THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

McGentrix wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
Arnold, the govenater, is expected to reply to Madonna's statement with "She doesn't represent true hollywood values like I do, she's just a girly-girl"

I think...just my idea, mind...that the 'Hollywood' sign ought to be peed on and burned (not immediately, leave time to dry) and then the mountain carved into the likeness of Charlton Heston, Ronald Reagan, and Awnawd.

0 Replies

Aris wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Those questions are still there Aris.

Which questions are you referring to?

These questions:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Consider this:

20% of the citizens of Iraq are girls, 14 years old or younger. Are those FIVE MILLION LITTLE GIRLS worth fighting for? Do they deserve a better lot in life than the essential enslavement that the Islamic Extremists have in mind for them? Does it matter if their parents have been brainwashed into accepting the injustice?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Arnold, the govenater, is expected to reply to Madonna's statement with "She doesn't represent true hollywood values like I do, she's just a girly-girl"

I think...just my idea, mind...that the 'Hollywood' sign ought to be peed on and burned (not immediately, leave time to dry) and then the mountain carved into the likeness of Charlton Heston, Ronald Reagan, and Awnawd.

One would have thought you'd be advocating sculpting Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, and Maddonna into that hill

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Consider this:

20% of the citizens of Iraq are girls, 14 years old or younger. Are those FIVE MILLION LITTLE GIRLS worth fighting for? Do they deserve a better lot in life than the essential enslavement that the Islamic Extremists have in mind for them? Does it matter if their parents have been brainwashed into accepting the injustice?

Are you trying to tell me that the US is fighting for those 14 y.o. girls? BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage12/1.gif

No, really, you believe that crap?

First of all, US led UN sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of little Iraqi girls. Your own gov't admits that this was a tactic whose goal was to destabilize Saddam from power, so the question is most hypocritical, especially if you consider all the little girls that the US is killing right this moment.

At any rate, let me hypothetically answer your question so as to satisify you:

You do not have the right to interfere with military occupation in a sovereign nation, even if your intentions are good.

The US has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis so it can "liberate" them and give them a better future..... Do you really fall for that crap?

0 Replies

And no offence, but who are you to judge who has or has not been brainwashed. The majority of the world seems to think that you are the brainwashed ones, so perhaps we should throw a few bombs your way.

Nothin' personal Mr. Green

0 Replies

The scapegoating of Hollywood is such an interesting phenomenon. The place is, of course, like Graceland or Madonna, fully a manifestation of America. These things didn't fall out of nowhere.

Though my history on the subject is shakey, we can identify one period, when censorship of Hollywood was invoked, and where the livestyles of the new wealthy inhabitants began to gain the displeasure of others outside. A silent screen actress (forgotten which one) had a zest for young men and word got out that she'd had a college football team over for fun and games. Not individually. And it was true...one of those young football players was John Wayne.

The McCarthy era too saw an acute concentration on Hollywood as a place representing non-American values.

Quite odd. It's a bit like looking at your right arm and thinking it is something alien.

0 Replies

Aris wrote:

LMAO. Great Emoticon! Laughing

You answered none of the three questions, however. I fully expected you duck them, and duck them you did. These are the questions you cleverly avoided. (I'll bold them individually, for easy cut and paste.)

1. Are those FIVE MILLION LITTLE GIRLS worth fighting for?

2. Do they deserve a better lot in life than the essential enslavement that the Islamic Extremists have in mind for them?

3. Does it matter if their parents have been brainwashed into accepting the injustice?

I didn't ask you if you thought we were right or had the right. I asked specific questions. Would you like to try again?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Consider this:

Quote:

20% of the citizens of Iraq are girls, 14 years old or younger. Are those FIVE MILLION LITTLE GIRLS worth fighting for? Do they deserve a better lot in life than the essential enslavement that the Islamic Extremists have in mind for them? Does it matter if their parents have been brainwashed into accepting the injustice?

With the blood of Americans? NO. That change has to come from within. And it is only possible with some modification to religious thought. Which appears to be highly unlikely. In any event since when have we the right to impose our moral values on others. Don't we have enough division in the US in that regard?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Aris wrote:

LMAO. Great Emoticon!

You answered none of the three questions, however. I fully expected you duck them, and duck them you did. These are the questions you cleverly avoided. (I'll bold them individually, for easy cut and paste.)

1. Are those FIVE MILLION LITTLE GIRLS worth fighting for?

2. Do they deserve a better lot in life than the essential enslavement that the Islamic Extremists have in mind for them?

3. Does it matter if their parents have been brainwashed into accepting the injustice?

I didn't ask you if you thought we were right or had the right. I asked specific questions. Would you like to try again?

First, forgive me for hopping into this conversation so late, and feel free to correct me if I've missed anything. In regards to the above questions, Yes! However, that leaves a great deal of room for debate about the war.

One can support these girls, democracy, and the fight against terror without supporting the methods chosen by this administration to advance those goals. Assuming the best motives for the war on Iraq, and I do assume the best motives, this doesn't provide and unequivocal argument for the war. A very real doubt exists as to whether the consequences of this war will actually bear the intended fruits. Moreover, there is an opportunity cost to the war in Iraq--our troops and tax dollars have been drawn thin by this affair. To say that the above girls provide justification for this war is to conclude (without argument) that:

(a) The war will have positive consequences for these girls. This hasn't yet been the case. A civil war could cause further suffering among this population, particularly if Islamists come into power. Recall that the Baathists, despite all their flaws, are secular.

(b) The opportunity costs of this war were outweighed by the benefits. As the first premise appears in doubt, this premise it virtually untenable. After all, there is no shortage of suffering in this nation or the world. To say that you support Iraq on account of these girls is not only to assume that the consequences of this war will be positive for that demographic, but to assume that these girls should be saved at the expense of others that might have benefited from our resources. Opportunity costs cannot be discounted.

0 Replies

AU, you've previously made clear that you only care about American lives. I know where you stand. If you recall, I gave you credit for courageously admitting your convictions, though I find them appalling myself. Don't you find the bob and move strategy of others a little less than honest?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL
I am sure if the statement was made by Bush and company and the American public was asked should we go to war and expend American lives and treasure to force a change. You would get a resounding NO. I think the question is hypothetical bull crap.
Yes, my interest is primarily the lose of American lives. Particularly on lost causes. And it always will be.

0 Replies

Steppenwolf, those are thoughtful points but the above questions were asked in the context of "now that we're already there". The bobbing and weaving has now spread out over 10 pages, because people don't like the answers to these questions. For proper perspective:

Earlier, OCCOM BILL wrote:

Insofar as there are people all over the world that need rescuing; we agree. That provides no reason or excuse not to rescue these people. The reason for removing Saddam is of little importance at this point. We did. We are now responsible for making sure his replacement is better, not worse. We broke it, we bought it. That means we cannot allow Islamic extremists to enslave the Iraqi women and make no mistake that is their intention. Would you have us let them?

0 Replies

Earlier, OCCOM BILL wrote:

Quote:

Insofar as there are people all over the world that need rescuing; we agree. That provides no reason or excuse not to rescue these people. The reason for removing Saddam is of little importance at this point. We did. We are now responsible for making sure his replacement is better, not worse. We broke it, we bought it. That means we cannot allow Islamic extremists to enslave the Iraqi women… and make no mistake… that is their intention. Would you have us let them?

I agree and have said over and over again we cannot cut and run for indeed we did break it and buy it. However, we cannot change religious thought and values. Our greatest concern should be the possibility of the emergence of an Islamic, fundamental government similar to and allied with Iran. That under no circumstances can be allowed to happen. I should note that a secular government would take care of the problem of women's enslavement. For at least those who want it to be so.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Steppenwolf, those are thoughtful points but the above questions were asked in the context of "now that we're already there". The bobbing and weaving has now spread out over 10 pages, because people don't like the answers to these questions. For proper perspective:

Earlier, OCCOM BILL wrote:
Insofar as there are people all over the world that need rescuing; we agree. That provides no reason or excuse not to rescue these people. The reason for removing Saddam is of little importance at this point. We did. We are now responsible for making sure his replacement is better, not worse. We broke it, we bought it. That means we cannot allow Islamic extremists to enslave the Iraqi women and make no mistake that is their intention. Would you have us let them?

Ah, then you and I agree. I wouldn't advocate leaving Iraq in its current situation. That would almost undoubtedly lead to tragedy. Thanks for the correction. :wink:

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Interesting that you continue to ignore these questions Revel (and others). I'm going to go ahead and assume that it isn't the questions you don't like, but the answers.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Consider this:

20% of the citizens of Iraq are girls, 14 years old or younger. Are those FIVE MILLION LITTLE GIRLS worth fighting for? Do they deserve a better lot in life than the essential enslavement that the Islamic Extremists have in mind for them? Does it matter if their parents have been brainwashed into accepting the injustice?

I guess we know how Madonna would answer.

I didn't think I ignored any questions. I thought I answered that the US is not the police of the whole world and besides we do not know if there are any fourteen year old girls who are just waiting to be rescued from Islam. You answered with "of course we do" and I guess I just didn't feel like answering back that day with something like, "there is no of course about it."

We can't just assume that everyone around the world wants to be like us. Also I doubt that if they did want to be like us they would want to go through with a war in their country to arrive at their desire that kills either them or their loved ones. It is worth restating that we don't know if they don't want to be Muslims.

We have never denied that Saddam was a brutal dictator. But what we are about now with all this Islam hate is not right.

As for Madonna, she will say or do anything to get attention. In another twenty years Brittany Spears will be in the same situation. That is being famous for nothing but knowing how to look sexy on tv, that kind of talent don't age well.

0 Replies

Everyone keeps saying, "we broke it we got to fix it." I am saying that we can't fix it because we will not listen to the people we are there to help. We are imposing our will on them and expecting them to like it and then killing them when they don't and then say that is going to help them in the long run. In twenty years if we don't change our outlook we will still be in Iraq still fighting the same "insurgents" because they don't give up and you can't kill them all because they just keep getting more fighters.

It is simply an unjust war and that is why it is a disaster. Maybe President George Bush is right after all and God does have his hand in our affairs.

0 Replies

Quote:

Troops find 'hostage slaughterhouses' in Falluja
Coalition forces seize 70 percent of city

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 Posted: 12:06 PM EST (1706 GMT)
FALLUJA, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi troops retaking the city of Falluja have found hostage "slaughterhouses" where people were held captive and beheaded, an Iraqi military official said Wednesday.

Maj. Gen. Abdul Qader Mohammed Jassem Mohan, commander of Iraqi forces in the battle, said his soldiers found CDs that show beheadings and black clothes worn by kidnappers when seen on television.

"We have found hostage slaughterhouses in Falluja that were used by these people (kidnappers) and the black clothing that they used to wear to identify themselves, hundreds of CDs and whole records with names of hostages," The Associated Press quoted the general as saying.

....

0 Replies

Please show me the group of people that do not wish to free.

0 Replies

Please show me the group of people that wish to be free.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Aris wrote:

LMAO. Great Emoticon!

You answered none of the three questions, however. I fully expected you duck them, and duck them you did. These are the questions you cleverly avoided. (I'll bold them individually, for easy cut and paste.)

1. Are those FIVE MILLION LITTLE GIRLS worth fighting for?

2. Do they deserve a better lot in life than the essential enslavement that the Islamic Extremists have in mind for them?

3. Does it matter if their parents have been brainwashed into accepting the injustice?

I didn't ask you if you thought we were right or had the right. I asked specific questions. Would you like to try again?

Perhaps you do not understand.

Question 1 is invalid because a) the five million little girls have been slowly getting slaughtered by the US over the past 12 odd years, so how can you ask if they are worth fighting for when, if anything, they need to be saved from you? Then again, I suppose you are right; yes, they are worth fighting for because they are currently being oppressed by the USA, something that the Iraqi resistance fighters are doing: fighting for them.

Question 2 is invalid because it is implying that their lives are under the threat of Islamic enslavement. It's like me asking you "don't you deserve a better lot in life than being enslaved by Christian Fundie Whackos?" The premise of your question is baseless. Please show me how Islamic extremists are truly threatening these girls with enslavement, because unless I am very much mistaken, the women and girls of Iraq were hardly ever enslaved by Islamic extremists.

Question 3 is ridiculous as well. Again, as in the previous two questions, you are implying something that is unfounded. Show that what your question is addressing is valid first.

I am hardly ducking and running. I am disputing the very essence of the questions' implications as unfounded, so unless you demonstrate the validity of your questions, it is YOU who is ducking and running.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know