A pro-war demonstration in Oregon.

[Jin-Roh]

I saw pictures. They all looked like they would've been in army themselves.

About a hundred people with lots of flags and signs that said "Support George."

So for the war-supporters, would you go to such a rally? I'd honestly be cautious about getting attacked by the peaceniks. That and I don't want to give the impression that I love war, becuase I don't.

[spl_cadet]

Heck ya I'd go. Especially seeing as how I'm planning to enter the Navy anyway (in about five years or so after college, want to be an officer).

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 11:06 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42170#post42170)
Jin-Roh:

So for the war-supporters, would you go to such a rally? I'd honestly be cautious about getting attacked by the peaceniks. That and I don't want to give the impression that I love war, becuase I don't. To answer your question, I would like to first point out that not all who rally behind the President are necessarily pro-war, but might be, perhaps, supporting the government of our country. The President made a decision, and they support him. I don't think that there are too many who ARE pro-war ... just anti-"dictator who lives like royality off the people he supposedly serves, who lies and then tries to shift the blame, and who would like nothing better than to blow America off the map" (whew). That said, yes, I would probably be one of the flag-flyers supporting the President's decision. As Christians, we should be used to being attacked for what we believe in :xmm:

[Epoetker]

I, like most conservatives, am not the rallying sort of person. Probably because I have, like, a job. And because I possess several other means by which to influence people, with any written argumentative method much more effective than simple sloganeering.

[Hitch]

It was a great privelege for me to present the colors (literally wave the flag) with pride and dignity along a busy highway in Oregon this afternoon.

Lots of old folks ,kids and truckers honked and waved, a few vets snapped salutes.

In the few minutes I was there ,risking nothing, those little aknowlegements meant a great deal.

Maybe word will get to a GI out there risking everything that some clown out in the Oregon drizzle held the colors high in salute, and his day will be a little better.

[Sher]

Today @ 02:33 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42288#post42288)
Hitch:

Maybe word will get to a GI out there risking everything that some clown out in the Oregon drizzle held the colors high in salute, and his day will be a little better. Exactly Hitch! They are fighting for our freedom. The least we can do is show our patriotism, IMO.

[Vorkosigan]

Today @ 08:03 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42295#post42295)
SherBear:

Exactly Hitch! They are fighting for our freedom. The least we can do is show our patriotism, IMO.

SherBear, there is more than one way to be patriotic. Both those who support the war and those who oppose it love the United States. And everyone supports the troops. Some us, though, think we can best support them by not getting them killed in a useless and ignoble war.

Vorkosigan

[Ryokan]

I am for the war, but I am certainly not pro-war, and would have trouble with my concience if I went to a pro-war rally. I don't want war. But I want live in a safe country in a world were less countries are run by psychotic dictator's hate us. I don't think those goals can coexist right now.

And I would suggest non-Christians are much more oppressed in this country than christians, Sherbear.

[Hitch]

Today @ 08:17 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42299#post42299)
Vorkosigan:



SherBear, there is more than one way to be patriotic. Both those who support the war and those who oppose it love the United States. And everyone supports the troops. Some us, though, think we can best support them by not getting them killed in a useless and ignoble war.

Vorkosigan Perhaps if over that last 30 years a small percentage of the highly visible war protesters had kept the pressure on Saddam the 'useless' liberation of millions of Iraqi citizens would not be necessary.

H

[$cirisme]

I'd go just to annoy the "peace" protestors.

[Jin-Roh]

Today @ 12:17 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42299#post42299)
Vorkosigan:



Both those who support the war and those who oppose it love the United States.

Vorkosigan

I don't think that's always true. When you burn a flag, it usually means you hate the country. Its my personal policy not to to listen to the people who do stuff like that, for the same reason I wouldn't listen to a neo-nazi explain how to best protect Israel. Also, some of the war protester in frisco waved red flags. I don't think you get much farther away from patriotic than that.

I will say that there are war protesters are geunienly concerned for the United States, but I also think a lot of it comes from a hatred of consevertism. Why do I say this? Well, nobody shouted "war is not the answer" when Clinton was bombing milsovic. Did sudenley a lot of people become pacifists when George W came into office or something?


Today @ 08:07 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42429#post42429)
cirisme:

I'd go just to annoy the "peace" protestors.

:lol:

I've thought of a lot of creative ways to do that. Its a good thing I'm not a cop.

[Vorkosigan]

Jin-Roh:I don't think that's always true. When you burn a flag, it usually means you hate the country.

No, it means you've chosen a particularly dramatic (and tactically stupid) method of attracting attention. None of those people hates their country. They are just acting stupid, is all.

Also, some of the war protester in frisco waved red flags. I don't think you get much farther away from patriotic than that.

Again, dramatic and stupid. People do lots of dramatic and stupid things in mobs. As you know from being a cop.

I will say that there are war protesters are geunienly concerned for the United States, but I also think a lot of it comes from a hatred of consevertism.

Which kind, PaleoCon or NeoCon? NeoConservatism isn't conservatism, it is corporate facism, pure and simple. That's why so many of us hate it intensely. It has no respect for democratic processes and traditions, and no love of humans.

Why do I say this? Well, nobody shouted "war is not the answer" when Clinton was bombing milsovic.

Yes they were. You just weren't paying attention, and neither was the media.

Did sudenley a lot of people become pacifists when George W came into office or something?

No, they just didn't see any reason to implement a policy of imperialistic conquest and long-term occupation.

Vorkosigan


Today @ 04:00 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42417#post42417)
Hitch:

Perhaps if over that last 30 years a small percentage of the highly visible war protesters had kept the pressure on Saddam the 'useless' liberation of millions of Iraqi citizens would not be necessary.H

Hmmmm...if sanctions, bombings, the hatred of his own people, and coup attempts did not drive him from office, what makes you think protests in Amsterdam, San Francisco, and London would?

In any case, the protesters are trying to change US policy, not Hussein's. It is precisely because they think the US government is amenable to democratic input that they are trying to affect its behavior. Statements like yours above make neat sound bites, but like all sound bites, they are essentially intellectually and ethically bankrupt.

Vorkosigan

[Hitch]

Today @ 11:21 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42660#post42660)
Vorkosigan:

Jin-Roh:I don't think that's always true. When you burn a flag, it usually means you hate the country.

No, it means you've chosen a particularly dramatic (and tactically stupid) method of attracting attention. None of those people hates their country. They are just acting stupid, is all. Why do you think you know this?


Also, some of the war protester in frisco waved red flags. I don't think you get much farther away from patriotic than that.

Again, dramatic and stupid. People do lots of dramatic and stupid things in mobs. As you know from being a cop.

I will say that there are war protesters are geunienly concerned for the United States, but I also think a lot of it comes from a hatred of consevertism.

Which kind, PaleoCon or NeoCon? NeoConservatism isn't conservatism, it is corporate facism, pure and simple. That's why so many of us hate it intensely. It has no respect for democratic processes and traditions, and no love of humans. LMAO


Why do I say this? Well, nobody shouted "war is not the answer" when Clinton was bombing milsovic.

Yes they were. You just weren't paying attention, and neither was the media.

Did sudenley a lot of people become pacifists when George W came into office or something?

No, they just didn't see any reason to implement a policy of imperialistic conquest and long-term occupation.

Vorkosigan



Hmmmm...if sanctions, bombings, the hatred of his own people, and coup attempts did not drive him from office, what makes you think protests in Amsterdam, San Francisco, and London would? Years of constant public pressure might have aided in getting the Security Council to vote for effective action,before some many died horribly and unmourned by the current protestors


In any case, the protesters are trying to change US policy, not Hussein's. It is precisely because they think the US government is amenable to democratic input that they are trying to affect its behavior. Statements like yours above make neat sound bites, but like all sound bites, they are essentially intellectually and ethically bankrupt.

Vorkosigan Folks who vote think the ' US government is amenable to democratic input' . Those who break the law do so to rob the peaceful voters of their franchize demonstrating their corporate disrespect for democtatic processes and traditions.

Hitch

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 02:03 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42295#post42295)
SherBear:

Exactly Hitch! They are fighting for our freedom. The least we can do is show our patriotism, IMO.
I fully support our troops that are over there, although I have no support at all for the clowns who sent them there. But I really, really hate rhetorical statements like the one above. Fighting for our freedom? Exactly when was our freedom in jeopardy? At exactly what point did Saddam Hussein or the nation Iraq indicate implicitly or explicitly that they have any designs whatsoever on attacking the United States of America? And please be specific. The rhetoric is getting too deep.

[Hitch]

(post#14 )

“ Today @ 02:03 AM here
SherBear:

Exactly Hitch! They are fighting for our freedom. The least we can do is show our patriotism, IMO. ”

one day in 1939


I fully support our troops that are over there, although I have no support at all for the clowns who sent them there. But I really, really hate rhetorical statements like the one above. Fighting for our freedom? Exactly when was our freedom in jeopardy? At exactly what point did Hitler or the nation Germany i ndicate implicitly or explicitly that they have any designs whatsoever on attacking the United States of America? And please be specific. The rhetoric is getting too deep.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 08:44 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42740#post42740)
Hitch:

(post#14 )

“ Today @ 02:03 AM here
SherBear:

Exactly Hitch! They are fighting for our freedom. The least we can do is show our patriotism, IMO. ”

one day in 1939


I fully support our troops that are over there, although I have no support at all for the clowns who sent them there. But I really, really hate rhetorical statements like the one above. Fighting for our freedom? Exactly when was our freedom in jeopardy? At exactly what point did Hitler or the nation Germany i ndicate implicitly or explicitly that they have any designs whatsoever on attacking the United States of America? And please be specific. The rhetoric is getting too deep.
Bad analogy, Hitch. Germany did not attack the United States unprovoked. Right up until the point that Japan attacked us, Germany was trying to woo us into the war on their side. Germany never made a threat or an aggressive move against the US until we entered the war on the side of the British, and thus by default as the enemy of Germany. Bad analogy.

[Hitch]

So a case could be made Hitler was no threat ?

But of course,by 1939 Hitler hadnt even dreamed of nuclear scientist, enriched uranium or long range missiles . All of which Saddam has today,well last week anyway.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 11:41 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42802#post42802)
Hitch:

So a case could be made Hitler was no threat ?
A threat to Europe, certainly. A threat to the US, we will never know.

[Hitch]

Today @ 05:46 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42804#post42804)
Eireann:


A threat to Europe, certainly. A threat to the US, we will never know. Hmmmmmmm

So then if Saddam posed a threat to Israel...Dont tellme you're getting th point??

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 11:57 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42807#post42807)
Hitch:

Hmmmmmmm

So then if Saddam posed a threat to Israel...Dont tellme you're getting th point??
I don't live in Israel, and policing the globe isn't our job. And if they're a threat to another terrorist state, so be it.

[GrayPilgrim]

Yesterday @ 09:50 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42742#post42742)
Eireann:


Bad analogy, Hitch. Germany did not attack the United States unprovoked. Right up until the point that Japan attacked us, Germany was trying to woo us into the war on their side. Germany never made a threat or an aggressive move against the US until we entered the war on the side of the British, and thus by default as the enemy of Germany. Bad analogy.

Point of Order--


Dec 7, 1941 (US time) Japan attacks Pearl Harbor
Dec 8, 1941 US declares war on Japan (only)
Dec 9, 1941 Germany declares war on US
Dec 10, 1941 US declares war on Germany


The Tripartite allainces only required Germany to declare war on the US if Japan was attacked by the US first but instead Hitler declares war after Japan attacked the US over and above the treaty.

GP

[Socrates]

Hitch:


So then if Saddam posed a threat to Israel...Dont tellme you're getting th point??

Eireann wrote:
I don't live in Israel, and policing the globe isn't our job. And if they're a threat to another terrorist state, so be it.And never mind the innocent Jews killed, eh, because they're only Jews? Israel is the VICTIM of terrorism as anyone without antisemitic moral blinders on would realise.

[Hitch]

And never mind the innocent Jews killed, eh, because they're only Jews? Israel is the VICTIM of terrorism as anyone without antisemitic moral blinders on would realise


Yup.

And after all the 9/11 attacks were all against the eastern United States...so why should the Marines of Camp Pendelton be concerned?

Realisticly I reckon it was long ago the left abandoned the Kenndey Doctrine.



Point of Order--




Dec 7, 1941 (US time) Japan attacks Pearl Harbor

Dec 8, 1941 US declares war on Japan (only)

Dec 9, 1941 Germany declares war on US

Dec 10, 1941 US declares war on Germany



The Tripartite allainces only required Germany to declare war on the US if Japan was attacked by the US first but instead Hitler declares war after Japan attacked the US over and above the treaty.

Great info as usual GP. My basic link wrt Hitler is the false faith of appeasement. No one would doubt, excepting Eireann, that Hitler proved to be a threat to the US and peace on a world wide scale. And could have been delt with rapidly and convincingly before 1940. Churchill was right, the whole of the gigantic efforts of WWII were unneccessary.

I wont bother to explain the logical connection to Eireann, if Geraldo Rivera can get it , refusal or lack of understanding must be caused by 'moral blinders.'

BTW my support for Israel is entirely political, as opposed to any supposed 'biblical claim' to the land.


Take care

Hitch

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 06:38 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42862#post42862)
GrayPilgrim:



Point of Order--


Dec 7, 1941 (US time) Japan attacks Pearl Harbor
Dec 8, 1941 US declares war on Japan (only)
Dec 9, 1941 Germany declares war on US
Dec 10, 1941 US declares war on Germany


The Tripartite allainces only required Germany to declare war on the US if Japan was attacked by the US first but instead Hitler declares war after Japan attacked the US over and above the treaty.

GP
That's a rather weak argument. Hitler declared war on the enemy of its ally, an enemy that had already declared war on its ally. The rest is semantics.


Today @ 07:22 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42874#post42874)
Socrates:Eireann wrote:
I don't live in Israel, and policing the globe isn't our job. And if they're a threat to another terrorist state, so be it.And never mind the innocent Jews killed, eh, because they're only Jews? Israel is the VICTIM of terrorism as anyone without antisemitic moral blinders on would realise.
That argument can be turned the other way, too. Never mind the innocent Palestinians killed by Jewish attacks that targeted civilians. Israel is both victim and perpetrator of terrorism. You know it, too. Whether or not you want to admit is your choice.


Today @ 10:31 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42943#post42943)
Hitch:Great info as usual GP. My basic link wrt Hitler is the false faith of appeasement. No one would doubt, excepting Eireann, that Hitler proved to be a threat to the US and peace on a world wide scale.
Again, that is conjecture. We only know for certain that he had designs on Europe. Whether or not he had future designs on the rest of the world is a matter of conjecture, and we will never know. But I'm not interested in your conjectures and predicitons and ad hominem appeals. I'm interested in facts, and what very, very few facts the pro-war side has been able to provide have proven to be irrelevent. As for relevent facts (that can't be applied both ways), the lot of you have been remarkably lacking.

[Hitch]

LMAO

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 03:20 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43100#post43100)
Hitch:

LMAO
That's not a response. That's an escape that is generally employed when one has no satisfactory rebuttal.

[Hitch]

Hey, when you start clammoring for 'facts' I cant keep from laughing.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 03:54 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43138#post43138)
Hitch:

Hey, when you start clammoring for 'facts' I cant keep from laughing.
Well, let's examine the facts as they've been presented so far:

1) Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction.

none have been found. This is an assertion, not a fact.

2) Saddam plans to use his WMDs against the United States and our allies.

Conjecture. He has made no such threats, and the very existence of the WMDs is very much in question.

3) Saddam gassed his own people, killing 5000 Kurds and injuring thousands more in the Kurdish town of Halabja.

According to former CIA senior political analyst and Army College professor Stephen C. Pelletiere, they probably did nothing of the sort, as the wounds were consistent with Iranian chemicals, not Iraqi chemicals.

4) Iraq is in stark defiance of UN resolutions by firing Scuds at our troops.

Now they're saying no Scuds were ever fired.

5) Saddam is in stark defiance of UN resolutions by kicking out our inspectors in 1998.

They weren't kicked out, by the word of the inspectors themselves.

6) An Al Qaeda camp exists in Iraq, so there must be direct ties to Saddam Hussein.

The Al Qaeda camp "Ansar Al-Islam" sought a home in the region of his mortal enemies, the Kurds.

And the list goes on and on and on ...

[Hitch]

Well thats a good example.

Saddam 's in country mortal enemies the Kurds were gassed to death by the Irainians while Iranand Iraq were at war.


You're makin my side hurt

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 05:55 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43177#post43177)
Hitch:

Well thats a good example.

Saddam 's in country mortal enemies the Kurds were gassed to death by the Irainians while Iranand Iraq were at war.


You're makin my side hurt
Dude, the evidence was presented by someone in a much, much better position to know than either you or me. The victims were killed with a cyanide-based blood agent. Iran used such blood agents. Iraq did not. Do the math.

[Alden]

March 21, 1995 - Nerve Agent Sarin Identified as Chemical Weapon Used by Iraq Against Kurdish Population

From the Physicians for Human Rights organization. The article can be found here http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas1.html

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Well, when you consider that in 1995, Iraq was the favored bad guy on the block, and the government already knew it was a cyanide-based blood agent, and not Sarin gas that killed the Kurds, do you think the government is going to come out and say that they had been lying to us? Or do you think it is much more likely that they will assign an explanation that the public is more likely to drink up, since the public was already in an anti-Iraq stance? It certainly wouldn't be the first time they had done that.

[Alden]

Did you pay attention to the post or the article? If you had, you might have noticed that PHR is an independent group, not a mouthpiece of the gov't. They have conducted investigations of the actions of many governments, inlcuding Israel and the US

[Rubia Warren]

Speaking of WMD-
I just heard the last bit of the news, which said that a chemical weapons plant was discovered in Iraq.... something like that. Has anybody else heard it?

[Epoetker]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81935,00.html

Huge, apparently.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 06:17 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43188#post43188)
Alden:

Did you pay attention to the post or the article? If you had, you might have noticed that PHR is an independent group, not a mouthpiece of the gov't. They have conducted investigations of the actions of many governments, inlcuding Israel and the US
They are also a human rights activist group. I applaud human rights activism, but one thing you must consider is that the goal of any human rights activist is to fight against human rights violations. And this makes them both biased and ripe to bite on anything that suggests a deliberate crime against humanity. As our government was already touting Saddam as the perpetrator of that incident, and already providing explanations for it, then the PHR was in the perfect position to act as the unwitting mouthpiece of the government.

Also consider that because they are a non-government group, they are not in a position to be privy to classified information. Pelletiere was in just such a position.

[Hitch]

LMAO

I need a real fact from you


Does Erieann mean 'lackey' or 'useful idiot' in english?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Also a reminder, Sarin is a nerve agent, not a blood agent. If Pelletiere's information is correct -- and he's in a much better position than any of us or the PHR -- it was a blood agent that killed the Kurds in Halabja.

[Hitch]

Today @ 12:40 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43193#post43193)
La Rubia:

Speaking of WMD-
I just heard the last bit of the news, which said that a chemical weapons plant was discovered in Iraq.... something like that. Has anybody else heard it? Wassa matter you eh??
dont you know a baby food factory when one blows up in a cloud of toxic dust ?

[Alden]

Today @ 05:55 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43239#post43239)
Hitch:

LMAO

I need a real fact from you


Does Erieann mean 'lackey' or 'useful idiot' in english?

Hitch, please don't do things like this

[Hitch]

Today @ 04:29 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43381#post43381)
Alden:



Hitch, please don't do things like this These are recognized political terms Alden and this is the politcal arena.

After all it wasnt as though I referred to career uniformed service and elected leaders of our country as 'idiots' is a derisive non-political manner. Perhaps inflammatory gestures as described and wittnessed on the forum today would be a better place for your concern.

Take care

Hitch

[Alden]

Okay. Here is a response to Pelletiere:



In 1988, as a staff member working for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I documented Iraqi chemical weapons attacks on 49 Kurdish villages in Dihok Province along Iraq's border with Turkey. These attacks began on Aug. 25, 1988, five days after the Iran-Iraq war ended, and were specifically targeted on civilians.

As a result of the committee's report, the Senate unanimously approved comprehensive sanctions on Iraq.

Between March 1987 and August 1988, Iraq made extensive use of chemical weapons against Kurdish villages as part of a campaign aimed at depopulating rural Kurdistan. These attacks have been well documented by human rights groups, forensic investigators and the Kurds themselves. Many occurred in places far from the front line in the Iran-Iraq war.

The Kurdish survivors of the Halabja attack all blame Iraq, and many report seeing Iraqi markings on the low-flying aircraft that delivered the lethal gas. While the most deadly, the Halabja attack was one of between 60 and 180 such attacks that took thousands of civilian lives.
PETER GALBRAITH
Washington, Feb. 3, 2003
The writer is a former United States ambassador to Croatia.


Or how about this one?


Stephen C. Pelletiere writes that Iran, not Iraq, might have been responsible for the 1988 gassing of Kurdish civilians in Halabja.

Human Rights Watch researchers interviewed survivors from Halabja and reviewed 18 tons of Iraqi state documents to establish beyond doubt that the attack was carried out by Iraq.

Iraqi forces used mustard and nerve gases, as well as mass executions, to kill some 100,000 Kurds in the genocidal 1988 Anfal campaign. The commander, Gen. Ali Hassan al-Majid, said of the Kurds, in a taped speech obtained by Human Rights Watch: "I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community?"

KENNETH ROTH
Executive Director
Human Rights Watch

http://www.dbarkertv.com/pelletiere.htm

[Hitch]

Hitch. Germany did not attack the United States unprovoked.

Come up with a factual provocation.

H

[Alden]

Today @ 08:36 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43387#post43387)
Hitch:

These are recognized political terms Alden and this is the politcal arena.

After all it wasnt as though I referred to career uniformed service and elected leaders of our country as 'idiots' is a derisive non-political manner. Perhaps inflammatory gestures as described and wittnessed on the forum today would be a better place for your concern.

Take care

Hitch

Look, I expect that we will come in contact with people who have very poorly reasoned positions regarding everything (Note that I do not refer to anyone specifically). I do not object to the term "idiot". If you are going to use it, try to do it in a post that makes a point, not one that is solely for the purpose of calling someone a name. As we have seen frequently in this forum, "inflammitory gestures" do not serve or debates, and only succeed in appearing foolish.

[Epoetker]

I do not object to the term "idiot".

Good thing, too, otherwise I would have been modded to HFIL for my anti-Vork jihad.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 07:55 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43239#post43239)
Hitch:

LMAO

I need a real fact from you


Does Erieann mean 'lackey' or 'useful idiot' in english?
Gotta love the way you resort to ad hominem character assassination when you don't actually have a rebuttal. Come on, Hitch, surely you can do better than this!

[wienerdog]

Just in case anyone missed it, it was asked why the protestors haven't been protesting against Saddam for the last few years, and now are only protesting Bush. This is a common objection meant to illustrate that the anti-war protestors are hypocritical. The following response was given by Volkswagen:


In any case, the protesters are trying to change US policy, not Hussein's. It is precisely because they think the US government is amenable to democratic input that they are trying to affect its behavior.

An excellent point.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 10:38 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43392#post43392)
Alden:

Okay. Here is a response to Pelletiere:



Or how about this one?


http://www.dbarkertv.com/pelletiere.htm
Alden, those are all fine and good, but they still don't address the claims made by Pelletiere. That the Kurds said they thought it was Iraqi insignia on the aircraft says very little if what Pelletiere says is correct, because they were being hit by chemical agents from both sides. If what Pelletiere said is correct, then all the testimonies in the world to Iraqis using nerve agents won't change the fact that it wasn't nerve agents that killed the residents of Halabja. If what Pelletiere says is correct. Note that I haven't said that he is right, I have only said that he is in a better position to know the real facts than any of us or any non-governmental organization, because he was in a position to be privy to classified information. Is he telling the truth? Who knows?

Nor have I said that Iraq didn't use chemical weapons on Kurds or against Iran. Nor have I tried in any way to justify the use thereof. I merely countered one particular claim with some contrary evidence. Some of you are willfully reading more into my posts than I've actually put in them.

Remember, my whole problem with the war is not over whether or not Hussein is a bad guy. I've said time and time again that he is an evil man who needs to be gotten rid of. Of course, people like Hitch and Socrates willingly ignore those posts, because they don't fit with the erroneous picture they are trying so diligently to paint. Nevertheless, I have said that many times as anyone who has actually been paying attention will know. My problem with the war is over the lack of facts behind the justifications for war and the growing number of lies and misinformation that has been exposed already. That's not counting the number of lies that probably haven't been exposed yet, or the things we just think they're lying to us about. I'm talking about the things we know they've lied about, or at least have some indication they've lied about (hence, the Pelletiere report).

So, I haven't challenged anyone's assertions that Saddam is evil and needs to be gotten rid of. I've challenged your many assertions and hunches that you (by you, I mean the pro-war movement at large) have alleged as "facts," but which have thus far not been proven or have even been disproven. To be more to the point, I am challenging the "facts" that you all claimed to have indisputable knowledge of prior to the war, not those things that may be turned up during the war to prove your guesses were correct.

Did they find a chemical munitions plant? I don't know. Fox News says they did, but we don't know how accurate that is yet. And if they did, and it is an active facility, then fine -- go to war now! That doesn't change the fact that the war we started a few days ago was based on hunches. And that is the problem I have with the war -- sending soldiers to die for hunches.

[Hitch]

Today @ 04:54 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43406#post43406)
Eireann:


Gotta love the way you resort to ad hominem character assassination when you don't actually have a rebuttal. Come on, Hitch, surely you can do better than this! Speaking of character assinations,,, I gotta admit I dont know how to rebut anyone fool enough to say saddam hasnt threatned the US or her allies. that one is even =more stupid that your idea about saddam hireing the Iranians to gas the Kurds.


There comes a point ya know.

Did they find a chemical munitions plant? I don't know. Fox News says they did, but we don't know how accurate that is yet. And if they did, and it is an active facility, then fine -- go to war now! That doesn't change the fact that the war we started a few days ago was based on hunches. And that is the problem I have with the war -- sending soldiers to die for hunches.

Prove it.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 11:12 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43419#post43419)
Hitch:

Speaking of character assinations,,, I gotta admit I dont know how to rebut anyone fool enough to say saddam hasnt threatned the US or her allies.[/qutoe]
You still have yet to show when he did threaten the US or our allies, other than threats to attack Israel if the US attacked him. If you're so convinced that he made these threats against us, then you should be able to show where he made them. So far, you haven't done that, and when I've asked you've merely responded with ridicule and character debasement. Instead of all that, why don't you try something completely novel and alien to you and answer the question!

[quote]that one is even =more stupid that your idea about saddam hireing the Iranians to gas the Kurds.
I'm getting tired of having to correct your misinformation, Hitch. Why don't you actually start reading my posts instead of putting words into my mouth that were never said? I didn't say Hussein hired the Iranians to gas the Kurds (although he did fund the Iranian dissident group MLK to carry out attacks against the Kurds). Read the Pelletiere report. Iran had already captured the village of Halabja. Iraq was trying to take it back. Iran and Iraq were at war with each other. They were using chemical weapons against each other at the same time. Iran was using blood agents, Iraq was using nerve agents. If the Pelletiere report is correct, it was blood agents that killed the residents of Halabja. They were caught in the middle of a chemical exchange between two warring nations. There is nothing in that to suggest that Hussein hired the Iranians to do the gassing.

For God's sake, would you please at least make some paltry attempt to accurately reproduce my words if you're going to summarize? Oh wait, I forgot, you won't do that, because if you were to accurate reproduce what I had said, you would not be able to rebut. The only way you can rebut is when you invent words that I didn't say. Sorry, my bad.


Prove it.
I already did, several posts back. If you had been paying any attention, you would have noticed.

[Alden]

So I am one of the Pro-war people huh? I have said at least a few times here that I am not a hawk. I know what war is. My father was a seal in Nam. I had relatives in Korea and WWII. One of them was fighting with insurgents in the Phillipines before the US landed en masse. I am not some uneducated hard-core pro-bush kid.

The rebuttle that I posted was aimed to refute the Pelletiere has the info because he was working for the gov't. One of the statements I posted was from an ambassador. Furthermore, what difference does it make it Iraqi gas wasn't the gas to do the damage? If it happened (and there are enough people who claim to have first hand experience), then it shows his propensity to use chemical weapons.


To be more to the point, I am challenging the "facts" that you all claimed to have indisputable knowledge of prior to the war, not those things that may be turned up during the war to prove your guesses were correct.


If it is documented, what difference does it make when it came up?

[Hitch]

And that is the problem I have with the war -- sending soldiers to die for hunches.

Now just exactly which post did you prove this in?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 11:30 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43434#post43434)
Alden:

The rebuttle that I posted was aimed to refute the Pelletiere has the info because he was working for the gov't. One of the statements I posted was from an ambassador. Furthermore, what difference does it make it Iraqi gas wasn't the gas to do the damage? If it happened (and there are enough people who claim to have first hand experience), then it shows his propensity to use chemical weapons.
I'm not challenging whether or not it matters. I'm challenging the honesty and veracity of the administration who may have been offering up a specific incident they knew at the time to be untrue. I'm not challenging the morality of using gas, I'm challenging the fact of being lied to.


If it is documented, what difference does it make when it came up?
It makes plenty of difference. They claimed to have proof before the war that they didn't discover until later. In other words, at the time, they lied. I don't like being lied to, especially for something as huge and important as war.


Yesterday @ 11:35 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43439#post43439)
Hitch:

And that is the problem I have with the war -- sending soldiers to die for hunches.

Now just exactly which post did you prove this in?
Lacking any real substance to your own posts, you're now doing nothing but trying to pick a fight. I'm no longer going to hand that to you, and I'm not going to do your homework for you. Read back and find it yourself. As of this post, you are now on "ignore."


Yesterday @ 11:30 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43434#post43434)
Alden:

So I am one of the Pro-war people huh? I have said at least a few times here that I am not a hawk.
Sorry, my bad. I hadn't remembered you saying that. I follow some posts more closely than others. I hadn't had any problems with you, and some of your posts weren't directly on the same line I was arguing for or against, so I paid less attention to them at the time. My apologies.

Does anyone know why each time I quote someone's post, it keeps getting added onto my previous post, rather than opening a new post? This is confusing the heck out of me.

That last post of mine includes quotes from Alden, Hitch, and then Alden again. But they were all quoted seperately after I had made the previous post, and I didn't open it using the "edit" button either!

*In fact, this section I just boldfaced was added by hitting the "reply" button, but it still added it into the same growing post! This is too weird!*

[flipper]

Yeah, it's part of a new collation policy or something. It threw me the first time too. Yxboom posted something about it.

Rereading that first paragraph, that's actually not too helpful. But the upshot is, things changed for reasons beyond my ken. They may change back, or they may not. Who knows?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Okay, that's cool. I thought my browser was just going all wiggy on me!