Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Danish troops in Iraq finds mortars testing positive for blister gases   (news.bbc.co.uk) divider line 594
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

9805 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2004 at 4:47 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



594 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-01-10 08:23:47 PM  
"Why do you liberals...?"

in the classical sense i am a conservative [i decry big government getting involved in everything i concider personal] i simply feel had by this whole iraqi invasion deal becasue something of utmost importance to my safety and the safety of my fellow country men, the fight against
terror directed against americans, has been underminded, co opted and defiled by those whose more pressing interests
lay elsewhere

plus, there are sheeple on both sides the fence, it's been my conviction that the right's patron wind bags just blow more, uninformed, hot air

maybe i'm worng, but listening to that hannity guy for more then a few minutes makes me feel dirty and talked down to

to each his own
 
2004-01-10 08:24:38 PM  
American power is a good thing. Many people benefit from it. Why do you hate it? Why do you hate the power that freed the slaves, stopped Hitler, and ended Saddam's reign?

The use of American power is the key to world peace and human rights.


now I know you're just farking with us.
 
2004-01-10 08:24:45 PM  
Soveriegnity derives from democracy and freedom. No dictator is a sovereign leader.

You really don't know anything of value about politics and government, do you? I think you're confusing sovereignty with legitimacy. The only requirement for sovereignty is control over your territory and recognition and respect of same by other states.

Legitimacy is a whole other ball of wax. Legitimacy concerns whether your people/other states view your regime as having if not a basis in law, at least wide public support.
 
2004-01-10 08:26:54 PM  
fab5freddykruger:
Well said
 
2004-01-10 08:27:46 PM  
now I know you're just farking with us.

No... ummm, that's what we believe, we neocon nutballs. What's unreal is that you think the notion is a joke.

Well get used to feeling confused, because those of us who believe this theme are NOT backing down. You'll be hearing from us for a long time to come.
 
2004-01-10 08:30:15 PM  
"No. They would be acting in defense of their repressive regime. If they were defending liberty against an oppressor, then they would be justified. But acting in defense of their wicked regime cannot be justified by any morality. Soveriegnity derives from democracy and freedom. No dictator is a sovereign leader."

so many big words, so many big ideas

you sir should concider entering the political arena, you've got the gift of the gab, you do
 
2004-01-10 08:35:01 PM  
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony...you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!...I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

come and see the violence inherent in the system! hel help! I'm bein' repressed!


/just had to.
 
2004-01-10 08:36:31 PM  
american power freed the slaves? have another pabst...
 
2004-01-10 08:37:40 PM  
let's all just chill for a while

we'll find out soon enough...
 
2004-01-10 08:37:48 PM  
You really don't know anything of value about politics and government, do you? I think you're confusing sovereignty with legitimacy.

No, my belief, as an American, is that national sovereignity derives from the consent of the governed. Call me uninformed, but I am merely stating the views of the founders of America and the tradition of enlightenment that produced the great experiment.
 
2004-01-10 08:40:46 PM  
MorticianBaby
Holy crap. American power freed the slaves? What power then enslaved them?
The Russians sort of gave Hitler a hard time, to the tune of 20,000,000 dead Soviet troops. A couple other countries participated, I think.

But, yes, American power defeated a Third World dictatorship, to no one's surprise. Dissent farking created your beloved country, why do you hate it so?
 
2004-01-10 08:42:26 PM  
american power freed the slaves? have another pabst...

Yes, the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union, which was the only institution that could have ended slavery. In that instance, we could have failed to wield American power and no slaves would be free. But wield American power we did, and that is what freed the slaves. It wasn't very popular at the time, to be honest. American power rarely is perceived as good, yet history proves again and again that its use was the key to defending our liberal, tolerant, and civilized way of life.
 
2004-01-10 08:43:52 PM  
Semantics! You're both talking about the same thing, you're just using different words to describe it.

Whoop-di-farking-do.
 
2004-01-10 08:44:20 PM  
Dissent farking created your beloved country

What power then enslaved them?


Ahh, the power of "dissent" to enslave.
 
2004-01-10 08:44:55 PM  
"No... ummm, that's what we believe, we neocon nutballs. What's unreal is that you think the notion is a joke.

Well get used to feeling confused, because those of us who believe this theme are NOT backing down. You'll be hearing from us for a long time to come."


that's what freaking me out, this crazy ass conquest of world power/resources under the flag of spreading peace through this market based, american style democracy ...
i mean, it's just sillly to expect the rest of the world
(the world!) to fall in line or get squashed like naughty bugs, to expect cultures that are so remove from ours to
start doing back flips and summersaults becasue we threaten
them with violence

look at afghanistan, that place is the real life equivilant of that mad max movie, it's just a bunch of freakin warlords (warlords!) like in midevel times, and we're pushing all of these ultra modern ideas there that took us white folks centurys to figger out for ourselves

i really dont see how we're going to get the world to drop their respective identitys and hold hands like the globe was one big NYC circa 1900 with out seriously pissing off a
whole lot of people, and by pissing them off i mean making them want to send their sons into battle to kill our sons

we cant police the world, we cant stop the economic explosion in china that finnin' to engulf a whole big section of the planet, we just cant cant ... i see that as the goals of the neocons, but the world will bite and fight back and it'll be a whole lot of us common folk on the recieving end of foreign agression that experience this before any of your neocon visionarys do

america is a great place to live, this doesnt mean we ought to force our system upon everyone, that's just dumb
 
2004-01-10 08:45:38 PM  
does it seem like every one of these "no blood for oil/bring it on" flame wars pits farkers from american south and midwest against farkers from the commonwealth and california?

/canadian citizen educated in california
 
2004-01-10 08:46:03 PM  
mortician baby

civil war wasn't simply about slavery. trying to preserve the union for other reasons as well. c'mon now.

and the whole american power thing you're on about -- weren't the Southerners using American power as well to fight the North? what then of American power?
 
2004-01-10 08:48:41 PM  
mort:

but aren't you from kentucky? isnt that the state that refused to take sides during the civil war? when you say "we," do you really mean "you northerners?"
 
2004-01-10 08:50:16 PM  
adammmkky

yes. South/North polarization occurs because these are the two most radical POVs in America. the south has their suspiciouions about the North, doesn't trust them, and a chip on their shoulder about the Civil War, and the North has this idea that the South is all backwards and stubbornly clutching onto faith and the past .
 
2004-01-10 08:52:26 PM  
MorticianBaby
I can't believe I have been arguing with someone who has the knowledge and rhetorical sophistication of a twelve year old. Live and learn.

FarfisaFark
Thanks for your lucid and entertaining contributions

/bye all
 
2004-01-10 08:53:38 PM  
If this is how shrill the sore-loser-to-be Dems sound in January, imagine their whimpering by late October.


/Condi Rice in '08.
 
2004-01-10 08:53:48 PM  
virgo snake

ha, thanks. I tried leaving before to watch the Pats, but fark keeps pulling me back it!

interesting discussion. hopefully we'll get a follow-up soon.
 
2004-01-10 08:54:30 PM  
Farfisa, fab5

I didn't say that no Americans have used power for wrong.

I didn't say that American power hasn't aided evil.

What I said was that there are many cases of very big dillemas and it is American power that is the only tool the world has had to combat these things.

Why do you think you and other libs and Europeans are so eager to constrain America in the way they want? They know that American power is the key to any future.

But I suggest we put it to good use and maintain American power. The problem is that you don't see the world as facing a threat serious enough that it's one of those instances to break out the American power and set the world a bit straighter. But we're not going abandon American power in the 21st century. It will be the key to the events of the future. We have the best military in the entire history of human beings. We're not giving it up. We're gonna use this power for good. And everyone will whine about it at the time, but their children will be happier to live in a world of hope and opportunity. Iraqis may curse us, but their children are going to enjoy the internet cafes and the "dissent" that they now will be allowed.
 
2004-01-10 08:56:21 PM  
So, MorticianBaby... You demure that the President intended to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. Then why did he have to spin so many lies to get there? Why didn't he just say, "We're invading Iraq; have a great day!"? Becuase he knew it wouldn't garner popular support inside the States much less Internationally. Lies and prevarications by those in power are classic Straussian strategy, not democratic principles... The prior motivation, coupled with the orchestration of propaganda developed to justify the Iraqi invasion do cast 9/11 in a poor light. Not that the event was orchestrated by the Bush administration, just allowed to come to pass.

What other lies (variations on the truth) have been manufactured by the Bush administration, and to what end? Do you like being treated like a simple child?

Speaking of O'Niel(l)'s; here's a bit about America's forgotten hero:

Newsmax: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/26/104145.shtml

Frontline (My favorite):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/info/2103.html

Creepy conspiracy theory:
http://www.hereinreality.com/johnoneill.html
 
2004-01-10 08:57:23 PM  
darth:

if (errr..., when) we lose in 2004, you will hear whimpering and crying the likes of which you thought existed only in the 5th circle.
 
2004-01-10 09:01:20 PM  
You demure that the President intended to invade Iraq prior to 9/11.

I don't demure at all. Bush took the list Clinton handed him and agreed with Clinton that regime change in Iraq is the policy. From day one he was working hard to adress the threat of the foe we were most engaged with for the last decade. After 9/11, Saddam's being "in the queue" was his undoing. The question was asked, who of all our foes has been giving us the most fuss these last 10 years... oh look, it's Saddam. Time, if ever, to do something about this before its really too late and he ends up arming terorists with WMD.
 
2004-01-10 09:03:24 PM  
I'm trying to imagine what the Democratic party will be like in 2005 - I think they'd have to split into two parties at that point: the left-left Dean party, and the right-left Liebermanesque Party.

Hillary would have to be more in favor with the invasion of Iraq, in order to distance herself from Dean's loser profile. So, the finding of WMD's would seem to help Hillary's campaign in '08 - - at least for Democrats.

Weird stuff.
 
2004-01-10 09:03:29 PM  
Around 1995 Iraq told UNSCOM that is had filled 550 artilary shells with Mustard Gas agents and lost them sometime after the first Gulf War. They reiterated this in their response to the UN in late 2002. Sounds like they found them, and by the looks of them these were definitely lost and not intended for use or usable.
 
2004-01-10 09:04:37 PM  
mort:

when will the internet cafes in el salvador, columbia, tunisia, algeria, guatemala, panama, cuba, haiti, and/or any of the other 100+ nations that americans have seen combat time in during the last 50 years show up?

marines have seen combat in about 70 seperate central american invasions this century, and most nations there do not even have clean water and sanitary facilities. how do you equate american interventionism and economic development.

this is not the cold war, and no "marshall plan" for iraq will ever be developed.
 
2004-01-10 09:12:33 PM  
adammnky is right. if there was going to be something along the lines of a Marshall Plan, it would have already been bandied about. burning bridges with the UN doesn't help matters.
 
2004-01-10 09:18:50 PM  
adammnky

I can tell you for a fact that there are internet cafes in Colombia, Panama, and Cuba (well... Guantanamo, but I'm pretty sure there is some albeit monitored (Castro) in Havana). (i.e. been there, used them)
 
2004-01-10 09:20:13 PM  
navyblues:

hyperbole. there are also rolls royces and bentleys in all of those nations, but that doesnt mean that everybody has one.
 
2004-01-10 09:20:15 PM  
Morticianbaby:

So you repudiate:

1). O'Neil's clear recollections (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtml)

2). Bush's famous quote (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/timep.saddam.tm/) : "F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Or do you admit that it's ok to lie to Congress specifically and the American citizenry at large if they are too stupid to agree with you on the merits of a clear and honest justification for war action?
 
2004-01-10 09:23:36 PM  
adammnky

Understood. However, not everyone HERE has a Rolls, Bentley, or even an internet cafe (or internet or even a computer). However, with the exception of Cuba, anybody there CAN walk into one of those internet cafe's and dialup. What's your point?
 
2004-01-10 09:24:27 PM  
Overview of the far left liberals vs conservatives back and forth on this and all the other topics of political nature.
Liberals: Bush and America bad..Saddam, terrorists and rogue nations not so evil after all.
Conservatives: Bush and America good..Saddam an evil asshat after all, as are terrorists and rogue nations.
Look...simply put, it comes down to one thing, no matter what weapons are found the liberals are going to continue to cry that 'Evil Bush' overstated the issue. I would lay even money that if a ready to drop atomic bomb were found in Iraq tomorrow the party line would be: "But Saddam did not have a plane with enough range to get it to the middle of America, therefor it does not count as a WMD!" Face it, the left lost the last election, that is all they care about and no matter what happens they are going to hate and loathe the guy who won. To put it another way, when conservatives comment, more often than not they are talking safety of the nation, security for ordinary everyday people who just want to be free to go about their daily lives without fear of being killed by some nut that they never did one damn thing to. Although they gave lots of their tax dollars in aid to the country the nut was from more than likely.
When liberals comment they attack Bush, conservatives and everything in sight EXCEPT the people like Saddam and the terrorists. Will anything anyone writes here change that? I don't think so. But it is still fun to use the right to free speach to express ones views, even if the liberals think that they are the ONLY people who should be allowed free speach, and that no conservative should have the right to have opinions that differ from the left wing party line.
 
2004-01-10 09:32:55 PM  
navyblues:

morticianbaby wrote that "We're gonna use this power for good. And everyone will whine about it at the time, but their children will be happier to live in a world of hope and opportunity. Iraqis may curse us, but their children are going to enjoy the internet cafes and the "dissent" that they now will be allowed."

its too bad that hollow platitudes about "hope and opportunity" do not feed people.

i mentioned the nations in central america in which we have intervened in order to highlight the point that there is no guarantee that our military ventures in iraq will result in any discernable economic progress there by default. the presence of american troops does not equate to economic, social, or political stability. looking at the nearly half decade long wars in central america, we can see that it can produce the exact opposite. neocolonialism (and our ventures in iraq are clearly neocolonial in nature) always results in a nationalistic reactionary jingoism among the subjugated populations and a hatred of all things that smack of the colonizing power.
 
2004-01-10 09:35:35 PM  
2004-01-10 05:05:49 PM mrfuznut

labboypro
I wonder where Iraq got those. *cough cough*


Most from germany, some from Italy.

Although the US was happy to sell them "projectile filling equipment." Not to mention all of their biological materials.



Thanks mrfuznut for answering my blindingly obvious sardonic question.
 
2004-01-10 09:36:12 PM  
KJohns2001

Yeah, you're right. Conservatives like Rush and O'Reilly never attack anyone with their comments.
 
2004-01-10 09:38:58 PM  
Well, there is no such thing as a neocon.

Hahahahahahahaaha! What planet have you been living on?

Brief history of neocons.
 
2004-01-10 09:39:44 PM  
neocolonialism (and our ventures in iraq are clearly neocolonial in nature) always results in a nationalistic reactionary jingoism among the subjugated populations and a hatred of all things that smack of the colonizing power.

And if they don't, I'm sure a cadre of intellectuals from the West will fly over there and explain to them that they ought to feel that way. Intellectuals in the west expect it, and the Iraqis better cooperate and ruin their future so that liberals on Fark will have a better argument for the next flame.

And thats just idiotic. We beat Japan down more than any other country on earth and they are one of our best friends today.
 
2004-01-10 09:41:37 PM  
adammnky

Interesting point but it doesn't apply when we are talking about Iraq. Iraq, as a nation, has a natural middle class, and was approaching damn near first world economic (per capita GDP) status when Saddam Hussein took power. Iraq, unlike the other countries that you mentioned has the capacity and the history of a very rich country. Your statement vis-a-vis neocolonialism smacks of Chomsky and I'm going to steer clear but state that the paradigm that most closely approximates what is designed for Iraq is that of Japan and Germany post WW2 than the Cold War Banana Republics.
 
2004-01-10 09:42:15 PM  
Hahahahahahahaaha! What planet have you been living on?

Certainly not on the same planet where every policy, every statement has a neocon devil hiding in the shadows. It's called schizophrenia.
 
2004-01-10 09:46:43 PM  
Good News: We got to fight this War even over the objections of our fellow UN security council members.
Bad News: We are having to crawl back to them to ask for help. After our fearless leaders made complete assholes of themselves.

Good News: We got together a coalition of the willing.
Bad News: Besides England and Australia, the willing contributed few if any troops. Most of them are countries the Average American would be unable to locate on a map. Compared to the Coalition we got together for Gulf War I, it's bottom of the barrel.

Good News: We successfully invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam.
Bad News: We were so slow in establishing law and order that we allowed a guerilla movement to spring up.

Good News: We found terrorists in Iraq.
Bad News: They were minor players with no documented connection to Saddam, much less WMDs or anything nice like that.

Good News: We Captured Saddam.
Bad News: It took us the better part of the year, during which we lost hundreds of soldiers.

Good News: We finally found Chemical weapons.
Bad News: They are likely remnants of US supported war against Iran, buried and forgotten before we were even hostile to Iraq.

Bad News: We elected Bush president.
Good News: We don't have to make the same mistake twice.
 
2004-01-10 09:48:50 PM  
its too bad that hollow platitudes about "hope and opportunity" do not feed people.

10 years of sanctions and international detterance and "peace" are the hollow platitudes that don't feed people.

Saddam being pulled from a hidey hole was hardly a "hollow platitude" and Iraqi Shias expressing religious freedom for the first time in 30 years certainly does feed their souls.
 
2004-01-10 09:50:42 PM  
Certainly not on the same planet where every policy, every statement has a neocon devil hiding in the shadows. It's called schizophrenia.

Ummm. No it's not. Schizophrenia is a multi-personality disorder. I think the word you're looking for is 'paranoia'. And no one is blaming all the world's evils on neoconservatism. Just our current foreign policy.
 
2004-01-10 09:57:51 PM  
we have to remember that our investments in japan and germany functioned in the realm of cold war diplomacy.

rebuilding west germany was integral to rebuilding west europe's economy. remember that before the war germany had by far the largest gdp of all nations in europe. a strong west european economny ment a hedge against the encroachment of "popular front" type politics that moved towards an scandinavian type-socialist democracy. west germany was envisioned as an economic bulwark against stalinist aggression and the ascent of planned national economies.

similarly, japan was so extensively rebuilt because of a need to stem the encroachment of south-asian communism and to provide a base of operations in case of a war with russia.

in other words, the us rebuilt those nations because it needed strong allies in geographical regions in which they were located. the motives for restructing japan and germany were diplomatic, ideological, and political, NOT economic.

now, we have no such strategic, diplomatic interests in iraq. our entire experience there has been characterized by a move toward realpolitik and monadic hegemony and away from the stable but tense diplomacy of a bi-polar, west/east world.

we invaded iraq to protect our economic interests there. bushco is forthright about this. this defines our actions there as neocolonialist. we will rebuild iraq, if we do, to maintain access to their resources. we rebuilt germany and japan to make sure that stalin's boys didnt have all of eurasia speaking russian. the two historical situations cannot be compared without specious logic.

mort:

the most imporant theorists of neocolonialism are not "western." they are african, central american, and asian. think memmi, fanon, mnembe, and ho chi minh.
 
2004-01-10 10:07:18 PM  
adammnky

I'm sure you're quoting Fanon and Ho Chi Minh. How many deaths are those two responsible for?

now, we have no such strategic, diplomatic interests in iraq. our entire experience there has been characterized by a move toward realpolitik and monadic hegemony and away from the stable but tense diplomacy of a bi-polar, west/east world.

Sure we do. Failed states breed terrorism. Democracies do not fight wars against each other. Global State-sponsored Terror is the prime threat (with a resurgent China running a close second in the long-term). Iraq and Afghanistan flank to the west and east the one state that has more to do with terrorism than any other on the planet. If that Persian country, which had anti-theocratic student protests in the streets in fall 2002 and has had a few setbacks of late, has a flourishing Arab democracy to its west - what is that student population going to do? Incidentally, that country now has US forces on TWO sides of it - just in case, right?
 
2004-01-10 10:14:02 PM  
adammnky

Either way adam, it doesn't matter. I'm sure you're a nice little commie in real life just like I'm a nice really scary fascist in real life - the main difference being that this nice really scary fascist is on a plane for St. Thomas in about 10 hours so I must get to bed. This time I mean it, I'm really gone - so have a magical week all of you Farkers - and when I see that they're real Mustard Gases I'll be laughing into my My Tai.

Cheers-

~NavyBlues (now officially on Leave)
 
2004-01-10 10:16:28 PM  
over four hundred farkers took the time to share their thoughts on this matter. Any notice MADDOX started selling t-shirts?
 
2004-01-10 10:22:50 PM  
i completely understand your argument, and i agree that having representative democracy in iraq is a great thing, and that pressuring iran for political reform is a priority, if not the priority, for the elimination of terror and fundamentalism.

about fanon and ho chi: read ho chi minh's speech about the foundation of the republic of vietnam in the 1940s. his ideological models: jefferson, madison, and lincoln. as far as i know, fanon didnt kill anyone. ideas dont kill people-people kill people.

i disagree, however, that the spread of democracy entails the end of terrorism. there are plenty of terrorists here in the united states. they wear black scarves on their faces and shout stupid troskyite slogans at people from street corners. i dont know where you are from, but research the "black block." here in san francisco those guys are everywhere during protests, marches, etc..., lighting shiat on fire and generally being unkempt.

furthermore, what about the scenario in which the representative democracies installed in these nations vote for hard-line anti-americanism? an "arab democracy" is a non sequitur in the current historical circumstances.
 
Displayed 50 of 594 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report