what would the liberals say to this speech?

[Impenitent]

@Navigator

@Impenitent

the reason doesn’t matter. liberal democRATS will never find a reason for supporting a republican doing anything that benefits america. I think we went over there because we could.

If that’s really your view of war – that we should engage in it any time we can – why should anyone take you seriously?

they shouldn’t. might makes right.

I have to associate myself with the republicans because I enjoy FREEDOM

You may enjoy your own freedom, but it’s quite obvious you have no use for anyone else’s.

I have plenty of use for others…

and I am not afraid to admit it.

-Imp

[Impenitent]

@spw317

@Impenitent

the reason doesn’t matter. liberal democRATS will never find a reason for supporting a republican doing anything that benefits america. I think we went over there because we could.

I’m with Navigator…I find that statement to be pretty disturbing. Just because we have the power to do something doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do.

motives are fluid. one does what one can. that is historically proven.

And might I add, we invaded Iraq on false evidence, something that the media definitley downplayed. Hmm…sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

false evidence that everyone believed.

but no problem… jihad johnny never wanted to kill the democRATS…

-Imp

[Navigator]

@Impenitent

they shouldn’t [take me seriously].

Very well. Guess it’s as much a waste of time trying to discuss politics with you as it is trying to discuss epistemology.

So be it, then.

[Phaedrus]

Discussing politics with anyone is probably a waste of time.

[spw317]

@Impenitent

motives are fluid. one does what one can. that is historically proven.

If you believe we live in an animalistic society. I think we’ve gotten past the point of survival of the fittest and we need to start helping each other.

false evidence that everyone believed.

but no problem… jihad johnny never wanted to kill the democRATS…

What difference does it make? It’s still false evidence. Don’t you find anything wrong with that?

Oh hell, who am I kidding. Of course you don’t. Anything done by the Republicans is justifiable in your mind regardless of how immoral it may be.

[Gobbo]

@Navigator

@Impenitent

the reason doesn’t matter. liberal democRATS will never find a reason for supporting a republican doing anything that benefits america. I think we went over there because we could.

If that’s really your view of war – that we should engage in it any time we can – why should anyone take you seriously?

I have to associate myself with the republicans because I enjoy FREEDOM

You may enjoy your own freedom, but it’s quite obvious you have no use for anyone else’s.

Not too many take Imp seriously about politics. He’s like that outdated thing at the carnival talking about how good the carnival is.

He’s a fucking lunatic and wouldn’t know who Churchhill really is if he put down the Kenny G to try and take a swing at him.

[Impenitent]

@Phaedrus

Discussing politics with anyone is probably a waste of time.

ain’t democracy great?

-Imp

[Impenitent]

@spw317

@Impenitent

motives are fluid. one does what one can. that is historically proven.

If you believe we live in an animalistic society. I think we’ve gotten past the point of survival of the fittest and we need to start helping each other.

have we now? LOL…

false evidence that everyone believed.

but no problem… jihad johnny never wanted to kill the democRATS…

What difference does it make? It’s still false evidence. Don’t you find anything wrong with that?

it’s like claiming hitler was wrong to invade poland because he thought they’d put up more of a defence

Oh hell, who am I kidding. Of course you don’t. Anything done by the Republicans is justifiable in your mind regardless of how immoral it may be.

anything done by anyone is justifiable. justification doesn’t mean shit.

morality? anything can be moral.

-Imp

[Impenitent]

@Old_Gobbo

Not too many take Imp seriously about politics. He’s like that outdated thing at the carnival talking about how good the carnival is.

He’s a fucking lunatic …

how civilized…

-Imp

[Navigator]

@Phaedrus

Discussing politics with anyone is probably a waste of time.

Nah. I’ve had my own viewpoints challenged successfully many times, and learned things I didn’t know before. But politics is discussion, compromise, cooperation and competition; war is where politics breaks down, or “politics by other means” as Klausewitz put it. If someone is advocating constant war, merely because we can, then that person has abandoned politics altogether and there is no point in trying to engage in further discussion with them.

[Gobbo]

@Imp

anything done by anyone is justifiable. justification doesn’t mean shit.

@Imp

How civilized

Carnival.

[spw317]

Haha…Imp is nuts

anything done by anyone is justifiable. justification doesn’t mean shit.

morality? anything can be moral.

Imp,

(This is just a hypothetical situation - don’t take any offense to it)

Let’s say that you have a daughter. So if I came over and raped your daughter and then murdered her then I should be able to get away with it right? As you said, anything can be justifiable. And as for the morality of this situation? Well of course, “anything can be moral.” So you agree that I should in no way be punished for my actions?[/b]

[Impenitent]

@spw317

Haha…Imp is nuts

anything done by anyone is justifiable. justification doesn’t mean shit.

morality? anything can be moral.

Imp,

(This is just a hypothetical situation - don’t take any offense to it)

Let’s say that you have a daughter. So if I came over and raped your daughter and then murdered her then I should be able to get away with it right?

in your own mind perhaps. the fact is that you will not get away with it because I would snap your neck.

As you said, anything can be justifiable. And as for the morality of this situation? Well of course, “anything can be moral.” So you agree that I should in no way be punished for my actions?[/b]

no, I do not agree at all, but that is because I have my justification and my idea of moral retribution as you had yours for commiting the act in the first place. it is a question of might making right. if you have the might to rape, then rape to your hearts content- just make sure that the others who have the might to end your existence (as a rapist or otherwise) don’t exersize theirs.

-Imp

[aspacia]

@Future Man

i guess im an amazing retard or maybe you actually did not tell me it was churchill. you told me to research churchill or some crap, which i thought was a reference to how mr fluffy shit is similar to churchill in his empty rhetorical speeches, which is obviously what you were trying to imply in this thing.

try and read what i wrote and see how much sense it makes if i think bush wrote the thing. it makes a lot, and you look like the crazy one.

the lesson for today: be specific and try not to be a dick.

fm, why do you only read antiWest rhetoric from the likes of Chomsky, and have no background regarding Churchill? Imp quotes one of Winnies most famous speeches, known to most history majors and this flew right over your head.

Zero balance, zero insight regarding all sides of the issues.

[aspacia]

@Navigator

World War III my hairy ass.

Let’s take a look at the situation of Great Britain in 1940 versus the U.S. today. (Setting aside the respective leaders. I mean, comparing Bush to Churchill is just too cheap and easy a shot.)

Britain in 1940:

Under attack by two powerful, unified, disciplined, technologically advanced enemies, one of whom alone was stronger than she was.

German bombers were visiting London and other British cities nightly.

The Japanese were advancing relentlessly on Singapore, which would eventually fall. India was about to be threatened.

Britain had attempted to make peace at almost any cost, giving Hitler the benefit of every doubt. In the end, Hitler’s untrustworthiness became so glaring and obvious that, over Poland, Britain felt she had no choice but to declare war.

(And incidentally – though you seem to have forgotten this, Imp – it was not Churchill but Chamberlain who declared war on Germany.)

Britain tried not to fight, but she had to, and she fought bravely and doggedly against terrible odds.

A year later, both of Britain’s powerful enemies would foolishly launch attacks against another even more powerful nation, drawing first the Soviet Union and then the United States into the war on Britain’s side. But in 1940 such folly on the part of the foe could not be hoped for.

The U.S. today:

One attack has been perpetrated on the U.S., in 2001, by a single group of terrorists who at that time were based in Afghanistan. No attacks have been made since then on U.S. soil.

Except for our soldiers engaged in occupying foreign countries who did not attack us first, no U.S. military personnel, nor civilians either, have been endangered by what you are preposterously calling “World War III” since 9/11 itself.

The “enemy,” to the extent we have one not of our own making, is that single terrorist group. No other groups have even TRIED to launch attacks against the U.S. since 9/11, and none, including al-Qaeda, have succeeded.

Far from trying to make peace, President Bush has used the opportunity provided by 9/11 to declare a “war on terror,” which provides an umbrella justification for attacking anyone he wants to attack anywhere, any time. In this, he resembles Churchill far less than he does Hitler, who also used the flimsiest of pretexts to justify aggressive actions against his neighbors. Both Poland and the Soviet Union were accused of plotting to invade Germany (both falsely) to justify Germany invading them instead. Exactly as Bush has done in Iraq.

Had Bush responded to 9/11 properly, he would have identified the attacker as al-Qaeda, whom it was, rather than as “terror,” which is purely an abstraction and does not exist as a concrete enemy. He would have invaded Afghanistan, as he did, that being al-Qaeda’s base of operations. And he would have given top priority to destroying this organization by any means necessary. But he would certainly not have launched an invasion of Iraq, which had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on the U.S. or with al-Qaeda, let alone contemplated broadening the war to include other Muslim nations equally innocent of 9/11, and he would not have used the attack as a pretext either to rattle sabers at half the world, or to call for compromising precious American liberties at home.

Unlike Britain in 1940, America has not had to fight, but has done so anyway, aggressively, with no benign or peaceful or even remotely honorable intent whatsoever.

Yes, we do have to fight; evidently you do not read Arab media.

In short if we do end up in World War III, it will be our own damned fault, and we, not the “enemy,” will be the aggressors. We will not be in the position of Great Britain, but in that of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

We are attacked, we are continually threatened and if violence escalates its our fault? Sounds like you would blame the rape victim of instigating the rape:
"Times poll on Muslim attitudes to terrorism:

Six per cent of British Muslims believe that the 7/7 bombers were acting according to the true principles of Islam, while 7 per cent agree that suicide attacks on civilians in Britain can be justified under certain circumstances, a figure that rises to 16 per cent if the target is the military."

From the Guardian:
"MI5: 30 terror plots being planned in UK

Intelligence chief says 200 networks currently under surveillance

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday November 10, 2006
The Guardian

MI5 has identified 30 major terrorist plots being planned in Britain and is targeting more than 1,600 individuals actively engaged in promoting attacks here and abroad, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of the agency, warns today.

The 30 plots are the most serious of many more planned by some 200 British-based “networks” involved in terrorism, she said in a speech seen by the Guardian. In a gloomy assessment of the home-grown terrorist threat, MI5 says most of those involved are British-born, and most are connected with al-Qaida."

But we won’t, because Bush has so discredited his aggressive policies that his successor – regardless of party – would prefer to hang himself than follow that policy any further into this hole.

And you can take that to the bank.

We are not fighting this as a war, just a PR camPAIN because of the UN. What a waste this organization is.

[Navigator]

@aspacia

Yes, we do have to fight; evidently you do not read Arab media.

We do not have to fight wars. Wars are fought against nations. Police actions are taken against small paramilitary organizations. Our enemies are small paramilitary organizations – actually just one such organization that I know of. We need to use the tactics of police manhunts against them, not military tactics. This may involve violence, but not all violence is war.

We are attacked, we are continually threatened and if violence escalates its our fault?

Can you see the difference between “violence escalating” and “World War III”? Can you comprehend that while violence may escalate whatever we do, it cannot actually become “World War III” unless we initiate that?

Can you see that we were attacked by a terrorist group, and not by “terrorism”? That “terrorism” is an abstraction, not an enemy? And that by declaring a “war on terrorism,” rather than what he should have declared, a manhunt for al-Qaeda and its leaders, Bush was being dishonest and opportunistic?

The problem with a “war on terrorism” is that it creates an umbrella justification for the government to make war wherever it wants, for any reason it wants, on anybody it wants, whether the party attacked had anything to do with the specific terrorists who attacked us, or not. We have already seen that happen. After Afghanistan, which actually did have something to do with 9/11, Bush went into Iraq, which didn’t, but because Saddam “harbors terrorists” (totally different ones, with totally different agendas, but still “terrorists”), and since we’re engaged in a “war on terrorism,” he can justify it. But only because he was dishonest with us from the get-go.

Fact is, there is no nation on earth that has not as a matter of policy “aided and abetted terrorism.” That includes the U.S., of course. And so, as long as the public remains persuaded that we ought to be fighting a “war on terrorism,” which thankfully it seems to be doubting now, Bush has carte blanche to keep us perpetually at war, always in a state of emergency, always with our liberties compromised in order to meet that emergency.

And that, I think, is the real reason why he did it.

We are not fighting this as a war, just a PR camPAIN because of the UN. What a waste this organization is.

Maybe, but if its keeping us from fighting this as a war, it’s doing some good. This ISN’T a war. It might not entirely be a PR campaign, either, but certainly it’s not a war. Unless we make it one.

Incidentally, Muslim opinions on anything don’t mean jack squat until they can get their act together and become unified. Hostility alone does not make a dangerous enemy. The enemy also has to be strong. Islam is not.

[spw317]

@spw317

f you believe we live in an animalistic society. I think we’ve gotten past the point of survival of the fittest and we need to start helping each other.

@Impenitent

have we now? LOL…

In western, civilized countries such as America, yes I think we have. I feel it’s the responsibility of the the powerful and privileged nations to help the less fortunate, not push them around. But hey, who wants peace in the world when the reputation of a country is at stake?

[Impenitent]

@spw317

In western, civilized countries such as America, yes I think we have.

civilized? civilized? oh yes… we are civilized. no crime, no problems, we have achieved perfection because we are civilized.

I feel it’s the responsibility of the the powerful and privileged nations to help the less fortunate,

seperation of chuirch and state!!!

not push them around. But hey, who wants peace in the world when the reputation of a country is at stake?

but we are “helping” the rest of the world. you mean iraq doesn’t want western civilization? you mean afghanistan doesn’t want western civilization? or the rest of the middle east?

peace under a dictator, no matter what benevolent communist name he uses, isn’t peace.

-Imp

[aspacia]

@spw317

Haha…Imp is nuts

anything done by anyone is justifiable. justification doesn’t mean shit.

morality? anything can be moral.

Imp,

(This is just a hypothetical situation - don’t take any offense to it)

Let’s say that you have a daughter. So if I came over and raped your daughter and then murdered her then I should be able to get away with it right? As you said, anything can be justifiable. And as for the morality of this situation? Well of course, “anything can be moral.” So you agree that I should in no way be punished for my actions?[/b]

This hypothetical does occur in real time for many women. An unmarried man and woman were caught together in Saudi Arabia. Six men gang raped both the man and woman. The Sharia Courts ordered both the victims to be whipped and zip happened to the perpetrators.

In Pakistan a woman’s brothers was convicted of a sexual indiscretion and his sister was stripped, gang raped according to their Sharia Law, and forced to walk home naked. They expected her to commit suicide or her family to murder her. There was a huge world wide outcry, and she survived, lives in fear, and is not allowed to leave Pakistan.

Morality is relative just as Imp claims.

What we may find as immoral, another often will find the same behavior as moral, and vice-versa. The fact that Western women walk around with “bare naked” legs, or wearing bikinis, or posing naked most in the West do not find immoral, but the average Middle-Eastern man or woman will find this immoral.

With regards,

aspacia

[aspacia]

@Navigator

@aspacia

Yes, we do have to fight; evidently you do not read Arab media.

We do not have to fight wars.

[.quote]

Hum, The American Revolutionary War? The War of 1812? The Civil War? WWI and II?

Sometimes wars are unavoidable.

Wars are fought against nations. Police actions are taken against small paramilitary organizations.

Like Vietnam? Hum, how many of our troops died, 50,000 or so.

Our enemies are small paramilitary organizations – actually just one such organization that I know of.

Again, the numbers and terrorist organizations are much larger than you realize. Even if it is only 1% this totals approximately 12 million Muslims, a large chunk of humanity.

We need to use the tactics of police manhunts against them, not military tactics. This may involve violence, but not all violence is war.

Many make this same claim regarding the Mafia, but their numbers were not as large. Read Arab media for insight, Jihad Watch, Apostates of Islam, MEMRI. What is said in English is not the same as what is said in Arabic. Ever see the inflamatory caricatures of Jews, U.S. citizens, the inflamatory articles, etc., regarding what is really going on. How about an Islamic board like Umma? Many of these posters are citizens who call for jihad against the USA, UK, France, Spain, etc.

We are attacked, we are continually threatened and if violence escalates its our fault?

Can you see the difference between “violence escalating” and “World War III”? Can you comprehend that while violence may escalate whatever we do, it cannot actually become “World War III” unless we initiate that?

The terrorists declared war on us a long time ago, and we ignored the threat, just as Chamberlain believed Hitler’s lies, lies to buy time and fully arm Germany. This current “cease-fire” between Hamas and Israel is similar and Hamas is rearming itself while still sending rockets into Israel.

Can you see that we were attacked by a terrorist group, and not by “terrorism”?

Yes, and the Middle-East has zero free press. At the moment tyrants run the media and perpetrate lies regarding Israel and the West. The legal governments fund terrorists then deny that they do, but too many economic links have been uncovered, and their assets frozen.

That “terrorism” is an abstraction, not an enemy? And that by declaring a “war on terrorism,” rather than what he should have declared, a manhunt for al-Qaeda and its leaders, Bush was being dishonest and opportunistic?

Frankly, Bush is not the sharpest tool in the shed, and as usual unintentionally muddled his words. Geez, the man cannot even pronounce nuclear. Opportunistic, sure. Dishonest, probably. But I do not believe he was dishonest regarding the WMD’s as most of the world believed Saddam had them. I can pull up the quotes if you like.

The problem with a “war on terrorism” is that it creates an umbrella justification for the government to make war wherever it wants, for any reason it wants, on anybody it wants, whether the party attacked had anything to do with the specific terrorists who attacked us, or not. We have already seen that happen. After Afghanistan, which actually did have something to do with 9/11, Bush went into Iraq, which didn’t, but because Saddam “harbors terrorists” (totally different ones, with totally different agendas, but still “terrorists”), and since we’re engaged in a “war on terrorism,” he can justify it. But only because he was dishonest with us from the get-go.

Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel.

Fact is, there is no nation on earth that has not as a matter of policy “aided and abetted terrorism.”

Iran and Syria fund Hizbollah. Many countries, including Egypt fund Hamas and Fatah, and this includes the USA and Israel helping Fatah. Saddam did pay-off terrorist families. Get real.

That includes the U.S., of course.

Iran Contra? You have a short memory. We have funded many bad guys and many revolutions. Hum, how about the Bay of Pigs.

And so, as long as the public remains persuaded that we ought to be fighting a “war on terrorism,” which thankfully it seems to be doubting now, Bush has carte blanche to keep us perpetually at war, always in a state of emergency, always with our liberties compromised in order to meet that emergency.

Exactly what liberties have you lost? I haven’t lost any, and do not give a shit if they check my bank account, phones or emails. Go ahead, go to sleep. If you think the government is bad, private industry is worse. They legally monitor all your emails and documents on the company’s computers. Computers leave an easily followed electronic trail.

And that, I think, is the real reason why he did it.

Now you are a mind reader. He probably went into Iraq because Saddam tried to have Daddy assasinated. It would have been cheaper to lift the sanctions and purchase the oil. Sure, there is a huge amount of profiteering going on. For example:

"1. The US economy had been severely shaken by the discovery of fraudulent accounting in a number of huge companies like Enron. With failing confidence came a fall in the value of the dollar as investors abandoned the shamed energy sector. The war not only reversed this trend, but allowed the US to profit from Iraq’s oil reserves. Christian Aid discovered that out of the $5 billion dollars collected (from pre and post war oil revenues and invested assets) only around $1 billion dollars could be accounted for. The missing $4 billion was found (following an investigation by Christian Aid) in the federal reserve! This is in direct violation of the UN resolution which stipulated that an International Advisory and Monitoring Board must be set up to account for the money.
Cheney is the devil

2. Halliburton (formerly run by US vice president Dick Cheney - one subsidiary Kellogg), reported soaring revenues from its contracts to help rebuild Iraq. Sales in the third quarter of 2003 were 39% higher at $4.1bn (�2.5bn), and profits grew fourfold to $49m, of which $34m was Iraq business. Halliburton did not have to make a single competitive pitch to earn these profits. It has already secured further business worth $1.4bn in a separate, competitively bid contract to provide support services to troops. Halliburton is charging the army $1.59 a gallon for its oil, but critics say it can be bought from neighbouring countries for as little as 98 cents. Cheney received a $33m payoff when he left Halliburton in 2000, and still gets $180,000 a year in deferred income. The company has also donated $708,770 in the period 1999 - 2002 to US political interests, of which 95 percent went to Republicans. President Bush himself received $17,677. No conflict of interests there then!

3. Boeing, the world´s largest plane maker, and defence contractor Northrop Grumman also enjoyed a war dividend. Boeing raised its revenue guidance for the full year as military systems and aircraft offset the weakness in commercial jets. Northrop, maker of the B-2 stealth bomber, turned a $59m loss in 2002 into a $184m profit in 2003.

4. Bechtel Group Inc. USAID awarded the largest of its postwar Iraq contracts to Bechtel Group Inc. April 17. The capital construction contract gives Bechtel an initial award of $34.6 million (with further funding of up to $680 million over 18 months - subject to Congress´ approval) to rebuild power generation facilities, electrical grids, water and sewage systems and airport facilities in Iraq. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, is an ex-president of the company and is on the company’s board of directors, and USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios (who oversees the bidding process for post-war contracts), used to run the “Big Dig” construction project, for which Bechtel was the primary contractor. The company has donated $1,303,765 (59 percent to Republicans; 41 percent to Democrats) with personal donations for President Bush totalling $6,250"

Corruption to the max, on this we agree, and it is our taxes paying for this.

We are not fighting this as a war, just a PR camPAIN because of the UN. What a waste this organization is.

Maybe, but if its keeping us from fighting this as a war, it’s doing some good. This ISN’T a war. It might not entirely be a PR campaign, either, but certainly it’s not a war. Unless we make it one.

1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war

Incidentally, Muslim opinions on anything don’t mean jack squat until they can get their act together and become unified. Hostility alone does not make a dangerous enemy. The enemy also has to be strong. Islam is not.

[/quote]

Right, tell that to the thousands who have been murdered by Muslims. This is more than just opinions being jack, these are people being burned alive, recently, 5 Sunni men, children being beheaded, bombs killing civilians, all in the name of Islam.

This is from a very right-wing atheist who keeps current regarding the violence that occurs in the name of Islam:
clarityandresolve.com/archives/2 … _shukr.php

Please note his sources are mostly from Arab media.

Remember, this is still a free land, and I hope to keep it that way. We are still free to vote people in and out of office, and criticize our leaders.

That is, we can agree to disagree without animosity.

With regards,

aspacia