It could be religiously, politically, musically, whatever suits you best! Let's have a great discussion!

This is potentially a great topic indie.
I'll be back later to write some stuff I'm sure you'll disagree with.

quote:

Originally posted by Ninny Gooptz:
This is potentially a great topic indie.
I'll be back later to write some stuff I'm sure you'll disagree with.

I was hoping you'd like it Ninny! Start us off with something!

Alright, here's an old fashioned rant for ya!

I am really disturbed by the use of the word 'inappropriate' as a term to replace 'wrong'.
Nothing is wrong anymore. A child hits another in the head on the playground and he is told that it is 'inappropriate' to do so. Not that it's flat out wrong to be violent against a defenceless other, but merely that is not suited to the schoolground.

Our culture has turned into one that is terrified to apply ethical standards because we are all afraid of being 'judgemental' which is idiotic because judging a situation and deciding on whether it is right or wrong is how we behave as humans. It is pre-judging which is the problem, not judging.

It's particularly bad in the States where the hypocrisy is rampant. If an individual steps outside of the norm, i.e. behaves eccentrically or wears unusual clothing, they are deemed to need a shrink, but oh no, we can't be judgemental when the mother down the street hits her kids with a stick. We can't say she's 'wrong'.

So society becomes confused, mentally ill and dangerous because all the signals are crossed.

quote:

Originally posted by Ninny Gooptz:
Alright, here's an old fashioned rant for ya!

I am really disturbed by the use of the word 'inappropriate' as a term to replace 'wrong'.
Nothing is wrong anymore. A child hits another in the head on the playground and he is told that it is 'inappropriate' to do so. Not that it's flat out wrong to be violent against a defenceless other, but merely that is not suited to the schoolground.

Our culture has turned into one that is terrified to apply ethical standards because we are all afraid of being 'judgemental' which is idiotic because judging a situation and deciding on whether it is right or wrong is how we behave as humans. It is pre-judging which is the problem, not judging.

It's particularly bad in the States where the hypocrisy is rampant. If an individual steps outside of the norm, i.e. behaves eccentrically or wears unusual clothing, they are deemed to need a shrink, but oh no, we can't be judgemental when the mother down the street hits her kids with a stick. We can't say she's 'wrong'.

So society becomes confused, mentally ill and dangerous because all the signals are crossed.

I think I'm going to have to agree with this. Who knew we'd agree?

Well hell! That was a short lived thread.

I gotta go to bed, but I'll be back with something we can maybe chew over...so hard to start a fight with you these days Indie...

quote:

Originally posted by Ninny Gooptz:
Well hell! That was a short lived thread.

I gotta go to bed, but I'll be back with something we can maybe chew over...so hard to start a fight with you these days Indie...

What direction do you want to go? Politically, religiously...??

Sorry mate. Bit busy today. But...I think religion is pretty well covered in the other thread, so I reckon we take this down a political track.

I believe that W., Cheney, Blair etal should be arrested for war crimes and sentenced to life.
They lied about the reasons to go to war, they allowed looters to raid and burn museums in Iraq and many other crimes are laid at their door.

So, indie? Whaddya reckon?

quote:

Originally posted by Ninny Gooptz:
Sorry mate. Bit busy today. But...I think religion is pretty well covered in the other thread, so I reckon we take this down a political track.

I believe that W., Cheney, Blair etal should be arrested for war crimes and sentenced to life.
They lied about the reasons to go to war, they allowed looters to raid and burn museums in Iraq and many other crimes are laid at their door.

So, indie? Whaddya reckon?

Well obviously going into Iraq was a mistake. I think that your judgement may be harsh though. Bush had reason to believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Sadaam couldn't be trusted. Sure Americans died and our strategy could've been better, but we established democracy in that area and rid the Iraqi's of Sadaam. Let me ask you this, though... put yourself in Bush's place. What would you have done?

"I believe that W., Cheney, Blair etal should be arrested for war crimes and sentenced to life.
They lied about the reasons to go to war, they allowed looters to raid and burn museums in Iraq and many other crimes are laid at their door."

Congress overwhelmingly authorized the war to begin with. These "crimes" you speak of are non-existant but fueled by an anti-bush media. Bush is more concerned for homeland security and freedom than popularity. Have there been mistakes in the war yes, but my god why can't you appreciate a President who for 3/4 of his term has led this country to economic prosperity until a correction in the housing market has caused the economy downturn, massive aids relief funding for Africa which has been praised over there, and overturning a brutal dictatorship in the middle east while marginalizing al qaeda's efforts. This Bush derangement and hostility has to stop. Disagree with his policies fine but "sentenced to life for war crimes" is just immature and ignorant.

quote:

Originally posted by danielmartin:
my god why can't you appreciate a President who for 3/4 of his term has led this country to economic prosperity until a correction in the housing market has caused the economy downturn,

I would. Too bad Bush is not that President.

If you think America's economy has been thriving for the past eight years you need to start paying attention.

quote:

Posted by Daniel Martin
"sentenced to life for war crimes" is just immature and ignorant.

I'd rather be 'ignorant and immature' alongside members of the ICC and the American Bar than indulge in your mendacity.

Which member of the Bush cabinet are you? Cause surely only someone afraid of leaving the country for fear of arrest would write the ludicrous drivel you just laid down.

You are not discussing with fools here. Many here have followed extremely closely every twist and turn in the Bush White House, and we are just laughing at your sad attempts to rewrite history.

Perhaps you will engage seriously from now on.

quote:

Originally posted by Ninny Gooptz:

quote:

Posted by Daniel Martin
"sentenced to life for war crimes" is just immature and ignorant.

I'd rather be 'ignorant and immature' alongside members of the ICC and the American Bar than indulge in your mendacity.



Which member of the Bush cabinet are you? Cause surely only someone afraid of leaving the country for fear of arrest would write the ludicrous drivel you just laid down.

You are not discussing with fools here. Many here have followed extremely closely every twist and turn in the Bush White House, and we are just laughing at your sad attempts to rewrite history.

Perhaps you will engage seriously from now on.

This probably isn't surprising to some of you, but I'm going to have to agree with Daniel Martin, at least to a certain degree. The media is just so anti-conservative now, it's ridiculous. It's kind of funny how Bush takes all the blame for everything that goes wrong, even when it's not entirely his fault. But sentenced to life for "war crimes"? I think that's taking it a bit too far.

Indie, this issue is far too large to properly address here on a forum, but let me make clear that it not just Bush who is to blame. In fact, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle and all the other little Pentagon tools who ran around planning strategic intervention in Iraq are equally culpable.

The Bush cabinet engaged in preventive war, not pre-emptive war, which means that the government were guilty of war crimes, as they are in breach of Article 51 of the UN Charter, and sections of the Geneva war conventions.

Colin Powell is on record as saying America has the sovereign right to engage in military action at will; in other words, fuck the rest of the world, we''l do what we want.

The PNAC. Heard of that? The Project for a New American Century.
A gaggle of serious war mongers, Cheney et al wrote up this program with plans to invade and take over Iraq, dismantle Iran and basically make the US the sole imperial power, pushing over any who disagreed.

Bush and others being charged with war crimes has been taken very seriously.

The International War Crimes Commission wrote up charges against Bush snr et al after what he and his cronies did against Iraq in the first Gulf war, what with the sanctions they imposed on Iraq, leaving Hussein fat and happy, but the population starving and lacking medical needs.

Benjamin Ferencz, a Nuremberg counsel has stated that the Bush cabinet are most certainly culpable of war crimes. Mr. Ferencz prosecuted the Nazis for war crimes, so if anyone would know, he would.

The British deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry quit on the eve of the invasion, stating that 'it was a crime of aggression'.

Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court has produced opinions that can be suggested leave Bush open to prosecution.

Vincent Bugliosi, one of the most successful lawyers in America has written a very detailed book laying out a prima facie case for prosecution of Bush et al.

Members of the International Criminal Court, of which the US is conveniently not a signatory, have stated that there is a case to be made.

It just goes on and on...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2004/0120evidence.htm

Now admittedly, this article is about something that is yet to come to fruition, but it absolutely proves the assertion that Bush is widely held to be a war criminal, and that it is not at all 'ignorant or immature' to prosecute the main players.

People just never know what they are getting themselves into when they start arguing with Ish...

I'm not quite sure how to take that Lib kid, but thanks I think??

What's your take on all of this, or anything else..

Ok Ninny, you have cherry picked people, committees, advisers who disagree with the invasion and war. Deal with it, we went to war to deal with some extremists that hate American ideals and committed an obscene act of terrorism on our soil. Our troops are now in harms way protecting your right to sound off any which way you want in our great country. And don't denigrate my intelligence asking me to "engage seriously" when you can't provide an argument of substance yourself. Verrry few senators democrats or republicans voted to sit on our hands after the attack but instead engage with preemptive force to avert another one. Bush will not be prosecuted and only time will reveal his legacy and change accomplished in the middle east.

Mr. Martin, I have most clearly not 'cherry picked' anyone. What I have detailed is merely the tip of the iceberg. Read the articles yourself; there is wide consensus for war crime prosecution.

I asked you to engage seriously, because I suspect that you know perfectly well the case against Bush and are choosing to ignore it.

My argument is thorough and solid. The facts are clear; they are delineated in Mr. Bugliosi's book for one, in enormous detail, so yes, I have provided at the very least the point of departure for my argument.

And please don't hide behind that old canard of 'you can speak freely only because our troops are fighting the bad guys'. It's such a red herring.

And in case you didn't read all my post, what the Bush coalition engaged in was categorically not preemptive, but preventative war.

There was no threat to the US from Iraq...and they knew it. The 11th of Sept attack had nothing to do with Iraq, so W and the other bad boys were certainly not off to stop bad ol' Saddam from attacking anyone.

By 2004, this fact:
The Bush Administration assigned five times as many agents to investigate Cuban embargo violations as it did to track Osama bin Laden's and Saddam Hussein's money. (Associated Press).

Don't forget that they had been supporting his awful reign for years, ignoring all his atrocities cause it suited their needs.
Don't even begin to excuse the endless list of blood stained hypocrisies of the neo-fascists.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ninny Gooptz,

quote:

Originally posted by danielmartin:
Ok Ninny, you have cherry picked people, committees, advisers who disagree with the invasion and war. Deal with it, we went to war to deal with some extremists that hate American ideals and committed an obscene act of terrorism on our soil. Our troops are now in harms way protecting your right to sound off any which way you want in our great country. And don't denigrate my intelligence asking me to "engage seriously" when you can't provide an argument of substance yourself. Verrry few senators democrats or republicans voted to sit on our hands after the attack but instead engage with preemptive force to avert another one. Bush will not be prosecuted and only time will reveal his legacy and change accomplished in the middle east.

Ugh...

I can’t believe you’re using 9/11 as justification for going to war with Iraq; there is not a shred of legitimate evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the horrible acts of terrorism in 2001, let alone any affiliation with Al-Qaeda.

You denigrate your own intelligence when you spew such ridiculous propaganda; even someone such as myself with common at best knowledge on the subject can see that.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Azuzu!,

So Iraq was a mistake. We've made that clear. We have, however, brought democracy to them. If I was president, I'd finish what we've started. Pulling troops out of Iraq is great, but only when the job at hand has been done. I believe if we left too early, all the Americans that have already died trying to free Iraq would have died in vain.

OK guys, pick that one apart!