0 Replies

It doesn't matter what Clinton or any other polititian said about WMDs in Iraq. Much of the rhetoric was for consumption back home anyway. Final analysis, anybody could tell that we had already kicked the **** out of Iraq and that Bush was going to war, WMDs or not. Bush lied about it got us into a war that has cost many lives. The blood is on his head and not Clinton's.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote that Isarael is a friendly stable power.......yee hah!!!! You mean friendly to us and we have interests there don't you?

Stable....sinc ewhen...since Herod killed every new born right after Christ was born? since Moses wandered the desert? Are you shitting me?

I'm no anti semite, and if it came to push and shove I'd probably side with Israel but friendly and stable? Get real. Israel and Palestine two more groups of maniacs performing wholesale murder in the name of different Gods.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

You seemed to be saying that the opposition to the war is based on political "nit-picking". Pure Hogwash!

But to discount opposition to the war as democratic "nit-picking" shows a very narrow view indeed.

This partisan sniping is childish.

How do I always get caught up in these things with the finger pointed at me? I didn't say that opposition to war is nit-picking. I was making that statement in reference only to what someone said in this thread. There are good reasons to oppose war. But, opposing this one because we haven't found any WMDs is a form of nit-picking. What about all the other reasons we went to war. No one wants to focus on any of those. We had many objectives and we have accomplished all of them but one, finding WMDs. Saddam is out, good. We made it short and sweet and we didn't lose too many people, good. We are starting the rebuilding phase, eh OK good. Those considerations aren't very important to people. Worrying about the WMDs is. That's nit-picking. I'm sorry if that seems childish or narrow minded. I can assure you I am neither.

But, it gets turned on me as if I'm childish and I'm only calling people on it. Why would my words be childish when they point out someone else's actions? The act of nit-picking is childish, not the one who points it out.

0 Replies

Michael, sorry if I offended you. I still think you got it wrong.

Read the original post.

As Fedral points out the main opposition to the war opposed the war In spite of the fact they believed that there had been and perhaps were WMDs in Iraq. The politicians you derided on this thread did not, as you say, "oppose the war because we haven't found any weapons".

Quite the contrary. They were expressing the view held by many Americans that this war was not worth it -- period.

I jumped on you and Fedral because you made a very partisan attack on "Democrats" for voicing opposition to the war.

No one mentioned in this post isopposing the war *because* we did not find and WMD's. You and Fedral seem to be the only two people here with this politically induced fantasy.

Many of us were surprised that WMD's were not found and would of opposed the unilateral pre-emptive war even if they were found.

nimh says it most eloquently. Go read nimh's post. Then compare it with your first two posts.

If you want to discuss the merits of the arguments for an against the war I am all for it. But be aware that few among those of us who opposed the war were sure we wouldn't find any.

The tone of your posts on this thread so far add nothing to that discussion. You are just sniping at a broad group of people who disagree with you. You aren't even making your case. You are just questioning their motives.

<<Sigh>>

0 Replies

I don't happen to agree with Michael on this topic, nevertheless: You say that you are sorry if you have offended him, then you end your post with a melodramatic sigh. Rather hypocritical in my view, and seems to suggest that you find yourself talking down to him.

I consider that totally inappropriate.

0 Replies

MichaelAllen wrote:

There are good reasons to oppose war. But, opposing this one because we haven't found any WMDs is a form of nit-picking. What about all the other reasons we went to war.

Really, this is laughable. Here is what Bush said in his March 19 address to the nation regarding the reason for war: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities" (emphasis added).

Notice: our purpose wasn't to liberate Iraq or topple Saddam Hussein or bring democracy to the region or "draw terrorists to the region" (a truly ridiculous and despicable canard): it was to stop a regime that possessed weapons of mass destruction from using those weapons against U.S. citizens in the United States. That was the reason, and it was a lie.

MichaelAllen wrote:

No one wants to focus on any of those. We had many objectives and we have accomplished all of them but one, finding WMDs.

You're wrong. There was only one permissible goal: the goal that was used as the pretext for waging the war in the first place. That goal was the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The Bush regime's inability to find those weapons is not a single, regrettable failure in an otherwise successful campaign. It is not "nit-picking" to point out that no weapons have been found, or will likely be found in the future. Rather, the failure to find WMDs suggests that the US decision to go to war was based on a calculated, vicious, damnable lie perpetrated on the American people.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Great post Fedral. Why is it so hard to understand that even if we don't find WMDs, the intent was there and we certainly had ample "probable cause".

Horseshit. why aren't we invading North Korea?

Damn good question! Let's blast those yellow reds to hell! (Please don't attack me for that last statement It's a joke.) Seriously though; I believe someone already answered that it is possible that after observing Afghanistan and Iraq's demise, Kim Jong IL may come to his senses. If not, action is justifiable in my opinion both for the threat of WMDs in the hands of an oppressive monster and for the liberation of the North Korean people. Either reason alone, is sufficient justification in my book.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Why aren't we invading Israel?

There are dozens of countries whose people are deserving of some help. I do wish the civilized nations of the world would unite so we could get around to all of them. In the year 2004 it is ridiculous that there should still be starving masses, cultures where women are treated worse than dogs and regimes who perpetrate mass murder. (I realize many of you are incapable of understanding the difference between "collateral damage" and "mass murder", but can we please save that for another thread.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

What are we going to do about the nation with the most WMD's on the planet who have said they will use them if necessary and already did?

True, Russia has the most numerous, but if you add the word "capable" before WMDs, I'm sure you are referring to the United States. I will continue to hope we will use that enormous power edge for the good of mankind. Much as a capable man should not allow a rape to take place in his presence, our supreme military might comes with the responsibility to protect our weaker brothers and sisters. In many of our states, not doing everything in your power to prevent a violent crime; constitutes complicity in that crime and rightly so. I despise any capable man who would turn a blind eye to a violent crime he could prevent. Many of these states also have "Good Samaritan" laws that absolve said man of the responsibility of to follow all laws to accomplish his intervention. For instance; hitting someone with a baseball bat is illegal. However; hitting a would-be rapist with a baseball bat to prevent his ongoing crime can be considered justifiable and the "batter" can thus be protected from prosecution under "Good Samaritan" laws.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Why can't you people guess that Iraq was a payOFF for his campaign contributors in the oil industry and the nation building industry and a payBACK for his "tarnished" family legacy?

Those are certainly reasonable suspicions, but they can not be proven to be the only reasons for our actions. The president has the authority to attack anyone he wishes for a period of 48 hours, without any approval whatsoever, if he deems our national security is at stake. That is not the case here. He had full congressional approval prior to this attack. Hillary Clinton, who resided in the White House for 8 years, has stated that she stands by her vote to go to war and further that Bush's exaggerations (or lies if you prefer) had no bearing on her decision. She stated that she knows the WMDs do exist, and the fact that we haven't found them terrifies her because she wonders how and when they will turn up. She also pointed out that Presidents do not always have the luxury of sharing everything they know, when national security is at stake. Considering none of us here at A2K have ultra-high security clearance, we will likely never know everything Bush did when making his decision to go to war. We are all just speculating.
As the author of this thread points out, Bush was not alone in believing Iraq was a real threat.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

But, you won't, and you'll doggedly stick to your "You don't approve of GWB's war so you love Saddam and you support terrorism" theme while Toby Keith and Lee Greenwood wave flags and supply your soundtrack.
Bon Appetit, enjoy while you can.

This is the kind of partisan rhetoric that I find deplorable and useless. It is ridiculous to assume all Anti-War people love Saddam or support terrorism. It is equally ridiculous to assume all War supporters Love Bush. I support the War effort in Iraq completely, for reasons of my own. I am also troubled by what I perceive as Bush's failure to defend the constitution, his policy's degradations of environmental protections and quite a few other issues. Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans all need to realize that there are more than 2 sides to every issue. In my opinion; blind partisan loyalty, in discussion at least, is indicative of ignorance. Come Election Day; there may well be justification for party loyalty but I don't see a need for it in this discussion.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

As Fedral points out the main opposition to the war opposed the war In spite of the fact they believed that there had been and perhaps were WMDs in Iraq. The politicians you derided on this thread did not, as you say, "oppose the war because we haven't found any weapons".

I jumped on you and Fedral because you made a very partisan attack on "Democrats" for voicing opposition to the war.

No one mentioned in this post isopposing the war *because* we did not find and WMD's. You and Fedral seem to be the only two people here with this politically induced fantasy.

nimh says it most eloquently. Go read nimh's post. Then compare it with your first two posts.

You didn't offend me. I don't get offended.

Quote:

"President Bush misled us into war against Saddam on the basis of insufficient information about his possession of, or his efforts to acquire, weapons of mass destruction."

From the original post.

Once again ebrown_p, you have shifted this argument so that you could debate it on your own merits. It seems to me that the thread was started from an observation that plenty of people agreed that WMDs were a threat to us, but Bush misled us on the basis of insufficient information. This is the argument I've been discussing. Any other comments I've made have been to retaliate some claim or another. I can't just let an issue go without some address.

Take joefromchicago for example. He takes the words of Bush and focusses on Weapons of Mass Murder. Forget the fact that the sentence also mentions not living at the mercy of an outlaw regime and a threat to our peace. Meeting that threat now rather than meeting it later with doctors, police and firefighters can also be viewed any way you wish. But, as we all know, it doesn't take just WMDs to flatten a tower. Planes solved that problem. And when Joe says it was a lie that Saddam had WMDs, aren't we now arguing two conflicting things. That they obviously did have WMDs and we wanted more time for inspections because that seemed to work or that they didn't and we lied. With all this shifting, I'm finding it hard to follow anything anyone is attempting to say.

Quote:

Rather, the failure to find WMDs suggests that the US decision to go to war was based on a calculated, vicious, damnable lie perpetrated on the American people.

A little overkill. I love it when people say I'm wrong and they forget that we had many objectives in place. Not just one. And it wasn't the only forum we were using to justify going to war. Dissecting a sentence and drawing whatever meaning you choose won't get you any closer to the truth. But, it will help you push your own blind agenda.

0 Replies

Michael, when you refer to never understanding taking a hit and not wanting to do something about it, and reminding everyone that innocent American lives were taken by cowardly terrorists, are you referring to 9/11?

0 Replies

Yes, InfraBlue. Yes I am.

0 Replies

Then how can you support the war on the grounds of 9/11 if, as Bush himself has admitted, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

0 Replies

Logic
Yeah, many Democrats were under certain impressions about WMDs. The question is where did they get that info. to base their views? Of course, this will be a never ending debate because the WMDs have not been found and may never be or they will be found next week. Whether the Pres. and his staff lied or not cannot be proven. So, the real question should be was the pre-emptive attack justified? How will we that seem concerned about that question know if it was or not?

Is pre-emptive strike a legit. method of a Govt. to operate on?
That seems to be an important question in my view?

Several statements were made here that really bother me. Who made them is not a major concern because I believe that many Americans truely believe those statements and that's real disturbing.

Quote:

Remember, innocent American lives were taken by cowardly terrorists.

Strong ties have been made between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein proving Saddam supported terrorist activities that flattened two towers in New York.

We had many objectives and we have accomplished all of them but one.

Proof?

0 Replies

Good arguments all. I'll be more than happy to address them all tomorrow or the next day if I'm up to it by then.

But, this is New Years and I'm getting ready to dodge out.

God bless you all. Have a Happy New Years! See you next.

BTW, I was waiting for pistoff to join this. I'll talk at ya.

0 Replies

Sadum is a monster. Bush is a lier. No WMDs. The UN inspectors tried to inform the american public that there werent any WMDs but they perfered to believe a unelected government that has consistantly lied to us. Sad. Bin Laden the Sadui Arabian who financed the 9\11 attack is still out there planing other attacks on us. 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudis. Many of the Saudis still support the Bin Laden organization with money and support. Our governments answer to this is to attack Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the Talliban. Please explain the thinking here remembering that we were trying to punish the people responsable for 9\11.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Sadum is a monster. Bush is a lier. No WMDs. The UN inspectors tried to inform the american public that there werent any WMDs but they perfered to believe a unelected government that has consistantly lied to us. Sad. Bin Laden the Sadui Arabian who financed the 9\11 attack is still out there planing other attacks on us. 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudis. Many of the Saudis still support the Bin Laden organization with money and support. Our governments answer to this is to attack Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the Talliban. Please explain the thinking here remembering that we were trying to punish the people responsable for 9\11.

When did UN inspectors try to inform the American public that there weren't any WMDs? I believe many of us would agree that a notion still exists that there might actually be WMDs.

Strong ties have been made connecting Osama and Saddam. Osama Saddam link

Of course, it's hard to know that when the biased media is bashing any opposition to it's agenda. One hilarious article is Powell Offers Proof of Saddam-Osama Link

We weren't punishing anyone. That's not the way it works. We are trying to deter any further activity. Saddam ousted. Good start. Our intelligence is picking up on terrorist activity in a timely manner. Of course, some things might still happen. But, it's hard to foresee everything.

Other objectives?
Ending Saddam's dictatorship.
Capturing Saddam's men, America's most wanted pack of cards.
Short, decisive victory.
Rebuilding Iraq.
Improving counter-terrorist measures.

Finding WMDs has been an objective for years. Clinton couldn't get it done because he allowed Saddam to bully him around and deny us access or shift things around while we inspected different areas. "You can check here because there is nothing in there. You will be able to check over here when we are finished moving things out of there."

0 Replies

The usual suspects were on the bandwagon all along

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know